ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, February 15, 2019

Dumbing it down for the biologists

Upon further reflection, I can make the concept even easier to grasp than I did in last night's Darkstream. The theory of evolution by natural selection can be easily and completely falsified if geneticists are unable to find the GENETIC missing links that, by the very definition of the theory, MUST be there within the 450 years that DNA remains sufficiently viable to map the entire genome.

That's enough time to establish an average of 495 base pairs that are a) no longer part of the current human gene pool and b) are shared with the Chimp Human Last Common Ancestor. Moreover, the same holds true of modern chimpanzees, assuming that 450-year old chimpanzee DNA can be located.

Essentially, what I've done is to observe that evolutionists are now facing the very same problem of the various missing links with genetics that they previously faced with the fossil record, only now they can no longer appeal to the difficulty of finding those fossils. While it is theoretically possible that the Darwinian hypothesis will hold, it is very highly improbable. The important thing is that the theory no longer remains practically unfalsifiable.

Labels: ,

54 Comments:

Blogger Chad Thundercockovich February 15, 2019 11:12 AM  

My faith in science and secularism was misplaced.

Blogger pyrrhus February 15, 2019 11:24 AM  

But Darwin's theory of gradual evolution is a religion in biology...To paraphrase Keynes, you can't make a man understand something that his job requires him to not understand.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2019 11:33 AM  

"But Darwin's theory of gradual evolution is a religion in biology..."

Exactly. It's a religion with several promises I'm aware of.

#1: You are subject to no gods.
#2: You are not responsible for your actions.
#3: There will be no long term consequences for you.
#4: You can look down on unbelievers as emotional weaksauce and/or idiots.
#5: A coalition of likeminded people will zealously defend you against outsiders.

Blogger nbfdmd February 15, 2019 11:36 AM  

I'm missing something here. Why would the genetic missing links need to not be present in the current human genome? There are lots of genes that aren't expressed. They're usually referred to as 'junk DNA'. The fact that so much junk DNA is present is strong evidence for an evolutionary process having taken place, not the opposite.

Blogger Fargoth February 15, 2019 11:44 AM  

It's a real shame the secular faction of biologists have made such a mockery of the study. At 17 when I first learned the level of intricacy involved in cellular biology and genetics, I knew immediately I'd seen proof of God. In fact, learning about DNA replication actually rescued my faith.

If you can truly understand the symphony of cellular biology and not conclude an intelligent force is behind its design, you and I are different species.

Blogger ar10308 February 15, 2019 11:45 AM  

Vox,
Shouldn't the in-species Mutation take-rate also be determined by historical genetic information?

Focusing on the genetic history is the clear weak spot of TENS and several modern dogmas. Another big clue is that Biologists immediately turn to Rhetoric to defend it and ruthlessly expel anyone who exposes the weaknesses contained within, see James Watson. Much like JBP, by digging in to Genetic Maps of Meaning, you've exposed the points to hammer upon due to lack of structure.

Blogger Teek-Lor February 15, 2019 11:50 AM  

Junk DNA is a misnomer. It is 2D thinking- but remember, biology is a 3D place. You have DNA which is for binding to histones. Other patterns of DNA are for the regulation of DNA expression. Not all of it is for encoding. If you removed it, likely you would remove life. Now evolution requires a ton of different proteins being expressed which would also need all the DNA infrastructure in order to work. This would entail a lot of DNA changes which should be blindingly apparent if one where to compare sequence data. Evolution should be easy to see and everywhere. But we don't ever see new species of bacteria do we.

Blogger tz February 15, 2019 12:04 PM  

@8 some of it is backup - That is why I point to Evolution 2.0. Whales have vestigial leg bones because it is better/easier to keep the old blueprints around in case they are ever needed than to completely delete them.

As to falsifyability, I don't think it ever will be even going back to Paisley and Lord Kelvin when they debated Darwin, through Morrison and Gish (and I note "from fish to gish" is just about the debates!), much less 100 years from now.

They will just keep adding epicycles. The error is fundamental if something outside the material universe - and it can be "the force" if you don't want it to be some kind of god - that works against entropy, or at least is capable of adding irreducable complexity to organisms.

When you think the sun must orbit the earth, and the orbits must be perfect circles, you get astronomical numbers of epicycles.

You move the sun to the center and allow for slight ellipses and it becomes very simple.

But the materialist atheist cannot even be agnostic on this point. And will say even asking if something might be direcing or designing will get you "Expelled".

Cue "Dick to the Dawk to the PhD, I'm smarter than you I have a science degree!".

Blogger Unknown February 15, 2019 12:12 PM  

Watching VD attempting to explain what the word average means to his YT chat made me smile. Surely those were trolls? No one's that retarded?

Blogger dc.sunsets February 15, 2019 12:12 PM  

Lots of !science! is based on baloney. I've seen literal falsification of standard physiology textbook data in my own little world. I guess I don't understand what is the big deal, anyone with a brain can see Cargo Cult thinking in every direction.

Selection, natural or otherwise, exists. I really don't get too exercised about speciation. I also don't feel the need to laugh at the whole "asteroid strike killed the dinosaurs" tomfoolery, given that (as I understand it) the decline and extinction of dinosaurs took place over millions of years in the sedimentary record.

There are plenty of avenues of inquiry where the answers are always conjecture and in reality completely untestable. Given that we can't actually agree on what happened today in such-and-such a place, much less the veracity of historical accounts from last week, last century or last millennium, we exist in a sea of conjecture disguised as fact.

Will the answers to speciation eventually be discerned? Who knows? Let's take a wayback machine to Ancient Athens and ask if anyone thinks powered flight will be developed someday. We don't know what we don't know, and if the sum of all knowledge is a darkened warehouse and what "we" know (for a fact) is the space we can light with a flashlight, it appears to me that getting a brighter flashlight simply informs us that the total space (sum of unknown knowledge) simply got larger by far more than we "gained" in what we actually know.

There are more pressing matters that loom over our heads.

Blogger VD February 15, 2019 12:15 PM  

Why would the genetic missing links need to not be present in the current human genome?

Because that's what "selection" means. It means replacement. If there hasn't been any change, there hasn't been any evolution. And since we know the full extent of the change and the time over which it has taken place, there HAS to be an amount of change that has taken place over the last 450 years in every species.

The timeframe dictates an average of missing 495 base pairs will be found. In fact, given what we currently know of population genetics, the number should be considerably higher than that due to the expansion of the human populations and the radical changes in the environment over that time.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia February 15, 2019 12:16 PM  

Of course it's always been unfalsifiable -- its unfalisifiability is inherent in the theory itself, given the long long long scale timelines involved.

As VD has pointed out, the evolutionary biologists have wrestled with this problem, though they dare not speak its implications.

For those you interested in getting down into the weeds of what's has happened and future directions of "mutation accumlation" can read this article, focusing on the rates of genetic mutation accumulation and high througput genomic sequencing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6330053/#

It's effectively a gigunda lit review, but shows how all the experiments over the years show miniscule amounts of genetic mutations per generation, intra species, though larger amounts per generation occur in multi-cellular eukaryotes and humans.

In the conclusion, they hint at what might be a more fruitful level of inquiriy -- namely mutations that affect transcription, where, presumably, even small quick changes can have large effects.

Such changes may also effect epigenetic activities, or what they call "epimutations." There's a lot of research and translational work going on in epigenetics now, where incorrect or absent epigenetic switches create disease states.

It's important to keep in mind that the DNA is metaphorically "dead" -- it won't do anything until it is triggered by other epigentic processes.

The money sentence -- "It is possible that changes in gene regulation are of greater importance in evolution than changes in protein structure."

Anyway, the evolutionists obviously know that change rates are a big problem for the theory, though, again, they dare not speak its name.

Blogger xevious2030 February 15, 2019 12:17 PM  

I haven’t set aside the time for due diligence, but with your statistics approach, this seems like the place to start for a much stronger argument, more difficult to refute honestly. Off hand, one of the best approaches, if it became possible, would be to compare the DNA from a number of humans from 20k years ago, 9k years ago, and various samples from humans today, given the forcer of the change in climate and in the difficulties of propagation/survivability (survivability of the/any change not of the help/harm of the expression), to identify any changes/mutations (assuming those of the past contained “keeper” DNA that was not both recent (spread across humanity) and not removed by calamity). Much stronger than looking at fossils and saying, “well George, they sure look kind’a alike so they must share that DNA.” With the DNA, not knowing the degradation of DNA due to time in cold (frozen) and the sheer destructiveness of glaciers, maybe glaciers for the older DNA, or frozen Russia (as with wooly mammoths, maybe even near such mammoth sites). Anyway, at a glance, looks very interesting. Clumping and inactivity spacing still end up on the radar (probability versus occurrence timing), but proofs can be provided to rule out change/mutation within at least that timeframe, putting the onus further and less favorably on them. Very cool. [DNA here being a very general reference to genetics/encoding, not the technical strands and mechanisms of process]

Blogger Unknown February 15, 2019 12:21 PM  

Can more ancient DNA be mapped? Or is there a cut off in time when mapping becomes non viable? The human race, apparently, was reduced to less than 10,000 individuals after the end of the last ice age. A classic bottle neck with an attendant vast change in environmental conditions. If humans didn't experience massive and rapid mutant gene fixation then, when would we?

Blogger grendel February 15, 2019 12:35 PM  

@4 it isn't junk DNA, it's DNA we haven't learned the function of yet. Evolutionists jump to calling it junk DNA because that's convenient for their theory.

@8 whales don't have vestigial legs, they have pelvic bones which assist in copulation.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 15, 2019 12:38 PM  

Gould the Clown wrote that Holy Evolution stopped many years ago, but here we go with biologists daring to be the un-holy "racists."

Blogger DBSFF February 15, 2019 12:44 PM  

Do those 44 mutations per generation (on average) have to be fixed across all human populations to count?

Blogger Nym Coy February 15, 2019 12:44 PM  

If we cloned an ancient egyptian or roman, could we mate with them? Asking for a friend.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2019 12:47 PM  

"They will just keep adding epicycles. The error is fundamental"

This. The error is usually precognitive, so no amount of trying to get them to think will fix it.

"Watching VD attempting to explain what the word average means to his YT chat made me smile. Surely those were trolls? No one's that retarded?"

Hate to break it to you, but lots of people, if not most, are actually that stupid. Most of them can understand the concept of an average on paper, but if you show it in almost ANY real concept you'll quickly realize that they can't apply that understanding at all.

Blogger VD February 15, 2019 12:50 PM  

Do those 44 mutations per generation (on average) have to be fixed across all human populations to count?

It's more the opposite. None of the current human population can have them any more than they can have chimp-only DNA.

Blogger Nym Coy February 15, 2019 12:50 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2019 12:52 PM  

"Do those 44 mutations per generation (on average) have to be fixed across all human populations to count?"

Yes, that's what fixation means unless you consider modern humans to be more than one species.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2019 12:55 PM  

Vox is correct too. GD and fixation only reduce genetic variability.

Blogger pdwalker February 15, 2019 12:59 PM  

@9 Barbie says, ‘math is hard’

Blogger Steve Samson February 15, 2019 1:08 PM  

So it should be almost impossible for any mutations to fix with 7 billion individuals spread across the entire surface of the earth.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2019 1:12 PM  

"So it should be almost impossible for any mutations to fix with 7 billion individuals spread across the entire surface of the earth."

If you're going from the point the mutation occurred, yes. However, that's not relevant to the topic. Even if mutations just completely stopped occurring today, we would expect to see continuing fixations for quite some time if evolution writ large is true. Right up until the entire human race consisted of effective clones with male and female versions.

Blogger Unknown February 15, 2019 1:20 PM  

Many human populations, up until very recently, have lived isolated from other humans. IOW little or no sex and gene mixing. The entire peoples of the north and south American continents were separated from the rest of humanity for millennia. What's the difference in gene expression between Amerindians and North East Asians? It seems to me that despite geographical isolation, bottle necks, ice ages and assorted other global scale environmental change, humans have changed little for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years.

Blogger JG February 15, 2019 1:22 PM  

Math for evolution studies isn't that hard, really, for those with sufficient IQ. Perhaps biologists should find some of those people and create some theories of evolution that at least hold up to the math.

Blogger Daniel February 15, 2019 1:30 PM  

The problem is that the theory of evolution IS a math problem that falsifies itself. It isn't like biologists have been avoiding the math because they can't do it. It is because they can't handwave its conclusions.

Blogger Duh-ave February 15, 2019 1:49 PM  

Just finished watching. A bottle neck of 14 cheetahs was mentioned. If, as according to the Bible, the bottle neck was actually the 2 cheetahs on the ark wouldn't that give an indication as to an actual rate of mutation?

Blogger SirHamster February 15, 2019 2:07 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:Most of them can understand the concept of an average on paper, but if you show it in almost ANY real concept you'll quickly realize that they can't apply that understanding at all.

Does the average person even understand what average means?

Women rated the majority of men as below-average in attractiveness. That's half the population right there.

Blogger Sam Drucker February 15, 2019 2:18 PM  

tz wrote:Cue "Dick to the Dawk to the PhD, I'm smarter than you I have a science degree!".

Absolutely! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw

Blogger sammibandit February 15, 2019 2:32 PM  

>Does the average person even understand what average means?

Women rated the majority of men as below-average in attractiveness. That's half the population right there.

Yesterday on stream I misunderstood steady, a word Vox did not use, as a synonym for average, which he did use. Honestly, I think if you weighted averages for the cognitive power of a woman over the course of her cycle you would see a dip in processing power for some weeks of the normal 28-day cycle. Several weeks before I understood perfectly well several weeks before what he meant.

Using myself as a case study, and I'm proven high IQ in 2 timed tests, we likely are functionally retarded on some axes at least some of the time. I know I am. A child's mind for raising children is what we have. Personally I think by the Grace of God we women are shielded from so much evil precisely because we are meant to spend so much time with small children.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia February 15, 2019 2:39 PM  

Vessimede Barstool wrote:Can more ancient DNA be mapped?

Absolutely.

Guys like David Reich and Svante Paabo have done it and are doing it. Paabo has mapped the genome of Neanderthal. And given the interbreeding that went on, if you are of Northern European stock, you have about 2% Neanderthal DNA in you genome.

As you might guess, Paabo compared the genome of modern humans to Neanderthal. There is a segment of DNA missing in Neanderthals that is present in modern humans. These segments code for a number of proteins, one of which is involved in nueronal development.

Blogger sammibandit February 15, 2019 2:55 PM  

>There is a segment of DNA missing in Neanderthals that is present in modern humans. These segments code for a number of proteins, one of which is involved in nueronal development.

To clarify, does this segment appear in asians like mongoloids and caucasians, and not in negroids? I infer it does because negroids have more post-orbital constriction and less frontal matter.

More specifically I am wondering if this acts as evidence for what Vox mentioned in the stream which was artificial intervention.

Blogger xevious2030 February 15, 2019 3:04 PM  

Ok, the saw the video, had the thousands for years not in the post, got it. (450 versus 450k, which didn’t make sense at 450, but I rolled with it, at a glance as stated).
Is the figure of gradient across humans permutation? If not, means some is overlap with Chimps? If yes, less meaningful to the graphic when discussing chimps and humans and 450k man by actual base pairs.

Yes, TENS may be painted into the corner of saying the mutations occur naturally in limited timeframes of rapid succession, with selection occurring afterward, and with long periods of little change between. This is the argument that would maintain rates/averages, with no regard to results of people today. There is also the argument that the 450k man may not be representative, may not have even procreated. And that the variety may have been spread across the population/others of the day. It is the circle of their theory is right/best fit and every other theory is wrong until “proven” otherwise, without the requirement of accurate predictive models (arguing such models are impossible as the inducers of change are not yet known). Now, if the 450k man showed to be entirely within the commonality gradient of humans of today, then it narrows the timeline of the introduction of those mutations. But they probably will not get/understand the decreased probability of that as a purely natural occurrence.

Intelligent intervention is a much better fit. Especially if more than the natural process was found to be in the “junk” “DNA” of certain sets of peoples. That would be proof, conclusive.

Blogger Silent Draco February 15, 2019 3:10 PM  

Vox, those 44 mutations/gen on average need to be noted, so small or major changes get measured. Measure the changes, which means parent or offspring samples, and measure immediate and cumulative rate change.

What has to remain fixed is the absence of genes' expressing traits from the common ancestor, which differ from modern humans. These can be folded away or controlled out of expression by genes, unless a mutation causes a control release or exposes a chunk of old DNA for replication. Sports or throwback features pop up this way.

Blogger Steve Samson February 15, 2019 3:37 PM  

Yes, I see why it's irrelevant now, thanks. Still trying to get my head around it... My entire knowledge of genetics prior to Vox taking this on was that monk with the beans they taught us about at school.

Blogger Thumos February 15, 2019 3:57 PM  

Two talking points I never see: evolution is only ever assumed in one direction. There is no inner working of transformism that requires man to have evolved from lower life forms, and not the other way around.

Two: if transformism is true, then all organism should have proto-organs plainly visible. In relation to the first point, it is assumed that human wisdom teeth are posited as a relic of a shrinking jaw, but it could be the exact opposite. But besides this, why aren't all organisms just loaded with evidence of these anomalies and out-of-place adaptations? Or is, e.g., the dolphin the pinnacle, the Urform, of that particular line of descent?

We can go on and on, and Vox hasn't even touched metaphysics, which is more devastating in my view--however his more quantitative approach is more effective for and comprehensible to the modern scientistic mind.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia February 15, 2019 3:59 PM  

sammibandit wrote:>There is a segment of DNA missing in Neanderthals that is present in modern humans. These segments code for a number of proteins, one of which is involved in nueronal development.

To clarify, does this segment appear in asians like mongoloids and caucasians, and not in negroids? I infer it does because negroids have more post-orbital constriction and less frontal matter.

More specifically I am wondering if this acts as evidence for what Vox mentioned in the stream which was artificial intervention.


The gene that is missing is the FOX2P2 on chromosme 7, a highly conserved gene. It is in all modern humans, but no Neanderthals.

For an interesting presentation, watch Svante Paabo's talk at the NIH.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7VdRKQuAa8

You start at around 39:00 and go to 50:00.

There are also a few amino acids that modern humans produce, but that Nearderthals did not.

Blogger sammibandit February 15, 2019 4:04 PM  

Thank you kindly.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2019 4:06 PM  

"Women rated the majority of men as below-average in attractiveness. That's half the population right there."

Oh Hamster. This is also not how averages work. So we add you to the list.

Heh.

Blogger Steve Samson February 15, 2019 4:11 PM  

Presumably this was a survey where most women agreed with the statement "the majority of men are below average attractiveness."

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2019 4:14 PM  

I suspect it's more along the lines of the collective votes of women on a 1-10 scale for male attractiveness came to an average lower than 5.5.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia February 15, 2019 4:21 PM  

Nym Coy wrote:If we cloned an ancient egyptian or roman, could we mate with them? Asking for a friend.

You bet.

If we cloned a Neanderthal or a Denisovan, you could mate with them too.

It happened in the past.

Of course human cloning has many technological challenges. Replacing a genome into an empty egg is fraught with problems, not to mention the ethical considerations.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia February 15, 2019 4:31 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:"Do those 44 mutations per generation (on average) have to be fixed across all human populations to count?"

Yes, that's what fixation means unless you consider modern humans to be more than one species.


As Greg Cochran has noted, the fixation index between Northe American Coyotes and wolves is 0.153, the same as the fixation index between Yoruba and Northern Europeans.

So if you think that coyotes and wolves are different species, than so are sub-Saharan Africans and, say, Swedes.

Blogger A Non Person February 15, 2019 5:25 PM  

A comparison of Neanderthal and Devonian dna to human fixed changes seems to have been done 10.1038/nature12886 (can be found online at NCIB)

"We compiled a genome-wide catalog of sites where all or nearly all of 1,094 present-day humans32 carry the same nucleotide but differ from the Neandertal, Denisovan and great ape genomes (SI 18). In the regions of the genome to which short fragments can be mapped, there are 31,389 such single nucleotide substitutions and 4,113 short insertions and deletions (indels) shared by all present-day humans analyzed, and a further 105,757 substitutions and 3,900 indels shared by 90% of present-day humans. This list of simple DNA sequence changes that distinguish modern humans from our nearest extinct relatives is thus comparatively small. For example, it contains only 96 fixed amino acid substitutions in a total of 87 proteins and in the order of three thousand fixed changes that potentially influence gene expression in present-day humans (SI 18)."

The sample is said to be about 50000 years old.

"Layer 11, where both the finger and the toe phalanx were found, is thought to be at least 50,000 years old. The finger was found in sublayer 11.2, which has an absolute date of 50,300 ± 2200 years (OxA-V-2359-16), while the toe derives from the lowest sublayer 11.4, and may thus be older than the finger (Supplementary Information (SI) 1, 2a)."

If we assumed the differences arose with 50000 years, and 20 years per generation, we would have 2500 generation giving rise to
31,389 fixed differences, leading to a fixation rate of 12.5 fixation events per generation. This is roughly 4x less mutations fixed per generation than Vox has estimated would be required for a human/chimp split in 9 million years.

It gets much worse though if you, as the authors of the paper assume, that the genomic differences represent a split betwene the two groups 500,000 years ago. Then you would have 25000 generations instead of 2500, and an average fixation rate delta of 1.25 per generation, and a fixation rate per lineage of half that, .628 per generation.

This would indicate that the mutation rate over the last 500,000 years in humans was approximately 1/70th of the speed which would be required to bridge the gap between humans and chimps over 9 million years.

(I do have some significant concerns with this data set generally, as there sample for ancient DNA is limited and highly inbreed. This suggests the 31,389 fixed differences calculated may be significantly higher than the actual differences between the population, as if denisovian or neaderthal dna was as diverse as modern dna between populations the modern dna might well have been present in part of the ancient population, but not in the limited samples measured.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia February 15, 2019 6:19 PM  

A Non Person wrote:A comparison of Neanderthal and Devonian dna to human fixed changes seems to have been done 10.1038/nature12886 (can be found online at NCIB)

"We compiled a genome-wide catalog of sites where all or nearly all of 1,094 present-day humans32 carry the same nucleotide but differ from the Neandertal, Denisovan and great ape genomes (SI 18). In the regions of the genome to which short fragments can be mapped, there are 31,389 such single nucleotide substitutions and 4,113 short insertions and deletions (indels) shared by all present-day humans analyzed, and a further 105,757 substitutions and 3,900 indels shared by 90% of present-day humans. This list of simple DNA sequence changes that distinguish modern humans from our nearest extinct relatives is thus comparatively small. For example, it contains only 96 fixed amino acid substitutions in a total of 87 proteins and in the order of three thousand fixed changes that potentially influence gene expression in present-day humans (SI 18)."

The sample is said to be about 50000 years old.

"Layer 11, where both the finger and the toe phalanx were found, is thought to be at least 50,000 years old. The finger was found in sublayer 11.2, which has an absolute date of 50,300 ± 2200 years (OxA-V-2359-16), while the toe derives from the lowest sublayer 11.4, and may thus be older than the finger (Supplementary Information (SI) 1, 2a)."

If we assumed the differences arose with 50000 years, and 20 years per generation, we would have 2500 generation giving rise to

31,389 fixed differences, leading to a fixation rate of 12.5 fixation events per generation. This is roughly 4x less mutations fixed per generation than Vox has estimated would be required for a human/chimp split in 9 million years.

It gets much worse though if you, as the authors of the paper assume, that the genomic differences represent a split betwene the two groups 500,000 years ago. Then you would have 25000 generations instead of 2500, and an average fixation rate delta of 1.25 per generation, and a fixation rate per lineage of half that, .628 per generation.

This would indicate that the mutation rate over the last 500,000 years in humans was approximately 1/70th of the speed which would be required to bridge the gap between humans and chimps over 9 million years.

(I do have some significant concerns with this data set generally, as there sample for ancient DNA is limited and highly inbreed. This suggests the 31,389 fixed differences calculated may be significantly higher than the actual differences between the population, as if denisovian or neaderthal dna was as diverse as modern dna between populations the modern dna might well have been present in part of the ancient population, but not in the limited samples measured.


I think you're doing a bit of apples vs oranges comparison here. It's not that Neaderthals evolved into the modern humans, modern humans mated with Neaderthals and the 2% of your DNA -- if you're a Northern European, that is --is attributable to that ancient cross breeding. We were always separate speecies or subspecies.

DNA transfer can happen fast under such a scenario -- for example, if the femals from such unions are fertile, but the males are not.

As far the sample size is concerned, the high throughput genomic sequencing used to do these measurements is very accurate -- though not perfect. The applied mathematics to do it are quite complex, but robust, even with small fragments of DNA. These researchers extract DNA is pristine clean rooms to ensure no contamination.

And the techniques are only going to get better.

If anyone is going to solve the mathematical/average conundrums of the fixation problem, it's these researchers. They have effectively displaced archeology and anthropology as disciplines -- genomic sequencing is much more explanatory than a bunch of cracked pots and burial sites.

Blogger VD February 15, 2019 6:33 PM  

I think you're doing a bit of apples vs oranges comparison here. It's not that Neaderthals evolved into the modern humans, modern humans mated with Neaderthals and the 2% of your DNA -- if you're a Northern European, that is --is attributable to that ancient cross breeding. We were always separate speecies or subspecies.

But the same issues relating to the CHLCA - or if you prefer - CNLCA remain. And bit of information we have is consistent with my hypothesis, though it is very far from full falsification of the orthodox hypothesis.

Blogger Gregory the Tall February 15, 2019 7:01 PM  

Looking at the exponential growth of Vox's Youtube audience with envy JF thoughtfully asked himself: What could this mean if we apply Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest to it? The answer, however, was too horrifying to even form in his mind...

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2019 7:07 PM  

"So if you think that coyotes and wolves are different species, than so are sub-Saharan Africans and, say, Swedes."

One of the many reasons that no one agrees on the definition of a species....

Blogger A Non Person February 15, 2019 7:21 PM  

#48 says "We were always separate species or subspecies." This is an odd claim, given that your immediately preceeding sentence confirms there was interbreeding between the populations, which is generally the definition for the same species.

The estimated time of separation between the two populations (last common ancestor/last time of shared species) as estimated by the paper authors is the source of the 500,000 years ago number in my comment at #47.

It should also be considered that the differences fixed between humans as a whole and Neanderthals as a whole by this paper of 38,389 is very small compared to the differences between any two modern humans, estimated to average at 6,000,000. (Auton A, Brooks LD, Durbin RM, Garrison EP, Kang HM, Korbel JO, et al. (October 2015). "A global reference for human genetic variation". Nature. 526)

In other words, neanderthals might have looked somewhat unique in the same way as someone from one race may looks different than someone from another race, but they would seem to fit within the range of 'modern humans' very comfortably.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 15, 2019 11:20 PM  

A Non Person wrote:A comparison of Neanderthal and Devonian dna to human fixed changes seems to have been done
A much more interesting question, that directly approaches the subject matter, is how many chimp genes do they have that modern humans do not?

Blogger rcocean February 16, 2019 12:08 PM  

This is a much more sophisticated and fact based variation on the argument that Darwin skeptics have been making forever. Namely, if evolution occurred where are the missing links? A fish can't change into a bird overnight, so there are the half-fish half-birds in the fossil record. And why did Evolution suddenly stop for almost every mammal 10,000 years ago? The DNA argument will make this irrefutable.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts