-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The strange case of John Sanford, creationist
- Thread starter tas8831
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He thought he had such a good argument but when it failed using his own poor numbers he had to pretend that the response was never given.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
leroy
Well-Known Member
[
I am glad we agree on this too.
No it can't happen that's the point that I am making.FYI: for a mutation to achieve fixation, it takes plenty of generations to spread from the individual where the mutation occured, to +80% of ALL individuals of a population.
So why on earth would you think this could happen in 30 years?
I had my first kid when I was 36
I am glad we agree on this too.
leroy
Well-Known Member
But you can't quote any comment where the response was given right ?
leroy
Well-Known Member
Do you realize that the burden proof in on the guy who affirms that random mutations and natural selection is enough?
The question is are you that guy? Just kidding I know that you will not answer to this question
leroy
Well-Known Member
Well the I invite you to do the "correct math" spot my errors and substitute it for the correct value !!!
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That's the equivalent of agreeing that if I drop my keys, they will fall to earth instead of shooting into space.
You're becoming quite proficient at stating the obvious while pretending you're making some kind of relevant point.
Why would you make the point that fixation of a mutation in humans can't happen in 30 years, when there is nobody who claims otherwise?
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Every agriculture program, every breeding program, every lab experiment, every observation in the wild, every genome sequenced, every genetic algoritm shows that it is enough.
That is.... assuming that by "natural selection" we mean it in broad terms, to also include things like sexual selection and other such sub-processes and extra variables - all of which are natural.
Perhaps the burden of proof should be on the one who claims that something extra is required?
Or is that person exempt from a burden of proof, because that person happens to be you?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
@Subduction Zone already did that.
Alternatively, you could supply your own math which you think makes your point...
But I know already that you won't do that. ;-)
leroy
Well-Known Member
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)
leroy
Well-Known Member
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.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
In your math did you include the functional differences that are not associated with the immune system by any chance. When you figure out that number the come back with your math and we can talk about it. You will see your big number dwindle to a very small difference. You can of course ignore what is real and stay in you fantasy but the true differences that are important in phenotypic and physiologic changes is truly small. Yes we are related to the other apes after all.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Can you at least be up to date and inclusive in the theory of evolution before make pointless statements. Random mutation is only on part of a vast way of genetic and epigenetic factors that create change in species and are influenced by natural selection. There is more than enough to explain the changes we see.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Again random mutation is just one of many genetic influences. You only focus on this because of the word random and ignore all of the other evidence. Same old misuse of words by the ID fellowship of deniers. You go for an untestable explanation with no evidence instead and then rant about how much evidence is not present. I cannot keep up with all of the new advances that are continuing support evolution. Your responses show you are not even trying.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Ok then please provide the correct math
leroy
Well-Known Member
Yes that is and has always been my point.
But people like @TagliatelliMonster @tas8831 @Subduction Zone seem to disagree with us
leroy
Well-Known Member
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 .
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Of course there are other genetic components to evolution. Random mutations create the primary changes but in terms of phenotypic expression there are other important genetic and epigenetic factors at work. All supporting the theory of evolution. Mutations are critical for evolution but even sexual selection not just natural selection plays a role. But no matter what process that occurs, it all supports the theory and no other theory.