Evidence For And Against Evolution

[leroy]

You missed the point. Why even ask for the correct math?

Because the burden proof is on you, you are the one who is making the positive claim, you are the one who is afirming with high confidence that humans evolved from a common ancestor by a process of random variation and natural selection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because the burden proof is on you, you are the one who is making the positive claim, you are the one who is afirming with high confidence that humans evolved from a common ancestor by a process of random variation and natural selection.

No, it really is not since those on the science side did not use a mathematical argument. To refute a poor mathematical argument all one needs to do is to show that the math is wrong. There is no need for the 'right math'. That is a terribly ignorant demand to make.

And it is rather easy to show that there has been enough time. One simply must understand how evolution works. If you can't think of how to affirm the possibility and admit that you do not know how evolution works and admit that you made an ignorant demand then I will explain it to you. If a person cannot be honest enough to admit there past failures then they are in no position to make any demands of others to support their claims.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes the article does have interesting math, but it doesn't have the math that you where asked to show


Show that it is realistically possible to explain the differences between chimps and humans from a common ancestor who lived 5M years ago.

The problem is that primates have very slow reproductive rates, and there is a limit on the number of mutations that they can accumulate in 5M years

Batton showed with his math that thee is not enough time to account for the differences, but if you what to claim that his math is wrong, pleas provide the correct math

I already demonstrated that Batton's math is flawed and does not demonstrate what he claims. The article I provided gives the math and 48 references that demonstrates evolution in the time frame for the primates.

Your failure to respond, nor adequate knowledge to comprehend the math and the science involved.

 

[leroy]

I already demonstrated that Batton's math is flawed and does not demonstrate what he claims. The article I provided gives the math and 48 references that demonstrates evolution in the time frame for the primates.

Your failure to respond, nor adequate knowledge to comprehend the math and the science involved.

Oooo really then quote (copy paste) the exact portion of your source that demonstrates evolution (Darwinism) in the required time frame

 

[McBell]

Batton showed with his math that thee is not enough time to account for the differences, but if you what to claim that his math is wrong, pleas provide the correct math

Really?
Please link it.
Cause all I have been able to find is his published articles which are all as short on showing the math as your posted article.

In fact, sunnydragons linked article shows far more of the math...

Which shows you either did not read it, or did not understand it.

 

[McBell]

Oooo really then quote (copy paste) the exact portion of your source that demonstrates evolution (Darwinism) in the required time frame

How is repeating it going to help you understand it?

 

[leroy]

Really?
Please link it.
Cause all I have been able to find is his published articles which are all as short on showing the math as your posted article.

In fact, sunnydragons linked article shows far more of the math...

Which shows you either did not read it, or did not understand it.

Yes @shunyadragon showed far more math, but that math is irrelevant, the authors of his sources are not even trying to show the math that I am requesting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes @shunyadragon showed far more math, but that math is irrelevant, the authors of his sources are not even trying to show the math that I am requesting.

Correct. @shunyadragon 's article refuted the creationist claim. Your request is rather pointless, and you do not seem to really want to know.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes @shunyadragon showed far more math, but that math is irrelevant, the authors of his sources are not even trying to show the math that I am requesting.

Be specific. What math do you want?

 

[shunyadragon]

Oooo really then quote (copy paste) the exact portion of your source that demonstrates evolution (Darwinism) in the required time frame

The whole article deals with this math and many illustrative diagrams and 49 references. That is the theme of the article and all the references. They deal with the time frame and processes of all evolution.

Batton needs to propose a hypothesis that includes all evolution that evolution does not fit the time frame of all evolution. The evolution of primates follows the same genetic mutation processes of all evolution.

 

[night912]

Really, so if intelligent allies come to this planet abs find a single car (the dont find other cars, nor evidence for humans) all they found was a car.

Would they have good reasons to conclude that the car was designed?

Why don't you ask them.

 

[tas8831]

Cool, so what is your point?

That creationists - to include you and the 'professional' creationists you like to cite - do not understand the relationship between genotype and phenotype well enough to declare "X-number of beneficial mutations is too few."

 

[tas8831]

Noooo

Behe did provide a testable limit, something that would require 3 coordinated mutations in order to get a selectable trait, can't be explained by natural selection.

Right - he took the current PowerBall winner and declared how impossible it was for that person to have won the lottery.

What he REALLY did, was to take an existing mutant gene, try to 're-create it', and then declared golly, it just takes too long.

Can you really not see the folly in that?

 

[tas8831]

Well my inability to explain CSI in words that you can personally understand does not invalidate the argument.

You don't seem able to explain it at all.

What testable mechanism would you use to determine if a bunch of letters where randomly typed or if they where typed by an intelligent mind?

If they were "typed" I would know that they were human, since humans type.

Then apply that mechanism to life (DNA) and let us know if it passes the test if design

A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.
"...Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."

No design.

 

[tas8831]

Things are very simple, if you claim that the math and the premises that Batten used where wrong,

Why put words in my mouth?

I never mentioned their math (except wherein I provided a quote from a well-known population geneticist declaring that Haldane's model was wrong).

I DID mention the basis for their argument is non-existent, seeing as how they do not:

1. Know how many mutations would have been required to get any 'human' trait from a non-human ancestor
2. Know what traits the putative ancestor had, so there is no means by which to multiply this by what they do not know from #1 to get ANY answer.

please feel free to provide an accurate model with correct math and correct premises and show that 5M years is enough time to evolve a human and a chimp from a common ancestor.

Rather than rely on mathematical models and unwarranted extrapolations, take to heart the p450 allele paper I quoted, and the fact that single point mutations can alter phenotype dramatically as in the case of dwarfism, and just look at the actual genetic trail of evidence:


I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:
Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

[...]

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

[...]

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

[...]


We can hereby CONCLUDE that the results of an application of those methods have merit.

Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

[...]

Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

[...]

A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

[...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:
This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.



I edited out most of the verbiage for brevity.


When model and evidence conflict, the sensible go with the evidence and work on the model.

 

[tas8831]

Your extrapolation of it.

Still waiting for you to identify the human-chimp ancestor, what traits it had such that ReMine's calculations are relevant, and your demonstration that you know how many fixed, beneficial traits would have been needed to get from the unidentified ancestor's traits to modern human ones.

That has been answered.

I'm betting, nope.

Since we supposedly share 99% of our genome with chimps and genomes are 3Billion base pairs long, that would imply that there is a difference of 30,000,000 base pairs.

Or in other words 30,000,000 mutations

WRONG.

This is where your complete ignorance of basic genetics allows you to fall prey to the absurd claims of the likes of ReMine and Batten.

Have you ever heard of indels?

Your answer to that question will determine how I proceed on this issue.

would have to ocurre in the human/chimp genome in 5 million years. Assuming that you are a selectionist then most of these mutations would have to be positive

Most evolutionary biologists are NOT selectionists.

The claim is that there is not enough time to accumulate that many mutations in 5M years

You do not seem to understand the difference in the manner in which beneficial v. neutral mutations are accumulated. As you have repeatedly referred to ReMine and Batten's "arguments" and mentioned fixed beneficial mutations, you must understand that there is a difference, and thus your current line of 'challenging' is dishonest.

Assuming a rate of 1 benefitial mutation that becomes selected and fixed in the population every 100 years (which is a very generous assumption) you would only have time for 500,000 mutations (you need 30,000,000 mutations)

Providing all of that 30 million are beneficial.

You keep screwing up the 'arguments' that you paraphrase from a non-geneticist and an electrical engineer.

So.... If my math or my assumptions are wrong, please present your model with correct assumptions and correct math, and show that 5M years is enough time.

I have already explained the error of your assumptions. No need for a model.

 

[tas8831]

Yes, yes ok let's assume thar Battons is wrong or fallacious or whatever.

Care to provide the correct math?

Creationist: 2+3=6

Sensible person: Umm... No, 2+3=5

Creationists: Prove that the math is wrong!

Sensible person: Ok... if you have 2, and add 3 to it, you get 5, not 6. 2+3=5

Creationist: How can you argue against math?

What you have to do is to prove (using math that you would consider correct)

Why?

It is a fact that Batten and ReMine have no actual foundation on which to apply their pristine, perfect math.

If you disagree, then please provide the evidence that I have been asking you for for months:

1. How many fixed beneficial mutations does it take to get a new trait from an old one, and how do you know?
2. How many traits had to be modified to get a human from a human-chimp ancestor?

If you cannot answer those, then no amount of fancy math will matter.



Will it?

And I have been asking you about the required information to allow for ReMine's claims to have merit for over a year.

And you have not even tried to answer them.

 

[shunyadragon]

The following is a good article that describes probability algorithms in a falsifiable hypothesis for rates of genetic drift.

http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch245.pdf

Genetic drift, selection and the evolution of the mutation rate
Michael Lynch, Matthew S. Ackerman, Jean-Francois Gout, Hongan Long, Way Sung, W. Kelley Thomas and Patricia L. Foster

Abstract | As one of the few cellular traits that can be quantified across the tree of life, DNA-replication fidelity provides an excellent platform for understanding fundamental evolutionary processes. Furthermore, because mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, clarifying why mutation rates vary is crucial for understanding all areas of biology. A potentially revealing hypothesis for mutation-rate evolution is that natural selection primarily operates to improve replication fidelity, with the ultimate limits to what can be achieved set by the power of random genetic drift. This drift-barrier hypothesis is consistent with comparative measures of mutation rates, provides a simple explanation for the existence of error-prone polymerases and yields a formal counter-argument to the view that selection fine-tunes gene-specific mutation rates.

As mutation affects essentially every aspect of biology, the development of a unifying theory for mutation-rate evolution is highly desirable. There is much to be explained. For although the base-substitution mutation rate (u) in all organisms is low (<10–7 mutations per nucleotide site per generation), the rates in some species are more than 1,000-fold below this level. This large range of variation implies that the accuracy of DNA replication and repair in most, if not all, species is less than what is possible at the biochemical level. It has been argued that mutation rates, even at the single-gene level, have been fine-tuned by natural selection to maximize long-term survival and evolvability1–4, yet there is no direct empirical or theoretical evidence that this is generally the case. If such adaptive mutation-rate arguments are valid, they will need to explain why the evolved mutation rate in microorganisms is 100- to 1,000-fold lower than that in vertebrates. Moreover, although stress-induced mutagenesis in microorganisms can sometimes provide a transient mechanism for generating an adaptive genotype in an extreme environment5 , this need not that every aspect of genome stability is refined by adaptive processes. Selection, drift and mutation rate A formal theoretical framework for understanding mutation-rate evolution was first presented by Kimura.

read on . . .

 

[leroy]

If they were "typed" I would know that they were human, since humans type.

Well a monkey can also type random letters in a keyboard.

So pretend that all you have is a bunch of letters typed in a computer screen

What objective and testable criteria would you use to determine if it was typed by an intelligent designer?

Demski would suggest that if the text is long enough and has an independent given pattern (like words and sentences with meaning in any language) one can conclude that it was designed.

Do you have a better sugestion ?

A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.
"...Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."

So what is your point? Did I ever said that bacterial resistance can't evolve? Did Behe ever made such a claim? Have you ever meat a Creationists making that claim?.........

 

[tas8831]

Well a monkey can also type random letters in a keyboard.

So can a creationist.

So pretend that all you have is a bunch of letters typed in a computer screen

What objective and testable criteria would you use to determine if it was typed by an intelligent designer?

If it were typed on a computer screen, I would conclude that a human had either done it or arranged for it by using their trained creationists, er... monkey, because humans make and use computers.

Demski would suggest that if the text is long enough and has an independent given pattern (like words and sentences with meaning in any language) one can conclude that it was designed.

Do you have a better sugestion ?

Yes -
Stop relying on stupid analogies.
Stop relying on Dembski the creationist.

Stop pretending.

A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.
"...Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations ...."

So what is your point? Did I ever said that bacterial resistance can't evolve?

So cool that you unwittingly admit that you did not even read the linked article.

HINT: Had nothing to do with bacteria.

Did Behe ever made such a claim? Have you ever meat a Creationists making that claim?.........

Have I ever met a creationist that claims things not in evidence? All the time.

Like when you wrote:

Still waiting for you to identify the human-chimp ancestor, what traits it had such that ReMine's calculations are relevant, and your demonstration that you know how many fixed, beneficial traits would have been needed to get from the unidentified ancestor's traits to modern human ones.

Leroy:
That has been answered.

Not only is that not in evidence, but dare I say it - it may be a lie.

You have not once even tried to address this ReMine/Batten-demolishing set of simple foundational questions:

It is a fact that Batten and ReMine have no actual foundation on which to apply their pristine, perfect math.

If you disagree, then please provide the evidence that I have been asking you for for months:

1. How many fixed beneficial mutations does it take to get a new trait from an old one, and how do you know?
2. How many traits had to be modified to get a human from a human-chimp ancestor?

If you cannot answer those, then no amount of fancy math will matter.​

For you to claim it has been answered is a joke.

As is the case with nearly all creationists that I have ever encountered, you've got nothing but desperation.