Yes, pretty sure it is you, unless I plugged in the wrong number..
View attachment 40276
The mutation rate is in mutations per site per year. Multiply the rate times the number of sites times the years. The number of sites and the number of years came from YOU, so if the numbers are out of whack (as I already indicated they could well be), it is likely due to my use of YOUR numbers.
Please show your work as I did. Because that seems utterly nonsensical.
Not a yes or no question - what do you mean "evolved" - what is your measure?
Entirely possible, as you never really seem to make one.
Darwinism contained drift? huh...
Wow, OK...
The mechanism of random mutation is primarily
replication error during DNA replication/synthesis:
Mutations arise spontaneously at low frequency owing to the chemical instability of purine and pyrimidine bases and to errors during
DNA replication. Natural exposure of an organism to certain environmental factors, such as ultraviolet light and chemical carcinogens (e.g., aflatoxin B1), also can cause mutations.
A common cause of spontaneous point mutations is the deamination of cytosine to uracil in the
DNA double helix. Subsequent replication leads to a mutant daughter cell in which a T·A
base pair replaces the wild-type C·G base pair. Another cause of spontaneous mutations is copying errors during DNA replication. Although replication generally is carried out with high fidelity, errors occasionally occur.
Figure 8-5 illustrates how one type of copying error can produce a
mutation. In the example shown, the mutant DNA contains nine additional base pairs.
There are other factors as well, but the bulk of mutations are produced by errors. They are
random with respect to fitness. That is, any given mutation can be neutral, beneficial, or deleterious. Most mutations are neutral. Of the rest, most are bad. But more are beneficial than previously believed.
The statement that mutations are random is both profoundly true and profoundly untrue at the same time. The true aspect of this statement stems from the fact that, to the best of our knowledge, the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on the probability that this mutation will or will not occur. In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. Thus, beneficial DNA changes do not happen more often simply because an organism could benefit from them. Moreover, even if an organism has acquired a beneficial mutation during its lifetime, the corresponding information will not flow back into the DNA in the organism's germline. This is a fundamental insight that Jean-Baptiste Lamarck got wrong and Charles Darwin got right.
However, the idea that mutations are random can be regarded as untrue if one considers the fact that not all types of mutations occur with equal probability. Rather, some occur more frequently than others because they are favored by low-level biochemical reactions. These reactions are also the main reason why mutations are an inescapable property of any system that is capable of reproduction in the real world. Mutation rates are usually very low, and biological systems go to extraordinary lengths to keep them as low as possible, mostly because many mutational effects are harmful. Nonetheless, mutation rates never reach zero, even despite both low-level protective mechanisms, like DNA repair or proofreading during DNA replication, and high-level mechanisms, like melanin deposition in skin cells to reduce radiation damage. Beyond a certain point, avoiding mutation simply becomes too costly to cells. Thus, mutation will always be present as a powerful force in evolution.
I should have thought that someone so well-versed in evolution and genetics - such as yourself - might have taken the time to learn some of this stuff. Regarding selection and drift:
Genetic drift
Natural Selection
So yet again I address your demands, you still run off when challenged.
Is that your point? Odd then that you seem incapable of presenting any actual rationale, much less supporting evidence, for your "point." That is standard - Sanford and ReMine didn't either. They think assertions and made-up stories work. They don't.
So now it s your turn - present your model that accounts for this mysterious, unnamed, 'additional factor', supported by evidence, of course.
I just did - using YOUR numbers.
But please do explain what is so 'fast' - what is the evidence, other than your zany heroes pulling numbers out of thin air and arguing via personal disbelief.
You say it is 'too fast', but you can never explain why that is (eagerly awaiting some inaccurate paraphrasing or creationist/fringe sources). The ONLY way it seems "too fast" is if you are still clinging to the mere assertion-based claim that 500,000 or now 30 million 'beneficial mutations' are too few, which not even the professional creationists can seem to explain or support. It is mere assertion.
Your point? You've never mentioned transposons to me before. But I did find this from you from November:
Non random mechanisms like NGE, epigenetics, transposons etc. can create brand new functional and selectively positive proteins in 1 generation, this makes some scientists wonder that perhaps some of these non-random mechanism play a more important role than the process of random mutations and natural selection. Other scientists would argue that random mutations and natural selection play the most important role and that these other mechanisms provide a minor contribution.
Isn't it precious that you have glommed onto "non-random". Yes, this causes some fringey-types that are out for name recognition to make all kinds of wild extrapolations.
But do tell me about how this "non-randomness" works in this context - tell us all how transposons are non-random, for example.
Really? Odd - all I can ever remember from you are paraphrasings of creationists like ReMine. That is where your earlier 500,000 mutation nonsense came from. And if that was
really your point all along, one has to wonder why you expended so much energy NOT clearly indicating this, and instead spent most of your time demanding we address ReMine/Sanford's fantasies and disinformation.
Major role, according to you.
Interesting thing - part of my graduate research was on the evolution of a gene family in mammals. There are multiple genes in the family, all mutated copies of each other. One of the major duplication events was facilitated by the insertion of a
LINE between 2 of the genes.
The most common LINE in mammals is L1, and it is able to recognize the hexanucleotide "TTAAAA"
and use that to insert itself into a genome. In that sense, it is non-random, since it uses a specific DNA sequence.
Would you like to guess how frequently that sequence shows up in genomes? Just for kicks, I searched GENBANK for the sequence for
human chromosome 3. It is about 200 million BP, and my browser kept crashing, so I only downloaded 20 MB of it ( quick back of the envelope calculation indicates that 20 MB = only about 10 million 'letters' representing nucleotides, or about 1/20 of the chromosome in question). Once it loaded, I did a simple search for TTAAAA...........................
How many times do you think TTAAAA showed up?
22,679 times.
That is, there are potentially 22,679 insertion sites for the L1 LINE in about 1/20 of just 1 chromosome.
But sure, transposon insertion is totally 'non-random'....wrt fitness....
It is not that I do not think they play a role in evolution or fitness or selection - they clearly do (I have referred to one such insertion that conferred DDT resistance to fruit flies), but this genotype
STILL has to spread throughout a population for it to become fixed, just like plain old SNPs. So your "speed" issue... isn't.
I have done this repeatedly, even using YOUR numbers.
That you keep re-asking me to do this for you - even as you seem 100% incapable of providing your rationale for asking over and over, and seem 100% incapable of providing any kind of counter model or rationale for whatever it is your actually think about it - and that tells everyone that you are amazingly disingenuous/dishonest about this whole subject. You seem unable or unwilling to explain or answer simple questions related to your anti-'Darwinism' claims, such as how many mutations would have been required if evolution were true according to your claims - again, dishonest.