A chance for input ... Dr. John Sanford

[Faid]

I saw that!

Didn't watch too closely. In the context of a giraffe thread, it would be usual procedure to ask the topic-starter to define 'giraffe'. Of course appropriate is a foreign concept. Any question they can ask and subsequently refuse to understand your response thereunto will do - which would be any question at all. I think we're supposed to envy them on that account, but I can't pull it off.

That was supposed to make sense?

Nah. I set aside a couple of days when I first registered, and frustrated their attempts to snow me under with numbers and volume. They didn't like me keeping up, and said so more than once. After that, I haven't set aside too much time.

Actually, you attempted to flustrate us by responding with single numbers, as if that meant something. EVERY time we asked you to positively defend a claim with arguments, you resorted to large volumes of content-free posts with pseudo-psychoanalyzing babble and insults.

In that regard, your evident spiritual contact with jorge is not surprising.

[Ansgar Seraph]

"Giraffes, rather than humans"? From a program? The same program? SO programs can simulate more than one thing, it seems....

Then again, I notice the term 'interpret'. Looks like it is suggested one should run a simulation for humans and (creatively/cleverly) (mis)interpret the results as applying to giraffes. I'd ask for clarification Yeah, that's pretty absurd . That'd be like asking a lizard for feathers.

Yes, the un-evidenced assumption, if interpreting MENDEL for a giraffe, would be the mutations per individual. If giraffes, have, say 50 mutations per individual, then the program would need to be set at 50 mutations per individual. If, however, giraffes have ~100 mutations per individual, then the mutational accumulation would be exactly the same, according to MENDEL.

It's not a wild guess but giraffe genome length may be smaller than humans. There are enough animals who have a genome longer than humans (and thus, likely, more mutations per individual) that it makes the point the same.

And, in any event, it's a fun jab at Jorge (and you, had you ever mustered the courage to actually discuss giraffe evolution) — a "side bet". You don't get to collect if you lose the main pot :raspberry:

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

Looking through a bit of research, it does seem that the giraffe genome (C-value: 2.85) is smaller than the human genome (C-value: 3.50) It is, therefore, improper to interpret the MENDEL data for giraffes or another species that has a smaller genome size than humans.

My apologies to Jorge for asking an invalid question.

—Sam

[rogue06]

"Giraffes, rather than humans"? From a program? The same program? SO programs can simulate more than one thing, it seems....

:facepalm:

Please tell me you are acting this dense deliberately. Please tell me you are just acting

[Ansgar Seraph]

Looking through a bit of research, it does seem that the giraffe genome (C-value: 2.85) is smaller than the human genome (C-value: 3.50) It is, therefore, improper to interpret the MENDEL data for giraffes or another species that has a smaller genome size than humans.

My apologies to Jorge for asking an invalid question.

—Sam

Ah; MENDEL does have the capability to alter genome size, meaning that if both the mutation rate and genome size were known, one could legitimately model MENDEL's capacity to simulate YEC claims for an animal apart from humans. Without the number for mutations per giraffe offspring, though, I can only guess. If the mutation rate/genome size ratio were the same for giraffes and humans, the mutations per offspring would be ~95. MENDEL simulates that this population would be extinct in 175 generations (or 4375 years).

Without knowing the actual mutations per offspring, though, it is only a guess and the question to Jorge remains withdrawn.

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

I saw that!

Didn't watch too closely. In the context of a giraffe thread, it would be usual procedure to ask the topic-starter to define 'giraffe'. Of course appropriate is a foreign concept. Any question they can ask and subsequently refuse to understand your response thereunto will do - which would be any question at all. I think we're supposed to envy them on that account, but I can't pull it off.

We actually did list off several characteristics that define giraffids (C7/T1 vertebrae, bilobed canines, etc.) and traced Giraffidae from around the point where it emerged from the pecorans to present. Jorge, however, believes that there is a giraffe "kind" and that kind does not include the okapi (even though AiG puts the phrase "kinds" at the family-level). When asked for a clearer definition (since a number of Giraffa and Giraffidae share features with the giraffe), Jorge used a picture.

Mosey on over there and define at what level the concept of "kind" exists . . . but remember to show your work, as Jorge's refusal to do so was the point of his failure.

—Sam

[lao tzu]

Is the DNA good enough shape to examine it against the current defect load? If so it would go a long way to supply hard data to these questions.

Hello Frank,

There's a serious problem with your question, but it still touches on an important issue. When it comes to running comparisons between ourselves and species nearly identical to us, our analytical tools are the limiting factor here, not the original Neanderthal DNA itself. The loudest criticism of Neanderthal vs. Human DNA comparisons is the problem of contamination. No matter how carefully an historical sample is treated, modern DNA manages to get into the sample. Just touching it with a bare hand is enough to invalidate the results. So they prepare their samples from interior parts of relatively undisturbed bones in a clean room ... and they still end up with contamination.

But the end product isn't a "defect load," it's a "distance" from the modern human genome, expressed as a proportion. The results suggests a most recent common ancestor about half a million years ago, or so they say. I haven't looked at it closely enough to tell. A "defect load," if I get what you're saying, would be the distance between a sample and an optimal genome. One problem with asking about such a distance is there's no indication an optimal genome has ever existed. Selection always pushes evolution toward "just good enough to work." The closer you get to "good enough," the less the selection pressure.

But a bigger problem is that because the environment changes, the optimal genome changes too. That makes "defect load" a moving target.

Humans evolved a nasty "defect" — from our point of view — in response to malaria. But without that "defect," sickle-cell, humans don't survive as well where malaria infection is common. So, for them, it's not a defect. It's something they need in order to live long enough to reproduce. If it wipes out a quarter of each generation due to homozygotes for sickle-cell and most of another quarter because of deaths from malaria, you still end with half of the generation protected well enough to reproduce.

How many sea turtle hatchlings make it back to the beach to reproduce themselves? Less than one percent? Survival of half of a human population in a malaria zone is pretty good in comparison.

But that's an extreme example.

More commonly, in extra-tropical climates, long legs are a "defect" because they radiate heat too well. In tropical climates, long legs cool better. Which one is a "defect" depends on the environment. Then there's our vitamin machinery. Our vitamin C cellular manufacturing machinery is simply broken. The equipment is still there, almost intact, but there's a wrench in the works. But it's not a "defect" for most humans because there's no benefit to creating vitamin C in your own body when you can subcontract the job to plants, and eat them instead. It's not a defect for our closest relatives either, for the same reason. Then there's vitamin D. Where the sun is less intense, white skin allows us to create vitamin D, but that same "lacking melanin optimum" is a "lacking melanin defect" where the threat of sunburn and skin cancer outweighs the need to easily create vitamin D. When your dairy foods are commonly supplemented with vitamin D, there's no selection pressure either way due to vitamin deficiency.

Really, it's the same story for most of what creationists claim as "defects." If we can correct for astigmatisms with glasses or contacts, it's not a defect. If we can manufacture and supply insulin to diabetics, that's not a defect either. In a different environment, they would be, but this isn't a different environment, it's ours. If a "defect" actually prevents a human from reproducing, then it's visible to natural selection, and it will naturally be selected against. Our genomes don't have to be perfect. All we need is to be "good enough" to survive in the environment we've made for ourselves.

Or, alternatively, we need to change our environment to make it easier for more of us to survive. Personally, as a humanist, I kind of like choosing "b" on this one. I'm pretty sure Darwin would approve.

As ever, Jesse

[wattsr1]

In any event, I'm just sharing my own experiences with ol' toothless Roland &
others. My point : don't waste too much time with them (unless you're out for
some amusement -- they can be mighty funny!).

Nah. I set aside a couple of days when I first registered, and frustrated their attempts to snow me under with numbers and volume. They didn't like me keeping up, and said so more than once. After that, I haven't set aside too much time.

Well, to be honest CTD__, Jorge may have been correct. I could have had my teeth out during the relevant part of our exchange.

I have them out now. An ulcer under the plate.

Jorge thinks that a photograph “defines” a giraffe.

Here is the question he has consistently refused to address. So often photos are useless when it comes to defining animals. Why don’t you have a go:-

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=235

The problem is, what do folk do when all they have is a pile of bones. This happens often, in palaeontology, anthropology, forensics, zoology. From a pile of bones, a half skilled anatomist can declare “moo cow”, “pussy cat”, “giraffe”. How can they declare “cow” or “giraffe”? Well bones have defining characteristics and in the above link, I have them listed for a giraffe.

So Jorge’s claim that all giraffes must have long necks makes no sense at all. Hence I want him to tell me how he really does define giraffe. Showing me a picture and telling me “that’s a giraffe” is plain silly, because one day he may have a pile of bones that look for all the world like those of a giraffe except that they reveal a short neck.

Is Jorge really going to define them as belonging to a dog or a cow, simply because they have a short neck? What about all those other features?



I promise to keep my teeth out so that I won’t bite you ‘n Jorge.

Will that help? No need to be afraid. I can't bite.



Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

:facepalm:

Please tell me you are acting this dense deliberately. Please tell me you are just acting

This is what classification from bones is all about. If you classified just from behavior you would conclude "donkey", and probably "chicken" in Jorge's case.

However, I'm sure the bones would tell you - "human" - in both cases.

That's why Jorge's "here is a picture of a giraffe" does not tell us what he means by the term.


Regards, Roland

[franktalk]

lao tzu ,

Thank you for the detailed response. I think I read some where that we exist at a balance point between too much change and not enough. Too much and we mutate into nonexistence, too little and we don't adapt to a changing environment. Chaos theory I think. So if this is right then we should be able to prove it if we can obtain old samples. But I also know that samples are very difficult to find. Contamination is a big problem. I come from the electronics industry and know that in order to grow silicon pure enough for IC's is a very difficult process. Organic molecules are much more sensitive they tend to cast off parts or attract other organic molecules with ease. Over time I can see this as problematic. But at the same time that ease in which our molecules change is why we require so little energy to function.

As for the defect with ascorbic acid I find it difficult to believe that over all of this time another mutation would not come along and fix the gene. Just one out of billions would now give us a mix of working and nonworking genes in the population. But we don't see that. We are 100% broken. And why is that? If we came from a common ancestor and they had a mix of broken and nonbroken genes then we should have that still. How could we be 100% broken when we have so many defects in our current population that are controlled by gene drift.

Having studied a little about malaria I find it very curious that we have not made a nanobot that could kill it or at least let our immune system kill it for us. A sad commentary on our ability to do anything with nanotechnology.

Since I am on my soapbox right now I might as well add that some treat humans as germs when it comes to mutations and proof of evolution. Where germs can afford to lose 99.99% of their population to offset a natural or manmade substance that would normally kill them we can not. Their population growth rate and population size make them ideal to represent evolution. But man is not ideal. I think that is the point that Sanford is making. Although I think we don't know enough to prove or disprove evolution on a species to species basis or Sanford's ideas as well. So we are left with our preconceived notions of world view and beliefs.

It always saddens me when I come across people that know for sure so many things. I too knew many things as a young man. Now that I am older and wiser I realise that I knew very little and as each day passes I know less. But that is the way of the world I guess. We are all given an opportunity to see the world and either embrace it or reject it. If we embrace it then we embrace the theories and treat then as fact. If we reject them then the world hates us for being a religious nut job. Now given the two options I now embrace the title with no ill will to those who apply it to me.