The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[tas8831]

Well I told you how did I got the 30M mutations, and it is largely a result of assuming the best possible and most generous scenarios, obviously in reality you would need much more.

Yes - you multiplied 3 billion (roughly the number of base pairs in the human genome) by 1% (the number you employed as the difference between human and chimp).


Brilliant - but your simplistic 'math' is double the number that we would see in each extant taxon. That is, if your number was at all relevant or reasonable, then we would 15 million in each, not 30 million in just us. Yet here you are in yet another thread, demanding that others assess the reality of you bogus number.

And you seem to equivocate a lot on this - please answer clearly and honestly - is it your position that your bogus 30 million mutations is ALL beneficial mutations?

If so, please provide documentation that such a number is even in the realm of... reality.

If that fake 30 million number is just ALL mutations, then I already demolished that earlier.

I demolished it wither way,m actually, but I would like to see you be honest for once and just say exactly what that 30 million represents to you.

Feel free to to your own math and let us know what the correct number is.

So my math wasn't good enough... I am so sad - but wait, you never showed how it was wrong, so, I guess you are just running away again.

 

[leroy]

Documentation please.


That is an interesting yet 100% unjustified series of assertions leading to a unsupported conclusion.

You could have avoided this by addressing the questions/statements I made to you a year ago and reproduced above. I have emphasized things for clarity when needed.

Here is why I am very confident that such a large number of beneficial mutations is NOT needed to produce the relatively minor phenotypic changes we see between extant chimps and humans as derived from a common ancestor:

1. These arguments seem to imply that any particular trait is brand new and thus must be accounted for by some large number of mutations. This exposes the multi-level ignorance of those making them.

Look at the generic mammal body type - what specific trait does a human have that, say, a lemur or a dog does not? All human traits are essentially variations on a theme, not brand new. Developmental tweaks are all that is actually needed, not some suite of new beneficial mutations to get, say, the human shoulder joint from an ancestral primate shoulder joint.
There is the case of familial achondroplasia (dwarfism) - a single point mutation causes alterations in limb proportion (to include all muscle/nerve/soft tissue/etc. changes), joints, facial features, etc. All from a single point mutation. I am not saying that this is beneficial or adaptive, I am merely explaining that some huge number of mutations is NOT needed to produce relatively large-scale phenotypic changes. THIS is what your Haldane's dilemma-spewing creationist sources can't or won't understand or mention - usually because THEY don't know this, or because they don't want their target audience to know about it.

2. These arguments imply that some huge number of beneficial mutations MUST HAVE BEEN required for this transition to take place. Given that we know that single point mutations can affect multiple body systems and overall morphology, other than a desire for it to be so, what do these Haldane's dilemma types present that actually supports their position?

I've read ReMine's book - he offers nothing in that regard. I've read more recent treatments of it - more of the same.

I mentioned that a creationist once claimed that just to get the changes in the pelvis for bipedal locomotion a million mutations would have been required. Do you think he provided a million 'changes' that had to have been made? Nope. He could not provide A SINGLE example, but as is is the way of the creationist, he merely insisted that he was correct.


My argument against such claims are 1. that there is no argument (see the Ewen's quote); 2. that the arguments are based on ignorance of developmental biology; 3. that they are premised on the argument from awe (big numbers).

​

Let's see you EVIDENCE, not your opinions or assertions, that, even if we use YOUR numbers, 1,000 beneficial mutations over 5 million years is just not enough to produce these un-named differences.

As an aside - when you wrote:

And we know roughly* how different are humans from chimps, and from that we can infer the differences between humans and the common ancestor.
​

what did you mean? Are you referring to nucleotide differences? If yes, then you still cannot seem to understand the difference between ALL nucleotide differences and beneficial ones, and this renders all of your claims on this issue moot.
If you are referring to phenotypic differences, then you will need to make a list of them, and explain how you decided these were relevant. Then you will to show how many beneficial mutations were required to produce those differences from an ancestral species AND, most importantly, HOW you know this.

Mere assertions will not do. Put up or shut up. And if you shut up, please do not ever make these arguments again, for it will demonstrate certain things about you that will not be very nice.
And if you put up, it will need to be supported with evidence, not just assertions of paraphrases of YECs that also had no evidence.

Why do you have to this all the time, you always bring to the table nonsense and irrelevant stuff, the argument doesn’t imply and of the “implications” that you claim it does, the argument doesn’t make (nor requires) any assertion on “how many mutations are needed to evolve a brain, nor any other “human trait”

All the argument does is.

- Take the 99% similarity between humans and chimps that is commonly cited by evolutionist

- Assume that this 1% difference represents all the genome, despite knowing that when considering orphan genes, duplications, non-coding DNA etc. the difference is much, much greater than 1%

- Given that our genome is 3B bases long, Assume that the difference is roughly 30M bp (1%)

- Assume that you would need 30M random mutations in order to account of the 30M differences, which makes the generous assumption that all you need are simple point mutations.

- Assume that most of this mutations would have to be beneficial* (or affirm neutralism and inherit all the problems that neutralism has)

So in your opinion which assumption is wrong, and what would the correct numbers be?....just kitting, I know that you will not answer directly, because deep inside you know that if anything this “assumptions” are unrealistically too generous for your model.

 

[tas8831]

500,000 mutation is the maximum number of beneficial mutations that could have happened in 5M years assuming a an unrealistically optimum scenario

According to whom again?

I was unable to find that number in the scientific database I searched.
The ONLY source in which that number has ever appeared is in creationist electrical engineer ReMine's book, where it was used as a dopey hypothetical in an argument from awe ('is even 500,000 fixed beneficial mutations enough to get a Sapien from a simian?' the creationist clumsily opined...).

30,000,000 is the actual number of mutations that you would need to evolve a human from a common ancestor.

This is a mere assertion based on a rather elementarily erroneous understanding of basic concepts - at best, using your numbers, then it is actually 15 million. But that is actually very much on the low side, in terms of raw nucleotide count. And it totally ignores context - where did all those nucleotide differences come from? Are they ALL SNPs? No. Much of the overall difference is the product of things like segmental duplications and such. But you didn't account for that. So your bogus argument rests on a completely irrelevant and inapplicable number to start with.

For a selections most of this 30M mutations would have to be benefitial

On what grounds do you make this claim?

It clearly is not on the basis of your extensive knowledge and experience in genetics - for if you that, you would have never made your 30 million claim.

So, what is it? Is it your mere belief that there MUST be a huge number because Jesus?

Please show some evidence.

This argument woundt apply for a neutralist, but neutralism has “other problems”

Oh please - DO TELL me all about the problems of the neutralist.

Let me guess - you think that neutralists think there are no beneficial mutations?

Is it really so hard to understand?

Not at all - I easily understand that:

1. your numbers are made-up.
2. you have no idea how genes influence morphology/traits in general

So...
Why you think those numbers have any merit whatsoever - THAT is the problem.[/quote][/quote]

 

[shunyadragon]

Well I told you how did I got the 30M mutations, and it is largely a result of assuming the best possible and most generous scenarios, obviously in reality you would need much more.

Feel free to to your own math and let us know what the correct number is.

Told me?!?!?! You are not qualified to tell me anything.

It is your argument, and you need to provide the scientific references from peer reviewed journals to support your argument.

One worthy note the process of evolution takes place in large populations over time and at any given point in time in the genetic diversity tens of thousand of individuals in a population that develops through genetic drift in change in the population response to changing environment. The number of mutations in tens of thousands of individuals far exceeds any limits in numbers you could imagine- Ths includes many populations over a large geographic region.

 

[leroy]

Where is this "evidence"?



Let me get this straight...

1. You claim RM/NS is not fast enough to account for human evolution.
2. I ask for evidence for this, you eventually declare nonrandom mutations like transposons make it fast enough, even though you don;t believe it anyway
3. I remind you that a transposon still has to spread through a population like an SNP has to, and ask how this would speed things up. You ignore it.
4. then you claim as support that RM/NS is not fast enough.

Are you familiar with the concept of the circular argument?


Reasons? No, you merely provided a series of assertions premised on your grade-school calculation.
Where is your evidence that nonrandom mutations somehow make evolution 'faster'? You have provided nothing of the sort.


There are not 100 posts in this thread.

You have not demonstrated that your mere assertions ARE a problem.

Why should I waste time meeting your imaginary standards when you cannot provide a SINGLE reference showing that:

1. 5 million years is not enough time (for what???)
2. Nonrandom mutations somehow spread faster through a population than SNPs.
3. "mammals and particularly the human line evolved too fast "

Your Tattersall article said NOTHING about "too fast", and did not even mention genetics!

Again, put up or shut up.

You are not fooling anyone except other lay creationists.

ok I will anser to your questions clearly and unabigously hoping that next time you will do the same
But this is your last chance, if you don’t answer clearly and unambiguously like I will do I will ignore the rest of your comments.

my questions in RED

1. You claim RM/NS is not fast enough to account for human evolution.

yes, I would claim that................would you claim the opposite? would claim that there is enough time for RM and NS to account for the evolutio of the human line?, would you atleast admit that this is an open question that is currently being evaluated by scientists?

2. I ask for evidence for this, you eventually declare nonrandom mutations like transposons make it fast enough, even though you don;t believe it anyway

All I am saying is that transposons likely played an important role and are responsible for some of the “evolution”

This mechanism can produce new proteins in just 1 generation so yes under that basis the mechanism is “fast enough “

Under your view, did transposons play a major role?

3. I remind you that a transposon still has to spread through a population like an SNP has to, and ask how this would speed things up. You ignore it.

Yes but transposons can produce new functional and selectable proteins (genes) in 1 generation…….the RM+NS model would require a gene duplication + thousands of point mutations in order to get something that we would call a “new gene”

4. then you claim as support that RM/NS is not fast enough.

No, the claims that I would use to support is that traspososn (and other mechanisms) can generate big genetic changes in a small amount of time, meaning that this mechanism can account for the fast rate of evolution.

Can you show that the mechanism of RM and NS is “fast enough” under what basis?

5 million years is not enough time (for what???)

not enough time For 30M beneficial mutations (or something close to 30M) To have occurred, become selected and fixed in the population.

I understand that you would say that this is a strawman, so would you provide the correct numbers?

2. Nonrandom mutations somehow spread faster through a population than SNPs.

yes that is what I would say ...None random mutations are more likely to be positive, more likely to be selected for, more likely to build complex stuff like complete proteins) in a single generation, this is why the would spread faster than random mutations.

As an analogy you can go from point A to B faster if your steps are intended towars that direction, than if you just make random steps towards random directions.

mammals and particularly the human line evolved too fast "

Yes, they evolved too fast to be explained by RM and NS that is what I would claim, is there any academic source that concludes otherwise?
If yes, can you present that source?

If not, then why are so affirming with a seemingly high level of certainty that RM and NS are fast enough?

 

[tas8831]

Why do you have to this all the time, you always bring to the table nonsense and irrelevant stuff, the argument doesn’t imply and of the “implications” that you claim it does, the argument doesn’t make (nor requires) any assertion on “how many mutations are needed to evolve a brain, nor any other “human trait”

So... let me get this straight.. YOU think that merely asserting that some large proportion of another larger number that you made up for no reason is an actual problem fort evolution, and when I bring up specific reasons as to why your numbers are bogus, you find it irrelevant?

You're a funny guy.

All the argument does is.

- Take the 99% similarity between humans and chimps that is commonly cited by evolutionist

Nuance - look it up.

- Assume that this 1% difference represents all the genome, despite knowing that when considering orphan genes, duplications, non-coding DNA etc. the difference is much, much greater than 1%

You mean like I explained to you?

- Given that our genome is 3B bases long, Assume that the difference is roughly 30M bp (1%)

Wow - great math!

- Assume that you would need 30M random mutations in order to account of the 30M differences, which makes the generous assumption that all you need are simple point mutations.

Why would you make assumptions for US?

We actually know all about indels and duplications and all that stuff. Who do you think you can fool with your amazing grade school math?

- Assume that most of this mutations would have to be beneficial* (or affirm neutralism and inherit all the problems that neutralism has)

WHY???

Why assume that? Nobody assumes that except creationists - what is your EVIDENCE???

Your entire premise is the logical equivalent of me arguing against the Divinity of Jesus by demanding you explain how it is that Jesus was 20 feet tall and had blue skin.

Your parameters are NONSENSE based, I am betting, on the naive notion that many non-science people have that any particular morphological trait MUST be accounted for by some huge number of mutations. Right? Otherwise, there is not need for millions of beneficial mutations.

As I have mentioned on here, I have encountered creationists claiming that at least 1 million mutations would have been needed to alter the pelvis for bipedalism, that just making the digits longer would have to occur 1 millimeter per generation, each generation requiring a new beneficial mutation, etc. And none of them could provide any evidence or even rationale for their assertions.

Just like you are doing here.

But as the FGFR-3 achondroplasia issue points out, such thinking is naive - a single point mutation can alter limb proportions, joint numbers, etc, as well as altering all of the related soft tissue structures.

So in your opinion which assumption is wrong,

I have already explained, but OK:

1. The 30 million number.
2. the notion that most of them must have been beneficial because of 'all the' traits
3. that not assuming so also has problems for neutralism somehow

But these are not just my opinions - these are my opinions based on the relevant science and evidence.

and what would the correct numbers be?

1. "Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor approximately 5-7 million years ago (Mya). The difference between the two genomes is actually not approximately 1%, but approximately 4%--comprising approximately 35 million single nucleotide differences and approximately 90 Mb of insertions and deletions."

2. Beneficial mutation rates are not static - especially given context. This paper is noteworthy in that regard -

"... they were able to estimate the proportion of beneficial mutations in virus lines with both high and low fitness. For all three high-fitness lines measured, they were unable to detect any beneficial mutations. But for two out of three low-fitness lines, beneficial mutations were clearly evident. In fact, the fraction of mutations inferred to be beneficial was substantial—16%."​

Beneficial mutations are context dependent, so asking for a beneficial mutation rate, and thus a total number of beneficial mutations produced in a given number of mutations, is a bad question.

It is obvious that not all mutational differences between compared taxa are beneficial - if that were so, you would have had an answer when I asked you about the fact that any 2 humans differ by millions of mutations.

Bottom line, it is impossible to know, given the information currently available, exactly how many fixed beneficial mutations are required for any speciation event, much less how many were required to get from some common ancestor millions of years ago to an extant taxa.

However, since it is the creationists that insist that some huge number of them would have been required, it seems that it is THEIR burden to provide the evidence for this.

But they won't because they can't - instead, they just rely on heir myths about millions being needed because there are millions of differences that they cannot define or describe or provide evidence for regarding specific numbers of beneficial mutations required.

....just kitting, I know that you will not answer directly, because deep inside you know that if anything this “assumptions” are unrealistically too generous for your model.

No, I know that your numbers are bogus and based o ignorance and an unwarranted trust of the mere assertions of creationist propagandists.

 

[blü 2]

I would also make a positive claim and state that the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection play a minor role I would attribute evolution mainly to “non random variation”

Are you arguing for supernatural "Intelligent Design"?

It was sunk with all hands at the Dover trial 2005, and the wreck has never been found. "Irreducible complexity" went down with it ─ there are presently no purported examples of it that I'm aware of, and Behe after more than fifteen years still hasn't revised his hypothesis to accommodate exaptation. I've never heard a coherent statement of what this kind of "Intelligent Design" is ─ and "irreducible complexity", were a possible example found, might point to a gap in our knowledge of evolution, but it wouldn't imply "Intelligent Design" by default or at all.

Nor is there any coherent definition of "supernatural" as an aspect of reality. Nothing distinguishes it from the imaginary.

But perhaps you're talking about something else?

 

[shunyadragon]

I would also make a positive claim and state that the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection play a minor role I would attribute evolution mainly to “non random variation”

Confusing?!?!? the genetic variation in any given interbreeding population is neither random nor non-random. It is simply the genetic diversity in any given population is a result mutations over time..

Random mutations only contribute to the genetic diversity of an interbreeding populations.

 

[tas8831]

I have to tell you, I grow weary of putting the time and effort into addressing your claims only to have you ignore most of it and for you to then just reiterate the same bogus unsupported crap.

my questions in RED

1. You claim RM/NS is not fast enough to account for human evolution.

yes, I would claim that..

Yes, I know you would because you did and have been doing so for years.
Wait - are you claiming that you 'answered my question' by just restating it?

..............would you claim the opposite?

Yes, because the actual evidence says so. You just reiterate unsupported assertions with no rationale at all - just like you just did.

would claim that there is enough time for RM and NS to account for the evolutio of the human line?

Would I? Yes - because there is clear evidence that humans DID evolve from a common ancestor with chimps.

, would you atleast admit that this is an open question that is currently being evaluated by scientists?

No, because at best, what fringe types like Muller are claiming is that other factors - other GENETIC factors - may be involved. As I wrote before, however, the claims of people like Muller are not taken as a given, there are many that disagree with them.

2. I ask for evidence for this, you eventually declare nonrandom mutations like transposons make it fast enough, even though you don;t believe it anyway

All I am saying is that transposons likely played an important role and are responsible for some of the “evolution”

Why do you say that? And why did you bring them up in the context of the 'speed' of human evolution?
Did you not read my treatment of transposons being nonrandom?
Will you at least admit that your 30 million number is inapplicable and that your totally unsupported claim that most of those must be beneficial is based on nothing but a desire for it to be so?

This mechanism can produce new proteins in just 1 generation so yes under that basis the mechanism is “fast enough “

In one organism, yes - just like a mutant allele can also make new proteins in just one generation, but it still has to spread under the same constraints as any other mutation event. You do understand that, no?
Well, actually, it is obvious that you do NOT understand this.. Surely you are not implying that a transposon inserts into ALL members of a population in 1 generation???

Do you understand NOTHING about how these things work?

Under your view, did transposons play a major role?

Major? That is a subjective position to take, but I would generally say no more than any other mutational event.
Any evidence to the contrary? I do think I know where your confusion comes from (though you probably read some inaccurate propaganda on a YEC site and ran with it) - there seems to have been an increase in transposable element activity within the human lineage in the last 4 million years or so relative to other primates that produced selectable changes, thus making them more readily selected for (beneficial mutation rates are dependent upon, among other things, the initial occurrence of the mutation and the population size), at least according to 1 2011 paper. But transpostion is still a mutation even, a genetic event, not something magical. And, again, even such changes/insertions with high selection coefficients still have to spread in a population, they are not universal "in one generation".
Will you at least admit that your 30 million number is inapplicable and that your totally unsupported claim that most of those must be beneficial is based on nothing but a desire for it to be so?

3. I remind you that a transposon still has to spread through a population like an SNP has to, and ask how this would speed things up. You ignore it.

Yes but transposons can produce new functional and selectable proteins (genes) in 1 generation…

Just like RMs. Your point? Do keep in mind that this may occur in but a single individual, so it still has to spread, and just because they can contain their own genes, it is a mistake to conclude they all do.

….the RM+NS model would require a gene duplication + thousands of point mutations in order to get something that we would call a “new gene”

Wow...
I'm sorry but you really need to take a class in genetics.

1. Gene duplications in and of themselves can produce selectable changes, even without subsequent mutations. See 'HOX genes'.
2. A SINGLE mutation in one gene can produce large-scale phenotypic changes.
3. Since the average exonic portion of a gene is around 1500 bases, you are suggesting that most or all of the nucleotides within a coding gene have to be changed to produce a new protein. Evidence for this please?
4. Not all phenotype-altering changes need to be in genes, but can also be in regions controlling gene expression. So again, no huge number of mutations within genes is required.
5. de novo genes are a thing, and they do not require 'thousands' of mutations:

Origin and spread of de novo genes in Drosophila melanogaster populations *
"We identified 142 segregating and 106 fixed testis-expressed de novo genes in a population sample of Drosophila melanogaster. These genes appear to derive primarily from ancestral intergenic, unexpressed open reading frames (ORFs), with natural selection playing a significant role in their spread."

6. Will you at least admit that your 30 million number is inapplicable and that your totally unsupported claim that most of those must be beneficial is based on nothing but a desire for it to be so?

4. then you claim as support that RM/NS is not fast enough.

No, the claims that I would use to support is that traspososn (and other mechanisms) can generate big genetic changes in a small amount of time, meaning that this mechanism can account for the fast rate of evolution.

Please tell us all about the "big genetic changes" that can occur as a result of transposon insertion in "a small amount of time". How big is the big genetic change? And how small is the small amount of time? And do you not realize that if we take your word for these effects, that you are actually helping the evolution cause given your constraints put upon it?

Can you show that the mechanism of RM and NS is “fast enough” under what basis?

I already showed that plain old RM and other known genetic phenomena can account for the 30 million number you dreamed up. That a certain proportion of those may have been adaptive is a given. Given that it is established that small, even single genetic changes (SNP) can produce large phenotypic effects, and that the traits that humans possess are modifications of already-present traits in even basic mammalian precursors, much less Primate ancestors, there is no real scientific reason to believe that it was a necessity for some untold huge number of beneficial mutations to have been required to get a human from an ape ancestor. That is mere emotional rhetoric, often couched in bogus genetic presumptions and bogus calculations.
Creationists are unable to provide evidence on the number of beneficial mutations that were required for even 1 trait, nor how many such traits need to be accounted for - why do they expect their assertions that have no rationale or scientific basis to be taken seriously?

5 million years is not enough time (for what???)

not enough time For 30M beneficial mutations (or something close to 30M) To have occurred, become selected and fixed in the population.

Beg the question much?

Please provide a rationale or better yet, evidence, that such a large number of beneficial would have been required.
As that is your claim, provide the evidence.

I understand that you would say that this is a strawman, so would you provide the correct numbers?

I have written to you on at least 3 occasions that I can remember that I have no idea. I am not claiming that I DO have the number, YOU are.
First, you stole Remine's number. Then you apparently stole Sanford's use of ReMine's number. Then you applied simplistic math and just declared that each and every nucleotide difference between human and chimps must have been beneficial.
Yet not one of you - not ReMine, not Sanford, not you - have ever offered any kind of reason or rationale for claiming this need of large numbers of beneficial mutations, much less an attempt at providing evidence.
It would be like me claiming Jesus wasn't strong enough to carry the cross so the crucifixion story is fake, but never being able to provide data on the size and weight of the cross.

2. Nonrandom mutations somehow spread faster through a population than SNPs.

yes that is what I would say ..

Yes I know, but you cannot seem to provide any evidence for it.

.None random mutations are more likely to be positive,

Evidence please.

more likely to be selected for,

Evidence please.

more likely to build complex stuff like complete proteins) in a single generation

Evidence please.

, this is why the would spread faster than random mutations.

And Jesus could not carry the cross because He was too short and weak, the cross was too large, the wood the cross was made of was too heavy, his shoes did not offer enough support.

That is why Jesus could not carry the cross.

Ask me for evidence for this? Sure -

Jesus could not carry the cross because He was too short and weak, the cross was too large, the wood the cross was made of was too heavy, his shoes did not offer enough support.

That is what it is like discussing this stuff with you.

Not one thing you wrote supports your claim that transposons spread faster in a population than a similarly beneficial SNP.

As an analogy you can go from point A to B faster if your steps are intended towars that direction, than if you just make random steps towards random directions.

And if one of those random steps is in the right direction, it would be selected for. Just like a TE insertion.
So again explain how a transposon that confers an advantage spreads more rapidly though a population.

mammals and particularly the human line evolved too fast "

Yes, they evolved too fast to be explained by RM and NS that is what I would claim

You want evidence Jesus could not have carried the cross?
Here it is:
He was too short and weak, the cross was too large, the wood the cross was made of was too heavy, his shoes did not offer enough support.

, is there any academic source that concludes otherwise?
If yes, can you present that source?

Why do you never have to present evidence for your claims? When YOU provide 'academic' support for any of your claims, I will endeavor to support mine (even though in this thread alone, I have linked to and/or quoted about a dozen such sources in support of my claims, and you have done the same for... NONE).

If not, then why are so affirming with a seemingly high level of certainty that RM and NS are fast enough?

If not, then why are you claiming that all 30 million differences had to be beneficial, there is not enough time anyway, and transposons spread in a population faster than other kinds of mutations?
I no longer feel compelled to do anything more than write assertions, since that is all you seem capable of on any topic.

 

[tas8831]

Ok originally you multiplied 3,000,000 not 3,000,000,000 that is why I didn’t understand your math nor what the 6.6 represented.

So you didn't do the math yourself. Ok.

We can agree that on average mammals evolve 6.6 mutations per year, this is 6.6 mutations that occur and that become fixed in the population (ether by genetic drift or natural selection)

No, we can agree that based on the original number YOU GAVE, that is the number. I am using YOUR number to make things easy. And NO NO NO - this is NOT NOT NOT the number that can become fixed.
That is 100% your unsupportable claim. I do not accept that even remotely.

Given that such speed of evolution has never been observed to occur by random mutations and natural selection, and there is no even a single plausible model that such rate of evolution is even possible it seems obvious that there must have been other important and relevant mechanisms other than random mutations and natural section.

I agree that your parameters not plausible. That is because you are just making things up.
As a ReMine devotee, you must know that his calculations based on Haldane's model set the limit at 1667 FBEs in 10 million years. Not 30 million in 5 million years. The original argument that YOU made was that even ReMine's farcical 500,000 such mutations were 'not enough'.
Your claims then morphed to this absurd 30 MILLION FBEs, and not enough time.
But the thing that none of you bothered to even try to address is WHY you think it i snot enough or not enough time.

THAT all hinges entirely on how many such mutations would have been required AND what traits the ancestor had in the first place. And you have certainly not even tried to address that.
If it really only took 125 beneficial mutations to allow for obligate bipedalism, and another 500 for other gross morphological alterations (which are generally minor given the common traits among primates), that leaves several hundred to those many creatonists focus on, our cognitive abilities.
Also - your pal ReMine allowed for several thousand fixed phenotype-altering neutral mutations as well. Didn't you know that?

Beneficial mutations are very rare

How rare?

, and neutral mutations are very unlikely to become dominant and fixed in a population,

How unlikely? How do you know?

there is no way you can average a speed of 6.6 unless there are other mechanism that would cause a faster “speed of evolution”

That is quite an assertion. Devoid of supporting evidence, as it is. And a misrepresentation on top of it - for that was an OVERALL estimate, not a beneficial mutation estimate.
Can't you remember the discussion that took place just one or two days ago?
Current estimates are that every human possesses 100-200 new mutations that their parents did not have. That rate is roughly in sync with the 6.6.
So if you disagree, lets see YOUR evidence for once.

Just think about it in the last 30 years (since the genome project started) not a single mutation has been observed to become fixed in the human population, and you are supposed to average 6.6 per year

Really?

I was unaware that someone has been keeping track.
But you must know of such a person or more likely, large team of people, busily sampling all 140 million people born a year for the last 30 years to see if they possess a new fixed mutation. Maybe they work for the ICR or DI or something. Regardless, I'm betting you will readily provide the documentation supporting your claims.

And I guess those analyses of mutations in offspring compared to parents must be wrong because some dude on the internet that believes a YEC engineer on genetics issues said so.

 

[tas8831]

Ok if creationist can only do strawmans and false assumptions.... Why don you provide your own correct model with correct assumptions, and show that humans and chimps could have evolved from a common ancestor 5Mya through the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection.

Or you can simply admit that such model doesn't exist

Can you at least admit that your original claims ala ReMine/Sanford are in error?

 

[tas8831]

So that is your strategy,

Make a whole bunch of creative excuses for not answering to my request, flood the forum with your irrelevant nonsense, and then simply claim “I already provided my evidence”

No, my strategy is to try not to have hold up my end of the bargain over and over while you do nothing but reiterate your already-debunked claims and on the rare occasions you do link to a resource, it is irrelevant (like your Tattersall article).

Not writing anything substantive then claiming to have 'already given evidence' is a classic YEC/IDc strategy. When I say I already provided it, I did, in no particular order:

The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

The strange case of John Sanford, creationist


STILL waiting for evidence re:

1. All mutations needing to be beneficial
2. Transposons magically spreading through a population faster than any other mutational event - in 1 generation!
3. the number of beneficial mutations required to get a human trait from a human ancestor's trait
4. the number of traits that must be accounted for via fixed beneficial mutations
5. what those traits are
6. how were any of the above determined
7. no new mutations in the human population in 30 years

 

[Bear Wild]

No, my strategy is to try not to have hold up my end of the bargain over and over while you do nothing but reiterate your already-debunked claims and on the rare occasions you do link to a resource, it is irrelevant (like your Tattersall article).

Not writing anything substantive then claiming to have 'already given evidence' is a classic YEC/IDc strategy. When I say I already provided it, I did, in no particular order:

The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

The strange case of John Sanford, creationist


STILL waiting for evidence re:

1. All mutations needing to be beneficial
2. Transposons magically spreading through a population faster than any other mutational event - in 1 generation!
3. the number of beneficial mutations required to get a human trait from a human ancestor's trait
4. the number of traits that must be accounted for via fixed beneficial mutations
5. what those traits are
6. how were any of the above determined
7. no new mutations in the human population in 30 years

I guess you already know "Leroy" will not be able to come up with any of the evidence for 1-7. The technique of continually coming of with new objections and never being able to resolve the original objections is their only technique to argue because the know they will fail if they just stick to one.

Wait their are two other techniques.
One is just to deny the evidence every time without even trying to know what the evidence is and
Second to keep coming up with more and more bizarre explanations creating a whole knew pseudoscience to twist reality to fit the fantasy presented in the bible.

 

[leroy]

1. The 30 million number.

From your paper
. "

Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor approximately 5-7 million years ago (Mya). The difference between the two genomes is actually not approximately 1%, but approximately 4%--comprising approximately 35 million single nucleotide differences and approximately 90 Mb of insertions and deletions."

Really? You made a big drama because I said 30Million while the correct number is 35million? Is there any relevant difference between 30 and 35? (if anything 35 represents even a bigger challenge than 30)

So there is a difference of 35M single nucleotide differences, can you explain them with random mutations and NS, can you show that there is enough time?

+ for the sake of simplicity I am ignoring all the other differences like insertions, delations, orphan gebes etc. But feel free to include them in your proof.

2. the notion that most of them must have been beneficial because of 'all the' traits

Y they don't have* to be benefitial, I am simply suggesting a big portion of benefitial mutations because they are more likely to become fixed and dominant in a population than neutral mutations, but feel free to provide a model with neutral mutations in your proof.

But they won't because they can't - instead, they just rely on heir myths about millions being needed because there are millions of differences that they cannot define or describe or provide evidence for regarding specific numbers of beneficial mutations required.

.

Ok you need 35M random mutations (ether neutral or benefitial) to explain the single nucleotide differences between chimps and humans agree?

Can you show that mutations can occur and become fixed and dominant fast enough, such that 5M would be enough time?

the number of beneficial mutations required to get a human trait from a human

This is not about explaining "human traits" this is about explaining the 35M nucleotide differences, weather if this differences account for the traits or not is irrelevant,

 

[leroy]

I guess you already know "Leroy" will not be able to come up with any of the evidence for 1-7. The technique of continually coming of with new objections and never being able to resolve the original objections is their only technique to argue because the know they will fail if they just stick to one.

Wait their are two other techniques.
One is just to deny the evidence every time without even trying to know what the evidence is and
Second to keep coming up with more and more bizarre explanations creating a whole knew pseudoscience to twist reality to fit the fantasy presented in the bible.

What are you talking about,? You are on my side we both agree

Thank you. It is finally time to realize that random mutations play one of many roles in evolution. There are many aspects of genetics that are not just random and even epigenetics that can pass on traits without changes in the DNA. This old tiring argument of just random mutation should be put in its place as only one of the amazing ways that diversity occurs and allows evolutionary changes to continue.

@tas8831 is the one who disagree with us

 

[shunyadragon]

What are you talking about,? You are on my side we both agree.

You're delusional.

 

[leroy]

STILL waiting for evidence re:

1. All mutations needing to be beneficial

Ok feel free to provide a model that includes as many neutral mutations as you what

2. Transposons magically spreading through a population faster than any other mutational event - in 1 generation!

Stawman, all I am saying is that" directed mutations" (like trasposons) are more likely to produce big positive selectable changes, explaining this super fast evolution in the human line

3. the number of beneficial mutations required to get a human trait from a human ancestor's trait

Irrelevant,

4. the number of traits that must be accounted for via fixed beneficial mutations

Irelevant

5. what those traits are

Irelevant

6. how were any of the above determined

Irelevsnt

7. no new mutations in the human population in 30 years

I said no new random mutations being fixed and dominant in the human population in the Last 30 years

Your model predicts 7 mutations per year,.... So if your model is inconsistent to what we observe why are you convinced that your model is true?

 

[Bear Wild]

What are you talking about,? You are on my side we both agree


@tas8831 is the one who disagree with us

We still do not agree and you still do not understand random mutation of the genetic code and the ability of the genetic code to rearrange, cut, splice, transfer and other processes as well as turn on and off segments of DNA creating extensive phenotypic changes even without random mutations.

 

[leroy]

We still do not agree and you still do not understand random mutation of the genetic code and the ability of the genetic code to rearrange, cut, splice, transfer and other processes as well as turn on and off segments of DNA creating extensive phenotypic changes even without random mutations.

Yes that is exactly what I am saying, we both agree on that.

@tas8831 is the one who would disagree

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes that is exactly what I am saying, we both agree on that.

@tas8831 is the one who would disagree

So you agree all of these then you must understand how genetics explains how evolution occurs and completely supports the theory of evolution. Thus you must be a supporter of evolution and we can agree the evolution explains how life changed and diversified on earth resulting in what we see on our planet.