tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post8767840084541976633..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Why are the human and chimpanzee/bonobo genomes so similar?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger372125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52374884025740391102020-04-13T12:04:46.817-04:002020-04-13T12:04:46.817-04:00".. as you and Buggs imply"
Who am I to...".. as you and Buggs imply"<br /><br />Who am I to imply anithing? LOL<br /><br />Thank you, Larry. Really appreciate your comments. :)<br /><br />(I finally found your answer. What was wrong? I just had to load more comments. LOL)Joãohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06897303523201917516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86365053495640077332020-04-13T10:43:57.374-04:002020-04-13T10:43:57.374-04:00Buggs (and others) are looking at large deletions/...Buggs (and others) are looking at large deletions/insertions in the two genomes. If the human genome has a 5000 bp duplication that's not present in the chimp genome then they calculate this as 5000 differences. That's not an accurate measure of the similarity and it's certainly not a number that's relevant in calculating mutation rate. That's because the duplication is a single mutation event and not 5000 separate mutations as you and Buggs imply. This is why we only look at stretches that can be aligned and why we emphasize single base pair mutations. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59661168008470065222020-04-12T16:08:31.848-04:002020-04-12T16:08:31.848-04:00Richard Buggs calculated that we know, for sure, t...Richard Buggs calculated that we know, for sure, that only 84.38% of the human genome (as a whole) aligns to the chimp genome. He thinks 95% can turn out to be true, but he does not think it will. Assuming 85%, we have a difference of 15%. That is about 10 times 1.4%. Thus, by your calculations we would have the fixation of 1210 mutations per generations. <br /><br />Did I miss something? <br /><br />(Of course I am assuming Buggs is right)<br /> <br />http://richardbuggs.com/2018/07/14/how-similar-are-human-and-chimpanzee-genomes/Joãohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06897303523201917516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63807350173387173172014-03-14T15:23:47.644-04:002014-03-14T15:23:47.644-04:00Andy, I have no idea what I have said here that im...Andy, I have no idea what I have said here that implies a commitment to reductionism. If there's evidence pointing beyond materialism, I'm willing to consider it. But I don't see how that applies in any way to the evidence for common descent. I'm not even (at least in this thread) arguing against guided evolution. I'm merely arguing for descent with modification, however the modification is achieved. You appear to be arguing for separate creation, and that goes way beyond any question of materialism or whatever is its alternative.<br /><br />Let's recap: you have claimed to know that common ancestry of whales is improbable, but ignore calls to show your work or even to explain your reasoning. You have claimed that my evidence is questionable, but have mentioned only one paper whose point was that SINEs are not absolutely perfect characters. I can see only the abstract, but I bet the take-home message of even that paper wasn't that SINEs are poor guides to phylogeny, only that they aren't magic. And I bet Miyamoto also made the point that finding multiple SINEs would greatly decrease uncertainty. I suspect, in fact, that you were quote-mining that paper. Am I wrong?<br /><br />All you're saying here is "I know you are, but what am I?", but I have reasons, well explained, for my conclusions about you. What do you have about me that suggests I'm not looking at the data objectively?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52051884721390811672014-03-14T15:04:24.341-04:002014-03-14T15:04:24.341-04:00John, it seems to me that you have a commitment to...John, it seems to me that you have a commitment to reductionism even though mind and cosmos speak against it. I'm willing consider all evidence even those pointing beyond materialism, I don't see how that would be a handicap.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503746944125068931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62867125405767406282014-03-13T22:23:20.478-04:002014-03-13T22:23:20.478-04:00Pauline,
I don't understand why, in order to ...Pauline,<br /><br />I don't understand why, in order to complain about you accusing scientists of lying, I must also complain about you accusing creationists of lying. I don't really care if you accuse creationists of lying (though it's a hard thing to prove). But I do care if you accuse scientist. There is the occasional hoax, true. But you're going for something quite different: wholesale lying for a particular reason, to respond to creationists. I don't see the lying, and I don't see the response. All in your head.<br /><br />If my paper was very good, did it convince you of the reality of macroevolution? If not, why not?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41958314405793331322014-03-13T18:42:38.564-04:002014-03-13T18:42:38.564-04:00And I do have proof. Piltdown man.
Proof of what?...<i>And I do have proof. Piltdown man.</i><br /><br />Proof of what? That scientists routinely lie?<br /><br />By the way, who exposed that particular fraud? Scientists or creationists? And who committed it in the first place? The main suspect is Dawson -- an amateur archaeologist, not an evolutionary biologist.<br /><br /><i>But more currently Mary Schweitzer backtracking about her discovery of red blood cells in T-Rex bones as soon as the Creationists got on her case.</i><br /><br />What exactly did she backtrack about? Last time I checked, she still believed they were genuine red blood cells. She <i>never</i> claimed that their preservation meant that the <i>T. rex</i> fossil should be dated as recent (if that's what you're trying to insinuate). Its age is beyond dispute for reasons that have nothing to do with evolution.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89455129774879959262014-03-13T17:35:00.401-04:002014-03-13T17:35:00.401-04:00Andy,
You have admitted your prior commitment. No...Andy,<br /><br />You have admitted your prior commitment. Now all you have to do is admit that this commitment gives you a strong bias against accepting the evidence. You like the occasional bit you can interpret as arguing against whale evolution (though in fact those bits generally do not) and ignore the weight of the evidence.<br /><br />I would like to see your work on the improbability of common ancestry for <i>Pakicetus</i> and <i>Basilosaurus</i>, but I suspect you just made that up. Am I right?<br /><br />But let's face it: you have been confronted with conclusive evidence; you just continue to grasp at all the straws you can find. I could cite the DNA sequence evidence, but you'd just quote a paragraph about the potential pitfalls of sequence analysis. But isn't it a wonder that all the errors point in the same direction?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1014703952624243812014-03-13T17:33:11.687-04:002014-03-13T17:33:11.687-04:00@John Harshman
lutesuite has just given you a goo...@John Harshman<br /><br />lutesuite has just given you a good example of a scientist lying. (I'm assuming he is a scientist...)<br /><br />He said I was insinuating that:<br /><br /><i>"your own research refutes evolution and you're just trying to cover this up by making excuses</i><br /><br />Naughty little tinker!<br /><br />How can this: "I admire the truth in the above quote and wish it were more widespread" possibly be termed "insulting"? I was clearly talking about confirmation bias. Scientists see what they want to see based on their own worldviews.<br /><br />You yourself have said to me: <i>"But you really shouldn't accuse scientists of lying to keep creationists off their backs unless you have evidence of such a thing. Which you don't."</i><br /><br />In fact I have accused scientists AND creationists of lying but your own confirmation bias has only heard me accusing scientists. <br /><br />And I do have proof. Piltdown man.<br /><br />But more currently Mary Schweitzer backtracking about her discovery of red blood cells in T-Rex bones as soon as the Creationists got on her case.<br /><br />And your paper "Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of flight in ratite birds" was really good. Very informative. (If you're listening lutesuite I read his paper - to learn - got that?)Paulinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10942276886899973371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58688389811783086262014-03-13T17:05:43.134-04:002014-03-13T17:05:43.134-04:00Andy,
read again: those are minor sources of nois...Andy,<br /><br />read again: those are minor sources of noise. John said:<br /><i>However, none of them do much to change the value of evidence from multiple SINEs</i><br /><br />Try and understand that before going to the next sentence ... Got it yet? No? OK let's wait a bit more ... Got it now? Shit Andy! OK, maybe this other part will clarify:<br /><i>You are bringing up <b>minor</b> sources of uncertainty, not reasons to doubt the full analysis.</i><br /><br />Got it? Do you know what the word "minor" means don't you? You don't!<br /><br />So, now that you've got it maybe you'll understand why I face palmed when you wrote this:<br /><i>It took me about 30 minutes to google sufficient material to establish <b>reasonable</b> doubt to the best evidence that you had to offer.</i><br /><br />No Andy, <b>minor</b> sources of uncertainty are not <b>reasonable</b> doubt.<br /><br />I would suggest that you read the article instead of the abstract, but that would be too much to ask if you didn't catch that those were minor points even after John said it so succinctly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5078727277632500252014-03-13T16:33:20.133-04:002014-03-13T16:33:20.133-04:00Let's not overlook "Pauline's" n...Let's not overlook "Pauline's" not-so-subtle insinuation, of course, John: That your own research refutes evolution and you're just trying to cover this up by making excuses and engaging in unwarranted speculation, so that you won't be "Expelled" by the Darwinian orthodoxy.<br /><br />But she says <i>she's</i> the one who's being insulted here...Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58059064233802427702014-03-13T16:00:26.037-04:002014-03-13T16:00:26.037-04:00I should probably admit that the last sentence isn...I should probably admit that the last sentence isn't mine either. It's either Mike's or Ed's. And Huxley's, partly.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72279478788324686202014-03-13T15:57:57.377-04:002014-03-13T15:57:57.377-04:00Oh. I swear I don't remember writing that bit....Oh. I swear I don't remember writing that bit. Bet it was one of Ed's, and of course it's in the introduction, which is just setting up the big surprise. I would prefer "Nevertheless, no proposed phylogeny, ours included, can be explained entirely by the order of separation of Gondwanan fragments.<br />Multiple losses of flight, with the implication of greater dispersal capability for ancestral paleognaths, make a strictly vicariant model less compelling. The existence of volant paleognaths in the Paleogene of Europe and North America also suggests that dispersal must be considered (45, 57). Dispersal of ratites is further suggested by phylogenies in which the extinct moas of New Zealand are not sister to the extant kiwis (2, 10, 11), as would be predicted by strict vicariance. Thus, fossil data confirm that simple vicariant models can be rejected." and "Finally, our phylogeny removes the need to postulate vicariance by continental drift to explain ratite distribution. Although that theory seemed to represent a consilience between evolutionary biology and geology, it was never completely consistent either with any published phylogeny or the existence of paleognath fossils in the Northern hemisphere (45, 57). Perhaps the impact of our phylogeny should be viewed as yet another example of the phenomenon that Huxley called 'the great tragedy of science—the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact.' ”<br /><br />Pauline should pay special attention to that last sentence.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62717085807765533222014-03-13T15:31:26.384-04:002014-03-13T15:31:26.384-04:00Hee hee. You'll never guess where it comes fr...Hee hee. You'll never guess where it comes from, John:<br /><br />http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13462.fullFaizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13102848776643178472014-03-13T14:30:52.531-04:002014-03-13T14:30:52.531-04:00Pauline,
Where did you get that quote? I would ac...Pauline,<br /><br />Where did you get that quote? I would actually agree with you that using ratites as an example of vicariance is a bad idea, but it sounds as if the person being quoted is saying that too. There was indeed a big movement in favor of vicariance a few years ago, and it went way overboard. But you really shouldn't accuse scientists of lying to keep creationists off their backs unless you have evidence of such a thing. Which you don't.<br /><br />The alternative explanation, by the way, is dispersal and local extinction, for which there is some fossil evidence.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7961192768166744082014-03-13T14:25:31.285-04:002014-03-13T14:25:31.285-04:00That is indeed a common creationist idea. But have...That is indeed a common creationist idea. But have you ever really thought about it? Probably not, since you offer it up as an explanation. Remember, first, that most of those non-coding sections are junk; they have no function. Even within functional bits many of the changes don't matter; silent changes in protein-coding genes, for example. Besides, the most anatomically similar species are sometimes not the most genetically similar. Whales don't have fish genes; they have cow genes. Now why would that be?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69117777288232445422014-03-13T14:22:01.361-04:002014-03-13T14:22:01.361-04:00Pauline,
When quoting, you should try to set off ...Pauline,<br /><br />When quoting, you should try to set off the quotes somehow or your post becomes hard to read. Italics would work. So would quotation marks. Thanks for answering some of those questions, however poorly. It's a start.<br /><br />But now I'm at a loss how to respond. This thread has become terminally unwieldy. I'll just pick the last bits.<br /><br /><i>This is also used as an argument for a common designer. And isn't it true that some events have been assumed to have happened twice (at very low probability) in very different species?</i><br /><br />Yes, phylogenetic trees have been used as an argument for a common designer, but a little thought should convince you that it's a bad argument. Why should separate creation result in a nested hierarchy? Of course, there are well-known mechanisms by which trees from different genes may not match, but they match to the predicted degree; again, this doesn't fit any kind of separate creation.<br /><br /><i>Now how about sending me the intermediate neck length giraffe data?</i><br />I know nothing about fossil giraffids. You may be confusing me with someone else. I will however point out that if okapis were unknown to science, you would probably consider them to be intermediate neck length giraffes.<br /><br /><i>I want to know how DNA changes account for a new limb / novel structure by chance.</i><br /><br />They don't. Selection clearly plays a large role in the evolution of new structures. And most "new" structures are just modifications of existing ones. "New" limbs, for example, are modified fins.<br /><br />[Regarding evidence for macroevolution]<i> Yes please - didn't realise this was a genuine offer given your tone. I have already read about sequence preservation and also that different evolutionary trees are derived by studying different genes. I'd like to know more. Like evolution's answer to how the LUA came about, and abiogenesis. </i><br /><br />If by "LUA" you mean "LUCA", then that as well as abiogenesis is a different subject from macroevolution, one I don't have much expertise in. Some questions in macroevolution are easy to answer and some are more difficult. On easy questions, different genes usually give the same answer. On difficult questions, you have to work hard on analysis. But the conflict has been seriously overstated by creationists. You really shouldn't pay so much attention to them. Here are a couple of fine references I gave to Andy a while ago, ones you should easily find on the web. Are they convincing?<br /><br />Harshman, J., E. L. Braun, M. J. Braun, C. J. Huddleston, R. C. K. Bowie, J. L. Chojnowski, S. J. Hackett, K.-L. Han, R. T. Kimball, B. D. Marks, K. J. Miglia, W. S. Moore, S. Reddy, F. H. Sheldon, D. W. Steadman, S. J. Steppan, C. C. Witt, and T. Yuri. 2008. Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of flight in ratite birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:13462-13467.<br /><br />Shedlock, A. M., M. C. Milinkovitch, and N. Okada. 2000. SINE evolution, missing data, and the origin of whales. Systematic Biology 49:808-817.<br /><br /><br />John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89192167632007947522014-03-13T14:05:40.731-04:002014-03-13T14:05:40.731-04:00@lutesuite
How is the fact that noncoding genomic ...@lutesuite<br />How is the fact that noncoding genomic elements between separate lineages conform to phylogenetic patterns predicted by evolutionary theory evidence for a "common designer"? <br />Because the functions of the non-coding sections are designed to be similar for similar lifeforms?<br />Paulinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10942276886899973371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37512735577739014002014-03-13T13:20:17.084-04:002014-03-13T13:20:17.084-04:00@lutesuite
Noncoding genomic elements between sepa...@lutesuite<br />Noncoding genomic elements between separate lineages conforming to phylogenetic patterns is the strongest evidence I've come across for evolution - for me personally. There's still some interesting disagreement between well-respected molecular biologists about the details and I'm less convinced about some convergent evolution reasons to explain some similarities that are unexpected. You may know of more convincing evidence which I'd be glad to hear of.<br />I do worry about the Evolutionary worldview restricting curiosity (especially in schools, hence my request for a giraffe of intermediate neck length to reassure me that the UK government haven't made a huge mistake in using giraffes to teach evolution to primary school kids.)<br /><br />I also worry about stuff like this:<br />"Although the proposed phyletic branching patterns for ratites do not correspond perfectly to the order of separation of land masses during the breakup of Gondwana, the convenient serendipity of continental drift as a mechanistic explanation for ratite distribution proved irresistible and it stands today as a textbook example of vicariance biogeography"<br />So the data doesn't fit the proposed mechanism well, but I want it to fit so badly and I don't have a better mechanism so it becomes a "textbook example". I guess that evolutionists do this because creationists attack them if they are truthful that there is some doubt, but this is a positive feedback loop with each side getting more and more arrogant and vicious towards the other. I admire the truth in the above quote and wish it were more widespread.Paulinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10942276886899973371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68221729621401996362014-03-13T11:30:44.278-04:002014-03-13T11:30:44.278-04:00How is the fact that noncoding genomic elements be...How is the fact that noncoding genomic elements between separate lineages conform to phylogenetic patterns predicted by evolutionary theory evidence for a "common designer"? Any brain dead moron can parrot creationist talking points. Actually understanding them is another matter.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79792363377399263682014-03-13T11:14:50.911-04:002014-03-13T11:14:50.911-04:00I'm clicking here: Subscribe to: Post Comments...I'm clicking here: Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) to read your comments. Clicking on the orange arrow next to your name sends me to the original page where I cannot post because it's overflowing.Paulinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10942276886899973371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53925340659130167282014-03-13T11:13:08.795-04:002014-03-13T11:13:08.795-04:00According to Shannon information, duplicating a ge...According to Shannon information, duplicating a gene or a chromosome does increase information. That's why I don't think Shannon information is my problem. I want to know how DNA changes account for a new limb / novel structure by chance. 2 genes coding for the same thing doesn't mean an increase in that sort of information. So what measure do you have for which that isn't true? Trisomy 21 is also an increase in information in the genome. Who ever said that increased information had to make things better? That is a rhetorical question not a real one.<br />The overwhelming majority of duplicated genes are lost. A few gain the rudiments of a new function, enough for selection to grab onto and hone into something useful. Does that sound like "by chance" to you? The chance bit comes in with the change in sequence to form a new functioning gene (you do agree that this bit would be by chance mutation don't you?) then the new function has some sort of selection advantage or is fixed in the population by genetic drift (another bit of randomness) So yes "by chance" is a good term here.<br /><br />Finally, this isn't a question, but it's a point you have consistently ignored every time I've brought it up: As I've said before, the major evidence for macroevolution lies in comparisons of DNA sequences, largely the fact that they agree on phylogeny. This is also used as an argument for a common designer. And isn't it true that some events have been assumed to have happened twice (at very low probability) in very different species?<br />Now how about sending me the intermediate neck length giraffe data? It's for my daughter's school.Paulinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10942276886899973371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14450565634625543932014-03-13T11:12:51.426-04:002014-03-13T11:12:51.426-04:00You have just conflated belief in God with creatio...You have just conflated belief in God with creationism. Why? Because I was making the point that faith shouldn't reduce scientific ability so creationism and belief in God both share supernatural belief so it wasn't important to make that distinction at that point.<br />Louis Agassiz is the only one who comes to my mind. But who else do you have? I sent you a link to this which you seem to have overlooked.<br />Did you even read Dawkins' book, or did you read about it on a creationist web site? I have read all of Dawkins books starting with The Selfish Gene which I read at University. The man is one of the reasons I find evolution hard to believe in and why I came looking for real scientists to give me real answers. I didn't find what I was expecting.<br />I would be interested in the estimates you have of the probability of life evolving; show your work, please. I could cut and paste an answer from a Creationist publication but I thought you'd rather I didn't.<br />You seem to be getting all your information from creationist sources. Why? I'm not. I'm reading both sides. I gave you a quote from Talkorigins - is that an undercover Creationist site? But there's no point me asking you questions about evidence FOR evolution because we would agree on that. I repeat I'm here to learn and Pedro taught me something. I also learned that this debate is way too full of emotion than it should be if it were an objective scientific forum.<br />So, do you have any idea how new species might arrive? If not evolution, what's your alternative? I don't have one and neither do you. Just because there isn't a better theory YET doesn't mean evolutionists should lie about evidence against evolution. If the theory's all that then it would stand up afterall.<br />In addition to your other problems, you don't realize that "differ by at least 150 million nucleotides" doesn't mean 150 million mutations. That figure (and where did you find it?) I gave you the reference already. You don't care.<br />No, evolutionary theory doesn't predict phyletic gradualism. Why would you think so? Because initially evolutionists thought so (before PE) because mutations were thought to be random events which, followed by natural selection would predict gradual change. I know thinking has progressed, but this is why Darwinian evolutionary theory predicted PG just like I said it did. PE was data driven not theory driven.<br />Yes, I understand macroevolution. Not completely -- nobody does -- but enough for our present purposes: I know that it happens, because I know that all species are descended from a common ancestor. The evidence is voluminous and conclusive. Would you like to know some of it? Yes please - didn't realise this was a genuine offer given your tone. I have already read about sequence preservation and also that different evolutionary trees are derived by studying different genes. I'd like to know more. Like evolution's answer to how the LUA came about, and abiogenesis. Also I'd be interested in just one reference that has given you personally the most doubt in evolution and why you think it is ultimately wrong. <br />Paulinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10942276886899973371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87147551047836458872014-03-12T14:43:43.820-04:002014-03-12T14:43:43.820-04:00Pauline,
I think you need to go a bit further in ...Pauline,<br /><br />I think you need to go a bit further in your realization of ignorance. But it's certainly a worthy goal. It's hard to find just what question you haven't answered, as your responses are not attached to the posts they're responding to. You need to fix your browser. But I will try.<br /><br />Here are some of them:<br /><br />You have just conflated belief in God with creationism. Why? <br />Louis Agassiz is the only one who comes to my mind. But who else do you have?<br />Did you even read Dawkins' book, or did you read about it on a creationist web site?<br />I would be interested in the estimates you have of the probability of life evolving; show your work, please.<br />You seem to be getting all your information from creationist sources. Why?<br />So, do you have any idea how new species might arrive? If not evolution, what's your alternative?<br />In addition to your other problems, you don't realize that "differ by at least 150 million nucleotides" doesn't mean 150 million mutations. That figure (and where did you find it?)<br />No, evolutionary theory doesn't predict phyletic gradualism. Why would you think so? <br />Yes, I understand macroevolution. Not completely -- nobody does -- but enough for our present purposes: I know that it happens, because I know that all species are descended from a common ancestor. The evidence is voluminous and conclusive. Would you like to know some of it?<br />According to Shannon information, duplicating a gene or a chromosome does increase information. So what measure do you have for which that isn't true? Trisomy 21 is also an increase in information in the genome. Who ever said that increased information had to make things better?<br />The overwhelming majority of duplicated genes are lost. A few gain the rudiments of a new function, enough for selection to grab onto and hone into something useful. Does that sound like "by chance" to you?<br /><br />Finally, this isn't a question, but it's a point you have consistently ignored every time I've brought it up: As I've said before, the major evidence for macroevolution lies in comparisons of DNA sequences, largely the fact that they agree on phylogeny.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34749093400798200682014-03-12T14:25:54.235-04:002014-03-12T14:25:54.235-04:00"hanks Pedro - finally some useful informatio..."hanks Pedro - finally some useful information! I have educated myself as you suggested. That's really interesting that scientists now believe that feathers didn't evolve from scales - that claim had always made me very suspicious and now it makes much more sense. I noticed that the evidence for the very first feathers was the most lacking: "little information is available on the ontogenetic development of early feathers." Do you know of any research that covers this stage (maybe not yet as these references were all very recent)? If feathers didn't evolve from scales then where did the DNA information to make feathers originate? Does anyone have any hypotheses?"<br /><br />So no evidence I am here to learn John. <br /><br />Are you going to get back to me about intermediate neck lengths of giraffe ancestors? Or do you think that the neck could possibly have lengthened over time very quickly leaving no fossil evidence? (For the benefit of clarity this is a question not an argument.)Paulinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10942276886899973371noreply@blogger.com