The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[Bear Wild]

Ok then please provide the correct math

That would take time to review again the exact percentages that is not coding vs associated with immunoglobulin vs genes associated with phenotypic expression. It has been a while since I read the data but most of the differences were associated with non coding genetic sequences followed by differences in immunoglobulin regulation which have no phenotypic effect and the least amount of differences is with genes expressing phenotype. The result will be a much smaller number than you present. You should go through the research yourself first before emphasizing the number you calculated if you want to be honest about your argument. Then you would have to present the genetic differences within humans also which would also impact your argument. But either way there was plenty of time for these changes to occur and evolution remains supported.

Compare this to the evidence for ID theory. The answer will be evolution with actual evidence compared to no evidence for ID theory.

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes that is and has always been my point.

I don't think that is your real point in your arguments unless you now accept the theory of evolution and are arguing about what mechanisms play a role.

So do you accept the theory of evolution?

If not you are only creating meaningless arguments until you have actual evidence for and alternative theory.

 

[leroy]

I don't think that is your real point in your arguments unless you now accept the theory of evolution and are arguing about what mechanisms play a role.

So do you accept the theory of evolution?

If not you are only creating meaningless arguments until you have actual evidence for and alternative theory.

I accept evolution (universal common ancestry) as I have made it very clear multiple times.

I am skeptical about the claim that evolution is caused just by random mutations and natural selection. (We both seem to agree on this)

 

[sayak83]

Ok you can you provide your proof that random mutations and natural selection by themselves can explain the differences between chimps and humans?

We are talking about 2% of the genome in just 5M years………..this is super-fast evolution for creatures with slow reproductive cycles like primates , which is why I (and other scientists) suggest that other mechanisms could play a role (for example perhaps mutations are not random)

The point mutation differences is about 1.2% (LINK)
1.2% of 3 billion is 36 million.
The point mutation rate per generation is about 60. (Revising the human mutation rate: implications for understanding human evolution | Nature Reviews Genetics).
Humans and chimps diverged at least 8 million years ago (based on more recent molecular clock as well as fossils like Sahelanthropus). LINK
Human generation time is 30 years. Chimpanzee generation time is 20 years.
So the Number of point mutations that can accumulate in humans in 8 million years is 16 million.
And the Number of point mutations that can accumulate in chimpanzees in 8 million years is 24 million.
So total possible point mutations is 40 million and the total that is present is 36 million.
So...what is the problem?

 

[leroy]

The point mutation differences is about 1.2% (LINK)
1.2% of 3 billion is 36 million.
The point mutation rate per generation is about 60. (Revising the human mutation rate: implications for understanding human evolution | Nature Reviews Genetics).
Humans and chimps diverged at least 8 million years ago (based on more recent molecular clock as well as fossils like Sahelanthropus). LINK
Human generation time is 30 years. Chimpanzee generation time is 20 years.
So the Number of point mutations that can accumulate in humans in 8 million years is 16 million.
And the Number of point mutations that can accumulate in chimpanzees in 8 million years is 24 million.
So total possible point mutations is 40 million and the total that is present is 36 million.
So...what is the problem?

So...what is the problem?

Sure my problem is this

The point mutation rate per generation is about 60.

The problem with your math is that it assumes that all 60 mutations will become dominant and fixed in the population.

 

[leroy]

At this point you need to find evidence why natural selection and variation is not enough. Hand waving does not count as evidence.

Ok my evidence that random mutations and natural selection by themselves are not good enough to explain evolution.

1 there are zero peer reviewed papers that conclude that random mutations and natural selection is enough

2 there are multiple papers that conclude that random mutations and natural selection is not enough to explain evolution. (Some of these articles are here Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science? )


This evidence is good enough for any reasonable person , but given that you are just trolling and adopting a position of extreme and unreasonable skepticism I will never be able to convince you.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok my evidence that random mutations and natural selection by themselves are not good enough to explain evolution.

1 there are zero peer reviewed papers that conclude that random mutations and natural selection is enough

2 there are multiple papers that conclude that random mutations and natural selection is not enough to explain evolution.


This evidence is good enough for any reasonable person , but given that you are just trolling and adopting a position of extreme and unreasonable skepticism I will never be able to convince you.

None of the above is true. Your knowledge of the science is involved is appalling. You have not provided any peer reviewed scientific references to support this,

 

[leroy]

None of the above is true. Your knowledge of the science is involved is appalling. You have not provided any peer reviewed scientific references to support this,

None of the above is true. Your knowledge of the science is involved is appalling. You have not provided any peer reviewed scientific references to support this,

Yes I did provide the the scientific references

Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

Awaiting for your apology

 

[Dan From Smithville]

None of the above is true. Your knowledge of the science is involved is appalling. You have not provided any peer reviewed scientific references to support this,

He has heard of something called epigenetics that he does not understand and being able to read a few titles made him think he is a molecular biologist now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

well thats the point that I made to @tas8831


We can ask him directly.

Tas, do you agree that mutations in primates don’t become fixed and dominat in 30 years (you need much more time)

I haven't seen @tas8831 claim such either.
You must be imagining things again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok you can you provide your proof that random mutations and natural selection by themselves can explain the differences between chimps and humans?

Your question makes little sense to me and kinda reveals yet another failure at understanding the burden of proof.

The fact is that the natural factors of the theory, like mutation and selection processes, are sufficient to explain the facts. Does that mean no other processes are at play - natural or otherwise? Off course not. Can one prove that? No, because that would require proving a negative.

The fact is that there is no reason (no evidence), nor a need, to include any other processes.
If you think there are candidates for such, you are very free to mention them and explain why you think they should be included (which will require evidence).

Got any?

We are talking about 2% of the genome in just 5M years………..this is super-fast evolution for creatures with slow reproductive cycles like primates

No, it's not.

, which is why I (and other scientists)

Which scientists?

suggest that other mechanisms could play a role (for example perhaps mutations are not random)

What mechanisms and what is the evidence for it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then please quote the comment where made the correct math

My math

- The human/chimp genome is 3B base pairs long

- The difference between chimps and humans is said to be 2%

- 2% of 2billion is 60,000

The math seems to be correct, but feel free to find any errors.

Those are the numbers that @Subduction Zone worked with.
So I don't see what your objection is other then ostrich style defenses.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What are you talking about?

I am the one who is in claiming that there are other mechanisms (apart from random mutations) that play an important role in evolution .

Then why are you asking us to demonstrate otherwise?
Maybe you should try and meet your own burden of proof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok my evidence that random mutations and natural selection by themselves are not good enough to explain evolution.

1 there are zero peer reviewed papers that conclude that random mutations and natural selection is enough

ow my.....................................

This is some sneaky intellectual dishonesty.
Such a paper would ultimately entail proving a negative.

2 there are multiple papers that conclude that random mutations and natural selection is not enough to explain evolution. (Some of these articles are here Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science? )

This evidence is good enough for any reasonable person , but given that you are just trolling and adopting a position of extreme and unreasonable skepticism I will never be able to convince you.

Are any of these scientists arguing for unnatural intentional "intervention" of third party entities in the course of evolution? Or are all of them merely arguing for natural processes?

I told you in the beginning that for the purpose of the point, I assume "mutation + selection" to be very broadly defined to primarily mean blind natural processes. Strictly speaking, for example, "sexual selection" isn't necessarily included in strict definitions of "natural selection".

 

[We Never Know]

Then please quote the comment where made the correct math

My math

- The human/chimp genome is 3B base pairs long

- The difference between chimps and humans is said to be 2%

- 2% of 2billion is 60,000

The math seems to be correct, but feel free to find any errors.

2% of 2 billion is 40 million(40,000,000)

But if you meant..
2% of 3 billion that is 60 million(60,000,000

 

[sayak83]

Sure my problem is this



The problem with your math is that it assumes that all 60 mutations will become dominant and fixed in the population.

Not these one. But remember that each and every member of the next generation will have on average 60 mutations somewhere or the average. So the mean difference between the avg. genome from one generation to the next will be about 60.

 

[leroy]

Are any of these scientists arguing for unnatural intentional "intervention" of third party entities in the course of evolution? Or are all of them merely arguing for natural processes?

.

These scientists are arguing

1 that random mutations and natural selection is not enough

2 they propose other mechanisms (non random mutations for example)

In this context random means “random with respect to fitness or needs” this means that a mutations is equally likely to occur regardless if the organism would benefit from the mutation

So by definition non-random means the opposite, that mutations are more likely to occur given that the organism “needs” that mutation.


So do you agree with this scientists with respect to point 1?

Do you find any of the mechanisms that they propose plausible and worthy of consideration?

And quite frankly I am confused, based on what I understood from your comments we already agreed, in fact I cant find any points of disagreement, so why don’t you tell me wereis our point of disagreement?

 

[leroy]

Not these one. But remember that each and every member of the next generation will have on average 60 mutations somewhere or the average. So the mean difference between the avg. genome from one generation to the next will be about 60.

Yes, but these mutations (those that are different In chimps and humans) are equal in all humans, meaning that each of those 60 mutations has to become fixed and dominant.

 

[shunyadragon]

These scientists are arguing.

No they are not.

1 that random mutations and natural selection is not enough

2 they propose other mechanisms (non random mutations for example)

In this context random means “random with respect to fitness or needs” this means that a mutations is equally likely to occur regardless if the organism would benefit from the mutation

So by definition non-random means the opposite, that mutations are more likely to occur given that the organism “needs” that mutation.

More absolute foolishness not remotely related to science.

So do you agree with this scientists with respect to point 1?

From the scientific perspective nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

These scientists are arguing

1 that random mutations and natural selection is not enough

2 they propose other mechanisms (non random mutations for example)

In this context random means “random with respect to fitness or needs” this means that a mutations is equally likely to occur regardless if the organism would benefit from the mutation

So by definition non-random means the opposite, that mutations are more likely to occur given that the organism “needs” that mutation.


So do you agree with this scientists with respect to point 1?

Do you find any of the mechanisms that they propose plausible and worthy of consideration?

And quite frankly I am confused, based on what I understood from your comments we already agreed, in fact I cant find any points of disagreement, so why don’t you tell me wereis our point of disagreement?

You didn't answer the question I actually asekd.