Deleted Genes That Make Us Human

https://scitechdaily.com/mankinds-missing-puzzle-pieces-the-deleted-genes-that-made-us-human/

More evidence for the " Common Ancestry of Humans and Apes?"

Yes

Deleted, exactly how was that determined because they are not shared with other life forms? And only if we all share a common ancestor they would have had to been there? If that is their reasoning then that is sort of like making the horse fit the shoe, instead of the other way around.

Here's more info with links to the primary research publication https://phys.org/news/2023-04-deleted-human-genome.amp

The thing about a mindless process it doesn't keep or throw away it just proceeds mindlessly, and I still don't see why the word deletion is being used. These also don't take into account the small number of things we have not found in other similar lifeforms either, it sounds more like an excuse for dissimilarities than a real cause.

It's a neutral presentation of the facts. IDers would accept it, but just say an intelligent designer directed the process, not a "mindless" process.

Some will no doubt, but again, why say deleted, that is a specific type of action, something singled out to be removed. If it is a mindless process things come and go, forever changing, nothing is acquired or dismissed with cause.

1. Deletions, additions, substitutions, duplications, inversions... These are all well documented events

2. The common ancestry of humans with primates, mammals, and other vertebrates is established beyond a reasonable doubt, by a plethora of evidence, including the endogenous retrovirus (ERV) evidence that you dismiss out of hand (because you don't like the implications) without providing an equal or better explanation of the data.

3. Comparisons of human genomes with primates, mammals, and other vertebrates shows that humans are missing around 10,000 DNA sequences that all other primates, mammals, and vertebrates have.

4. Hundreds of these deletions have been found to code for traits and regulatory effects (many neuronal) that are unique to humans and found in no other vertebrates.

5. If you reject a "mindless" cause, as you say, then that leaves two options: (1) An intelligent designer guided this process and is responsible for these evolutionary changes; or (2) God falsely created the appearance that humans share common evolutionary ancestry with other primates, mammals, and vertebrates, and is a deceiver

This is like introducing the (apparent) 'retrograde motion of Mars' in an argument to support the now accepted heliocentric model of the Solar System but the person you're trying to convince insists that no such observation has ever been made!

The intent is the thing I'm most concerned with mind over mindlessness, to delete something is to remove it purposely is not the same as having things pop on and off. As I point out off and on, words are used that best reflect design while saying there is no design.

I don't believe in a common ancestor and I don't believe you can say that God is attempting to deceive us while giving us a creation story that debunks that common ancestor theory. We can be mistaken while looking at things and coming up with incorrect conclusions, and in that place, we can suggest the "evidence" promotes it when it doesn't. I give you Dawkin's famous quote that says along these lines that life looks design but the look is an illusion.

I don't believe the evidence does promote it even remotely, because I don't think what people point to and say this means this or that means what they say. Life popping up and later disappearing doesn't show a small gradual change, we don't see a myriad of life slowing altering into something else in fossils, and more importantly, we don't see it today! If it is a real ongoing process it would still be going on today, so not in the fossils life is distinctly different, and just as important as what we see today there are distinctively different lifeforms all over the place.

Yup

You and those that deny mind over mindlessness have a lot in common.

What does that have to do with accepting a demonstrable fact? The genetic makeup/code in a creature's DNA really can be shown to change through the generations. This has been observed numerous times.

Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge this fact?

I don't deny mind

Yup

I don’t have a problem with changing DNA, slight changes within a life is not the same thing as a creative burst where whole new body plans arise with new systems or systems that preform similar tasks but in different ways.

But that seems to contradict something you wrote before, that 'code does not change'?

I have a problem with the word "problem," as in "I don't have a problem with," or "I do have a problem with" (yes, irony intended). The issue shouldn't be whether or not we have a problem with something, but what we observe to happen. We observe "slight" changes to DNA, but we also observe large scale changes too that do not hurt the organism, such as gene duplications, inversions, chromosome fusion events, and entire whole genome duplications. "I don't have a problem with slight changes to DNA" is making a personal judgment about what we *think* will happen with large changes, and assuming that all large scale changes are bad or impossible, instead of looking at the evidence on the subject. Our personal opinions don't matter.

Code will do what it is programmed to do, and an immune system changes, and all of it is within the parameters of the program. I can write a "If, then, else" as a piece of code and the code will change as conditions change according to the code. What will not happen is a chess program turn into an operating system or something else completely foreign on its own. AI changes, but it is still bound by the rules and conditions of the code.