You keep asking the same questions
Yes - because you need to address them in order for your Batten/ReMine claims to have merit, yet you never do. That is OK - they never did either.
, when you are the one who is making the positive claim, you are the one who is suppose to answer to those questions.
I have addressed that, you cannot understand my responses, apparently. You are claiming that ReMine and Batten are right (a positive claim, no?) and that the number of 'allowed' fixed beneficial mutation is too few to account for human evolution from an ape-like ancestor.
I have been asking for years how they can say that. And no ReMine/Batten acolytes have been able to give a reasonable answer.
HOW do you KNOW whatever number they pretend to calculate
IS 'too few'? You don't. THEY don't. But they toss around their bug number math, and it impresses the rubes so much that they hop on the bandwagon.
Sure, but it is up to me to provide you with the actual number, even when I am not claiming that the 'available amount' is too few. Makes total sense - for those with no answers of any kind of their own.
1. How many fixed beneficial mutations does it take to get a new trait from an old one, and how do you know?
I don’t know, what do you mean by new traint? I am assuming that each trait would require a different amount of mutations.
Now you are finally learning. Sort of. Isn't that the argument? I mean, the FBEs are a means to an end - that end being the traits. Surely, you cannot be so uninspired as to think that ReMine was really just talking about mere mutations?
Let's see what ReMine was referring to:
There are two species of flies (Drosophila) that look alike but have only 25 percent of their DNA sequences in common. Yet the DNA of humans and chimpanzees share 97.5 percent. This means the DNA of two virtually identical flies is 30 times more different than that betweens humans and chimpanzees.
-The Biotic Message, p. 449
That "look alike." Traits. Here is more of ReMine's dopey prose:
Take an ape-like creature from 10 million years ago, substitute a maximum of 500,000 selectively
significant nucleotides and you would have a poet philosopher?... Is this enough to account for the significantly improved skulls, jaws, teeth, feet, speech, upright posture, abstract thought, and appreciation of music, to name just a few?
- The Biotic Message, p. 209
Traits - physical and physiological features, each governed by, at some level, genes/regulatory sequence and altered by mutations.
How many mutations would it have taken to get a human pelvis from an Australopithecine pelvis?
Golly, must be 1 million! I was actually told that by a creationist computer guy. Given that we know that a single mutation can produce this kind of pelvis:
from normal phenotypic humans, I'm thinking a million is maybe ~999,990 too many...
But you are the Darwinist,
I am? What does that mean to you?
you are the one who claims that new traits appear by random mutations , so you are the one who is supposed to answer
do you know the answer?
Not specifically, no - never claimed to. But then, I have also not claimed that the maximum number allowed via a direct application of a outdated model using a particular set of parameters is too few. Look at the pelvi above - do YOU think they represent some sort of unbridgeable chasm? Especially in light of the clear phenotypic effects of a single point mutation producing dwarfism in humans?
I don’t know how many traits, since I no idea what you mean by “trait”
And yet you parrot ReMine's argument. Fascinating.
but if the difference between humans and chimps is 1%
It is more than that, overall, but OK...
and 1% represents 30,000 sites that would imply that you need 30,000, 000 / 2 mutations
Wait... what?
30,000 sites = 30,000,000/2.....???
Is that some sort of creationist math?
30,000,000/2 = 15,000,000, not 30,000.
Oh, right - you think that all 30,000,000 nucleotide differences have to be beneficial, right.
What is your evidence that this is so?
and if you are a selectionist,
I am not, but I don;t think you quite understand how this works - even struct selectionists understand that not all DNA differences are fixed, beneficial mutations.
then the mayority of those mutations would have to be benefitial.
You keep making things up.
Are you totally unaware of neutral mutations? Segmental duplications? Indels? These processes can add lots of DNA to a genome, and there is no requirement at all that any of it be beneficial.
But once again, it all depends on your own personal view, are you a selectionist?
No, but that doesn't matter.
Do you belive that most of the mutations that get fixed and dominant in a population are beneficial?
Most of them, yes.
it is hard to make any math, or any argument against your view if you don’t define your view.
h, so you would tailor your math argument depending on whether or not I am a selectionist or not.
That tells me that you have no argument at all.
Perhaps you are a selectionists, perhaps you are a neutralist, perhaps you belive that epigenetics played a mayor role in the “human line evolution”, perhaps you belive that a mechanism like natural genetic engeneering played a mayor role, I don’t know, you are the one who has to explain his view. All the comments that I have made on the topic are based on the assumption that you are a selectionist,
And it really wouldn't matter if I were a Last-Tuesdayist, you either make the same 'math' argument, or you've got no argument.
When debating creationists, what I put forth as evidence for evolution is not tailored depending on whether the creationist is a YEC or an OEC - I use the same evidence. Arguing with YECs provides an additional avenue of argument, but beyond age of the earth stuff, my overall argument would be and is the same.
You are implying that you make DIFFERENT math arguments.
OK - let's say I am a strict neutralist and reject selection in all but a few cases.
Have at it. Let's see your new math.
I made the assumption that you would argue that most fixed mutation would be benefitial,and made the math according to that assumtion, but if that assumption is wrong please let me know and explain your view..
YOU made the math? OK... Wait - you mean that absurd 30,000,000/2 = 30,000 math?
But let me guess, you will not affirm nor reject selectionism, you will keep your world view vague and ambiguous, and try to answer with a semantic game, so that you can jump from one ´view to another every time you encounter hard questions or objections.
I am not a strict selectionist. I presume that most change is neutral unless there is evidence that it is not.
But I don't think you understand genetics very well, for there is also a 'speed limit' for the 'fixation' of neutral alleles/mutations, too. But that is OK.
Granted, I admit my mistake, but my question has not been answered, what was your point in presenting that article? What makes you think that I would disagree with any of the information in the article?
It was about how a single mutation (in that case, an insertion in a regulatory element) provided a species of fly with resistance to DDT, an obvious survival advantage.
Good to know you agree and accept that a single mutation can both alter phenotype, physically (and extensively in some cases -as in the case of dwarfism) or in a small, physiological way (DDT resistance).
That is a start.
What a surprise, you didn’t answer…. What is wrong with Demskies method of design detection? Let me guess, you will not answer to this question.
It is entertaining to see a creationist make much of an asked question not answered - I note that you have yet to answer mine - in fact, you are dutifully trying to find an out.
And it is true, I did not respond in a direct manner to your question.
But in your scenarios in which you think Dembski's method might apply, I showed that it was irrelevant.
Here is another way I know Dembski's methods are a smokescreen -
Many years ago, in similar discussions with creationists who adored Dembski and his mathemagic, I would ask things like How do his methods apply to genomes? They would guffaw and carry on and act indignant, but not answer except to offer up his bland definitions.
Then I would present a 100 base DNA sequence, and ask his acolytes to tell me whether or not it contained CSI.
The guffawing stopped. A brave soul would ask 'What is it? Is that a gene?' And I would reply - 'You tell me. Use your Dembski math and tell me all about it.'
I would then be told that they had to know whether or not it was a gene, otherwise they couldn't tell me anything about its "information."
Which means Demsbki's methods are worthless when applied to biology.
