So I guess this is the 'calculation' you were referring to? Yo've made 110 posts in this thread as of 9 am Sunday morning - I am not going to go through all of them, so I limited the search to those with the number '300' in them, since that seemed relevant to you. That limited the number of posts to 6, and this one was the only one of those six with something like an equation in it. If you had another one in mind, I am all ears.
Human mutation rate revealed : Nature News
"Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome."
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/why-microbes-are-better-people-keeping-dna-mutations-bay
"Every newborn's DNA carries more than 60 new mutations..."
"That has enabled researchers to measure mutation rates in about 40 species, including newly reported numbers for orangutans, gorillas, and green African monkeys. The primates have mutation rates similar to humans..."
Mutation and Human Exceptionalism: Our Future Genetic Load
"Thus, keeping in mind that some mutations in repetitive DNA likely go undetected owing to mapping difficulties in genome-sequencing projects, with a diploid genome size of ∼ 6 billion bases, an average newborn contains ∼ 100
de novo mutations."
That was SO HARD for me to find - I had to totally type the question 'how many new mutations per generation in each new human' into the Google, and then I had to, like READ half of the first page of returns to find several examples of answers in the literature!!! So hard - I guess you don't teach students to like, look things up at your 'college'?
What is your educational/experiential background in genetics?
You seem to have the standard non-scientist, non-geneticist creationist view on this topic - in awe of the big numbers - I've seen it all before. Creationists good at things like computer programming, computer graphics, auto body repair, history, psychology, law, etc. - my gosh, these folks just seem to think that some HUGE number of SPECIFIC mutations had to have occurred to produce any new phenotype that is beneficial to us.
Just like you are implying here.
Let's take a look at your naive creationism in action, point by point:
All we need now is for one of every 9.375 mutations you claim by your math to:
Why do you think that such a constant supply of beneficial mutations would have been required?
What is you understanding of the effects of mutant alleles?
I once read where a creationist claimed that it would take more than a million beneficial mutations just to get obligate bipedality! This is absurd on its face, yet this creationist was convinced he was totally right - he had his own website, of course, so how could he be wrong? Yet, when asked for some examples of the sorts of effects he expected some of these million mutations to have on the anatomy involved in locomotion, he had nothing to say, because he was not only ignorant of the relevant anatomy, he was ignorant of the way genes work. But he was still totally convinced that it had to be a million. Because numbers.
My point is, to the layman, it may seem that because genomes are big, there must be a lot of changes that are required to alter phenotype.
And I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. There is NO 1-to-1 relationship between any mutation and any non-lethal phenotype. I am aware of a single point mutation in a receptor gene causing dwarfism, and I am also aware that it is looking like dozens of genes or more were involved in altering the size of the primate neocortex.
But let's continue...
* Enhance survivability
What does that mean? What would it entail? Would making it easier to digest lactose enhance survivability? If so, that is a 1 gene deal. Would having bigger muscles? That, too, is linked to mutations in a single gene. Would having the neurlogical ability to cause the release of bacteria from the appendix of those animals that have one require some suite of beneficial mutations that those animals without an appendix didn't seem to need? Just kidding - there is no such thing as neurolgical control of bacterial release. That is foolish.
You will need to do better than some bland, naive assertion.
* Take the species forward/alter DNA, without killing the species
Any 2 humans differ by about ~80 million bps. All without killing the species of some 7 billion.
I think you can safely stop using this line of 'reasoning' as some kind of 'argument.'
* Spread throughout the entire population of 1,000,000, since all 32 million changes are required to forward the species, etc.
Ah, there is that classic linear thinking of the creationist again. You probably also think that the question "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" is like a totally great gotcha.
You see, evolution is a phenomenon of populations. Not all members of a population will necessarily be in possession of any particular suite of mutations, beneficial or otherwise, at any given time. Wait long enough, go through a sufficient number of generations (which will vary depending on things like strength of selection, population size, etc.), and what we get out of the other end, in your hypothetical scenario, is a population that will be in possession of all of those mutations (in this scenario, any way).
I get the feeling that creationists believe that evolutionists go about science the same way they do, and that is why they are so dismissive and skeptical.
