"1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin"

[BilliardsBall]

Yet you offer no evidence to support this claim or explain away the evidence that does support human evolution.

According to the literature, there are approximately 100 mutations per person per generation. If you allow for a generation time of 20 years and just those 100/person/generation mutations, it would take only 6.6 million years to account for 33 million differences. Then you factor in the fact that we are talking about divergent lines and evolution is occurring simultaneously. None of your faux statistics needed.

You mean a biologist who, along with half a dozen other knowledgeable people, has provided sound reason to reject your faux statistics. It is actually probabilities. But it does not matter. It is still wrong. Nobody is holding you hostage. You are free to do as you choose. I understand.

I addressed this elsewhere using specific numbers I was given by another evolutionist on this thread, but I believe you are taking the following assumptions:

1) enough of the mutations are positive to move forward/counteract/redact/etc. negative mutations
2) the mutations eventually become dominant/pass through the elimination caused by binary mating pairs (half from each parent), etc.
3) the mutations pass population-wide (we need only a mating pair of humans, but the chimps/apes have to spread the positive mutations so they cohere at some point)
4) the divergent lines cohere/correct mating passes on the new species/the evolution that occurs simultaneously is beneficial, etc.

Another skeptic provided math that begs the claim that more than 1 of 10 mutations (32 million of 300 million) was positive, passed down, etc. We both know that statistic is ridiculous on its face.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What? You are losing your cool.

What?

I accept that you believe that the Bible is infallible and you believe you have evidence for it. Now that you mention it, I have heard a lot about prophecy. Nothing that would lead me to believe the claims that all or many have been fulfilled.

You can stop responding to me any time you want. No one is holding you hostage.

Huh? What?

Do you want to hear about prophecy (over 1/3 of the Bible is prophecy) or hand wave that "you've heard a lot and are done hearing about it".

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have a source for 100 mutations per every individual per generation? You have a source for 100 mutations passed to the next generation? (You don't, these are binary pair matings between primates).

6*10^13 divided by 2 million (your numbers) = 300 million mutations. Not bad! Since we need only 32 million to work, since the forensics shows the same, you know, the actual math. All we need now is for one of every 9.375 mutations you claim by your math to:

* Enhance survivability
* Take the species forward/alter DNA, without killing the species
* Spread throughout the entire population of 1,000,000, since all 32 million changes are required to forward the species, etc.

"Do you understand that the math looks like it totally goes against you?"

"Learn how to do odds correctly and you will not make such poor arguments."

Why do you use the term "binary pair" as if that has any special meaning? Yes, there are on the order of one hundred mutation in the genome that you got from your parents. This has been confirmed and measured in several ways:
Mutation rates in mammalian genomes

And of course Wiki has an overview of several articles:

Mutation rate - Wikipedia

The are going with a slightly lower rate of 64 per generation, that still means only one out of a million mutations must be positive. If you need another source on how many mutations are positive I can give you that later. First let's discuss this. And you did not quite follow the math. Where did you get the crazy "one of ever 9.375 mutations" from? Let me go over the obvious with you. Extremely bad mutations cause fertilization to fail. They are not passed on. Very bad mutations cause the embryo or fetus to die en utero. They are not passed on. Bad mutations cause a death before reproduction. They are not passed on. Moderately bad mutations may be passed on, but at a lower rate than good mutations, they are eventually lost in the genome. That is unless the environment changes and those "bad mutations" suddenly become favorable. I can name one of those. As you can see bad mutations are not really that big of a problem for species survival.

When you understand this we can move on to enhanced survivability.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I addressed this elsewhere using specific numbers I was given by another evolutionist on this thread, but I believe you are taking the following assumptions:

1) enough of the mutations are positive to move forward/counteract/redact/etc. negative mutations
2) the mutations eventually become dominant/pass through the elimination caused by binary mating pairs (half from each parent), etc.
3) the mutations pass population-wide (we need only a mating pair of humans, but the chimps/apes have to spread the positive mutations so they cohere at some point)
4) the divergent lines cohere/correct mating passes on the new species/the evolution that occurs simultaneously is beneficial, etc.

Another skeptic provided math that begs the claim that more than 1 of 10 mutations (32 million of 300 million) was positive, passed down, etc. We both know that statistic is ridiculous on its face.

How can you keep forgetting about the role of natural selection?

Creationists can never seem to handle the concepts of variation and natural selection at the same time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Huh? What?

Do you want to hear about prophecy (over 1/3 of the Bible is prophecy) or hand wave that "you've heard a lot and are done hearing about it".

I have yet to see a Biblical prophecy that is not a failed prophecy. How do you deal with the obvious failed prophecies in the Bible? If you can't see them then your claims of "fulfilled prophecies" are in doubt since you have shown a prejudice against reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why do you use the term "binary pair" as if that has any special meaning? Yes, there are on the order of one hundred mutation in the genome that you got from your parents. This has been confirmed and measured in several ways:
Mutation rates in mammalian genomes

And of course Wiki has an overview of several articles:

Mutation rate - Wikipedia

The are going with a slightly lower rate of 64 per generation, that still means only one out of a million mutations must be positive. If you need another source on how many mutations are positive I can give you that later. First let's discuss this. And you did not quite follow the math. Where did you get the crazy "one of ever 9.375 mutations" from? Let me go over the obvious with you. Extremely bad mutations cause fertilization to fail. They are not passed on. Very bad mutations cause the embryo or fetus to die en utero. They are not passed on. Bad mutations cause a death before reproduction. They are not passed on. Moderately bad mutations may be passed on, but at a lower rate than good mutations, they are eventually lost in the genome. That is unless the environment changes and those "bad mutations" suddenly become favorable. I can name one of those. As you can see bad mutations are not really that big of a problem for species survival.

When you understand this we can move on to enhanced survivability.

I find his use binary pair both strange and amusing. I think he throws in those unnecessary, awkward, and sort of technical-sounding phrases to give the appearance of scientific aptitude. In practice, it produces an opposing result.

Do you think he realizes that 'binary pair' is four of something?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Huh? What?

It is rude to mock someone, because they could not understand your confusing posts. Why are you so keyed up?

Do you want to hear about prophecy (over 1/3 of the Bible is prophecy) or hand wave that "you've heard a lot and are done hearing about it".

You go ahead. When you get to something new to me, I will jump in.

 

[Tiberius]

You want statistics that natural selection (helps survivable traits of a species, like camouflage) doesn't have the power to affect individual DNA base pairs?

Are all skeptics insane?

Are you assuming that the changes that are passed on are random?

 

[Tiberius]

I forgot, what are we talking about, now?

You said, "My God set laws in place that abiogenesis seems to defy, including chirality, thermodynamics and entropy, etc."

Could you clarify exactly how abiogenesis violates those?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I addressed this elsewhere using specific numbers I was given by another evolutionist on this thread, but I believe you are taking the following assumptions:

Then be courteous and provide a link.

1) enough of the mutations are positive to move forward/counteract/redact/etc. negative mutations

No. Natural selection takes care of negative mutations. Evolution always moves forward. It is clear that your grasp of this material needs much improvement.

2) the mutations eventually become dominant/pass through the elimination caused by binary mating pairs (half from each parent), etc.

No. Dominance is not acquired by alleles over time. It would impact fixation, but not in any way you suggest. You need to study some basic genetics. Invoking Mendel does not impart a knowledge of genetics.

Your scheme has some combination of four parents for some odd and unknown reason. Which of these contribute half would be undetermined.

3) the mutations pass population-wide (we need only a mating pair of humans, but the chimps/apes have to spread the positive mutations so they cohere at some point)

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Mutations with a benefit would eventually become fixed in both populations. Unless you know some new mechanism, it would be through reproduction in both groups.

4) the divergent lines cohere/correct mating passes on the new species/the evolution that occurs simultaneously is beneficial, etc.

Again, not a clue what you are trying to say here.

Try leaving out the faux jargon. Maybe you would be more comprehensible.

Another skeptic provided math that begs the claim that more than 1 of 10 mutations (32 million of 300 million) was positive, passed down, etc. We both know that statistic is ridiculous on its face.

Skeptic of what? Science?

There are more than seven billion people on earth in different populations. If a conservative figure of 50 mutations per person exist in each, that gives 350,000,000,000 (350 billion) mutations for the entire population in one generation. This means that each generation rotates mutations through the entire human genome 106 times. This percentage increases with population size and would be greater with increased rates of per person mutations. Double the rate and the human genome has mutations rotating through 212 times. Using the former value of 350 billion and a positive allele frequency of as little as .000000001, that places the number of potential positive alleles at 350. That's 1 in a billion.

In a population of 10,000, the number of positive alleles would far lower at .0005/generation with 175 positives after 350,000 generations. These are not static, but growing populations diverging. The expectation would be for a much larger number of beneficial mutations over all. Factoring in the potential for some of these mutations altering regulatory function and even a small number could exact large phenotypic differences in seven million years. Not infeasible at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Redacted:

"Your pride disallows you from bothering to read anyone's posts but yours."

Did you not recently moan about others reading your mind? An amazing number of your assertions about others flaws are heavily illustrated in your own work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then be courteous and provide a link.

No. Natural selection takes care of negative mutations. Evolution always moves forward. It is clear that your grasp of this material needs much improvement.

No. Dominance is not acquired by alleles over time. It would impact fixation, but not in any way you suggest. You need to study some basic genetics. Invoking Mendel does not impart a knowledge of genetics.

Your scheme has some combination of four parents for some odd and unknown reason. Which of these contribute half would be undetermined.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Mutations with a benefit would eventually become fixed in both populations. Unless you know some new mechanism, it would be through reproduction in both groups.
Again, not a clue what you are trying to say here.

Try leaving out the faux jargon. Maybe you would be more comprehensible.

Skeptic of what? Science?

There are more than seven billion people on earth in different populations. If a conservative figure of 50 mutations per person exist in each, that gives 350,000,000,000 (350 billion) mutations for the entire population in one generation. This means that each generation rotates mutations through the entire human genome 106 times. This percentage increases with population size and would be greater with increased rates of per person mutations. Double the rate and the human genome has mutations rotating through 212 times. Using the former value of 350 billion and a positive allele frequency of as little as .000000001, that places the number of potential positive alleles at 350. That's 1 in a billion.

In a population of 10,000, the number of positive alleles would far lower at .0005/generation with 175 positives after 350,000 generations. These are not static, but growing populations diverging. The expectation would be for a much larger number of beneficial mutations over all. Factoring in the potential for some of these mutations altering regulatory function and even a small number could exact large phenotypic differences in seven million years. Not infeasible at all.

I wonder how eager @BilliardsBall is to apply genetics to the Noah's Ark myth (hint, study up on cheetahs first).

 

[BilliardsBall]

You've made a claim that "Natural selection, plus a blind watchmaker with no end goal in mind, cannot account for 32 million base pair changes, in 10-14 million years of evolution." I just want you to show your statistics. What is your reasoning?

Thank you--addressed elsewhere in two posts yesterday, on this thread. I even used Subduction Zone's given statistics to invalidate her claims.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How can you keep forgetting about the role of natural selection?

Creationists can never seem to handle the concepts of variation and natural selection at the same time.

I haven't forgotten natural selection, which 1) cannot enact changes on the base pair level/only sort from the pool of those changes at the macro level 2) puts the onus on the statistics YOU suggested (300 million mutations producing 32 million good ones) because it is SELECTING from among good and bad alternatives.

Your error in logic is simple--assume natural selection does magic to violate the 2 principles above.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why do you use the term "binary pair" as if that has any special meaning? Yes, there are on the order of one hundred mutation in the genome that you got from your parents. This has been confirmed and measured in several ways:
Mutation rates in mammalian genomes

And of course Wiki has an overview of several articles:

Mutation rate - Wikipedia

The are going with a slightly lower rate of 64 per generation, that still means only one out of a million mutations must be positive. If you need another source on how many mutations are positive I can give you that later. First let's discuss this. And you did not quite follow the math. Where did you get the crazy "one of ever 9.375 mutations" from? Let me go over the obvious with you. Extremely bad mutations cause fertilization to fail. They are not passed on. Very bad mutations cause the embryo or fetus to die en utero. They are not passed on. Bad mutations cause a death before reproduction. They are not passed on. Moderately bad mutations may be passed on, but at a lower rate than good mutations, they are eventually lost in the genome. That is unless the environment changes and those "bad mutations" suddenly become favorable. I can name one of those. As you can see bad mutations are not really that big of a problem for species survival.

When you understand this we can move on to enhanced survivability.

You are conflating "a small amount of base changes can change species" (correct) with "from 300 million mutations, 30 million passed to the new species without destroying its survivability". You are making near-infinite assumptions for junk DNA and etc.

You are compounding the error by mentioning how very bad mutations cause death, sterility, etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Are you assuming that the changes that are passed on are random?

No, but I'd like evolutionists to admit that natural selection can mostly affect macro changes, not DNA conjoining and DNA base information!

 

[BilliardsBall]

You said, "My God set laws in place that abiogenesis seems to defy, including chirality, thermodynamics and entropy, etc."

Could you clarify exactly how abiogenesis violates those?

Chirality - severely (to a near-infinite order of magnitude without counter-factors) limits how base substances may combine to form life building blocks, and the nano "technology" that powers life (like homochiral sugar creation and processing)...

Thermodynamics/entropy - we see nearly all things in the known universe tending toward either entropy (or if self-renewed on a cyclical basis) destruction/implosion before reorder. Case in point - scientists admonish us that we need to protect the natural world and species on the brink of extermination--after all, we could "lose just a few key species" and life dies out--yet the same scientists explain that entire kingdoms of created organic things didn't exist for a billion years, etc. Anyone seeing the interdependence of all life from bacteria to parasites to complex mammals and plants has to balk at the "it just always kind of worked out, mechanistically" approach, even given long epochs of time.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is rude to mock someone, because they could not understand your confusing posts. Why are you so keyed up?

You go ahead. When you get to something new to me, I will jump in.

I said "huh?" to let you know how I don't know where you discerned my imagined hidden agendas from. Our skeptic friends use this as shorthand all the time. I'm not "keyed up" or angry.

Prophecy explains how people on this forum behave, and it does so, unerringly. I find that extraordinary!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then be courteous and provide a link.

No. Natural selection takes care of negative mutations. Evolution always moves forward. It is clear that your grasp of this material needs much improvement.

No. Dominance is not acquired by alleles over time. It would impact fixation, but not in any way you suggest. You need to study some basic genetics. Invoking Mendel does not impart a knowledge of genetics.

Your scheme has some combination of four parents for some odd and unknown reason. Which of these contribute half would be undetermined.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Mutations with a benefit would eventually become fixed in both populations. Unless you know some new mechanism, it would be through reproduction in both groups.
Again, not a clue what you are trying to say here.

Try leaving out the faux jargon. Maybe you would be more comprehensible.

Skeptic of what? Science?

There are more than seven billion people on earth in different populations. If a conservative figure of 50 mutations per person exist in each, that gives 350,000,000,000 (350 billion) mutations for the entire population in one generation. This means that each generation rotates mutations through the entire human genome 106 times. This percentage increases with population size and would be greater with increased rates of per person mutations. Double the rate and the human genome has mutations rotating through 212 times. Using the former value of 350 billion and a positive allele frequency of as little as .000000001, that places the number of potential positive alleles at 350. That's 1 in a billion.

In a population of 10,000, the number of positive alleles would far lower at .0005/generation with 175 positives after 350,000 generations. These are not static, but growing populations diverging. The expectation would be for a much larger number of beneficial mutations over all. Factoring in the potential for some of these mutations altering regulatory function and even a small number could exact large phenotypic differences in seven million years. Not infeasible at all.

I find some specifics in your post, some unjustified generalities, like this one:

"Natural selection takes care of negative mutations. Evolution always moves forward."

And some assumptions, like this one:

"Your scheme has some combination of four parents for some odd and unknown reason. Which of these contribute half would be undetermined."

Not at all, I was pointing to the fact that we are discussing primates, they are mating pairs who birth hybrids.

And you also post things you yourself must not be reading (?), like this:

"Using the former value of 350 billion and a positive allele frequency of as little as .00000001"

You cannot explain how the negative frequency of as much as .99999999 is overcome other than "Evolution always moves forward."

Do you want to move from your rhetoric to a dialectic, or no?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you--addressed elsewhere in two posts yesterday, on this thread. I even used Subduction Zone's given statistics to invalidate her claims.

You never did such a thing.