The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[leroy]

Transposons and epigenetics, certainly (and btw, you've been using the term "epigenetics" wrong). Natural genetic engineering OTOH, no. From what I saw, it was advocated by one person who published a paper on it that was mostly ignored, but after he wrote it into a book a number of geneticists criticized it and the idea hasn't gone anywhere since.

Ok we have a disagreement on NGE, but for the most part we agree, nonrandom mutations (or nonrandom variation) played an important role.

Now given that the human line evolved too fast , all I am suggesting is that maybe* these nonrandom mutations played an important role specially in the human line……………does this sounds plausible to you?

Given the lack of information regarding what sequences makes us "human", any number at this point is going to be mostly made up, and therefore meaningless.

Again, please make an effort and try to understand my point.

There is a 1.2% single nucleotide differences between humans and chimps weather if these differences are relevant or not is not important the differences are still there and are still real and require an explanation

The likelihood of a mutation becoming fixed is directly related to how vital the mutation is. If you don't know which mutations are vital and which ones aren't, then everything else becomes meaningless.

Ok perhaps you are not understanding the argument, I´ll try to explain it once again.

1 imagine that some ancient ape (a direct ancestor of humans and chimps) had a mutation

2 this mutilation was so positive and so beneficial that in just 10 years this mutation became fixed and dominant in the whole population.

3 then an other ape (descendent of the first) had another mutation that was also so benefitial that in just 10 years it became fixed and dominant in the population (such that everybody has the 2 mutations)

4 repeat the process for 5 million years

5 you will end up with 500,000 mutations

The point is that even under this unrealistic and extremely beneficial scenario at most a population can accumulate 500,000 mutations in 5 million years……….if the differences between chimps and humans is 1.2% (36,000,000 mutations) then your 500,000 limit is not nearly enough to explain all the 36,000,000 differences.

So the conclusion is that perhaps there is something else (say nonrandom mutations) that accelerated the process and made it possible to account for the 36M mutations. If you disagree with this conclusion please explain how could 36,000,000 mutations accumulate in just 5M years.

Or you can simply say ohhh there is a small hole in the theory of evolution, perhaps this problem will be solved in the future, evolution (common ancestry) is still the best theory that we have to date and some small hole will not change that

If you think there are flaws in the argument, then explain exactly what the flaw is, do not say something useless and ambiguous like “ohhh it has already been answered but I won’t quote any comment or any source where the argument was refuted),

 

[metis]

Mutations caused by something like radiation, doesn't make them non-random.
In evolutionary context the "random" refers to "random to fitness"

That's why I used the word "patterns", such as the link of smoking to lung cancer and too much sun to skin cancer.

 

[metis]

With random I mean random with respect to the needs of the organism………..an organism is not more likely to get a mutation just because he needs it.

Correct, and this was a hypothesis that Darwin had whereas there's no evidence to it, and he used the giraffe as an example. Thus, just because a giraffe wants to reach higher branches doesn't by itself lend to offspring being borne with longer necks. However, natural selection might end up doing that in the long run if survival was at stake as giraffes with longer necks might have a better chance of survival.

so woudl you agree on that non-random mutations occure and play an important role? some examples of non-random mutations would be epigenetics, natrual genetic engeneerign, jumping genes etc.

Again, that depends on how one uses that terminology. Yes, there often are genetic "patterns" that we see whereas genes may be affected by certain stimuli with greater possibilities of altering the genotype in a certain way, but mutations are far from being predictable because of numerous other factors that could be involved.

I've missed most of this thread, so please tell me why such an emphasis on "non-random"? I'm sorta lost on what your overall point is.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ok we have a disagreement on NGE

What did I say that you think is wrong? Has NGE progressed or been widely accepted since Shapiro wrote his book?

but for the most part we agree, nonrandom mutations (or nonrandom variation) played an important role.

Again, you really don't know the subject matter. For example, certain transposon sequences are inserted randomly.

Now given that the human line evolved too fast

That's not a given.

all I am suggesting is that maybe* these nonrandom mutations played an important role specially in the human line……………does this sounds plausible to you?

If you're suggesting that transposons played an important role in human evolution, then of course. That's been known for a very long time. But you need to stop referring to them as "nonrandom mutations".

There is a 1.2% single nucleotide differences between humans and chimps weather if these differences are relevant or not is not important the differences are still there and are still real and require an explanation

Um...whether those mutations are important in making us human is certainly relevant. If a SNP confers a selective advantage, then it's more likely to become fixed in the population. If OTOH it is neutral or even deleterious, it can still become fixed but via genetic drift, which is much less likely.

Further, you're just repeating your same error where you're assuming that the genome of the human/chimp ancestor was exactly half way between modern humans and chimps.

Ok perhaps you are not understanding the argument

Oh I understand your argument; it's not like it's overly complex or technical (remember, I'm a biologist). It's just that your argument is wrong, on a number of levels.

1 imagine that some ancient ape (a direct ancestor of humans and chimps) had a mutation

2 this mutilation was so positive and so beneficial that in just 10 years this mutation became fixed and dominant in the whole population.

3 then an other ape (descendent of the first) had another mutation that was also so benefitial that in just 10 years it became fixed and dominant in the population (such that everybody has the 2 mutations)

4 repeat the process for 5 million years

5 you will end up with 500,000 mutations

The point is that even under this unrealistic and extremely beneficial scenario at most a population can accumulate 500,000 mutations in 5 million years……….if the differences between chimps and humans is 1.2% (36,000,000 mutations) then your 500,000 limit is not nearly enough to explain all the 36,000,000 differences.

All you're doing is repeating the same errors. You're also mistakenly assuming that only one mutation can become fixed at a time, and a second mutation can't arise and become fixed until after the first one is finished being fixed.

Again, that's just plain wrong.

So the conclusion is that perhaps there is something else (say nonrandom mutations) that accelerated the process and made it possible to account for the 36M mutations. If you disagree with this conclusion please explain how could 36,000,000 mutations accumulate in just 5M years.

To repeat, the way you came up with 36,000,000 is wrong. You can't just assume that the human/chimp ancestor had a genome that's exactly half way between modern humans and chimps.

If you think there are flaws in the argument, then explain exactly what the flaw is, do not say something useless and ambiguous like “ohhh it has already been answered but I won’t quote any comment or any source where the argument was refuted),

Done.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok it's "meaningless" but is still true that not all mutations are random and that non random mutations play an important role.

Being random or non-random does not determine the role of the mutation. Mutations as a whole simply contribute to the diversity of the population.

If you personally find it meaningless or unimportant then feel free to go to other threads that you personally find more important

It is not me personally there is no meaningful distinction in the total diversity of the genetics in any given genetic diversity in a population it is not meaning whether the mutation is random nor non-random..

 

[sayak83]

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.

Note this wiki article
Fixation (population genetics) - Wikipedia

For a diploid population of size N and neutral mutation rate {\displaystyle \mu }

, the initial frequency of a novel mutation is simply 1/(2N), and the number of new mutations per generation is {\displaystyle 2N\mu }

. Since the fixation rate is the rate of novel neutral mutation multiplied by their probability of fixation, the overall fixation rate is {\displaystyle 2N\mu \times {\frac {1}{2N}}=\mu }

. Thus, the rate of fixation for a mutation not subject to selection is simply the rate of introduction of such mutations.

Thus assuming that almost all of the mutations introduced are neutral (as is the case) the rate of fixation will be 60 per generation.
Sorry about the fonts not rendering. Just check the article.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe, but introducing ID would be a completely independent argument that would have to stand or fall under its own merits.

The only point that I am making is that the evidence seems to suggest that genetic variation is not always random………weather if this has theological implications that you personally don’t like or not is irrelevant at this point.

The problem wall Intelligent Design faces is ability to present a falsifiable hypothesis that could demonstrate that a natural explanation cannot be a possible explanation

This is about as demonstrating the existence of flying pigs.

 

[leroy]

What did I say that you think is wrong? Has NGE progressed or been widely accepted since Shapiro wrote his book?

if you whant to talk about NGE I would appriciate a serious objection………….claiming that Shapiro is wrong because his work has been ignored is ambigous and not a valid reply.

If you're suggesting that transposons played an important role in human evolution, then of course. That's been known for a very long time. But you need to stop referring to them as "nonrandom mutations".

I am suggestign that non random variation played an important role, trasposons are just 1 of many mechanisms that woudl have contributed.

Um...whether those mutations are important in making us human is certainly relevant.

again that is not relevant, this simply proves that you dont understand the argumnet,

the point is that the human line coudl have not accumulated that many random mutations in such a little time, this is true independently on weatehr if these mutations make us human or not,

Further, you're just repeating your same error where you're assuming that the genome of the human/chimp ancestor was exactly half way between modern humans and chimps.

its not an error it´s a generous assumtion, any value different from
"half way" woudl be even harder to expalin.

Oh I understand your argument; it's not like it's overly complex or technical (remember, I'm a biologist). It's just that your argument is wrong, on a number of levels.

ok then explain the argument with your own words

All you're doing is repeating the same errors. You're also mistakenly assuming that only one mutation can become fixed at a time,

I am assuming an average of fixed mutation for every 10 years..............this is already too generous and an unrealistically good scenario

To repeat, the way you came up with 36,000,000 is wrong. You can't just assume that the human/chimp ancestor had a genome that's exactly half way between modern humans and chimps.


Done.

again feel free to assume any value that you whant, any value different from half way woudl be more difficult to expalin.

 

[leroy]

Note this wiki article
Fixation (population genetics) - Wikipedia

Thus assuming that almost all of the mutations introduced are neutral (as is the case) the rate of fixation will be 60 per generation.
Sorry about the fonts not rendering. Just check the article.

so according to your source the probability of fixiation in a small population of say 1,000 individuals is 1 in 2,000, if you get 60 mutation then the probability woudl be 60 in 2000 (or 1 in 33)

you need 33 tries (33 generations) to get a single mutation fixed

do the math, how long will it take you to get 30,000,000 mutations fixed?

 

[leroy]

The problem wall Intelligent Design faces is ability to present a falsifiable hypothesis that could demonstrate that a natural explanation cannot be a possible explanation

This is about as demonstrating the existence of flying pigs.

this is both false and irrelevant

false because that is not true, stuff like irreducible complexity and complex specified information arguments are falsifiable

irrelevant because nobody in this thread is proposing a hypothesis for ID

 

[Jose Fly]

if you whant to talk about NGE I would appriciate a serious objection………….claiming that Shapiro is wrong because his work has been ignored is ambigous and not a valid reply.

You ignored the question. Has NGE gone anywhere or become more accepted since Shapiro published his book?

I am suggestign that non random variation played an important role, trasposons are just 1 of many mechanisms that woudl have contributed.

All you're doing is ignoring what I said and repeating your error. Again, the insertion sites for transposons are generally random.

again that is not relevant, this simply proves that you dont understand the argumnet,

the point is that the human line coudl have not accumulated that many random mutations in such a little time, this is true independently on weatehr if these mutations make us human or not

Same thing...you're just ignoring what I said and repeating your errors. Whether a mutation is neutral, deleterious, or beneficial affects the likelihood of it becoming fixed.

its not an error it´s a generous assumtion, any value different from
"half way" woudl be even harder to expalin.

Same thing....you're just ignoring what I said and repeating your errors.

ok then explain the argument with your own words

I am assuming an average of fixed mutation for every 10 years..............this is already too generous and an unrealistically good scenario

Same thing....you're just ignoring what I said and repeating your errors.

again feel free to assume any value that you whant, any value different from half way woudl be more difficult to expalin.

I'm recalling why I stopped interacting with you the last time, and understanding why so many others have done the same. Several people have been pointing out multiple errors in your arguments and your approach has been to mostly ignore it all and just repeat those errors as if no one had ever said anything to you.

If that's how things are going to go this time too, then I have zero interest.

 

[sayak83]

so according to your source the probability of fixiation in a small population of say 1,000 individuals is 1 in 2,000, if you get 60 mutation then the probability woudl be 60 in 2000 (or 1 in 33)

you need 33 tries (33 generations) to get a single mutation fixed

do the math, how long will it take you to get 30,000,000 mutations fixed?

How did you get these numbers? They are decidedly not what the article is saying. It is saying that:- suppose the mutation rate is 60 per generation per offspring and if 1000 is the population size, then the total number of mutations present in the entire population is (2*1000*60) = 120,000 per generation. That is the total number of mutations that will arise in the population of 1000 from one generation to the next (assuming the population remains the same between parent generation to offspring generation) will be 120,000 mutations. But each of these mutations have a probability of fixation of 1/2000 ie. 0.005. So out of these 120,000 new mutations that arise in the entire population in one generational turnover, about 120,000*0.005 = 60 mutations will get fixed.
So 60 of the 120,000 mutation that have arisen in a given generational turnover in that population of 1000 will get fixed in the genome.
Your numbers are wrong. 60 mutations arising in a given generation will get fixed. That's the math. Note here that the population size cancels out. So the number of mutations that get fixed is simply the average number of mutations that arise per every new birth, which we call the mutation rate.

 

[leroy]

You ignored the question. Has NGE gone anywhere or become more accepted since Shapiro published his book?


All you're doing is ignoring what I said and repeating your error. Again, the insertion sites for transposons are generally random.


Same thing...you're just ignoring what I said and repeating your errors. Whether a mutation is neutral, deleterious, or beneficial affects the likelihood of it becoming fixed.


Same thing....you're just ignoring what I said and repeating your errors.


Same thing....you're just ignoring what I said and repeating your errors.


I'm recalling why I stopped interacting with you the last time, and understanding why so many others have done the same. Several people have been pointing out multiple errors in your arguments and your approach has been to mostly ignore it all and just repeat those errors as if no one had ever said anything to you.

If that's how things are going to go this time too, then I have zero interest.

All you are doing is asserting that I have errors, but you haven’t justify them

Your alleged errors are not even relevant.

For example weather if the common ancestor of chimps and humans is half way between both or it´s more “chimp” or more “human” is irrelevant……………..for the sale of this conversation we can assume that it is more human-like than chimp-like , or more chimp-like than human, or 50/50 it doesn’t matter the problem doesn’t go away.

If you would have understand the argument, you would have noticed that I am already assuming that these mutations where extremely beneficial , I am already assuming the best possible scenario. If some of these mutations are neutral or negative then this problem becomes even harder to solve.

Why don’t you accept my challenge? Why don’t you explain the argument with your own words? That way I will know that you understand it, and if necessary I can correct you (perhaps you are unwillingly refuting an argument that I am not making)

 

[leroy]

You ignored the question. Has NGE gone anywhere or become more accepted since Shapiro published his book?

I DONT KNOW.+

do you have any good reason to reject shapiros work?

 

[leroy]

How did you get these numbers? They are decidedly not what the article is saying. It is saying that:- suppose the mutation rate is 60 per generation per offspring and if 1000 is the population size, then the total number of mutations present in the entire population is (2*1000*60) = 120,000 per generation. That is the total number of mutations that will arise in the population of 1000 from one generation to the next (assuming the population remains the same between parent generation to offspring generation) will be 120,000 mutations. But each of these mutations have a probability of fixation of 1/2000 ie. 0.005. So out of these 120,000 new mutations that arise in the entire population in one generational turnover, about 120,000*0.005 = 60 mutations will get fixed.
So 60 of the 120,000 mutation that have arisen in a given generational turnover in that population of 1000 will get fixed in the genome.
Your numbers are wrong. 60 mutations arising in a given generation will get fixed. That's the math. Note here that the population size cancels out. So the number of mutations that get fixed is simply the average number of mutations that arise per every new birth, which we call the mutation rate.

Wow, I apologize if i didn’t listen in the past. your math is clear and I think I see where my mistake is.

I am trying to digest your argument at this point, so please be patient if I get this wrong; but it is my understanding that this math compromises you to conclude that most of the differences between chimps and humans are neutral mutations………….is that correct?

 

[Jose Fly]

All you are doing is asserting that I have errors, but you haven’t justify them

Yes I did, several times.

For example weather if the common ancestor of chimps and humans is half way between both or it´s more “chimp” or more “human” is irrelevant

You can't be serious. You're actually arguing that what the genome of the last common ancestor looked like, is irrelevant to trying to figure out how/when we went from there to our current genome?

That's just plain hilarious.

If you would have understand the argument, you would have noticed that I am already assuming that these mutations where extremely beneficial , I am already assuming the best possible scenario. If some of these mutations are neutral or negative then this problem becomes even harder to solve.

No, you're not even doing the math right, as many, many people have tried to convey to you.

Why don’t you accept my challenge? Why don’t you explain the argument with your own words? That way I will know that you understand it, and if necessary I can correct you (perhaps you are unwillingly refuting an argument that I am not making)

You want my honest answer? It's because your "challenge" is incredibly stupid. It contains a number of fundamental errors, involves laughable math, and has no discernable consistent point. It's also written in such a way that makes me wonder if you're very old or young, or if you drink while you post.

The only reason I'm even engaging is because it's pretty funny to watch.

 

[leroy]

You can't be serious. You're actually arguing that what the genome of the last common ancestor looked like, is irrelevant to trying to figure out how/when we went from there to our current genome?
.

You have to explain 36,000,000 single nucleotide differences between chimps and humans. Some of these differences came from the chimp line and some from the human line. It doesn’t matter if the ratio is 50%/50% or 10%/90% or 25%/75% you still have to explain these 36 million differences

 

[Jose Fly]

You have to explain 36,000,000 single nucleotide differences between chimps and humans. Some of these differences came from the chimp line and some from the human line. It doesn’t matter if the ratio is 50%/50% or 10%/90% or 25%/75% you still have to explain these 36 million differences

And this is another aspect of your posts that I find hilarious.....how you continuously ignore much of what's posted to you and just repeat the same mistakes over, and over, and over, and over.

Let me ask you....have you ever presented this "challenge" to an actual geneticist or evolutionary biologist?

 

[leroy]

And this is another aspect of your posts that I find hilarious.....how you continuously ignore much of what's posted to you and just repeat the same mistakes over, and over, and over, and over.

Let me ask you....have you ever presented this "challenge" to an actual geneticist or evolutionary biologist?

Again you are asserting that it is a mistake but you haven’t explained why is it a mistake.

My point is that it doesn’t matter if the ancestor is half way between chimps and humans to at some other point, the problem doesn’t go away. So ether refute my point, or admit that you cant refute it.

Let me ask you....have you ever presented this "challenge" to an actual geneticist or evolutionary biologist?

Biologists and geneticists are aware of this challenge and they are working to find a solution, you seem to be the only biologist that is not aware of this challenge.


But the answer is no, I haven’t present this challenge to a biologist nor a geneticist (except for those in this forum)

 

[Jose Fly]

Again you are asserting that it is a mistake but you haven’t explained why is it a mistake.

My point is that it doesn’t matter if the ancestor is half way between chimps and humans to at some other point, the problem doesn’t go away. So ether refute my point, or admit that you cant refute it.

I've lost all interest in repeating myself ad nauseum.

Biologists and geneticists are aware of this challenge and they are working to find a solution, you seem to be the only biologist that is not aware of this challenge.

Names please.

But the answer is no, I haven’t present this challenge to a biologist nor a geneticist (except for those in this forum)

Why not?