The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[Subduction Zone]

yes you did claimed that 1 out of 1 million mutations get fixed and dominant*

Nope, I did not make that claim. You appear to have poor reading comprehension. I only said that a minimum of 1 out of 1 million mutations need to get fixed for your supposed problem. It could be much higher than that.

well I am questioning that claim.(in blue)..... where did you get that data? based on what you made that assertion?

1 130 million babies are born every year

2 The mutation rate is around 100 base substitutions per generation

3 So we have 13,000,000,000 mutations to work with

4 You said that 1 mutation per million becomes fixed and dominant

….So according to your math 13,000 mutations per year should become fixed and dominat.

Since this is not what we observe, there most be something wrong with your math...I suggest that point 4 is wrong,…….do you have any other suggestion?

...
I would also like you to notice and appreciate the fact that I am pointing to you exactly where my point of disagreement is (in blue letters above), so that you can defend your position, I hope to have the same courtesy from you in the future,

You seemed to think that the amount of time was not enough. I did not even use the current high population, I based my example on a much smaller population, but I did treat it as constant. It has varied a bit. And you are making the same error that you made earlier. I did not claim number 4.

By the way you are making the same foolish error using my minimal value that you made earlier. You were corrected for that. You still do not understand it. That is a pity.

Yes and my point is that the mechanism of random mutation + natural selection is too slow and cant account for the differences between chimps and humans , given that we only have 5M years

The argument is very simple

1 the difference between humans and chimps is around 30,000,000 base pairs substitutions

2 this give us an average of 6 mutations per year (divide 30 million by 5 million)

3 based on what we can observe today….we don’t observe such a fast rate of mutations that become fixed and dominant

Therefore the mechanism of random mutation + natural selection is not sufficient to explain the differences between humans and chimps.

Please show the same courtesy that I had with you and explain exactly where is your point of disagreement?

But it can. My simple back of the envelope showed that it can. All you had was denial. If you won't let yourself learn no one can help you.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok can we agree on that we don’t know if mutations that caused evolution were mainly random or non random ? (random with respect to fitness)…this is simply an open area of reaserch where scientists are working on and nobody claims to have a definitive answer…………(any disagreement from your part)?

Mutations do not cause evolution. The mutations are passive as to cause in terms of evolution, and NOT random with respect to fitness. Fitness of species is dependent natural processes and adaptation to the environment through natural selection. Mutations simply form the genetic diversity of the DNA over time. Sort of the raw material for evolution. The environment particularly adaptation to the changing environment and non-random natural processes are the cause of evolution.

 

[leroy]

Nope, I did not make that claim. You appear to have poor reading comprehension. I only said that a minimum of 1 out of 1 million mutations need to get fixed for your supposed problem. It could be much higher than that.





You seemed to think that the amount of time was not enough. I did not even use the current high population, I based my example on a much smaller population, but I did treat it as constant. It has varied a bit. And you are making the same error that you made earlier. I did not claim number 4.

By the way you are making the same foolish error using my minimal value that you made earlier. You were corrected for that. You still do not understand it. That is a pity.


But it can. My simple back of the envelope showed that it can. All you had was denial. If you won't let yourself learn no one can help you.

Ok if you didn’t affirm the 1 million thing in blue letters…. Then I have no idea if we have any points of disagreement…………….feel free to spot any point that I have affirmed and that you disagree with

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok if you didn’t affirm the 1 million thing in blue letters…. Then I have no idea if we have any points of disagreement…………….feel free to spot any point that I have affirmed and that you disagree with

You tried to change what I claimed. You screwed up by doing so.

 

[leroy]

Mutations do not cause evolution. The mutations are passive as to cause in terms of evolution, and NOT random with respect to fitness. Fitness of species is dependent natural processes and adaptation to the environment through natural selection. Mutations simply form the genetic diversity of the DNA over time. Sort of the raw material for evolution. The environment particularly adaptation to the changing environment and non-random natural processes are the cause of evolution.

Bla bla bla…………….is there anything in your comment that contradicts anythign that I have said?

 

[leroy]

You tried to change what I claimed. You screwed up by doing so.

I didn’t tried to change anything, I honestly thought that you where affirming the stuff in blue letters,

But since I am very bad in understanding your words, why don’t you quote any claim made by me, that you would disagree with?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn’t tried to change anything, I honestly thought that you where affirming the stuff in blue letters,

But since I am very bad in understanding your words, why don’t you quote any claim made by me, that you would disagree with?

You may not have tried, but that was what you did. You had an objection to how much change there was in the genome since the split between man and chimp. I merely showed that to be a claim without any support on your side. You misinterpreted the refutation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Bla bla bla…………….is there anything in your comment that contradicts anythign that I have said?

Yes . . .

Ok can we agree on that we don’t know if mutations that caused evolution were mainly random or non random ?

Mutations do not cause evolution. You described mutations as a cause of evolution. False.

Evolution is indifferent to whether mutations are random nor non-random. Mutations just form the genetic diversity of DNA , which is the ram material for evolution. The timing of the occurrence of mutations are random. The non-random natural processes determine the type of mutations and patterns We do no some types of mutations are no random.

. . . (random with respect to fitness)…this is simply an open area of research where scientists are working on and nobody claims to have a definitive answer…………(any disagreement from your part)?

Yes . . .

NOT random with respect to fitness. You described Mutations as random in respect to fitness. False.

Evolution has been an open science with continuing research for over 160 years, so what?!?!?, but a great deal is known concerning the natural processes and environmental conditions and change cause evolution.

The mutations are passive as to cause in terms of evolution, and Fitness of species is dependent natural processes and adaptation to the environment through natural selection. Mutations simply form the genetic diversity of the DNA over time. Sort of the raw material for evolution. The environment particularly adaptation to the changing environment and non-random natural processes are the cause of evolution.

 

[leroy]

Yes . . .



Mutations do not cause evolution. You described mutations as a cause of evolution. False.

Evolution is indifferent to whether mutations are random nor non-random. Mutations just form the genetic diversity of DNA , which is the ram material for evolution. The timing of the occurrence of mutations are random. The non-random natural processes determine the type of mutations and patterns We do no some types of mutations are no random.


Yes . . .

NOT random with respect to fitness. You described Mutations as random in respect to fitness. False.

Evolution has been an open science with continuing research for over 160 years, so what?!?!?, but a great deal is known concerning the natural processes and environmental conditions and change cause evolution.

The mutations are passive as to cause in terms of evolution, and Fitness of species is dependent natural processes and adaptation to the environment through natural selection. Mutations simply form the genetic diversity of the DNA over time. Sort of the raw material for evolution. The environment particularly adaptation to the changing environment and non-random natural processes are the cause of evolution.

Ok so mutations provide the raw material....... We dont know if these mutations are mainly random or nonrandom...... Any disagreement?

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok so mutations provide the raw material....... We dont know if these mutations are mainly random or nonrandom...... Any disagreement?

Disagreement concerns that the distinction is only meaningful concerning the type of mutation that contributes to the genetic diversity in the population of organisms. Whether mutations are random or non random has no impact on the process of evolution itself. Non-random natural processes and environmental influence such as ideal environments and gradual changing environments are the main factors that determine the genetic diversity, genetic fitness and and natural selection in organism populations.

 

[leroy]

Disagreement concerns that the distinction is only meaningful concerning the type of mutation that contributes to the genetic diversity in the population of organisms. Whether mutations are random or non random has no impact on the process of evolution itself. Non-random natural processes and environmental influence such as ideal environments and gradual changing environments are the main factors that determine the genetic diversity, genetic fitness and and natural selection in organism populations.

Ok but do you agree with my previous statement?

leroy said: ↑
Ok so mutations provide the raw material....... We dont know if these mutations are mainly random or nonrandom...... Any disagreement??

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so mutations provide the raw material....... We dont know if these mutations are mainly random or nonrandom...... Any disagreement?

Even "random" mutations are not all that random. One has to look at the statistics of life. Mutations are going to have a range in effectiveness and natural selection will sort those mutations based upon fitness for survival in the current environment. That is why there is such a thing as convergent evolution. The environment limits which mutations are passed on.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok but do you agree with my previous statement?

No, not as written

 

[tas8831]

Exactly what claim are you talking about?

Really?

Ok.... Um... the one I BOLDED?

1 that not a single mutations has been observed to become fixed and dominant in the human population in the last 30 years.

2 or that you need and average rate of 6.6 mutations per year to examplain the differences between chimps and humans?

1

And explain h ow this fixation would be determined over the course of 30 years.

Can't wait!

 

[tas8831]

Sure and I would say that a big relevant portion of those mutations are non random. That our point of disagreement

And yet you seem capable of providing neither a rationale for that nor actual evidence.

 

[tas8831]

"Darn it, I can't find your evidence that you presented to support you implication that transposons (rather than other mechanisms) where mainly responsible for larger brains, upright posture, cooperative behavior etc..

Surely you must have some that consists of more than just claiming 'standard population genetics' cannot explain it. Because that isn't evidence."

Dude?

 

[leroy]

Really?

Ok.... Um... the one I BOLDED?


1


Can't wait!

Well I made a negative claim, the burden proof is on the guy who makes the positive assertion

And explain h ow this fixation would be determined over the course of 30 years

.

Direct observation?????

 

[leroy]

And yet you seem capable of providing neither a rationale for that nor actual evidence.

Yes I did

Evidence
1 We know that non random mutations occure.

2 non random mutations models would solve some of the problems of darwinism


Any disagreement?

 

[leroy]

"Darn it, I can't find your evidence that you presented to support you implication that transposons (rather than other mechanisms) where mainly responsible for larger brains, upright posture, cooperative behavior etc..

Surely you must have some that consists of more than just claiming 'standard population genetics' cannot explain it. Because that isn't evidence."

Dude?

I don't t claim to have conclusive evidence, I am just saying that it is a valid possibility worthy of consideration.

Evidence

Non random genetic variation would solve many problems that darwinism has.


2 And we know that non random variation occures at the level of micro evolution

.....

The only assumption is the leap from micro to macro evolution...... Wich is an unsupported leap...... But darwinism makes the same leap so both models are even in this sense.
...

If this is not evidence then explain exactly what you mean by evidence, and provide evidence for darwinism*

*Darwinism : the view that all the diversity and complexity of life is mainly due to random variation and natural selection

 

[tas8831]

Well I made a negative claim, the burden proof is on the guy who makes the positive assertion

Ok - Intelligent Design creationism in all its forms is not true.

And explain h ow this fixation would be determined over the course of 30 years

.

Direct observation?????

Explain what this "direct observation" entails - what do you think should be looked for/found?