About those three human groups that supposedly happened in 150 years …

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 4, 2013

Human evolution, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

… a science teacher comments.

A New Orleans high school science teacher, David Prentice, had this to say about the post “If the human race really split into three distinct groups in 150 years, as New Scientist claims … ”:

The article makes light of the problems, saying that point mutations can happen quickly. Yes, but in order for three distinct groups to form quickly, there have to be three males who acquire specific point mutations in their REPRODUCTIVE cells, and three females who acquire exactly the same mutations in THEIR reproductive cells. Then, each male has to have offspring with the female who happens to have the same mutation. Otherwise, the mutations would almost be certainly be recessive and unexpressed. I personally find this beyond my ability to accept.

So does the News desk. Skepticism is allowed.

That’s why we work here and not for Darwinsludge International Enterprises, Inc. Not just because the coffee and the company here is better.

Comments

wd400 states: "But we don’t have to throw out the very basis of biology everytime we learn something new!" Darwinism is useless as a heuristic in biology! Materialists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs in medicine, Yet in a article entitled "Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology", this expert author begs to differ. "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.,,, In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is falsely attributed to evolution by using the word 'evolution' as a sort of coda in peer-reviewed literature: Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5066181/ Podcasts and Article of Dr. Skell http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/giving_thanks_for_dr_philip_sk040981.html Evolution (Not) Crucial in Antibiotics Breakthrough: How Science is Actually Done - Cornelius Hunter - Sept. 2012 http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/09/evolution-not-crucial-in-antibiotics.html Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096bornagain77_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

Nightlight, This still has nothing to do with the post, the research or my comments on either. The research has nothing to do with new-Darwinism, so far as I can tell. It's about using genetic data to trace demographic history. BA, The premise I reject is that evolutionary biology has been tested and found wanting. Science surprises us sometimes, and we have to update our ideas to match the facts and hand. But we don't have to throw out the very basis of biology everytime we learn something new! It was always obvious, for instance, that the Y-chromosome, with its small effective population size, lack of recombination and roll in male fertility, would show a distinct pattern of evolution when compared to the autosomes. It was genuinely surprising how different the Y's evolution has been, but there's no grounds in that data to throw away what we know about evolution. Indeed, the interesting questions are about how we might explain that evolution - is it neutral (the result of gene-gain through ectopic duplications) or selective (fertility-selection)? How have bottle-necks and genetic hitchhiking contributed to the evolution of the Y? You can attack these questions from within an evolutionary paradigm, how can you explain the Y chromosome as an IDist?wd400_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

wd400, you state: 'I obvious(ly) don’t’ accept the premise of your question.' Which one? This one? which mistakes (wd400), honest ones or failed predictions, are the most important mistakes to pay attention to in science wd400 and why? Why don't you accept the premise of that question??? The reason failed predictions are the most important mistakes to pay attention to in science wd400 is that they are the mistakes that tell you most clearly whether your theory is correct or not. Do you agree with that or not and if not why not? ,,, Take for instance the Y chromosome itself. The Y chromosome was the first chromosome (with improved resolution of sequencing techniques) that departed radically from the Darwinian prediction that changes in the genomes would be fairly similar between chimps and humans. But that is not what the y-chromosome revealed: Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected - Jan. 2010 Excerpt: "The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content.,,, The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes. http://www.physorg.com/news182605704.html A False Trichotomy Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-false-trichotomy/ The evolutionary scientists of the preceding paper offered some evolutionary 'just so' stories of 'dramatically sped up evolution' for why there are such significant differences in the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans, yet when the Y chromosome is looked at for its rate of change we find there is hardly any evidence for any change at all, much less the massive changes the evolutionists are required to explain. CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry. http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis/adam-and-eve/chromosome-study-stuns-evolutionists Theory of the 'Rotting' Y Chromosome Dealt a Fatal Blow - February 2012 Excerpt: "the sequence of the rhesus Y, shows the chromosome hasn't lost a single ancestral gene in the past 25 million years. By comparison, the human Y has lost just one ancestral gene in that period, and that loss occurred in a segment that comprises just 3% of the entire chromosome", ",,,earlier work comparing the human and chimpanzee Ys revealed a stable human Y for at least six million years. "Now our empirical data fly in the face of the other theories out there. With no loss of genes on the rhesus Y and one gene lost on the human Y, it's clear the Y isn't going anywhere." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120222154359.htm Of related interest: Man’s sexual reproduction relies on ‘hydraulics’ whereas chimpanzees have an actual bone involved in their reproductive system: Ian Juby’s Chimp compared to Man sexual reproduction video – (plus Can sexual reproduction plausibly evolve in the first place?) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1VWQEnnwM Please tell me wd400, how did this transition from a mechanical reproductive system in Chimps to a hydraulic system in Human males take place whilst maintaining functionality all the time?bornagain77_{August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

@#4: The rest of your comment doesn’t appear to relate the topic at hand. It was a mirror to your pronouncement that ID has nothing to crow about regarding the rapid branching phenomenon. My point was that there is nothing that neo-Darwinian theory can crow about either, regardless of whether n or 2*n point mutations were required i.e. there is nothing in the observation that singles out the neo-Darwinian conjecture by showing that those mutations (n or 2*n) are unguided/random. Generally, any type of evolutionary phenomenon which can be also observed in evolutions of technologies, sciences, languages, cultures,... cannot be claimed to support unguided source of novelty i.e. the neo-Darwinian conjecture since in those instances they are all intelligently guided. In fact, in any domain where we do have an explanation for the origin of novelty, the generating mechanism is always the guided/anticipatory design of the novelty, never a random pick in the space of all physically (chemically, biologically) accessible possibilities.nightlight_{August 4, 2013
August
08
Aug
4
04
2013
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

nightlight, I find it impossible to construct a meaning from the teacher's comment that doesn't reflect profound ignorance of very basic biology. You're own, very charitable, reading of what he's saying doesn't explain why you'd need simultaneous mutations in females, why "in their REPRODUCTIVE cells" was worthy of call caps, or what recessive has to do with it. The rest of your comment doesn't appear to relate the topic at hand.wd400_{August 4, 2013
August
08
Aug
4
04
2013
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

Evolution is really slow....except when it's really fast.bb_{August 4, 2013
August
08
Aug
4
04
2013
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

@4 wd400
Nah - if you study the Y you are limited to tracking patrilineal inhertience. That's not true of autosomes that recbombine, and, as result can have quite distinct histories (unlike you body-parts analogy).
There are many coordinated and coherent changes across the genotype that differ between Euro-Asian groups than merely those on Y chromosome traced in that research.
The point, though, is that the science teacher quoted in this piece doesn't know anything about the subject upon which is his is opining (surely you'd agree nothing in the article requires "hree females who acquire exactly the same mutations in THEIR reproductive cells", for instance).
His statements was much to general and vague for such leap. I would have interpreted him as understanding that Y chromosome was merely a tracer of branching (as wording in the NS article implies) and then merely following up with observation on overall genetic differences, rather than leaping to conclusion that he is ignorant. Why don't you ask him to clarify what he meant before smearing him.
This hasn't stopped those comments being repeated on UD as if they meant something, which should be a cause for concern, no?
I doesn't do much for supporting "random" mutation conjecture of neo-Darwinian theory either. You can observe divergence of the same kind in the technological evolution in similar fashion, by monitoring some easy to trace aspects. Such observations don't reveal wether the changes, say new features in the operating systems, were generated through random software copying errors followed by "natural selection" to weed out the versions that don't work, or through intelligent design of the new features followed by debugging and testing. While with the software engineering of new OS version we can ask the company and developers to explain how were those changes generated, with molecular engineering we can't ask cells to explain, hence indirect methods must be used, relying only on what can be "observed" (within our present framework of natural science) from outside. For example, to decide whether it was "random" you need a detailed model of the event space in which changes occur so one can evaluate whether the observed changes represent a "fair sample" within that space. For example, suppose someone claims, and shows it in a video, they can get triple 1 by rolling 3 dice in 10 or fewer throws, at least half of the time. How would you know whether the observed performance was due to random tossing or to cheating (intelligently guided)? As with molecular engineering, you can only rely on external observation, such as video of performances in this example. You calculate the size of event space N when randomly rolling 3 dice, which is N=6^3=216 combinations 1=(1,1,1), 2=(1,1,2),... 216=(6,6,6). The odds of not getting (1,1,1) in 1 throw are 215/216. The odds of not getting (1,1,1) in 2 throws are (215/216)^2,... the odds of not getting (1,1,1) in 10 throws are (215/216)^10 = 95.47 %, hence the chance of achieving (1,1,1) in 10 of fewer tries is 100-95.47=4.53 %. So, a random process couldn't be getting (1,1,1) in 10 or fewer throws 50% of the time, but would get it only 4.54 % of time. Hence, the process was intelligently guided. No one has clue how to actually calculate such event space (and any weights of different configurations), to show that a random pick among all such accessible configurations suffices to explain the observation, given the populations size and number of alternations tried in a given time. In principle the event space and transition probabilities to different states (mutations) need to be computed via quantum mechanical model of the DNA molecule. The quantum model would also need to use the full cellular environment to model the initial and boundary conditions needed for such calculation. The cellular environment in turn depends on the entire organism, or even on population. Of course, this level of computation is far beyond the current science. Hence all they can do is measure spontaneous mutation rates, but those dice throws were "spontaneous", too (e.g. on video they looked just like real random throws). Spontaneous is not synonym for random. Nothing in such observations indicates whether there is some underlying computational (intelligent) process which came up with observed changes or not.nightlight_{August 4, 2013
August
08
Aug
4
04
2013
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

BA, I obvious don't' accept the premise of your question. So why bother with the links to vaguely related polemics and quote mining excercises? More to the point, isn't it noteworthy that a website that "serves the id community" can reproduce quotes that are so lacking in even a basic understanding in biology? (And, for that matter, does the equivalent or more or less a daily basis?)wd400_{August 4, 2013
August
08
Aug
4
04
2013
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

wd400, I find it very peculiar that you are so concerned to point out honest mistakes on UD, trying to impugn the integrity of ID as a whole, but when it comes to the numerous failed/falsified predictions of Darwinism you have a completely blind eye as to those mistakes: Darwin’s Predictions http://www.darwinspredictions.com/ Why the double standard wd400? And which mistakes, honest ones or failed predictions, are the most important mistakes to pay attention to in science wd400 and why? Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) - "In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts" - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceandpseudosciencetranscript.aspx Further notes on the 'science' of Darwinism: “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. … http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/ “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003) Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013 Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/bornagain77_{August 4, 2013
August
08
Aug
4
04
2013
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Nightlight, Nah - if you study the Y you are limited to tracking patrilineal inhertience. That's not true of autosomes that recbombine, and, as result can have quite distinct histories (unlike you body-parts analogy). The point, though, is that the science teacher quoted in this piece doesn't know anything about the subject upon which is his is opining (surely you'd agree nothing in the article requires "hree females who acquire exactly the same mutations in THEIR reproductive cells", for instance). This hasn't stopped those comments being repeated on UD as if they meant something, which should be a cause for concern, no?wd400_{August 4, 2013
August
08
Aug
4
04
2013
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

@wd400: The Y chromosome is used only as a tracer of the split, like using location of the left foot to track spatial separation of into clusters of the initially singe cluster of people. The three groups differ genetically quite a bit more than in Y chromosome alone, just as the owners of the left feet traced have also right feet, arms, chests, heads,... in spatially separate clusters.nightlight_{August 4, 2013
August
08
Aug
4
04
2013
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

in order for three distinct groups to form quickly, there have to be three males who acquire specific point mutations in their REPRODUCTIVE cells
We ALL have such point mutations, in the dozens.
and three females who acquire exactly the same mutations in THEIR reproductive cells.
The study was about Y chromosomes. Women don't have Y chromosomes.goodusername_{August 4, 2013
August
08
Aug
4
04
2013
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

Oh, my. A science teacher that thinks females have Y-chromosomes, who doesn't know what recessive means and doesn't understand the first thing about population genetics? Skepticism is, of course, allowed. But if you just parrot idiotic statements like this one you really can't expect to be taken seriously.wd400_{August 4, 2013
August
08
Aug
4
04
2013
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply