The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

[leroy]

Arguments are not evidence. Even in the Tattersall article you linked, nobody said "too fast" - and do tell us all, won't you,. how one can calculate whether or not evolution is "too fast"?

The article that you quoted talks about a rate of 2.2e-9 BP per year

We can use those numbers

Can your model of "only random mutations" explain such a fast speed of evolution?

 

[leroy]

Please explain to us all with your ReMine/Sanford knowledge and your keen math skills, how many fixed beneficial mutations (of any kind) do you think were required, were evolution true (which you seem to believe) to get a modern human pelvis from a "Lucy"? Please show your work and support it with one or two relevant pieces of supporting evidence.

You keep repeating that "argument" despite the fact that I already told you why is that irrelevant

This is not about explaining "the traits" like the brain, the pelvis, etc...

This is about explaining the differences cause by single nucleotide mutations.

We both agree that the number of mutations is 30+ million (from your source)

You hace to show that 5My (7My if you want) is enough time for 30+M random mutations to occur and become fixed and dominant in the human line population.

Weather if "the traits " can be explained by these genetic differences or not is irrelevant

 

[leroy]

[

'
. . . and I simply said, 'Naturally all the determining Laws of Nature, natural processes, and environmental selective pressures that are the cause of evolution are 'none random mechanisms.'

Wrong, the environmental selective pressures are random in the sense I am. Using the word "random"

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjACegQIDhAL&usg=AOvVaw0nAqu76TNjBnXip90a57Yu

 

[shunyadragon]

[


Wrong, the environmental selective pressures are random in the sense I am. Using the word "random"

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_07#:~:text=Mutations%20are%20random&text=Mutations%20can%20be%20beneficial%2C%20neutral,influence%20the%20direction%20of%20mutation.&ved=2ahUKEwjM2eyI6uHpAhUSKKwKHXxzAwEQFjACegQIDhAL&usg=AOvVaw0nAqu76TNjBnXip90a57Yu

Wrong the article you cite describes individual mutations as random. It does not describe environmental selective pressures as random.

I detect a reading comprehension problem here.

 

[leroy]

Wrong the article you cite describes individual mutations as random. It does not describe environmental selective pressures as random.

I detect a reading comprehension problem here.

I am not saying that I agree with all the information in the source, I am simply using their definition of "random" provided by that source.


Given that definition selective pressures are obviously not random


I agree no experiment / research supports unabigously a relevant role of directed mutations. But it's a valid and probable explanation. And some things are better explained by directed mutations being the fact that some stuff evolved too fast one of many things that are better explained by directed mutations

So in other words I am not saying that the scientific evidence concludes with 100% certanity a mayore role of directed mutations, but there is some evidence that makes this view probable.

this in an open and controvertial topic that is currently being discussed and analyzed in the academia, only time will tell us which model is correct, to claim that such a controversy doenst excists (like @tas8831 seems to belive) is simply wrong ,

 

[tas8831]

That is a strawman,


I didn't say that trasposons are involved in most change, I simply said that non random mechanisms (including trasposons) play a major role

Explain and provide evidence.
Perhaps if your words were not always so jumbled and ambiguous and misspelled we might not have these issues.

 

[tas8831]

I told you what I mean by random. And you accepted my definition, now you are using a different definition.... once again you are using "Word games tactics "​

I don't care - at all - what your idiosyncratic definition of random is in this context.

​

That is another strawman, I never said that non random mutations get fix in 1 generation.

You absolutely implied it.
Now you are backtracking.

the point is that non random mutations (or directed mutations) are more likely to be positive, therefore more likely to become fixed.

Evidence for that assertion, please.

And they can produce big selectable changes in a small period of time,

Evidence for this please.

Sure
1 it's a fact that non random (directed) mutations occur

Evidence please.

2 it is a fact that at least at the level of " micro evolution" this mechanisms cause "fast evolution"

Evidence please.

3 humans evolved too fast (faster than it would have been possible by random mutations)

Never any evidence, just more assertions.
You cannot make this claim without answering the questions I've asked for more than 1 year. The fact that you want to pretend those questions are irrelevant demonstrate your ignorance and desperation.

4 therefore it seems probable that a mechanism of fast evolution occurred..... And I am simply suggesting directed mutations as a likely candidate (..... do you have a better suggestion?)

No such thing as directed mutations.

+ 1 and 2 are uncontrovertially true

And yet you cannot provide evidence, so no, they are not.

+ 3 it's the burden proof that you are avoiding so atleast tacitly you are accepting "3"

Not even close, since it is YOUR claim that human evolution was "too fast".
You never provide evidence or even a rationale re: how it is 'too fast', you just keep saying it was. Like a 3rd grader.

+ 4 is probably true (given 1,2 and 3)

Not in the least.

So, you've got nothing at all but the ravings of YECs whose claims you cannot support.

Sad.



I guess this whole thing flew over your head...

Interesting thing - part of my graduate research was on the evolution of a gene family in mammals. There are multiple genes in the family, all mutated copies of each other. One of the major duplication events was facilitated by the insertion of a LINE between 2 of the genes.
The most common LINE in mammals is L1, and it is able to recognize the hexanucleotide "TTAAAA"
and use that to insert itself into a genome. In that sense, it is non-random, since it uses a specific DNA sequence.

Would you like to guess how frequently that sequence shows up in genomes? Just for kicks, I searched GENBANK for the sequence for human chromosome 3. It is about 200 million BP, and my browser kept crashing, so I only downloaded 20 MB of it ( quick back of the envelope calculation indicates that 20 MB = only about 10 million 'letters' representing nucleotides, or about 1/20 of the chromosome in question). Once it loaded, I did a simple search for TTAAAA...........................
How many times do you think TTAAAA showed up?

22,679 times.

That is, there are potentially 22,679 insertion sites for the L1 LINE in about 1/20 of just 1 chromosome.
But sure, transposon insertion is totally 'non-random'....wrt fitness....

It is not that I do not think they play a role in evolution or fitness or selection - they clearly do (I have referred to one such insertion that conferred DDT resistance to fruit flies), but this genotype STILL has to spread throughout a population for it to become fixed, just like plain old SNPs. So your "speed" issue... isn't.

You see, I go through all that only for you to.... ignore. Which is why I am not going to waste much time anymore replying to you with facts and data and evidence. I will be like you - relying almost entirely on mere assertions, repetition of mantras, and garbling science.

 

[leroy]

Explain and provide evidence.
Perhaps if your words were not always so jumbled and ambiguous and misspelled we might not have these issues.

I meant that Transposons are not the only nonrandom mechanism that could have played a role

 

[tas8831]

You keep repeating that "argument" despite the fact that I already told you why is that irrelevant

Your repeated assertions are irrelevant. They are KEY to being able to claim that evolution was "too fast" (which you also never define or substantiate).

This is not about explaining "the traits" like the brain, the pelvis, etc...

This is about explaining the differences cause by single nucleotide mutations.

Why do you keep changing your "argument"?

We both agree that the number of mutations is 30+ million (from your source)

No, we do not. Why do you keep trying to constrain things? Why the strawman? All you can muster?

You hace to show that 5My (7My if you want) is enough time for 30+M random mutations to occur and become fixed and dominant in the human line population.

Why do I have to support your goofy ignorance-based strawman while you never support anything?

Weather if "the traits " can be explained by these genetic differences or not is irrelevant

What an incredibly idiotic assertion.

For the 90th time, let me explain why:

You claim - with zero rationale other than your ignorance of genetics and evolution, that X-number of mutations is not enough to account for human evolution in Y time.

You claim this because you think more such mutations must have been required in order to get humans from an ape-like ancestor.

In order for these to be not enough mutations, or for there not to have been enough time, you MUST know how many mutations (influencing/controlling traits) WERE required AND/OR how much time WOULD HAVE been required for these mutations to have accumulated.

How on earth can you pretend that this is irrelevant?

If I say that it is impossible for you to have driven from point A to point B in 2 hours, am I correct?

 

[tas8831]

I meant that Transposons are not the only nonrandom mechanism that could have played a role

Who cares, you've not provided any reason why anything you say should be considered relevant.

 

[leroy]

I don't care - at all - what your idiosyncratic definition of random is in this context.​

Of course you don’t care, keeping your position unclear an ambiguous seems to be your strategy and “changing” the definition of “random” so that you can include your “TTAAAA showed up 22,679 times irrelevant argument”

Random simply means that a mutation is not more likely to occur just because the organism would benefit form that mutation.

Non random (directed) simply means the opposite, that a mutation is more likely to occure, given that the organism would benefit from it.

If you don’t like me to use the term “random” please let me know what term should I use in order to represent the definitions that I provideded

You absolutely implied it.

Now you are backtracking.

No I never said, nor implied that transposons get fixed and dominant in all the population and even if I did use the “wrong words” I have clarified this multiple times and you still repeat the same comment..

Evidence for that assertion, please.

That is true by definition, directed mutations by definition are more likely to be positive, that is part of the definition of “directed mutations”

Evidence for this please.

Directed mutations occur, and that they cause “fast” evolutionary changes at least at the “micro evolution scale”

My evidence

Natural genetic engineering systems (including transposable elements) are capable of acting genome-wide and not just one site at a time
https://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro_1999_Genetica.pdf

Transposable elements, natural genetic engineering, and the potential for major evolutionary rearrangements The modular organization of genomes as hierarchical systems requires a capacity for cut-and-splice changes (i.e. natural genetic engineering) that transposable elements can provide to cells (Shapiro, 1992). Without these capacities, functionally significant regulatory signals and repetitive elements could not have been distributed throughout the genome to build up coordinated systems. The accumulation of these integrative repeats, one site at a time, by the gradual addition of random nucleotide substitutions would require an unimaginable length of time and would not be consistent with the punctuated nature of the geologic record. Some events, such as the emergence of flowering plants and many different animal body plans, appear to have occured in relatively short time spans. The roles that transposable elements may have played in evolution can be deduced from several kinds of information: • their abundance and distribution in contemporary genomes, • their biologically useful functions in contemporary genomes, • database evidence for a past evolutionary role to generate currently functional genomic structures, and • their capacities, demonstrated in the laboratory, for generating useful genome changes. On all four counts, it is hard to escape the conclusion that transposable elements have played, and will continue to play, a major role in genome reorganization during episodes of evolutionary change

https://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro_1999_Genetica.pdf

So from this source we get that:

There are nonrandom mechanisms that have been observed and that can cause evolution at a much faster rate than would have been possible with random mutations.

Sure there is evidence that

The evidence for fast evolution in humans and mammals is already available in the source that you provided, from your sources we get that there is difference of 33M site differences between humans and chimps and that they diverge 5-7M years ago. So using your sources and your numbers, can you show that 5-7M years is enough time to account for the 33M site differences using the mechanism that you are suggesting?

I am already providing a mechanism that can alter many sites at the same time, so why isn’t this mechanism a good candidate to explain such differences.




.

The fact that you want to pretend those questions are irrelevant demonstrate your ignorance and desperation.

I told you why your questions are irrelevant, you don’t have to explain the “physical traits” that make use humans, you have to explain the 33M nucleotide differences that we know exists between humans and chimps. Weather if this defferences can explain “the traits” or not, is irrelevant

No such thing as directed mutations.

Well I already provided evidence for directed mutations, what else are you expecting, what does it take to convince you that such mutations do occure?

Not even close, since it is YOUR claim that human evolution was "too fast".

Ok “too fast” is a subjective term, but we can agree on the fact that 33/2 M nucleotide differences evolved in the human line in 5M years….. weather if you arbitrary what to call this “fast” or not is irrelevant, the point is that you have to show that your model of “almost only random mutations” can account for such differences.

So, you've got nothing at all but the ravings of YECs whose claims you cannot support.

Really? quote a single claim that I haven’t supported, just pick and quote a single claim.
If you feel that there are “many claims” just pick your single favorite claim

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course you don’t care, keeping your position unclear an ambiguous seems to be your strategy and “changing” the definition of “random” so that you can include your “TTAAAA showed up 22,679 times irrelevant argument”

Random simply means that a mutation is not more likely to occur just because the organism would benefit form that mutation.

Non random (directed) simply means the opposite, that a mutation is more likely to occure, given that the organism would benefit from it.

If you don’t like me to use the term “random” please let me know what term should I use in order to represent the definitions that I provideded​

No I never said, nor implied that transposons get fixed and dominant in all the population and even if I did use the “wrong words” I have clarified this multiple times and you still repeat the same comment..You recited an article that confirmed that the only thing random is the timing of individual mutations, which clearly conflicts with th phony statistics of

That is true by definition, directed mutations by definition are more likely to be positive, that is part of the definition of “directed mutations”

Directed mutations occur, and that they cause “fast” evolutionary changes at least at the “micro evolution scale”

My evidence
So from this source we get that:

There are nonrandom mechanisms that have been observed and that can cause evolution at a much faster rate than would have been possible with random mutations.

The evidence for fast evolution in humans and mammals is already available in the source that you provided, from your sources we get that there is difference of 33M site differences between humans and chimps and that they diverge 5-7M years ago. So using your sources and your numbers, can you show that 5-7M years is enough time to account for the 33M site differences using the mechanism that you are suggesting?

I am already providing a mechanism that can alter many sites at the same time, so why isn’t this mechanism a good candidate to explain such differences.

I told you why your questions are irrelevant, you don’t have to explain the “physical traits” that make use humans, you have to explain the 33M nucleotide differences that we know exists between humans and chimps. Weather if this defferences can explain “the traits” or not, is irrelevant

Well I already provided evidence for directed mutations, what else are you expecting, what does it take to convince you that such mutations do occur?

Ok “too fast” is a subjective term, but we can agree on the fact that 33/2 M nucleotide differences evolved in the human line in 5M years….. weather if you arbitrary what to call this “fast” or not is irrelevant, the point is that you have to show that your model of “almost only random mutations” can account for such differences.

Really? quote a single claim that I haven’t supported, just pick and quote a single claim.
If you feel that there are “many claims” just pick your single favorite claim

Your claim here of a supposed time problem is unsupported by legitimate statistical and genetics references.

Well your reference actually demonstrated that directed mutations are not considered to occur, there are what are called 'repeated pattern mutations' which are not random, and random mutations actually are what dominate the diversity of the gene pool, and they have a natural genetic predictable pattern.

In the reference you cited it was determined that the genes for resistance to penicillin existed in the gene pool before the exposure to the penicillin put selective pressure on the population leading to the dominance of resistant strain. I will give more references to the problem of 'directed mutations.'

It has already been demonstrated and documented a number of times with legitimate references of probability and statistics that this use of f statistics is false, unethical with the only purpose was to prop up unethical and dishonest intelligent design religious agenda.

Mutation only provide the genetic diversity in a population. It is only the reservoir gene pool for evolution to take place. Natural Laws, natural processes, environmental conditions and change are the non-random causes of evolution in any given population, and they determine the rate of evolution.

James Shapiro is an Intelligent design advocate.

It is a strange bizzzaro Alice in Wonderland case indeed.

 

[shunyadragon]

The article that you quoted talks about a rate of 2.2e-9 BP per year

We can use those numbers

Can your model of "only random mutations" explain such a fast speed of evolution?

There is no model "proposed of only random mutations" since the only thing random is the timing of the mutations. None of the contemporary model for evolution propose this. Yes there are repeated pattern natural mutations that naturally occur with natural explanations. Mutations only add to the genetic diversity, and have nothing to with the speed of evolution. Non-random factors such as the Laws of Nature, the changing environment, natural processes are the cause of evolution.

I had misunderstood what directed mutations referred. I thought they referred to repeated pattern mutations, which are not random.

 

[shunyadragon]

I do not like James Shapiro's use of statistics, but nonetheless he did propose a non-random explanation for the natural processes that are the cause of evolution. Read the summary, Comment: He talks too much like an mechanistic engineer.

https://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro_1999_Genetica.pdf

Summary

The thrust of this presentation has been to point out how the discovery of transposable elements as agents of genome restructuring has brought the question of evolutionary change into the realm of cell biology, where regulation and biological information processing are major factors. We are entering the next century with an increasingly computational view of cells and how they make important decisions. The argument here is that evolutionary change is not exempt from this new perspective. Evidence from a variety of systems indicates that transposable elements can interact in a molecularly plausible way with signal transduction networks, the key information processing entities in the cell. Biological feedback can play a critical role in genomic responses to emergencies (McClintock, 1984). Thus, organisms have a far 178 more powerful evolutionary potential to generate integrated genomic networks and ensure the survival of their descendants than predicted by current theories of gradualism and random mutation.

My objection here is that it is tha 'current theories' are misrepresented as simply 'gradualism and random mutation.'

 

[shunyadragon]

The issue of the rate of evolution over time is an interesting one, because it is variable in a considerable range over time. The evidence indicates it is environmentally driven.

The fossil discoveries at the Corral Bluffs near Colorado Springs is an example of environmentally driven rapid evolution. In a space of 1-2 million years after the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs there was a very rapid evolution of a diversity of plants and animals particularly mammals. After the catastrophic extinction event fossil evidence was rare, and only fossils of very small mammals and reptiles were found, about the size of a mouse. There is a long bluff up to a plateau that has consistent sedimentary deposition including river valleys. The climate became lush tropical, and within a million years of so there was a great variety of mammals cyclic and plant life, much of it never before seen in the fossil record. Different mammal species were found range in up to 100 pounders. There is a great NOVA episode

This is very similar to the great genetic diversity of life in today's rain forests where there are many related species, subspecies, and varieties of the plants and animals.

Corral Bluffs Discovery Reveals How Mammals Evolved After Dinosaurs

Groundbreaking DMNS Discovery Reveals What Happened to Mammals After Dinosaurs Went Extinct

New fossils discovered at Corral Bluffs near Colorado Springs offer insight into how the Earth recovered after a mass extinction, and why mammals became the dominant species.

BY JESSE KLEIN • OCTOBER 30, 2019

Thanks to a recent discovery at Corral Bluffs by the curators of Denver Museum of Nature & Science, we now have a fuller picture of how mammals evolved after the extinction of dinosaurs.

In addition to an October 24 paper published by Science magazine, a NOVA-produced documentary premiering Wednesday, October 30 explains how renowned archaeologist Tyler Lyson and his colleague Ian Miller discovered a trove of mammalian fossils at the Corral Bluffs near Colorado Springs in 2016. This discovery was groundbreaking, as knowledge of how mammals rebounded 66 million years ago after an asteroid killed the dinosaurs—and 75 percent of all species on Earth—was effectively zero before this research. The mammals that did survive the asteroid were so small (many no bigger than a rat) that finding fossils buried in the dirt was almost impossible.

“Fossils that we found before were just fragments, broken turtle shells, the occasional crocodile tooth,” Lyson says. “If you’re super lucky, you might find a bit of a mammal jaw.”

But after looking through the museum’s archives, Lyson changed tact. Instead of painstakingly sifting through the dirt for loose fragments of bone, he started cracking open concretions—egg-shaped rocks that form around fossils. In one day, he and Miller found more completely intact fossils at the bluffs from the era after the Cretaceaus-Paleogene extinction than in his entire career, including four mammal skulls.

Photo courtesy of HHMI Tangled Bank Studios
But the fossils would only truly alter science if the researchers could place them in time. Lyson worked with geologists Will Clyde and Anthony Fuentes of the University of New Hampshire, experts in geological dating, to pinpoint the dates in history when the animals lived.

Now, how they did this gets complicated.

At certain points in history, the Earth’s magnetic field switches (I know, bear with me). Basically, South becomes North and North becomes South. Rocks can record this switch, and scientists know the exact dates these switches occurred. With some luck, Clyde and Fuentes were able to find a rock at the bottom of the Bluffs and a rock at the top of the Bluffs, where the polarity switched; two exact dates about a million years apart. By dating the top and bottom of the cliffs, Lyson and his team could create a timeline based on where each fossil was found. They realized that Corral Bluffs represents the first million years after the extinction of the dinosaurs, an essential and previously unknown part of history.

When dinosaurs dominated the landscape, they ate most of the food sources, leaving mammals to fight for scraps. To survive, they were small and ate anything they could find. When the Earth was plunged into a global winter as the sun was blocked by dust from the asteroid, a majority of the plants died and the dinosaurs starved. The dinosaurs were too big and relied heavily on a narrow food source. Only the animals who could subsist off opportunistic scavenging, like the smaller mammals, survived.

But the Earth rebounded quickly. Within 100,000 years, the forests had recovered and the mammals were taking advantage of the dinosaur-free food. “The mammal recovery was intensely intertwined with the plant recovery,” Lyson says.

As the food supply diversified, including the beginning of the protein-packed legume family, animals grew rapidly into 100-pound beasts.

Over the few next hundred thousand years, the mammal fossils found at the Bluffs show an increase in specialization, filling the empty niches left by the dinosaurs. For example, a skull found with only large flat teeth, the oldest herbivore, represents the changing of mammals from opportunistic omnivores to a genus with many different specialized species.

In the documentary, Lyson calls this skull the first major specialization in the mammal fossil record. But there is still much to uncover. “Why mammals diversified after the extinction is still kind of an open question,” Lyson says.

The Corral Bluffs are a paleontological trifecta; it combines animal fossils, historical climate indicators from plants, and precise dating. It represents the closest thing to a complete record of how the Earth recovered after the asteroid—the start of our modern world.

“Very, very rarely do we have the plant, the animal, and the ability to date the rock where the fossils are found,” Lyson says. “That’s what makes it so complete, and it’s all those things together that make this discovery so remarkable.”

Learn more: Watch the documentary Rise of the Mammals on Wednesday, October 30, at 9 p.m. ET on PBS or stream it online at pbs.org. See the collection of fossils in a new exhibit, After the Asteroid: Earth’s Comeback Story, at the Denver Museum of Science and Nature, 2001 Colorado Blvd.

 

[leroy]

In order for these to be not enough mutations, or for there not to have been enough time, you MUST know how many mutations (influencing/controlling traits) WERE required AND/OR how much time WOULD HAVE been required for these mutations to have accumulated.

How on earth can you pretend that this is irrelevant?

If I say that it is impossible for you to have driven from point A to point B in 2 hours, am I correct?

Ok Baby steps, please let me know exactly where is your point of disagreement

1 We “know” from your source that there is a difference of 35 Million single nucleotide differences between humans and chimps, (+ other differences but we are only focusing onthose 35M single nucleotide differences) Agree? Yes or no?

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 These 35M may or may not explain the “traits” that make us human like large brains, pelvis, cooperative behavior etc. we simply don’t know, agree? Yes or no?

3 These 35M may or may not be “all beneficial” we simple don’t know agree? Yes or no?

4 Weather if these 35M explain “the traits” and weather if these mutations are beneficial or not is irrelevant, we still need an explanation for those 35 single nucleic differences. Agree yes or no?

5 under your view most of these single nucleotide differences were caused by single random mutations Agree yes or no? if you disagree please explain with detail what your view is.

6 under your view each of these mutations where selected by genetic drift or natural selection; most of these mutations became fixed and dominant at some point in the human/chimp evolution Agree yes or no?

7 from your source (quote above) humans diverged from chimps 5-7M years ago… is it ok with you if we use 6 Million? Agre yes or no?

8 Most if these single nucleotide mutations had to occur after humans and chimps diverged from common ancestor agree yes or no

9 By doing the math 35,000,000mutations/6,000,000years we get an average of 5.8 mutations per year. Agree yes or no? for the sake of simplicity is it ok with you if we use “6” instead of “5.8”?

10 this means that on average 6 mutations became fixed and dominant per year in the human / chimp line agree yes or no? perhaps 50% in the human line and 50% in the chimp line

11 there is not a single model or observation reported in the literature that shows that on average 6 mutations can become fixed and dominant in a population per year in primates (nor any other organism with slow reproductive rates)agree yes or no. (if you disagree you would be making the positive claim and the burdem prove would be on you)

12 at least at a “micro level” observations of evolution so fast to be explained by “just random mutations” have been observed agree yes or no?

13 there are mechanisms that can change many nucleotides at the same time in a positive selectable way, agree yes or no?

14 these mechanisms (trasposons, NGE etc.) can cause “fast evolution” at least at a micro level (within the same specie) agree yes or no?

Source for 12,13 and 14 (https://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro_1999_Genetica.pdf)

15 if these mechanism can cause “fast micro evolution” it is valid to assume that maybe the can also create fast “macro evolution” or evolution beyond the specie level agree yes or no

Note: As for number 11 we do have some models in the literature but in my opinion none of them is successful, feel free to select your favorite model and I tell you why I think is unsuccessful

This paperr https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_1/j19_1_113-125.pdf (ID literature) explores different scenarios and concludes that there is not enough time for organisms with slow reproductive rates, ifyou have a different model not explored in this paper of}r you think a model was misrepresented in the paper feel free to provide the correct model with the correction.

So 14 points, please let me know which of these points do you grant, which would require minor (irrelevant) modifications, and which of them would you reject and why?

 

[leroy]

So back to the original argument.

- Pretend that there is an ancient ape (an ancestor of humans and chimps)

- This Ape Gets a random single nucleotide mutation in some region of the genome (ether a beneficial mutation or a neutral or whatever)

- Then in just 1 generation (say 10 years) this mutation becomes fixed and dominant in the whole population.

- Repeat the process for 6 million years


So even under this unrealistic and favorable scenario the maximum number of mutations that could have been accumulated by this ape in 6 Million years is 600,000 mutations.

From you source, we know that there are around 35 million single nucleotide differences between humans and apes, that require an explanation.


Under this basis I conclude that 6M years is not enough time for evolution using your model of “just random mutations”


I seems obvious that we need another mechanism that would account for enough nucleotide differences in just 6M years , and such mechanisms do exist, there are some none random mechanisms that can cause many nucleotide difference at once …so why aren’t you open to the possibility that maybe these mechanisms played a roll.

 

[shunyadragon]

4 Weather if these 35M explain “the traits” and weather if these mutations are beneficial or not is irrelevant, we still need an explanation for those 35 single nucleic differences. Agree yes or no?

No, Numbers of mutations are irrelevant. There are tropical environments where millions of mutatins take place in populations of millions of members of species, subspecies, and varies that would dwarf your puny 35 million mutations. Evolution takes place in large populations and between related populations.
In the evolution genetics there is no such thing as [single mutation differences.

5 under your view most of these single nucleotide differences were caused by single random mutations Agree yes or no? if you disagree please explain with detail what your view is.

No, too mechanistic. Nucleotide differences do not only occur by step wise mutation. They also occur by substitution.This is only one small example of your vast ignorance concerning the genetic mechanisms that are involved in evolution. Straight one by one mechanistic view of the role of mutations is not correct.

Models of Sequence Evolution for DNA Sequences Containing Gaps

Models of Sequence Evolution for DNA Sequences Containing Gaps
Gráinne McGuire, Michael C. Denham, David J. Balding


Discussion
In the past, the idea of extending substitution models by considering a gap position as a fifth character alongside the nucleotides has been largely ignored except by some parsimony methods. The main argument against following this approach is that it would treat each gap position in a multiple-site insertion or deletion as an independent event, thereby giving too much weight to insertions and deletions. Simulation studies in this paper have suggested that using the information from gaps often adds more to the inference than the problems of overweighting the gaps detract from them—for some data sets simulated with multiple-site indel events, there was a significant gain in information for estimating the topology when the gap sites were used.

The main difficulties with this overweighting of gaps will be in sequences with long insertion and deletion events where some support relationships different from those in the correct tree. Treating each position independently results in a great deal of support for the incorrect relationship and may change the tree inferred. A good example of a case in which this occurs is that of the chloroplast data described by [email protected].

This work was funded by the BBSRC under grant number 45/G09600. We would like to thank Peter Holland and Simon Whelan for some useful discussions and the anonymous referees for helpful comments. Some of the computational work in the development of this algorithm was carried out on the HGMP-MRC computing system.

6 under your view each of these mutations where selected by genetic drift or natural selection; most of these mutations became fixed and dominant at some point in the human/chimp evolution Agree yes or no?

No they do not become fixed, evolution is fluid and dynamic responding to environmental presures.

7 from your source (quote above) humans diverged from chimps 5-7M years ago… is it ok with you if we use 6 Million? Agre yes or no?

Agree.

8 Most if these single nucleotide mutations had to occur after humans and chimps diverged from common ancestor agree yes or no

No, evolution is a continuous process over time without specific beginnings involving tens of thousands individuals and between populations of tens of thousands of individuals.

9 By doing the math 35,000,000mutations/6,000,000years we get an average of 5.8 mutations per year. Agree yes or no? for the sake of simplicity is it ok with you if we use “6” instead of “5.8”?

No there is no such thing of average mutations per year, and considering there are tens of thousands of individuals in many different populations across Africa when humans evolved your numbers are miniscule over time. You neglect the fact that there are tens of thousands of our ancestors in many different populations across the regions of Africa potentially interbreeding at any one time.

I already gave a reference of rapid evolution at the end of the Cretaceous after the extinction of the dinosaurs there was a rapid diversification of mammals and plant life within a million years..

 

[leroy]

leroy: 4 Weather if these 35M explain “the traits” and weather if these mutations are beneficial or not is irrelevant, we still need an explanation for those 35 single nucleic differences. Agree yes or no?

No, Numbers of mutations are irrelevant. There are tropical environments where millions of mutatins take place in populations of millions of members of species, subspecies, and varies that would dwarf your puny 35 million mutations. Evolution takes place in large populations and between related populations.
In the evolution genetics there is no such thing as [single mutation differences.

Note how you didn't answer to my comment, you made a completely different point unrelated to the comment that you where suppose to answer. What is the point of quoting my comment if you are going to answer something unrelated?

The fact is that there are 35M single site differences between humans and chimps, there are 35M single nucleotide variations that are present in all (or most) humans and absent in most chimps.

This implies that at some point each of these 35M sites had a mutation that became fixed and dominant in ether the human line or the chimp line.

So how do you explain that?

There are tropical environments where millions of mutatins take place in populations of millions of members of species, subspecies, and varies that would dwarf your puny 35 million mutations.

Increasing the size of the population doesn't seems to help much, sure you do get more raw material (more mutations) but fixiation becomes less and less likely as you increase the size of the population.

But that's OK, feel free to use any populatiin size that you what, and present a model that shows that the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection can account for those 35M differences.

No, too mechanistic. Nucleotide differences do not only occur by step wise mutation. They also occur by substitution.

And isn't substitution also step wise?

But even more important, why is it relevant? What is your point?

Models of Sequence Evolution for DNA Sequences Containing Gaps

Why is this relevant?

No they do not become fixed, evolution is fluid and dynamic responding to environmental presures.

if they didn't become fixed, then why are these differences in all (or most) of the human population?

No, evolution is a continuous process over time without specific beginnings involving tens of thousands individuals and between populations of tens of thousands of individuals.

Yes and so what?



.

You neglect the fact that there are tens of thousands of our ancestors in many different populations across the regions of Africa potentially interbreeding at any one time.

I didn't neglected this fact, increasing the size of the population makes fixiation less likely and doesent seen to affect much the speed of evolution at a molecural level, but feel free to present your model a show that 35M nucleotides could hace evolved in the las 6M years through RM and NS

already gave a reference of rapid evolution at the end of the Cretaceous after the extinction of the dinosaurs there was a rapid diversification of mammals and plant life within a million years..

Interesting, the next step is to show that this rapid evolution was due to RM and NS

 

[shunyadragon]

Note how you didn't answer to my comment, you made a completely different point unrelated to the comment that you where suppose to answer. What is the point of quoting my comment if you are going to answer something unrelated?

The fact is that there are 35M single site differences between humans and chimps, there are 35M single nucleotide variations that are present in all (or most) humans and absent in most chimps.

This implies that at some point each of these 35M sites had a mutation that became fixed and dominant in ether the human line or the chimp line.

So how do you explain that?

By the evidence for evolution.

Increasing the size of the population doesn't seems to help much, sure you do get more raw material (more mutations) but fixiation becomes less and less likely as you increase the size of the population.

No fixation. The larger the population the larger the genetic diversity. The more ideal the environment the grater the genetic diversity in a population and the greater the rate of evolution.

But that's OK, feel free to use any population size that you what, and present a model that shows that the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection can account for those 35M differences.

The 35 M differences are meaningless, and a bogus creationist argument simply based on the direct observations of evolution. The greater the population the greater the genetic diversity in the population and the greater the rate of evolution.

And isn't substitution also step wise?

No, it is a diverse interaction of the genetic diversity evolution of populations, and not specific step by step nonsense.

But even more important, why is it relevant? What is your point?

The mutations are not the cause of evolution. They only provide the diversity of genes in a population of organisms. The environment is the driving force and the cause of the variation in the rate of evolution over time.

Why is this relevant?

It is relevant, because there are more types and factors involved in the genetics of evolution than your bogus statistical model not supported by actual evidence in the real world.

if they didn't become fixed, then why are these differences in all (or most) of the human population?

Contradiction big time. They are not fixed, because of the evidence of the diversity of differences throughout the history of evolution.

Yes and so what?

. . . because your use of statistics and numbers as limiting the timing of evolution is bogus. There is no evidence to support your bogus math.

No, evolution is a continuous process over time without specific beginnings involving tens of thousands individuals and between populations of tens of thousands of individuals.

I didn't neglected this fact, increasing the size of the population makes fixiation less likely and doesent seen to affect much the speed of evolution at a molecural level, but feel free to present your model a show that 35M nucleotides could hace evolved in the las 6M years through RM and NS

Increasing population does not make fixation unlikely.

Your lack of knowledge in genetics, evolution and science in general makes your argument worse.

I have responded repeated to your flawed argument that genetic mutations are what cause or limit the timing of evolution. The statistical argument is unethically false, anote] bad math as has been demonstrated repeatedly in the past.. The numbers are rather meaningless, because first, genetic mutations are NOT random only the timing within the constraints of limited possibilities is random. You neglect that there are many types of over lapping types of mutation that contribute to the diversity By direct evidence the genetic diversity in populations of ideal environments is many times greater than less ideal environments.

Interesting, the next step is to show that this rapid evolution was due to RM and NS

As with all evolution and even abiogenesis it driven by environmental factors including the rate of evolution, and in the case of the post Cretaceous rapid evolution and the Cambrian explosion it was a void lack of competition accompanied by an ideal environment for the evolution of life,