Putting God's Design In Perspective

[tas8831]

Ohhh do I need an academic background to ask questions in an apen forum for lay people?

No, but having one in an appropriate field might at least lend weight your Dunning-Kruger-effect laden 'questions presented as statements' style of arguing and your dismissal of evidence that you do not like.

....
The human genome is 3,000,000,000 BP long, if we share 99% of our genome with the chimp-human ancestor.that lived 5M years ago.... that would mean that there is a difference of 30,000,000bp so this is where the 30,000,000 number comes from

See I answer questions directly, why don't you do the same?

You think you answer questions directly? Shall I compile evidence to the contrary?

So please given that you have so many academic credentials please ether

1 show that the process of random mutations and NS can account for this 30,000,000 difference..... (if the 30,000,000 number is wrong please use the correct value, when you present your proof )

The exact number is irrelevant. The real question is why you think that number is even relevant to what you seem to be arguing.
In fact, your question makes no sense for you seem to be implying that all 30 million were selected for, which nobody has ever claimed, even the strict selectionists understand that not all mutations are themselves under selection. An appropriate amount of actual study, as in earning a degree in maybe biology, would help to alleviate your false understandings.

2 join your peers and admit that such thing has never been proven

Yes, that 30 million differences are the exact number and that they were all selected for has not only never been proven, but nobody but creationists with no understanding of genetics has ever made such a claim that I am aware of.

3 avoid a direct answer and keep your position vague and ambiguous

Or maybe he could keep asking the same bogus questions premised on an unrealized ignorance of the material like so many others seem to do.

 

[tas8831]

PREFACE

Didn't you just write something about answering questions directly?

I can agree with your points, those creationists are wrong

Good on you. And yet...

What you don’t seem to understand is that you are the one who is affirming evolution, you are trhe one who is supposed to explain how are things are supposed to work. You are the one who is suppose to answer to this questions

And you are the one that makes unsupported assertions, and then ignores or defends against any and all attempts to correct your erroneous beliefs.

1 how many mutations do you need to “evolve” a human and a chimp form a common ancestor

No idea. I AM pretty certain, however, that it is not some huge, unachievable number like so many creationists insist. And I have already explained why to you on this very forum on more than 1 occasion, so that you are asking the same questions again can only mean 1 thing...
Starting way back in February 2019... And that is just in this thread - you had run off from our previous discussions. i will see if I can find those and start a new thread on them.

2 Is there enough time for such mutations to occur

Clearly.

The only point that I made is that assuming* that you need 30,000,000+ beneficial mutations there wouldn’t be enough time to evolve a human

Yes, and that is total bull feces assumption premised on a total ignorance of evolution, genetics, the relationship between genotype and phenotype, etc..

If you reject this assumption please let me know which are the correct numbers,

Don't know. What is your evidence that it is remotely relevant, much less correct? You just assume that the estimates total nucleotide identity difference = the number of beneficial mutations needed.
That is nonsense. Any 2 people differ by millions of bps - do you think those are all selectable beneficial mutations as well?

The problem is that you will not accept nor reject the assumption, you will simply keap your position vague and ambiguous and adopt a position of “eternal skepticism”

The REAL problem is that you just ignore my answers because they are not what you wanted them to be.

And you never 'directly answered ' these - while you agreed creationists are wrong, you then went on to use those wrong notions to base your 'questions' on, in particular the ones in bold:




1. it seems that the creationists conflates DNA sequences and genes, or thinks the entire genome is genes, or something.
2. it seems the creationist believes that ALL differences occur only in genes
3. it seems the creationist does not know that only about 2% of the genome is genes, with maybe another 10-20% 'essential' conserved sequence (like telomeres, regulatory sequence, etc.).
4. it seems the creationist believes that ALL of the % difference between humans and chimps MUST account for the phenotpyic differences
5. it seems the creationist does not know about the ~1.6% DNA sequence difference between any 2 random humans - or about 48 million bases. According to the creationists logic, any 2 random people SHOULD look almost nothing alike - and I do not just mean different color hair and height/weight/nose shape/etc., I mean, according to creationist logic, any 2 humans should look almost as different as humans and chimps do!

 

[tas8831]

The only point that I made is that assuming* that you need 30,000,000+ beneficial mutations there wouldn’t be enough time to evolve a human

Amazingly, you've been making this same argument for at almost 2 years...

What is Evolution? Lets define it

"Pretend that an ancient ape (the ancestor of humans and chimps) received a beneficial mutación , this mutation is so beneficial that in just 1 generation (10 years) this mutation becomes fixed and dominant in the population.

Repeat the process for 500,000 generations (5 million years) and you end up with an ape who accumulated 500,000 mutations.

We are suppose to share 99% of our genetic material with chimps. This represents 30,000,000 base pairs (given that our genome is 3B base pairs long.)

In other words as an evolutionist you need to explain how 30,000,000 benefitial mutations took place and became fixed in the genome in just 5,000,000 years.

Even in the best possible (and unrealistic) scenario one can imagine at most account for 500,000 differences...... You need to explain 30,000,000 genetic differences between chimps and humans."​

Amazing...

By the way - Sanford just did what most professional creationists do - once he went full YEC, he decided that being honest was no longer necessary. More money in YECism than in real science.

 

[leroy]

You think you answer questions directly? Shall I compile evidence to the contrary?

Yes I answered the question directly, I answered clearly and unambiguously where I got the 30M number.

The exact number is irrelevant. The real question is why you think that number is even relevant

Granted, the exact number is not relevant.

The relevant question is can you show that the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection account for the differences between
humans a d the common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees ?

But will you answer to this question? Obviously not

even the strict selectionists understand that not all mutations are themselves under select.

Sure, feel free to choose any ratio of neutral and positive mutations in your proof.

Or you can admit that you can not prove it, admit that no model of evolution has ever been show to account successfully for the difrences between humans and the "common ancestor"

Or maybe he could keep asking the same bogus questions premised on an unrealized ignorance of the material like so many others seem to do.

Ok you clearly whent for option "3"

3 avoid a direct answer and keep your position vague and ambiguous

 

[leroy]

PREFACE

Didn't you just write something about answering questions directly?



Good on you. And yet...

And you are the one that makes unsupported assertions, and then ignores or defends against any and all attempts to correct your erroneous beliefs.


No idea. I AM pretty certain, however, that it is not some huge, unachievable number like so many creationists insist. And I have already explained why to you on this very forum on more than 1 occasion, so that you are asking the same questions again can only mean 1 thing...
Starting way back in February 2019... And that is just in this thread - you had run off from our previous discussions. i will see if I can find those and start a new thread on them.

Clearly.

Yes, and that is total bull feces assumption premised on a total ignorance of evolution, genetics, the relationship between genotype and phenotype, etc..
Don't know. What is your evidence that it is remotely relevant, much less correct? You just assume that the estimates total nucleotide identity difference = the number of beneficial mutations needed.
That is nonsense. Any 2 people differ by millions of bps - do you think those are all selectable beneficial mutations as well?

The REAL problem is that you just ignore my answers because they are not what you wanted them to be.

And you never 'directly answered ' these - while you agreed creationists are wrong, you then went on to use those wrong notions to base your 'questions' on, in particular the ones in bold:




1. it seems that the creationists conflates DNA sequences and genes, or thinks the entire genome is genes, or something.
2. it seems the creationist believes that ALL differences occur only in genes
3. it seems the creationist does not know that only about 2% of the genome is genes, with maybe another 10-20% 'essential' conserved sequence (like telomeres, regulatory sequence, etc.).
4. it seems the creationist believes that ALL of the % difference between humans and chimps MUST account for the phenotpyic differences
5. it seems the creationist does not know about the ~1.6% DNA sequence difference between any 2 random humans - or about 48 million bases. According to the creationists logic, any 2 random people SHOULD look almost nothing alike - and I do not just mean different color hair and height/weight/nose shape/etc., I mean, according to creationist logic, any 2 humans should look almost as different as humans and chimps do!

Ok if all my assumptions are wrong and nonsense, feel free to provide your own model with the correct assumptions and show that the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection can account for the differences between humans and the common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees

Orrrr y..... ou can admit that such proof doesn't exist

Orrrrrr...... You can avoid your burden for other 2 years and find excuses

 

[tas8831]

Ok if all my assumptions are wrong and nonsense,

They are, as I have documented and explained over and over.

feel free to provide your own model with the correct assumptions and show that the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection can account for the differences between humans and the common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees

You just can't seem to get it - those 30 million differences you keep harping on - why on earth do you think they are ALL beneficial and under selection?

Why don't you explain that?

Why would some HAVE to replace nonsense to show that it was really nonsense?

Orrrr y..... ou can admit that such proof doesn't exist

Orrrrrr...... You can avoid your burden for other 2 years and find excuses

No excuses needed - under standard estimates of mutation rates, the differences between humans and chimps is right about where they should be. How many beneficial, selectable mutations account for the major differences between humans and chimps, and how do you know that? As I have stated repeatedly, I have no idea, but based on what we do know about the genotype-phenotype relationships, I am almost certain that it is nowhere near the number that crazy creationists like to toss around to impress the rubes.

And why can you not 'directly answer' or address my questions/concerns? I thought you were all about that?

And you never 'directly answered ' these - while you agreed creationists are wrong, you then went on to use those wrong notions to base your 'questions' on, in particular the ones in bold:

1. it seems that the creationists conflates DNA sequences and genes, or thinks the entire genome is genes, or something.
2. it seems the creationist believes that ALL differences occur only in genes
3. it seems the creationist does not know that only about 2% of the genome is genes, with maybe another 10-20% 'essential' conserved sequence (like telomeres, regulatory sequence, etc.).
4. it seems the creationist believes that ALL of the % difference between humans and chimps MUST account for the phenotpyic differences
5. it seems the creationist does not know about the ~1.6% DNA sequence difference between any 2 random humans - or about 48 million bases. According to the creationists logic, any 2 random people SHOULD look almost nothing alike - and I do not just mean different color hair and height/weight/nose shape/etc., I mean, according to creationist logic, any 2 humans should look almost as different as humans and chimps do!

 

[tas8831]

Yes I answered the question directly, I answered clearly and unambiguously where I got the 30M number.

And then you implied that they were all beneficial and selected for. That is total BS.

The relevant question is can you show that the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection account for the differences between
humans a d the common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees ?

My gosh, did you not even read, or not comprehend what I wrote?

THE VERY NEXT LINE - which you 'inexplicably' left out when you quoted me:

In fact, your question makes no sense for you seem to be implying that all 30 million were selected for, which nobody has ever claimed, even the strict selectionists understand that not all mutations are themselves under selection. An appropriate amount of actual study, as in earning a degree in maybe biology, would help to alleviate your false understandings.

Why did you omit that from your response?

But will you answer to this question? Obviously not

I have several times. You either choose not to read it or cannot understand it or reject because it does not fit with what you really want to be the case.

Sure, feel free to choose any ratio of neutral and positive mutations in your proof.

OK - 0.003% of those 30 million differences you keep mentioning were beneficial and selected for.

Or you can admit that you can not prove it, admit that no model of evolution has ever been show to account successfully for the difrences between humans and the "common ancestor"

Why would I admit to something that you dreamed up out of desperation?

Ok you clearly whent for option "3"

As opposed to paraphrasing a YEC electrical engineer and never yielding?

How about - for the first time ever - providing evidence that your 30 million differences were all beneficial and under selection?

How about you pick any trait that differs between humans and chimps and tell us all how many beneficial mutation were required to account for the difference and how you know this?

I'm betting you will just keep repeating the same regurgitating BS that you've been throwing around for the last 2 years.

 

[leroy]

They are, as I have documented and explained over and over.



You just can't seem to get it - those 30 million differences you keep harping on - why on earth do you think they are ALL beneficial and under selection?

Why don't you explain that?

Why would some HAVE to replace nonsense to show that it was really nonsense?


No excuses needed - under standard estimates of mutation rates, the differences between humans and chimps is right about where they should be. Howe many beneficial, selectable mutations account for the major differences between humans and chimps? As I have stated repeatedly, I have no idea, but based on what we do know about the genotype-phenotype relationships, I am almost certain that it is nowhere near the number that crazy creationists like to toss around to impress the rubes.

And why can you not 'directly answer' or address my questions/concerns? I thought you were all about that?

And you never 'directly answered ' these - while you agreed creationists are wrong, you then went on to use those wrong notions to base your 'questions' on, in particular the ones in bold:

1. it seems that the creationists conflates DNA sequences and genes, or thinks the entire genome is genes, or something.
2. it seems the creationist believes that ALL differences occur only in genes
3. it seems the creationist does not know that only about 2% of the genome is genes, with maybe another 10-20% 'essential' conserved sequence (like telomeres, regulatory sequence, etc.).
4. it seems the creationist believes that ALL of the % difference between humans and chimps MUST account for the phenotpyic differences
5. it seems the creationist does not know about the ~1.6% DNA sequence difference between any 2 random humans - or about 48 million bases. According to the creationists logic, any 2 random people SHOULD look almost nothing alike - and I do not just mean different color hair and height/weight/nose shape/etc., I mean, according to creationist logic, any 2 humans should look almost as different as humans and chimps do!

Who is ready for other 100+ pages where @tas8831 fails to present his proof?

You just can't seem to get it - those 30 million differences you keep harping on - why on earth do you think they are ALL beneficial and under selection?

Why don't you explain that?

It's your theory, feel free to make your model with any ratio of benefitial mutations that you might find convinient.

What you don't seem to understand is that "my assumtions" where not intended to be "correct assumptions" they where intended to be generous assumptions intended to minimize the problems of your theory.

Adding to many neutral mutations would cause even worst problems for your theory, that is why I generalously remove them from the ecuation. But feel free to include them in your proof

 

[leroy]

@tas8831

OK - 0.003% of those 30 million differences you keep mentioning were beneficial and selected for.

Ok is there any successful model that shows that to be true?

Where / how did you got those numbers?

If evolution is caused mainly by random mutations one would predict that the speed of evolution has to be nearly constant, are you willing to hold that prediction?

And just to prevent other strawman arguments why don't you make a detailed description of your model, specifically I would like to know where those 0.0003% mutations where the only ones that affected the phenotype? Or does your model include a relevant number of neutral mutations that affected the phenotype?

How about - for the first time ever - providing evidence that your 30 million differences were all beneficial and under selection?

.

And you still don't understand.... I am not a darwinist, I don't belive that random mutations (benefitial nor neutral) played a mayor role.

 

[tas8831]

@tas8831


Ok is there any successful model that shows that to be true?

Where / how did you got those numbers?

I made it up based on what you've been writing.

And you got your number by multiplying 3000000000 x 0.99 and subtracting that from 3000000000. Genius!
Where is the successful model that shows that to be true?

If evolution is caused mainly by random mutations one would predict that the speed of evolution has to be nearly constant, are you willing to hold that prediction?

Why would I hold to something you just made up? Where is your evidence of this?
Are you equating the mutation rate with the rate of evolutionary change? Why?

And just to prevent other strawman arguments

The best way to do that is to stop creationists from posting on the web or writing books.

why don't you make a detailed description of your model, specifically I would like to know where those 0.0003% mutations where the only ones that affected the phenotype?

I told you - I made it up just like you make things up all the time.

Or does your model include a relevant number of neutral mutations that affected the phenotype?

Does yours? You keep implying (or stating outright) that you think the entire difference must be beneficial mutations, even as you ask me about neutral mutations (which are not under selection) - why do you do that? Trolling?

And you still don't understand.... I am not a darwinist, I don't belive that random mutations (benefitial nor neutral) played a mayor role.

Well I guess that is why you ignore corrections - for YEARS - to your erroneous claims on the subject.
That is why I asked you for your IDCreationist model that explains the numbers. I guess you don't have one.

 

[tas8831]

Who is ready for other 100+ pages where @tas8831 fails to present his proof?

I never offered a proof - you are the one that keeps writing fake things over and over, relying on professional propagandists for your fake information.

What you don't seem to understand is that "my assumtions" where not intended to be "correct assumptions" they where intended to be generous assumptions intended to minimize the problems of your theory.

So generous, still relying on laughably erroneous and out of date nonsense to formulate your strawmen.

Adding to many neutral mutations would cause even worst problems for your theory, that is why I generalously remove them from the ecuation. But feel free to include them in your proof

Why is that?

Are you of the mind that in order to get a human from an ape-like ancestor we would NEED millions of beneficial mutations?

Yes, yes you are.

This is why I have been asking for for 2 years to provider evidence that this is so, for I know that such a position is BS, which is why you have never been able to come up with anything remotely relevant and instead just do what you are doing here.

The things you ignored (as usual):

You just can't seem to get it - those 30 million differences you keep harping on - why on earth do you think they are ALL beneficial and under selection?

Why don't you explain that?

Why would some HAVE to replace nonsense to show that it was really nonsense?


No excuses needed - under standard estimates of mutation rates, the differences between humans and chimps is right about where they should be. Howe many beneficial, selectable mutations account for the major differences between humans and chimps? As I have stated repeatedly, I have no idea, but based on what we do know about the genotype-phenotype relationships, I am almost certain that it is nowhere near the number that crazy creationists like to toss around to impress the rubes.

And why can you not 'directly answer' or address my questions/concerns? I thought you were all about that?

And you never 'directly answered ' these - while you agreed creationists are wrong, you then went on to use those wrong notions to base your 'questions' on, in particular the ones in bold:

1. it seems that the creationists conflates DNA sequences and genes, or thinks the entire genome is genes, or something.
2. it seems the creationist believes that ALL differences occur only in genes
3. it seems the creationist does not know that only about 2% of the genome is genes, with maybe another 10-20% 'essential' conserved sequence (like telomeres, regulatory sequence, etc.).
4. it seems the creationist believes that ALL of the % difference between humans and chimps MUST account for the phenotpyic differences
5. it seems the creationist does not know about the ~1.6% DNA sequence difference between any 2 random humans - or about 48 million bases. According to the creationists logic, any 2 random people SHOULD look almost nothing alike - and I do not just mean different color hair and height/weight/nose shape/etc., I mean, according to creationist logic, any 2 humans should look almost as different as humans and chimps do!

 

[leroy]

I


You just can't seem to get it - those 30 million differences you keep harping on - why on earth do you think they are ALL beneficial and under selection?

Granted perhaps I made the false assumption that you are a selections who would argue that evolution is caused mainly by beneficial mutations.

But given that you are a neutralist, how do you explain the
“super fast rate” of evolution in the human line Why humans have evolved so fast

According to the article the fast evolution was caused by extreme selective pressure, but given that you are a neutralist, how do you explain the data?

No excuses needed - under standard estimates of mutation rates, the differences between humans and chimps is right about where they should be.

This estimates are based on molecular clocks and phylogenetics, not based on diferect observations on how fast random mutations occur and become fixed and dominant in a population.


those wrong notions to base your 'questions' on, in particular the ones in bold:

.

2. it seems the creationist believes that ALL differences occur only in genes

Ok, that’s wrong, so what?

I personally have never seen a creationist making such a claim

3. it seems the creationist does not know that only about 2% of the genome is genes, with maybe another 10-20% 'essential' conserved sequence (like telomeres, regulatory sequence, etc.).

Ok, that’s wrong, so what?

I personally have never seen a creationist making such a claim

4. it seems the creationist believes that ALL of the % difference between humans and chimps MUST account for the phenotpyic differences

I would say that most differences would, I am wrong? Why is this relevant?

5. it seems the creationist does not know about the ~1.6% DNA sequence difference between any 2 random humans - or about 48 million bases. According to the creationists logic, any 2 random people SHOULD look almost nothing alike - and I do not just mean different color hair and height/weight/nose shape/etc., I mean, according to creationist logic, any 2 humans should look almost as different as humans and chimps do!

What is your point? I haven made any claims on the differences between any 2 humans I personally font know how similar are 2 humans, I am just taking the 99% similarity between chimps and humans that “evolutionists site” and simply making the generous assumption that this 1% represents the whole genome even though we both know that this 1% difference only represents coding orthologs genes if we take in to account non coding dna and non orthologs genes the difference would be far greater that 1% making your problem even harder to solve

 

[leroy]

Why would I hold to something you just made up? Where is your evidence of this?
Are you equating the mutation rate with the rate of evolutionary change? Why?

If you don’t believe that evolution is caused mainly by random mutations and natural selection +genetic drift) then we don’t have a point of disagreement,

See this is why it is very important to answer questions clearly and unambiguously, if I would have known that you reject such idea we would have saved lots of time.

So I will ask you directly, do you hold the view that evolution is caused mainly by random mutations, natural selection and genetic drift? Yes or no?

 

[tas8831]

Granted perhaps I made the false assumption that you are a selections who would argue that evolution is caused mainly by beneficial mutations.

You mean like how you granted that last year?

"Granted, my mistake was assuming that you where a selectionist , implying that most (or atleast a big portion) of mutations would have to be positive. But ok now I know that you are a neutralist."​

I do like the other thing you said last year:

"But you still have to explain the 3 million mutations that where benefitial. 50,000 is still too few."​

50,000. 500,000. 3 million. 30 million. Such precision in the creationist argument!

But given that you are a neutralist, how do you explain the
“super fast rate” of evolution in the human line Why humans have evolved so fast

According to the article the fast evolution was caused by extreme selective pressure, but given that you are a neutralist, how do you explain the data?

Wow...
Do you not understand the difference between a neutralist and a selection?

1. That news article contained no actual data, just people's opinions, so there is nothing to explain.
2. They are not discussing that mutational changes were 'fast'. There is a difference between evolution of genotypes and evolution of phenotypes. Phenotypic change can appear 'fast' when selection pressures are high, which seems to be what they are referring to (I cannot find a publication from Tattersall in 2012, so I cannot comment further).
And I won't go down more rabbit holes for you. Stick to one set of assertions and please stop trying to change your position.

This estimates are based on molecular clocks and phylogenetics, not based on diferect observations on how fast random mutations occur and become fixed and dominant in a population.

What estimates are based on 'molecular clocks and phylogenetics"? The Tattersall article did not mention DNA at all. You keep jumping around - what is your point now?

those wrong notions to base your 'questions' on, in particular the ones in bold:

2. it seems the creationist believes that ALL differences occur only in genes

Ok, that’s wrong, so what?

What is RIGHT with it? Surely, a genetics expert like you knows that only about 2% of the genome IS genes, right?

I personally have never seen a creationist making such a claim

I saw one just the other day claim that all of the nucleotide differences between humans and chimps are beneficial mutations. Where do such mutations take place? Genes (or regulatory sequence). Golly, I wonder if it is really necessary for a creationist to come right out and say something....

3. it seems the creationist does not know that only about 2% of the genome is genes, with maybe another 10-20% 'essential' conserved sequence (like telomeres, regulatory sequence, etc.).

Ok, that’s wrong, so what?

See my reply to your last statement.

I personally have never seen a creationist making such a claim

Yet you are OK with it.
Are you aware that a person does not have to come right out and say something for others to draw conclusions?

4. it seems the creationist believes that ALL of the % difference between humans and chimps MUST account for the phenotpyic differences

I would say that most differences would, I am wrong? Why is this relevant?

me: it seems the creationist does not know that only about 2% of the genome is genes, with maybe another 10-20% 'essential' conserved sequence (like telomeres, regulatory sequence, etc.).

you:Ok, that’s wrong, so what?[/quote]

5. it seems the creationist does not know about the ~1.6% DNA sequence difference between any 2 random humans - or about 48 million bases. According to the creationists logic, any 2 random people SHOULD look almost nothing alike - and I do not just mean different color hair and height/weight/nose shape/etc., I mean, according to creationist logic, any 2 humans should look almost as different as humans and chimps do!

What is your point?[/quote]

You've been making hay about this 30 million differences, claiming it is too many (or too few - who knows what you mean half the time?), but when I mention a number larger than your 'evolution stopper' between TWO HUMANS, and you alike, 'Yeah, whatever... I'll have to see what ReMine or Sanford or Shapiro said about it ...'

I haven made any claims on the differences between any 2 humans

Are you for real?
I mentioned this to put your 30 million between humans and chimps claim in context.
I guess that went over your head...

I personally font know how similar are 2 humans, I am just taking the 99% similarity between chimps and humans that “evolutionists site” and simply making the generous assumption that this 1% represents the whole genome even though we both know that this 1% difference only represents coding orthologs genes if we take in to account non coding dna and non orthologs genes the difference would be far greater that 1% making your problem even harder to solve

Assertions premised on paraphrases that you have no background in is not a good way to make "arguments."
Of course, I already dealt with this in the Sanford thread. I guess you haven't read it yet. Or ignored it. Or couldn't deal with and are pretending it doesn't exist.

Perhaps you could take a few classes on biology and genetics and get back to me? Because your ever-changing positions and paraphrases and general ignorance is demonstrative of someone in over their head but too proud to admit it, or too Dunning-Krugery to see it.

 

[tas8831]

If you don’t believe that evolution is caused mainly by random mutations and natural selection +genetic drift) then we don’t have a point of disagreement,

I accept the evidence that it is.
You are just in denial.

See this is why it is very important to answer questions clearly and unambiguously,

So I will ask you directly, do you hold the view that evolution is caused mainly by random mutations, natural selection and genetic drift? Yes or no?

Yes, as well as the other things I have mentioned that you seem intent to ignore (then to later imply it was your position in the first place).

In keeping with answering questions clearly and unambiguously:

Do you have evidence that transposons can spread more quickly through a population than SNPs? Yes or no. And if yes, provide at least 1 link to a non-news release that supports this.

 

[tas8831]

And he never did....

SMH....
YOU presented the claim, with NO support whatsoever. Asking me to then refute the mere assertion you made (copied from Don Batten) is disingenuous and lame.

So can you provide rationale and evidence FOR? it was, after all, your claim.

See, it doesn't work the way you want it to - you cannot just toss out an assertion then demand others refute it. Your way is the child's way. Are you a child?

What is your evidence for your yet-again repeated claim about neutral mutations?

Thanks. Now how about providing some actual SUPPORT for your Batten/ReMine paraphrases?


Like about neutral mutations? Like about how all the mutational differences between humans and chimps are beneficial? Like ignoring the Grant and Flake papers and the Ewans' quote? Like your repeated unsupported claims about 50,000 mutations being 'too few'?


Let me help you out, as you are clearly in over your head -

Haldane's model was about FIXED, BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS.

NOT total number of mutations. NOT NOT NOT total number of mutations.

Get it?
Well, we can start by your favorably referring to the Batten essay, wherein he implies that Haldane's model was about 'building' genomes. Then we have you bringing up neutral mutations.
Anything else?

You referred to neutral mutations and total mutations in a discussion on Haldane's model, which is only about fixing beneficial mutations.
If you knew all about that, why did you even mention neutral mutations?

As a dodge? As a distraction?
Why?

You referred to neutral mutations and total mutations in a discussion on Haldane's model, which is only about fixing beneficial mutations.
If you knew all about that, why did you even mention neutral mutations?

As a dodge? As a distraction?
Why?

I never mentioned neutral mutations - YOU DID.

So tell me why YOU brought up neutral mutations in the first place.

Have you read ReMine's book? It seems not, for even the great electrical engineer creationist ReMine allowed for some tens of thousands of fixed neutral mutations on top of his calculated 1667 fixed beneficial ones. He said they were too few, of course - but like you and Batten, he never even tried to explain why he drew that conclusion.

By the way - yes, neutral mutant alleles can affect phenotype, but by definition, the changes are do not affect fitness.
The fact that you brought up neutral mutations.

Can you SUPPORT it with evidence or not? Can you even provide a logical rationale for asserting that it is too few?

It seems the answer is no, and you expect me to "refute" a made-up assertion.

Unlike you - or Batten, or ReMine - I, at least, provided a rationale and some supporting evidence. Odd that you decided to totally ignore it.
Um....

Yes, I can refute your claim that the article you linked indicates that "3,000,000 mutations where cruzial [sic] in developing important stuff that differentiate us from chimps" is at all relevant to your initial claims (which you are now, of course, changing upon realizing that you screwed up royally) -

"Most of these differences lie in what is believed to be DNA of little or no function. However, as many as 3 million of the differences may lie in crucial protein-coding genes or other functional areas of the genome."​

No mention of "fixed beneficial mutations", which is what your original claims ala Batten/ReMine were about. Just "differences".

Remember? CONGRATS! You just DEMOLISHED ReMine's and Batten's Haldane's Dilemma argument!

LOL!!!

And the very next sentence:

"As the sequences of other mammals and primates emerge in the next couple of years, we will be able to determine what DNA sequence changes are specific to the human lineage. The genetic changes that distinguish humans from chimps will likely be a very small fraction of this set,"​

The word "beneficial" occurs nowhere in the article.


FAIL.


Please provide evidence that 50,000 FIXED BENEFICIAL mutations are "too few" to account for human evolution from an apelike ancestor.

No more dodging and obfuscation and goal post shifting.

As I have already outlined (and you either did not understand or ignored for "plausible deniability" purposes), I do not think some gigantic number of mutations (beneficial or otherwise) are "required" to explain human traits evolved from an ape-like ancestor for the following reasons:

1. There really no 'brand new' traits that humans possess that chimps do not, indicating that our common ancestor also that the same basic traits
2. Therefore, we only need to "tweak" existing traits, and tweaking an existing trait does NOT require some large number of beneficial mutations
3. Support for this - point mutation in the FGFR-3 gene causing achondroplasia - altered limb-to-trunk proportion, altered facial characteristics, reduced joints, etc. All from one mutation. Reminder - I am NOT presenting this as a beneficial mutation, just the reality that MULTIPLE phenotypic traits can be altered, in this case, by a single mutation.

I predict that it will be possible, at some point, to map out specific mutations that resulted in specific phenotypes. We are not there now. But at least I have a foundationally-supported position with an example.

You have mere assertions premised on someone else's mere assertions based on someone else's mere assertions, who premised those assertions on personal incredulity, ignorance, and a desire to sway the under-informed to a creationist viewpoint by arguing with numbers.

Now YOU provide the evidence-based rationale for YOUR position, that "50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and humans" - and to be specific, this has to be 'fixed, beneficial mutations', because THAT is what Haldane's model and the creationist argument based on that is actually about.

In order for you to make your position valid, you must, at least:

1. Pick a trait that you think is so special in us
2. Identify the ancestral version of it
3. explain how many fixed beneficial mutations would have been required for that transition
4. explain how you know this, with at least a real-life "model" as I presented

OR

You could just admit that you were taken in by Don Batten's distorted misrepresentation of Haldane's model (it is NOT about 'building' a genome!) and ran with it without understanding the premise.

Your move.

 

[tas8831]

Neutral theory and other evidence points to it acting as a 'mutation sink' of sorts. The selectionist view that it should have been removed is premised on energy use during replication, yet DNA is copied only once, most cells expend more energy just maintaining concentration gradients on a daily basis.

Perusing this old thread, I provided the above in response to @Dan From Smithville question re: why is so much noncoding DNA still in the genome.

A colleague and I recently discussed this, about how relying on the strict selectionist argument about energy expenditure and why keeping so much 'junkDNA' would require too much energy, thus it would have been selected out, and this inspired me to look for some specific numbers.

I finally found some sources re: a cell's ATP usage and the amount of ATP needed to bond nucleotides, so I present the following as a generic exercise in the science and perception of big numbers for the non-scientist public.

It takes 4* ATPs to bind two nucleotides together. In a genome of more or less typical mammalian size (like ours) of 3 billion bp, that means an expenditure of `24 billion ATPs to copy DNA during mitosis. A cell does that once. Heck - let's double that number to account for other related cellular processes - 48 billion ATP.

I found a source from the 1980s that estimated that a typical cell uses between 50 and 150 Moles (a Mole is 6.02x10^23 particles) of ATP per day. Why the disparity? Muscles cells and neurons use a LOT of ATP, a skin cell, not so much.

So - lets actually look at those numbers:

Number of ATPs used to replicate DNA for mitosis:

48,000,000,000

Low-end number of ATP used by a typical cell PER DAY, just for normal day-to-day cell stuff:

30,115,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That is, a one-time expenditure for replicating DNA for mitosis represents the following percentage of the amount of ATP used PER DAY in a typical low-activity cell:

(48,000,000,000/30,115,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)*100 = 0.00000000000016%

That is, 0.00000000000016% of the low-end daily expenditure of ATP in a typical cell is needed to replicate a 3 billion bp genome, which happens just 1 time in a cell's life.

And if the cell lives even just 10 days? Add another zero to the right of the decimal.
IOW - the selectionist 'too much energy needed to keep noncoding DNA around' argument is not a very convincing one.


*as I started writing this, I realized I couldn't remember if it was 4 or 6 ATP/nucleotide, and could not readily find the bookmark for the paper I had found going over it all, but even if it is 10 ATP/nucleotide addition, it would only change the result by a few ten trillionths of a percent.

And what is a few ten trillionths of a percent among pals?