No he's not. He is lowering the known rate by orders of magnitude.
He claims 1 per 10 matings when the truth for humans is about 1,500 per 10 matings. And even that underestimates the actual numbers of mutations because a lot of fertilisations do not carry to term and a portion of those are due...
And as expected you demonstrate the you do not know what the definition of vestigial is. Vestigial has never just meant without any function.
Just to help you here is what Darwin wrote on the subject:
Origin of Species, Chapter 14
You deleted the post (Edit then Delete). In which case it no longer exists so has no number. Post numbering is relative and not absolute.
No you didn't. You posted a big chunk of text without using the quote function and put a url at the bottom. There was no indication that the url did not...
The post I quoted above, which has now been deleted to remove the evidence of the plagiarised words. The post that originally followed Almill's post with the picture of the dusty car.
However It is still available via Google cache...
Plagiarism is a breach of forum rules.
http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html
Of course Loennig is wrong but I'll wait until you admit your plagiarism before posting the evidence for it.
As usual your reply once again demonstrates your inability to comprehend wiki articles and your ignorance of biology.
The molecular clock is not the same as knowing the rate and magnitude of mutations which is what Wilson asked. Its a way of quantifying time based on knowing the rate of...
And what is his source of this claim? Because it is established fact that for humans there are over 100 mutations per offspring.
As one of his opening premises is demonstrably wrong his results are worthless.
Would you like to try again with a more reliable source?
This is one of the most laughable claims you see from creationists. This is especially true for literalist YECs who need multiple species to evolve from a single ancestor in mere centuries subsequent to Noah's flood.
Except that Sanfords genetic entropy model states that rabbits and mice should already be extinct due to genetic entropy. In fact mice should go extinct within a human lifetime.
Therefore Sanfords program cannot model observed reality and must be wrong.
Sanford's pathetic attempts to claim...
So now you are reduced to "God created quarks" because it has been shows that supernatural intervention is not needed to create atoms.
Thats desperately sad Wilson.
You should know by now that Newhope cannot see uncomfortable facts that show she is not telling the whole truth.
Expect to see the "13% of scientists don't believe in evolution" reproduced a number of times.
Which is the reason why God is fine with actually causing abortions in cases of adultery?
The only place the bible directly mentions abortion it not only allows it but abortion is god's will.
And you would need to account for all the miscarriages that happen, thats a far bigger number than...
What really doesn't make sense is Sanford's claim that humanity cannot be thousands of generations old because the genome would deteriorate while we are surrounded be species that are tens and hundreds of thousands of years old because they breed so much faster than humans.
According to Sanford...
Ignoring the evidence and repeating your distortions of the facts I see.
As I pointed out in post #77 of this thread the percentage of scientists who agree with evolution in the Pew Poll is 95% (of the 97% who answered). You are ignoring the 8% who agreed that "Human Beings and and other living...
I doubt you noticed the difference in the questions, the first would get a yes from theistic evolutionists and the second would get a no (because they had their own response in the Pew poll). The percentage of people in the Pew poll who accept creationism is 2% for scientists and 31% for the...
So how do you account for the indisputable fact that we observe evolution happening within species and we see new species evolving from old ones (especially true in the case of polyploidy in plants)?
Thats because I see no need to repeat the content of my posts, unlike yourself.
You really are desparately trying to twist the english language aren't you.
You have just proved that I was correct, Darwin proposed a form of Punctuated equilibrium.
PE does not propose the creation of monsters...