Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re:RECURRENT LARYNGEAL NERVE AS 'EVOLUTION PROOF'

Expand Messages
  • Herb Ayres
    A well known text book Grays Anatomy   states, As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorota, it gives off cardiac filaments to the
    Message 1 of 22 , Jun 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      A well known text book "Grays Anatomy"  states, " As the recurrent nerve hooks
      around the subclavian artery or aorota, it gives off cardiac filaments to the
      deep part of the cardiac plexes. As it ASCENDS in the neck it gives off branches
      to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea and muscular fibers of
      the trachea and to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior." [Off the cuff here but
      is this the reason we feel emotion in our hearts and not just in our brains and
      singing is such powerful emotional outreaching?]
      This nerve gives off filaments and branches off into several places. Dawkins
      considers only it's main destination, the larynx. His argument is no more than
      evolution apologetics.

      Secondly, evolving from fish would require tens of millions of DNA nucleotide
      changes of substitutions, insertations, and deletions. [indels] As evidenced in
      the chimp and man DNA sequencing findings, there are 125 million combined subs
      and indels in the said 5 million year divergence. That is a blistering pace of
      once every 40 days. However these changes on the small individual DNA nucleotide
      level of the millions of species on earth are not modernly observed. Internet
      search "DNA nucleotide evolution" and you will turn up 'models' for it. No
      actual instances of observance. Models are just more evolution apologetics.

      If the RLN is the best you have...well...I will see you in church next Sunday.
      Got anymore?

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Steve S
      ... Source? Does your source tell you how many of these subs, inserts, and indels are in non-coding regions of the DNA? ... Do you consider the design of the
      Message 2 of 22 , Jun 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Herb Ayres <hkayres@...> wrote:
        >
        > A well known text book "Grays Anatomy"  states, " As the recurrent nerve hooks
        > around the subclavian artery or aorota, it gives off cardiac filaments to the
        > deep part of the cardiac plexes. As it ASCENDS in the neck it gives off branches
        > to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea and muscular fibers of
        > the trachea and to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior." [Off the cuff here but
        > is this the reason we feel emotion in our hearts and not just in our brains and
        > singing is such powerful emotional outreaching?]
        > This nerve gives off filaments and branches off into several places. Dawkins
        > considers only it's main destination, the larynx. His argument is no more than
        > evolution apologetics.
        >
        > Secondly, evolving from fish would require tens of millions of DNA nucleotide
        > changes of substitutions, insertations, and deletions. [indels] As evidenced in
        > the chimp and man DNA sequencing findings, there are 125 million combined subs
        > and indels in the said 5 million year divergence. That is a blistering pace of
        > once every 40 days. However these changes on the small individual DNA nucleotide
        > level of the millions of species on earth are not modernly observed. Internet
        > search "DNA nucleotide evolution" and you will turn up 'models' for it. No
        > actual instances of observance. Models are just more evolution apologetics.
        >

        Source?

        Does your source tell you how many of these subs, inserts, and indels are in non-coding regions of the DNA?

        > If the RLN is the best you have...well...I will see you in church next Sunday.
        >

        Do you consider the design of the RLN to be intelligent?

        ==============================================================

        "A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes." -- James Feibleman
      • Steve S
        ... You feel emotion in your heart? I certainly don t. What is the function of these various filaments?
        Message 3 of 22 , Jun 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Herb Ayres <hkayres@...> wrote:
          >
          > A well known text book "Grays Anatomy"  states, " As the recurrent nerve hooks
          > around the subclavian artery or aorota, it gives off cardiac filaments to the
          > deep part of the cardiac plexes. As it ASCENDS in the neck it gives off branches
          > to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea and muscular fibers of
          > the trachea and to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior." [Off the cuff here but
          > is this the reason we feel emotion in our hearts and not just in our brains and
          > singing is such powerful emotional outreaching?]

          You feel emotion in your heart? I certainly don't.

          What is the function of these various filaments?

          ===================================================================

          "Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time." -- H. L. Mencken
        • Steve S
          Herb, Do you believe that God deliberately broke the GULO gene in precisely the same place and same way in chimps, gorillas, and humans? If so, what do you
          Message 4 of 22 , Jun 1, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Herb,

            Do you believe that God deliberately broke the GULO gene in precisely the same place and same way in chimps, gorillas, and humans? If so, what do you think was His motivation for doing so?

            =====================================================================

            "We understand nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that He wishes to blind some and to enlighten others." -- Blaise Pascal (Pensees)
          • Eric
            ... nucleotide ... evidenced in ... combined subs ... pace of ... nucleotide ... Internet ... it. No ... apologetics. ... Hi Herb, It sounds like you haven t
            Message 5 of 22 , Jun 2, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Herb:

              > Secondly, evolving from fish would require tens of millions of DNA
              nucleotide
              > changes of substitutions, insertations, and deletions. [indels] As
              evidenced in
              > the chimp and man DNA sequencing findings, there are 125 million
              combined subs
              > and indels in the said 5 million year divergence. That is a blistering
              pace of
              > once every 40 days. However these changes on the small individual DNA
              nucleotide
              > level of the millions of species on earth are not modernly observed.
              Internet
              > search "DNA nucleotide evolution" and you will turn up 'models' for
              it. No
              > actual instances of observance. Models are just more evolution
              apologetics.
              >
              >

              Hi Herb,

              It sounds like you haven't actually worked through the numbers on this.

              First of all, changes don't necessarily occur at the gradual pace you
              suggest above, large portions of chromosomes -thousands of base pairs
              (BP)at a time- can be swapped, deleted or duplicated.

              Secondly, the modern human mutation rate has been pretty accurately
              estimated at 2.5 x 10^-8 per BP per generation (Nachman & Crowell,
              Genetics, 2000). That's , what?... 2.5 mutations every 100 million
              base pairs each generation? Or one chance in 250 million that any given
              BP is going to change in a generation. Doesn't sound like that much to
              me. So, given that humans have some 3 billion BP, that comes out to
              about 75 mutations per generation. The split with chimpanzees occured
              between 5 and 7 million years ago. Figuring an average of some 20 years
              per generation (which fits OK with both humans and chimps), that comes
              to between 250,000 and 350,000 generations since the split. 75
              mutations per generation gives us in the neighborhood of 18.78 and 26.25
              million expected mutations since the split in the human lineage if rates
              were roughly constant the whole time. -But of course the chimpanzee
              has been evolving for those 5 - 7 million years too, both rates
              combining to account for the presently observed genetic difference
              between species. If we just roughly estimate that they have a similar
              mutation rate then we can just double the expected mutation from that
              last common ancestor of both our species and come up with 37.56 to 52.5
              million base pair differences. -Not far at all from your stated
              (without references) 125 million. And of course at the beginning, with
              small founding populations of nascent humans and chimpanzees and a
              strong selection pressure to change because of the niche exclusion
              principle we would expect the mutation rates to be higher earlier on in
              the process.

              So, even using your numbers, this is not at all anything approaching the
              "blistering pace" you claim it is. This is right in line with what we
              observe, what we calculate and how we model good old, standard evolution
              using quite normal, mundane nnumbers and measured rates.

              Take care,

              Eric



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Noon Zadi
              http://youtu.be/L7uWL92Ir6g http://youtu.be/-biunjw2NL8 Excuse me!! Would you stop for a moment?! Haven t you thought-one day- about yourself ? Who has made
              Message 6 of 22 , Jun 2, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                http://youtu.be/L7uWL92Ir6g
                http://youtu.be/-biunjw2NL8
                Excuse me!!
                Would you stop for a moment?!
                Haven't you thought-one day- about yourself ?
                Who has made it?
                Have you seen a design which hasn't a designer ?!
                Have you seen a wonderful,delicate work without a worker ?!
                It's you and the whole universe!..
                Who has made them all ?!!
                You know who ?.. It's "ALLAH",prise be to him.
                Just think for a moment.
                How are you going to be after death ?!
                Can you believe that this exact system of the universe and all of these great creation will end in nothing...just after death!
                Have you thought, for a second, How to save your soul from Allah's punishment?!
                Haven't you thought about what is the right religion?!
                Here you will get the answer
                www.Islam-guide.com
                www.quran-m.com
                SHEIK YUSUF@... 
                It-is-truth.org
                : Islam Guide: A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam, Muslims, & the Quran
                SULTAN ISLAMIC LINKS, Discover Islam, Muslim people, Holy Quran and Islamic Religion


                From: Steve S <stevesommers56@...>
                To: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2011 9:23 AM
                Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re:RECURRENT LARYNGEAL NERVE AS 'EVOLUTION PROOF'


                 
                Herb,

                Do you believe that God deliberately broke the GULO gene in precisely the same place and same way in chimps, gorillas, and humans? If so, what do you think was His motivation for doing so?

                =====================================================================

                "We understand nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that He wishes to blind some and to enlighten others." -- Blaise Pascal (Pensees)




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Herb Ayres
                As you can see, the RLN has multiple jobs as it decends and again ascends. It does not merely have a lone destination in the larynx. That was alot of spin and
                Message 7 of 22 , Jun 2, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  As you can see, the RLN has multiple jobs as it decends and again ascends. It
                  does not merely have a lone destination in the larynx. That was alot of spin and
                  ommission by Dawkins plus evolution apolgetics.  It has alot of design features.
                  [the word design can be used since you used evolutionary reasons for it] As for
                  the feelings in the heart, I did say off the cuff, but however, you have never
                  felt 'heart sick'? When my dad died, I could feel the grief in my chest. Not
                  just my head. Whatever. As for junk DNA, non-coding, if there was apparent subs
                  and indels, that would huge for proof of evolution. Even the junk is perfect.
                  Secondly, our junk DNA doesn't waver in their sequences under modern scrutiny
                  despite they changed at a pace of every 40 days in the past. 125 million changes
                  in 5 million years, if some were in the coding, some in the non-coding,  is
                  huge.  Tell me. Why, when you internet search "nucleotide evolution", it gives
                  only models of it? But no observations?




                  ________________________________
                  From: Steve S <stevesommers56@...>
                  To: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 1:18:13 AM
                  Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re:RECURRENT LARYNGEAL NERVE AS 'EVOLUTION
                  PROOF'

                   


                  --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Herb Ayres <hkayres@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > A well known text book "Grays Anatomy"  states, " As the recurrent nerve hooks

                  > around the subclavian artery or aorota, it gives off cardiac filaments to the
                  > deep part of the cardiac plexes. As it ASCENDS in the neck it gives off
                  >branches
                  >
                  > to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea and muscular fibers
                  >of
                  >
                  > the trachea and to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior." [Off the cuff here but

                  > is this the reason we feel emotion in our hearts and not just in our brains and
                  >
                  > singing is such powerful emotional outreaching?]
                  > This nerve gives off filaments and branches off into several places. Dawkins
                  > considers only it's main destination, the larynx. His argument is no more than

                  > evolution apologetics.
                  >
                  > Secondly, evolving from fish would require tens of millions of DNA nucleotide
                  > changes of substitutions, insertations, and deletions. [indels] As evidenced in
                  >
                  > the chimp and man DNA sequencing findings, there are 125 million combined subs

                  > and indels in the said 5 million year divergence. That is a blistering pace of

                  > once every 40 days. However these changes on the small individual DNA
                  >nucleotide
                  >
                  > level of the millions of species on earth are not modernly observed. Internet
                  > search "DNA nucleotide evolution" and you will turn up 'models' for it. No
                  > actual instances of observance. Models are just more evolution apologetics.
                  >

                  Source?

                  Does your source tell you how many of these subs, inserts, and indels are in
                  non-coding regions of the DNA?

                  > If the RLN is the best you have...well...I will see you in church next Sunday.

                  >

                  Do you consider the design of the RLN to be intelligent?

                  ==============================================================

                  "A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes." -- James Feibleman




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Steve S
                  ... I ask again, do you think the design of the RLN is intelligent? ... I m not sure what you mean with this interjection. Evolutionary biologists speak of
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jun 2, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Herb Ayres <hkayres@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > As you can see, the RLN has multiple jobs as it decends and again ascends. It
                    > does not merely have a lone destination in the larynx. That was alot of spin and
                    > ommission by Dawkins plus evolution apolgetics.  It has alot of design features.

                    I ask again, do you think the design of the RLN is intelligent?

                    > [the word design can be used since you used evolutionary reasons for it]

                    I'm not sure what you mean with this interjection. Evolutionary biologists speak of design all the time, but they don't mean it in the way most people use design (as in an intelligent agency designs an object for a predetermined purpose).

                    > As for
                    > the feelings in the heart, I did say off the cuff, but however, you have never
                    > felt 'heart sick'? When my dad died, I could feel the grief in my chest. Not
                    > just my head. Whatever. As for junk DNA, non-coding, if there was apparent subs
                    > and indels, that would huge for proof of evolution.

                    There are apparent subs and indels in all DNA.

                    > Even the junk is perfect.

                    In comparison to what?

                    > Secondly, our junk DNA doesn't waver in their sequences under modern scrutiny
                    > despite they changed at a pace of every 40 days in the past.

                    Please explain to me what this means.

                    >125 million changes
                    > in 5 million years, if some were in the coding, some in the non-coding,  is
                    > huge.  Tell me. Why, when you internet search "nucleotide evolution", it gives
                    > only models of it? But no observations?

                    You've still failed to give your source for this. Why should I believe your assertion?

                    ==================================================================

                    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." —Blaise Pascal
                  • Eric
                    ... Oh, excellent. Then all you have to do is familiarize yourself of the abundant information avaliable describing these. ...Odd that you ve clearly made up
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jun 2, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Herb wrote:

                      > As for junk DNA, non-coding, if there was apparent subs
                      > and indels, that would huge for proof of evolution. >>

                      Oh, excellent. Then all you have to do is familiarize yourself of the
                      abundant information avaliable describing these. ...Odd that you've
                      clearly made up your mind before even looking into this wealth of
                      information...

                      << Even the junk is perfect. >>

                      "Perfect?" In what way, exactly? Explain to us exactly how and why
                      ATCCGTCA..., for example, is any more "perfect" than ATCTGTCA... -or
                      indeed vice-versa.


                      > Secondly, our junk DNA doesn't waver in their sequences under modern
                      scrutiny
                      > despite they changed at a pace of every 40 days in the past. >>

                      WHAT?! This is just wrong- if I understand what you mean by "waver in
                      their sequences," that is.

                      << 125 million changes
                      > in 5 million years, if some were in the coding, some in the
                      non-coding, is
                      > huge. >>

                      No, not particularly. See my previous post in this thread.

                      << Tell me. Why, when you internet search "nucleotide evolution", it
                      gives
                      > only models of it? But no observations?
                      > >

                      I did this search just as you suggested. One reason you're getting
                      funny returns on this search is because "nucleotide evolution" is a
                      weird term. Why would you pick this odd combination of words in order
                      to try and demonstrate anything about mutation or evolution?

                      Beyond that, there are LOTS of hits that do not discuss modeling and
                      many of the ones which do discuss modeling, like this one, for example:
                      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0025556495000836
                      <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0025556495000836> ,
                      deal with how to fit ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS of mutation into mathematical
                      models.

                      BTW, there is an entire journal devoted to only mutations in the human
                      genome. -Actual, observed mutations, not just theoretical ones.
                      See:

                      http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-HUMU.html
                      <http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-HUMU.html>

                      I suspect you've never heard of it, much less read it.

                      Please be so good as to answer the questions posed to you by group
                      members.

                      Thanks!

                      Eric







                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • mercuryawakening
                      ... Yes, rather an arrogant claim of Dawkins, I feel. Yet arrogance is not exclusively in the scientific domain. ... My sentiment also. For anyone who s unable
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jun 2, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >As you can see, the RLN has multiple jobs as it decends and again ascends. It
                        >does not merely have a lone destination in the larynx. That was alot of spin and
                        >ommission by Dawkins plus evolution apolgetics. It has alot of design
                        >features.

                        Yes, rather an arrogant claim of Dawkins, I feel.
                        Yet arrogance is not exclusively in the scientific domain.

                        >[the word design can be used since you used evolutionary reasons for it]

                        My sentiment also.
                        For anyone who's unable to contemplate it as a God-given design
                        we can soften the blow and call it the design of nature.

                        >As for
                        >the feelings in the heart, I did say off the cuff, but however, you have never
                        >felt 'heart sick'? When my dad died, I could feel the grief in my chest. Not
                        >just my head.

                        I favour the 3-part man model:
                        In the head are the ideas,
                        in the chest the feelings,
                        and in the belly the prime drive.

                        >Whatever. As for junk DNA, non-coding, if there was apparent subs
                        >and indels, that would huge for proof of evolution. Even the junk is perfect.

                        Dunno, I tend to feel that even the junk
                        might only be labelled so due to
                        the inadequacy of our analysis.

                        >Secondly, our junk DNA doesn't waver in their sequences under modern scrutiny
                        >despite they changed at a pace of every 40 days in the past. 125 million changes
                        >in 5 million years, if some were in the coding, some in the non-coding, Â is
                        >huge. Tell me. Why, when you internet search "nucleotide evolution", it gives
                        >only models of it? But no observations?

                        I tend to go along with Eric on this one, Herb.
                        Evolution appears to progress in individual jumps
                        rather than in general, slow, mass increments.

                        Grins ... on a lighter note
                        even in sheep, one can imagine
                        a single individual conquering an obstacle
                        and the rest observing and copying a new found ability:

                        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3938591.stm

                        Love,
                        John
                        ***
                      • Alan
                        ... An Appeal To Authority in the first line of the first post. Classy.
                        Message 11 of 22 , Jun 2, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Herb Ayres <hkayres@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > A well known text book "Grays Anatomy"  states,

                          An 'Appeal To Authority' in the first line of the first post. Classy.
                        • mercuryawakening
                          ... My soul ... where is my soul ... am I not the soul? And is fear of punishment the guiding motive of your life ... the outer masquerade of your happiness
                          Message 12 of 22 , Jun 3, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Noon Zadi <zadinoon@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > http://youtu.be/L7uWL92Ir6g
                            > http://youtu.be/-biunjw2NL8
                            > Excuse me!!
                            > Would you stop for a moment?!
                            > Haven't you thought-one day- about yourself ?
                            > Who has made it?
                            > Have you seen a design which hasn't a designer ?!
                            > Have you seen a wonderful,delicate work without a worker ?!
                            > It's you and the whole universe!..
                            > Who has made them all ?!!
                            > You know who ?.. It's "ALLAH",prise be to him.
                            > Just think for a moment.
                            > How are you going to be after death ?!
                            > Can you believe that this exact system of the universe and all of these great creation will end in nothing...just after death!
                            > Have you thought, for a second, How to save your soul from Allah's punishment?!

                            My soul ... where is my soul ... am I not the soul?

                            And is fear of punishment the guiding motive of your life
                            ... the outer masquerade of your happiness message
                            hiding your dreadful personal reality?

                            That's not the message.
                            You really need to read your book properly my friend.

                            B Hapi.
                            :):):)

                            Love,
                            John
                            ***

                            > Haven't you thought about what is the right religion?!
                            > Here you will get the answer
                            > www.Islam-guide.com
                            > www.quran-m.com
                            > SHEIK YUSUF@...Â
                            > It-is-truth.org
                            > : Islam Guide: A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam, Muslims, & the Quran
                            > SULTAN ISLAMIC LINKS, Discover Islam, Muslim people, Holy Quran and Islamic Religion
                            >
                            >
                            > From: Steve S <stevesommers56@...>
                            > To: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
                            > Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2011 9:23 AM
                            > Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re:RECURRENT LARYNGEAL NERVE AS 'EVOLUTION PROOF'
                            >
                            >
                            > Â
                            > Herb,
                            >
                            > Do you believe that God deliberately broke the GULO gene in precisely the same place and same way in chimps, gorillas, and humans? If so, what do you think was His motivation for doing so?
                            >
                            > =====================================================================
                            >
                            > "We understand nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that He wishes to blind some and to enlighten others." -- Blaise Pascal (Pensees)
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                          • flipacoin
                            Live Science just had a report, a story, called Humans Evolving Slower Than Thought. Stated in it was that they studied two family s generations and found that
                            Message 13 of 22 , Jun 20, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Live Science just had a report, a story, called Humans Evolving Slower Than Thought. Stated in it was that they studied two family's generations and found that there has been 60 mutations. Further it stated luckily the mutations was in the non-coding portion and not in the ones that do. [ones that tell proteins how to fold] because those are almost always fatal, unquote. So you have evolution based on the disease process. The coding portion mutation of these families didn't effect the more vital ones in which cause neural/muscular degenerative diseases...like Huntington's and muscular distophy with strong leaning toward Alheimers. Strangly there are 70% differences in the proteins between chimps and humans without disease bringing our two species to it's knees...
                              I got to go...I will absolutely take this up some more tomorrow.

                              --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <NewSipapu@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > Herb:
                              >
                              > > Secondly, evolving from fish would require tens of millions of DNA
                              > nucleotide
                              > > changes of substitutions, insertations, and deletions. [indels] As
                              > evidenced in
                              > > the chimp and man DNA sequencing findings, there are 125 million
                              > combined subs
                              > > and indels in the said 5 million year divergence. That is a blistering
                              > pace of
                              > > once every 40 days. However these changes on the small individual DNA
                              > nucleotide
                              > > level of the millions of species on earth are not modernly observed.
                              > Internet
                              > > search "DNA nucleotide evolution" and you will turn up 'models' for
                              > it. No
                              > > actual instances of observance. Models are just more evolution
                              > apologetics.
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                              > Hi Herb,
                              >
                              > It sounds like you haven't actually worked through the numbers on this.
                              >
                              > First of all, changes don't necessarily occur at the gradual pace you
                              > suggest above, large portions of chromosomes -thousands of base pairs
                              > (BP)at a time- can be swapped, deleted or duplicated.
                              >
                              > Secondly, the modern human mutation rate has been pretty accurately
                              > estimated at 2.5 x 10^-8 per BP per generation (Nachman & Crowell,
                              > Genetics, 2000). That's , what?... 2.5 mutations every 100 million
                              > base pairs each generation? Or one chance in 250 million that any given
                              > BP is going to change in a generation. Doesn't sound like that much to
                              > me. So, given that humans have some 3 billion BP, that comes out to
                              > about 75 mutations per generation. The split with chimpanzees occured
                              > between 5 and 7 million years ago. Figuring an average of some 20 years
                              > per generation (which fits OK with both humans and chimps), that comes
                              > to between 250,000 and 350,000 generations since the split. 75
                              > mutations per generation gives us in the neighborhood of 18.78 and 26.25
                              > million expected mutations since the split in the human lineage if rates
                              > were roughly constant the whole time. -But of course the chimpanzee
                              > has been evolving for those 5 - 7 million years too, both rates
                              > combining to account for the presently observed genetic difference
                              > between species. If we just roughly estimate that they have a similar
                              > mutation rate then we can just double the expected mutation from that
                              > last common ancestor of both our species and come up with 37.56 to 52.5
                              > million base pair differences. -Not far at all from your stated
                              > (without references) 125 million. And of course at the beginning, with
                              > small founding populations of nascent humans and chimpanzees and a
                              > strong selection pressure to change because of the niche exclusion
                              > principle we would expect the mutation rates to be higher earlier on in
                              > the process.
                              >
                              > So, even using your numbers, this is not at all anything approaching the
                              > "blistering pace" you claim it is. This is right in line with what we
                              > observe, what we calculate and how we model good old, standard evolution
                              > using quite normal, mundane nnumbers and measured rates.
                              >
                              > Take care,
                              >
                              > Eric
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                            • Susan
                              ... Susan: It would be great if you tried understanding that article. http://www.livescience.com/14620-humans-evolving-slower-expected.html
                              Message 14 of 22 , Jun 20, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "flipacoin" <hkayres@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Live Science just had a report, a story, called Humans Evolving Slower Than Thought. Stated in it was that they studied two family's generations and found that there has been 60 mutations. Further it stated luckily the mutations was in the non-coding portion and not in the ones that do. [ones that tell proteins how to fold] because those are almost always fatal, unquote. So you have evolution based on the disease process. The coding portion mutation of these families didn't effect the more vital ones in which cause neural/muscular degenerative diseases...like Huntington's and muscular distophy with strong leaning toward Alheimers. Strangly there are 70% differences in the proteins between chimps and humans without disease bringing our two species to it's knees...
                                > I got to go...I will absolutely take this up some more tomorrow.
                                >


                                Susan: It would be great if you tried understanding that article. http://www.livescience.com/14620-humans-evolving-slower-expected.html
                              • SH
                                So you have evolution based on the disease process. The coding portion mutation of these families didn t effect the more vital ones in which cause
                                Message 15 of 22 , Jun 21, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  So you have evolution based on the disease process. The coding portion mutation of these families didn't effect the more vital ones in which cause neural/muscular degenerative diseases...like Huntington's and muscular distophy with strong leaning toward Alheimers. Strangly there are 70% differences in the proteins between chimps and humans without disease bringing our two species to it's knees...
                                  > I got to go...I will absolutely take this up some more tomorrow.


                                  Tin: Maybe... but you'll still be wrong. First be reminded that beneficial mutations are well documented. Second, we know that the evolutionary mechanisms of random change and selection are highly creative and powerful problem solvers based on genetic algorithms. GAs have been used to solve a wide variety of laboratory and real world applied problems ranging from engineering to composing music to optimizing exam schedules.


                                  In sum, you don't know what you are talking about.
                                • SH
                                  ... [ones that tell proteins how to fold] because those are almost always fatal, unquote. Tin: WRONG! Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful and a few
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Jun 21, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "flipacoin" <hkayres@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Live Science just had a report, a story, called Humans Evolving Slower Than Thought. Stated in it was that they studied two family's generations and found that there has been 60 mutations. Further it stated luckily the mutations was in the non-coding portion and not in >the ones that do
                                    [ones that tell proteins how to fold] because those are almost always >fatal, unquote.


                                    Tin: WRONG!


                                    Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful and a few are beneficial. Beneficial mutations are well documented.


                                    Obvioulsy you don't what you are talking about.
                                  • Loart Kelt
                                    In this demented mind, schizophrenic that it be.. everybody else is wrong.only this low class tin brain is right.. I say allow the freak its gibberish for the
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Jun 21, 2011
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      In this demented mind, schizophrenic that it be.. everybody else is wrong.only this low class tin brain is right.. I say allow the freak its gibberish for the intelligent among you know only too well that this odd ball is sick.. allow carol her delusions.. you all know that perverted birds of a feather flock together.. matters not ne iota.. they are dullards seeking attention but they haven't the what with all to get any valuable attention just deserved ridicule.


                                      --- On Tue, 6/21/11, SH <tinroad66@...> wrote:

                                      From: SH <tinroad66@...>
                                      Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Beyond Beneficial Mutations....Re:RECURRENT
                                      To: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
                                      Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 12:12 PM







                                       









                                      So you have evolution based on the disease process. The coding portion mutation of these families didn't effect the more vital ones in which cause neural/muscular degenerative diseases...like Huntington's and muscular distophy with strong leaning toward Alheimers. Strangly there are 70% differences in the proteins between chimps and humans without disease bringing our two species to it's knees...

                                      > I got to go...I will absolutely take this up some more tomorrow.



                                      Tin: Maybe... but you'll still be wrong. First be reminded that beneficial mutations are well documented. Second, we know that the evolutionary mechanisms of random change and selection are highly creative and powerful problem solvers based on genetic algorithms. GAs have been used to solve a wide variety of laboratory and real world applied problems ranging from engineering to composing music to optimizing exam schedules.



                                      In sum, you don't know what you are talking about.






















                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • SH
                                      ... Tin: ...your mental probablems noted. BTW, your identity problems are closer to multiple personality than schizoprhenia, although you may have that too
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Jun 21, 2011
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Loart "Silt For Brains" Kelt <loartkelt@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > In this demented mind, schizophrenic that it be..


                                        Tin: ...your mental probablems noted. BTW, your identity problems are closer to multiple personality than schizoprhenia, although you may have that too --- judging by the content of your posts.


                                        No doubt all this is way over your head.



                                        >everybody <irrelevant stupidity>


                                        Tin: You seem to have fogotten the topic Silk (along with which identity you are today).


                                        Do you admit or deny the reality of beneficial mutations Silk ?


                                        Do you admit or deny the demonstrated power of random change and selection ?


                                        Is posting you stupid irrelevancies your actualized potential ?
                                      • Dave Oldridge
                                        ... Your chilish attempts at ridicule show that you are not honest, even with yourself. -- Dave Oldridge Skype: daveoldridge Ham Radio: VA7CZ ... Scanned with
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Jun 21, 2011
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On 21/06/2011 6:53 AM, Loart Kelt wrote:
                                          > In this demented mind, schizophrenic that it be.. everybody else is wrong.only this low class tin brain is right.. I say allow the freak its gibberish for the intelligent among you know only too well that this odd ball is sick.. allow carol her delusions.. you all know that perverted birds of a feather flock together.. matters not ne iota.. they are dullards seeking attention but they haven't the what with all to get any valuable attention just deserved ridicule.
                                          >
                                          Your chilish attempts at ridicule show that you are not honest, even
                                          with yourself.


                                          --
                                          Dave Oldridge
                                          Skype: daveoldridge
                                          Ham Radio: VA7CZ

                                          ----------

                                          Scanned with AntiVir MailGuard v10.0.1.38 AVE 8.2.5.20 VDF 7.11.10.50

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Loart Kelt
                                          trashed ... From: SH Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Beyond Beneficial Mutations....Re:RECURRENT To:
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Jun 21, 2011
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            trashed

                                            --- On Tue, 6/21/11, SH <tinroad66@...> wrote:

                                            From: SH <tinroad66@...>
                                            Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Beyond Beneficial Mutations....Re:RECURRENT
                                            To: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
                                            Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 3:19 PM







                                             













                                            --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Loart "Silt For Brains" Kelt <loartkelt@...> wrote:

                                            >

                                            > In this demented mind, schizophrenic that it be..



                                            Tin: ...your mental probablems noted. BTW, your identity problems are closer to multiple personality than schizoprhenia, although you may have that too --- judging by the content of your posts.



                                            No doubt all this is way over your head.



                                            >everybody <irrelevant stupidity>



                                            Tin: You seem to have fogotten the topic Silk (along with which identity you are today).



                                            Do you admit or deny the reality of beneficial mutations Silk ?



                                            Do you admit or deny the demonstrated power of random change and selection ?



                                            Is posting you stupid irrelevancies your actualized potential ?






















                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • SH
                                            ... Tin: ...it s not like you have the brains to respond anyway. Once again the topic is over Silk s head.
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Jun 22, 2011
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Loart "Silk for Brains" Kelt <loartkelt@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > trashed


                                              Tin: ...it's not like you have the brains to respond anyway. Once again the topic is over Silk's head.



                                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationevolutiondebate/message/69158
                                            • Dave Oldridge
                                              ... Were you born a moron or did you learn it somewhere? -- Dave Oldridge Skype: daveoldridge Ham Radio: VA7CZ ... Scanned with AntiVir MailGuard v10.0.1.38
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Jun 22, 2011
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                On 21/06/2011 9:31 AM, Loart Kelt wrote:
                                                > trashed
                                                >

                                                Were you born a moron or did you learn it somewhere?



                                                --
                                                Dave Oldridge
                                                Skype: daveoldridge
                                                Ham Radio: VA7CZ

                                                ----------

                                                Scanned with AntiVir MailGuard v10.0.1.38 AVE 8.2.5.24 VDF 7.11.10.74

                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.