Jump to content


Photo

The Long Term Evolution Experiment ( Ltee )


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#41 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 13 November 2008 - 11:59 PM

So, you must show how many mutations are neutral in the difference between man and chimps and how it will decrease the time I calculated.Please, using numbers.

View Post


ANY value higher than zero will decrease your result.

I don't know specifically what this value is, but then I don't have to. Why? Because YOU are the one basing your entire argument on the ASSUMPTION that it is equal to zero, the onus is on YOU to show that this is the case.

All I have to do is point out that you have not done so. This is why it is always easier to critisize the argument of someone else than supporting your own. All I have to do is point out the holes in your argument. I (and others) have done this. This is all that is required to critisize your argument. You on the other hand, have to support your argument by showing that the mistakes we point out are not mistakes.

So basically, before you don't show that the mutations that make up the divergence between humans and chimps consists ENTIRELY of beneficial mutations, your argument remains unsupported.

#42 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 14 November 2008 - 09:40 AM

I'll crunch some numbers, but first I want to clarify a few things:

First, to reiterate the point from the Nature paper on human-chimp genomics I quoted ealier: "we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles".  So this notion that it's all about beneficial mutations and nothing else is a wrong way of looking at it.  Most of the variation between genomes is not beneficial; indeed most is neutral change,


The human is superior to a chimp. It is far more intelligent. I don't understand what you mean when you suggest that some of the mutations between an ape ancestor and a human are "neutral."

Second, I already pointed out that mutation rates are not a problem with respect to raw divergence.  The question becomes how many beneficial mutations do we truly need.  And the truth is the answer is arguably up for debate.  We can estimate but we don't really know.  Maybe it's only 10,000, maybe 20,000, maybe 100,000.  I'll get back to this in a moment.

4% divergence amounts to millions of differences in base pairs, not tens of thousands.

Third point, the rate from that paper is based on a single experiment involving a single species and single methodology.  The authors include a caveat that it may be an underestimate based on the fact they can't necessarily identify every single possible beneficial mutation.  So I'd take the number with a grain of salt.

If one gives evolutionary theory every possible benefit of the doubt, which I challenge you to do, you're going to still come up far short of any realistic probability of an ape evolving into a man.

Anyway, onto the calculations:

The rate is given at 4x10^-9 per cell per generation.  Human gametes have mutiple cell generations (~30 for female and 400 for male).  So the rates of mutation in human gametes are 1.2 × 10^-7 for female (eggs) and 1.6 × 10^-6 for males (sperm).  Therefore, the combined rate is 1.72x10^-6.

In a steady population of, oh, 100,000 individuals there will be approximately 0.172 beneficial mutations per generation.  This translates to a new benefical mutation every ~5.8 generations or 116 years.  Over 5 Mya of evolution between human and chimps, this means approximately 43 thousand beneficial mutations could occur.

I did some quick searching and came across another paper, Positive and Negative Selection on the Human Genome: http://www.genetics....full/158/3/1227

They looked at the makeup of the genome and estimated a rate of 1 advantageous substitution every 200 years:
Based on their rate, we'd be looking at 25 thousand beneficial mutations in the 5 million years of divergence time between humans and chimps.  So the number I crunched is at least ballpark with respect to the number in this paper.  The exact right answer though is unknown since all of this is just different ways of estimating it.  So far, based on everything I've read about human evolution and the divergence between humans and chimps, I've yet to see anything that would suggest that current mutation rates are a problem.

View Post

Even if you accept that the evolution of man could have involved only 25,000 mutations, which is a gargantuan step to begin with, you cannot look at the difference between an ape and man as a mere conglomeration of 25,000 mutations. Those mutation would have to be at specific loci. You referenced a mutation rate of 1.72x10^-6. per gamete per generation. For macroevolution to occur, you're going to require mutations at specific loci. With 3 billion possible sites on the human genome, the probabilty of a specific mutation to occur would be in the range of 10^-12. You may argue that there is no plan, no blueprint... that evolution is random. However, nature does not bear this out. Evolution is purposeful, sequential. Although you think that natural selection culls out all the b non=beneficial mutations, the correct mutations must occur and conform to probability laws to be perpetuated in the species in the first place. Just look at the squid eye and vertebrate eye... two nearly identical structures, enormously complex, which both supposedly evolved independently of each other. This fact alone proves that evolution, if it exists, is a purposeful, sequential, onward and upward progression, therefore requiring the appearance of specific mutations.

#43 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 November 2008 - 01:07 PM

The human is superior to a chimp.  It is far more intelligent.


"Superior" is relative. Yes, we are more intelligent and successful as a species. But get into a naked cage fight with a chimp and you'll probably lose. :)

I don't understand what you mean when you suggest that some of the mutations between an ape ancestor and a human are "neutral."


It means that the bulk of the divergence is essentially random.

4% divergence amounts to millions of differences in base pairs, not tens of thousands.


Yes, but I'm talking about beneficial mutations here, not total divergence. Again, the bulk of the divergence is from neutral variation, not from beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations form a subset of the total divergence.

If one gives evolutionary theory every possible benefit of the doubt, which I challenge you to do, you're going to still come up far short of any realistic probability of an ape evolving into a man.


I have seen no issues with mutation rates and human-chimp divergence. Indeed, the evidence seems to support it quite nicely at the genetic level.

You referenced a mutation rate of 1.72x10^-6. per gamete per generation. For macroevolution to occur, you're going to require mutations at specific loci.  With 3 billion possible sites on the human genome, the probabilty of a specific mutation to occur would be in the range of 10^-12.  You may argue that there is no plan, no blueprint... that evolution is random.  However, nature does not bear this out.


But the rate is for beneficial mutations only. The overall mutation right is considerably higher (by quite a few magnitudes). I'm only looking at a subset of those mutations, so it's already a given that those mutations would occur in the right places and have the right effects.

Although you think that  natural selection culls out all the b non=beneficial mutations


No, I don't think this at all. In fact, I think the opposite. As I've pointed out repeatedly now, the bulk of the raw divergence between humans and chimps is non-beneficial (as it relates to Natural Selection).

#44 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 14 November 2008 - 02:23 PM

I understand perfectly well what fixation means. I don't see how it's relevant, however, since we we're not talking about which genetic differences become fixed. We're just talking about the gross differences between genomes.


That´s an essential point if you claim that the majority of mutations are neutral.

"Because of genetic drift, the ultimate fate of every neutral variation within a gene pool is either extinction or fixation."

"When a new neutral mutation arises (let us say one A allele in a gene pool otherwise consisting of B alleles) then the process of genetic drift begins. And it begins with the A allele very close to extinction"

"This leads to a further rather neat result. Let μ be the rate at which neutral mutations occur, given as probability of mutation per nucleotide per generation. Then there will be μfNe mutations per site per generation in the population. Of these, only a fraction will go on to fixation, this fraction being given, as we have shown, by 1/fNe. It follows that the rate of substitution (i.e. the fixation of new alleles, replacing the old ones) is given by μfNe/fNe --- which is just equal to μ. In other words, the rate of substitution per site per generation in the entire gene pool is equal to the rate of mutation per nucleotide per generation in the individual"

http://skepticwiki.o...p/Genetic_Drift

So, if we have 35 millions of neutral mutations fixed in our lineage then it´s necessary to have occured 35 * 10^6 * 10^10 = 35 * 10^16 mutations.As we have 130 mutations per individual then it´s necessary 2,69 * 10^15 individuals in 250,000 generations.It will lead us to 10.76 billions of individuals per generation for the last 5 million years.

For example, using the mutation rate from the blog you linked earlier, it pegs the rate of mutations at ~130 substitutions (single nucleotide) per person per generation. Assuming 5 million years of evolution with a mean generation time of 20 years, that means we have 250 000 generations. Assuming strictly neutral evolution, therefore the net accumulated difference from the ancestor to a current individual is going to be just 130x250000 = 32.5 million base pairs.


Your mistake is clear.You are ignoring genetic drift.

And if I want to double check this with data from another paper on mutation rates in mammalian genomes I can:

http://www.pnas.org/...t/99/2/803.full

In this paper, they compute the average neutral mutation rate to be 2.22x10^-9 substitutions per site per year.

Note that this is based on a different unit measure (annual as opposed to generational). Based on the size of the genome (3 billion base pairs) times the rate (2.22x10^-9) times the distance (5 million years), yields a net accumulated difference from the ancestral population of 33.3 million base pairs. How about that?


First, You are again ignoring genetic drift, so your number is wrong.
Second, we can see reading the paper that the results are biased.The genes comparisions that gave the wrong results were discarded.So, it´s not a surprise that the result is near the expected number, although 800 thousand of mutations is a large number.

"Homogeneity of Substitution Patterns Between Lineages.Although the fourfold-degenerate sites are expected to accumulate only synonymous substitutions, the evolutionary distances estimated by using these sites are useful in estimating the underlying mutation rate only if the nucleotide substitutions have accrued with the same substitution pattern in the two species compared. That is, the homologous sites in the two sequences compared in a given gene must have evolved with the same instantaneous substitution matrices. Substitution patterns in a given gene may shift in one lineage as compared with its orthologous counterpart for a number of reasons including chromosomal rearrangements (23), gene transfer (24), or centromere movement (e.g., mouse genome). In these cases, substitution patterns in genes may be affected to fix mutations that make the base composition of the gene to be more similar to its chromosomal location [amelioration effect (24)], and this will be more pronounced at the sites that are selectively neutral. Therefore, the substitution rate at neutral sites in those genes will be higher than the actual mutation rate (25), rendering such genes unsuitable for inferring mutation rates.

Therefore, we conducted the disparity index test for each pair of orthologous sequences (26, 27) to identify genes in which fourfold-degenerate sites are not evolving with homogeneous substitution patterns among the lineages compared. The disparity index test directly examines the null hypothesis of homogeneity of the evolutionary pattern between two lineages by testing whether the observed difference in nucleotide frequencies between sequences is more than that expected by chance alone, given the number of differences observed between sequences. ( It seems to me circular reasoning, dont you think ? How do they know if the difference in nucleotide frequencies is more than expected by chance alone if the chance of mutation is what they want to discover ?). It does not require the knowledge of the actual pattern of substitution, evolutionary relationships among species, or equality of substitution rates among lineages (26, 27). The disparity index test revealed that the fourfold-degenerate sites in a large number of genes have not evolved homogeneously in inter- as well as intraordinal comparisons (Fig. 2 a). For instance, sequences of the same gene in human and mouse are evolving with significantly different evolutionary substitution patterns in 1,703 of 3,722 comparisons (46%). The red closed circles in Fig. 2 b correspond to genes that were rejected by the disparity index test when the expected and observed difference in GC content was tested. These genes clearly show much higher observed GC content difference than that expected by chance alone (the expected distribution is depicted by green open circles). On the contrary, GC content differences between human and mouse for the genes passing the disparity index test (black closed triangles) show a distribution that overlaps with the expected distribution (Fig. 2 :). It is apparent that mutations in the fourfold-degenerate sites are fixed with different patterns of substitution in different genes depending on the chromosomal context (e.g., isochore structure) in the genome (28). However, the observed differences in G + C content in fourfold-degenerate sites among genes may be an indication of differences in actual patterns of substitution or mutation among genes.

Therefore, synonymous substitutions in a large number of genes are not suitable to use for inferring mutation rates. In fact, the inclusion of genes (sequence pairs) evolving under heterogeneous evolutionary patterns would produce distance estimates that are higher than that expected for the genes evolving with homogenous substitution patterns. Because different lineage comparisons show this heterogeneity to different extents (Fig. 2 c), estimates will be biased to different extents, which is likely to lead to erroneous conclusions regarding large mutation-rate differences among species (25). Both these problems are clearly evident in Fig. 2 c, which shows that the difference in evolutionary distances at fourfold-degenerate sites among the genes, which passed or failed the disparity index test, is as large as 46% (cow-pig comparison) and differs multifold among different species pairs. For this reason, all genes showing pattern heterogeneity in fourfold-degenerate sites should be and were removed from any further analyses. This removal reduces the number of genes considerably (Fig. 2 a), but still the numbers of the fourfold-degenerate sites analyzed were quite large (682–543,962; see Fig. 5 legend)."

Furthermore, we don't care which differences are accumulated. Indeed, if the population averages at 100,000 individuals, that means there are a total of 3.25 trillion possible mutations that could have occurred. But the majority of them get weeded out through random genetic drift.


That´s the point 3.25 trillion possible mutations are not enough to fix 35 millions of mutations.

#45 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 14 November 2008 - 02:41 PM

It's not based on frequency. It's based on a statistically significant change in frequency


What ????? :)

#46 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 14 November 2008 - 02:42 PM

Again, it's not speculation.  Do you understand how they are coming up with that?  If not, I can try to explain it for you.

View Post


I´m all ears.

#47 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 14 November 2008 - 02:44 PM

ANY value higher than zero will decrease your result.


:)

I don't know specifically what this value is, but then I don't have to. Why? Because YOU are the one basing your entire argument on the ASSUMPTION that it is equal to zero, the onus is on YOU to show that this is the case.


:)

All I have to do is point out that you have not done so. This is why it is always easier to critisize the argument of someone else than supporting your own. All I have to do is point out the holes in your argument. I (and others) have done this. This is all that is required to critisize your argument. You on the other hand, have to support your argument by showing that the mistakes we point out are not mistakes.


:)

So basically, before you don't show that the mutations that make up the divergence between humans and chimps consists ENTIRELY of beneficial mutations, your argument remains unsupported.

View Post


:)

#48 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 14 November 2008 - 02:52 PM

Some key points:

Genotype vs phenotype:


If you mean similarity in phenotype is not equal similarity in genotype then how do evolutionists use homology in phenotype level to make relationships in the fossil record.

#49 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 November 2008 - 02:55 PM

deadlock, not all variation is going to be fixed in the respective gene pools. As I said, we don't care about specific differences, we are just looking at the gross differences. In the human gene pool alone there is all sorts of variation that is not fixed in the pool. Some human alleles have dozens or even hundreds of variants.

I know for a fact how to measure neutral divergence between gene pools. This is textbook stuff (here's the ref, you can look it up: Futuyma (2005.) Evolution, pp. 237). I think what is happening is you are confusing two concepts: rate of variation vs fixation of alleles.

Anyway, I've got to jet, but I'll be back to address your other points over the weekend.

#50 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 14 November 2008 - 03:01 PM

deadlock, not all variation is going to be fixed in the respective gene pools.  As I said, we don't care about specific differences, we are just looking at the gross differences.  In the human gene pool alone there is all sorts of variation that is not fixed in the pool.  Some human alleles have dozens or even hundreds of variants.

I know for a fact how to measure neutral divergence between gene pools.  This is textbook stuff (here's the ref, you can look it up:  Futuyma (2005.) Evolution, pp. 237).  I think what is happening is you are confusing two concepts: rate of variation vs fixation of alleles.

Anyway, I've got to jet, but I'll be back to address your other points over the weekend.

View Post


First, If the mutations are neutral then they have only two choices, extintion or Fixation.

Second, it´s irrelevant the allele variation we have now because they didnt compare all the human alleles with all chimps alleles.So, the main point is that our ancestor alleles were removed.

#51 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 November 2008 - 12:44 AM

Second, it´s irrelevant the allele variation we have now because they didnt compare all the human alleles with all chimps alleles.So, the main point is that our ancestor alleles were removed.

View Post


Actually, in the paper they mention that 14-22% of single nucliotide sub differences are due to SNPs in human and chimp populations. So yes, it is relevant.

#52 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 November 2008 - 01:03 AM

So, if we have 35 millions of neutral mutations fixed in our lineage then it´s necessary to have occured 35 * 10^6 * 10^10 = 35 * 10^16 mutations.As we have 130 mutations per individual then it´s necessary 2,69 * 10^15 individuals in 250,000 generations.It will lead us to 10.76 billions of individuals per generation for the last 5 million years.


What the heck are you even trying to calculate here? I have no idea what you are doing.

Second, we can see reading the paper that the results are biased.The genes comparisions that gave the wrong results were discarded.So, it´s not a surprise that the result is near the expected number, although 800 thousand of mutations is a large number.


They were attempting to compute neutral mutation rates. So they were selective in gene comparison that showed evidence of only neutral variation.

What ?????


Do you understand the difference between computing the freqency of something occuring versus observing a change in the frequency of something occuring?

If an allele occurs at the rate of 10% in a population, by itself that doesn't mean much. But if that allele suddenly goes from 10% to 90%, then that's meaningful.

I´m all ears.


Do you understand what synonomous and non-synonymous substitutions are? Ka/Ks ratios? I don't know the extent of your background in this stuff so I'm not sure how much detail to go into.

The short of it is that scientists can do analysis of genomic data using ratios of synonomous and non-synonymous substitutions to determine which regions appear to be under selection (both positive and negative selection), and which regions are not.

If you mean similarity in phenotype is not equal similarity in genotype then how do evolutionists use homology in phenotype level to make relationships in the fossil record.


Eh, it's complicated. A lot of it depends on what you are comparing, both genetically and phenotypically. Early evolutionary trees based on physical homologies have been corrected based on molecular studies. The most dramatic was probably the recognition of an entirely new domain of life: Archaea.

#53 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 16 November 2008 - 05:03 AM

What the heck are you even trying to calculate here?  I have no idea what you are doing.

View Post


I´ll clarify.If the fixation rate of neutral mutation is 10^-10 then it means that on every 10^10 neutral mutations one is fixed.So, if you have 35 millions of neutral mutations fixed it means that 35 * 10^6 * 10^10 mutations had to happen.

Do you understand the difference between computing the freqency of something occuring versus observing a change in the frequency of something occuring?

If an allele occurs at the rate of 10% in a population, by itself that doesn't mean much. But if that allele suddenly goes from 10% to 90%, then that's meaningful.


All mutation starts with 0%.So, if an allele occurs at the rate of 10% it means that since its happening it increased 10%, is that meaningful ?

Now I´m busy, so I´ll address the other points later.

#54 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 November 2008 - 11:46 AM

I´ll clarify.If the fixation rate of neutral mutation is 10^-10 then it means that on every 10^10 neutral mutations one is fixed.So, if you have 35 millions of neutral mutations fixed it means that 35 * 10^6 * 10^10 mutations had to happen.


Oh, I see what you are doing and where you went wrong.

First, we need to emphasize that these are single base substituations we are talking about. So we are talking about a specific type of divergence here.

Second, the rate of mutations in humans is NOT 10^-10. This is the rate for bacteria, which only undergo a single cell replication per generation (because they 1-celled). Humans undergo multiple cell generates per gamete (400 for male and 30 for female). This is already pointed out in the blog you linked and I already pointed it out as well. Do you understand what this means for the rate in humans?

Since the rate per site per cell replication is 10^-10 and humans undergo ~430 cell replications per human replication, therefore the rate in humans is 10^-10 x 430 = 4.3x10^-8 per site per generation.

To get this on an annual basis for simplicity, assuming a generation time of 20 years, the average rate is 4.3x10^-8 / 20 = 2.15×10^-9 per site per year. Note that this is pretty close to the 2.22x10^-9 rate from the paper on mammalian mutation rates I linked earlier.

Since we have 3 billion base pairs, the mutation rate will be 2.15×10^-9 x 3 billion = 6.45 mutations per year. Multiplied by 5 million years we get an accumulated ~32.2 million mutations.

Since the rate of fixation is equal to the neutral mutation rate (as you have already pointed out), we're done.

All mutation starts with 0%.So, if an allele occurs at the rate of 10% it means that since its happening it increased 10%, is that meaningful ?


Right. And the point is that they were measuring selective sweeps of new alleles.

#55 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 16 November 2008 - 10:36 PM

:huh:
:lol: 
:)
:lol:

View Post


When driven into a corner, you resort to smileys.

Anyway, are you going to support your argument or not?

All you have to do is show that the divergence between humans and chimps consists ENTIRELY out of beneficial mutations.

Are you willing to support your argument or not?

#56 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 17 November 2008 - 01:47 AM

Oh, I see what you are doing and where you went wrong.

First, we need to emphasize that these are single base substituations we are talking about.  So we are talking about a specific type of divergence here.

Second, the rate of mutations in humans is NOT 10^-10.  This is the rate for bacteria, which only undergo a single cell replication per generation (because they 1-celled).  Humans undergo multiple cell generates per gamete (400 for male and 30 for female).  This is already pointed out in the blog you linked and I already pointed it out as well.  Do you understand what this means for the rate in humans?

Since the rate per site per cell replication is 10^-10 and humans undergo ~430 cell replications per human replication, therefore the rate in humans is 10^-10 x 430 = 4.3x10^-8 per site per generation.


Look Carefully, I´ve already considered this :

So, if we have 35 millions of neutral mutations fixed in our lineage then it´s necessary to have occured 35 * 10^6 * 10^10 = 35 * 10^16 mutations.As we have 130 mutations per individual then it´s necessary 2,69 * 10^15 individuals in 250,000 generations.It will lead us to 10.76 billions of individuals per generation for the last 5 million years

I first calculated the mutations per cell division then I divided by 130 to calculate the number of individuals necessary.

To get this on an annual basis for simplicity, assuming a generation time of 20 years, the average rate is 4.3x10^-8 / 20 = 2.15×10^-9 per site per year.  Note that this is pretty close to the 2.22x10^-9 rate from the paper on mammalian mutation rates I linked earlier.

Since we have 3 billion base pairs, the mutation rate will be 2.15×10^-9 x 3 billion = 6.45 mutations per year.  Multiplied by 5 million years we get an accumulated ~32.2 million mutations.

Since the rate of fixation is equal to the neutral mutation rate (as you have already pointed out), we're done.


Now, you are making a math mistake here.You are considering all neutral mutations that happen are fixed. If the fixed rate is 2.15 * 10^-9, it means that on every 1 billion neutral mutations that happen 2.15 are fixed.So, if you have 35 millions of neutral mutations fixed then you must multiply 35,000,000 by 2.15 * 10^9 to know how many mutations must happen for only 35 millions get fixed.

Right.  And the point is that they were measuring selective sweeps of new alleles.

View Post


Ok, but as I said with eyes color, the frequency of alleles is not a good way to measure if a mutation is beneficial or not.

#57 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 17 November 2008 - 01:59 AM

When driven into a corner, you resort to smileys.


I´m not into a corner.You are avoiding to make your homework using silly arguments.

Anyway, are you going to support your argument or not?

All you have to do is show that the divergence between humans and chimps consists ENTIRELY out of beneficial mutations.

Are you willing to support your argument or not?

View Post


I dont have to prove that all mutations are beneficial because that is irrelevant.I´ve already proved with numbers, thing you refused to do, that if we change to neutral mutations the problem persists.

#58 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 17 November 2008 - 03:20 AM

I´m not into a corner.You are avoiding to make your homework using silly arguments.


It is not my homework. YOU made a claim in the OP. YOU have to support it.

I dont have to prove that all mutations are beneficial because that is irrelevant.


In the OP, you are only using the fixation rate of beneficial mutations in your argument. You then divide the divergence with this rate, indicating that you think that the divergence consists 100% out of beneficial mutations.

This has been pointed out to you several time by me and others.

Since your argument RELIES on the assumption that the divergence between humans and chimps consists entirely out of beneficial mutations, and since you have not supported this claim, your entire argument remains unsupported.

I´ve already proved with numbers, thing you refused to do, that if we change to neutral mutations the problem persists.

View Post


I have shown you that including the fixation rates of neutral and deleterous mutations decreases your result for any value greater than zero. So I am not sure why you are saying I have not shown this to you.

Also, I am not asking you to 'change the neutral mutations', all I am asking is that you take the fixation rates of neutral and deleterous mutations into account as well. If you don't take them into consideration, you are supporting the claim that only beneficial mutations can become fixated in a genome, which is a position you have not supported yet.

So, I ask again, can you support the claim that only beneficial mutations can become fixated?

#59 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 17 November 2008 - 05:02 AM

It is not my homework. YOU made a claim in the OP. YOU have to support it.
In the OP, you are only using the fixation rate of beneficial mutations in your argument. You then divide the divergence with this rate, indicating that you think that the divergence consists 100% out of beneficial mutations.

This has been pointed out to you several time by me and others.

Since your argument RELIES on the assumption that the divergence between humans and chimps consists entirely out of beneficial mutations, and since you have not supported this claim, your entire argument remains unsupported.
I have shown you that including the fixation rates of neutral and deleterous mutations decreases your result for any value greater than zero. So I am not sure why you are saying I have not shown this to you.

Also, I am not asking you to 'change the neutral mutations', all I am asking is that you take the fixation rates of neutral and deleterous mutations into account as well. If you don't take them into consideration, you are supporting the claim that only beneficial mutations can become fixated in a genome, which is a position you have not supported yet.

So, I ask again, can you support the claim that only beneficial mutations can become fixated?

View Post



it´s irrelevant if it consists only of beneficial mutations or neutral mutations.Look at all of my posts and you´ll see I´ve already proved this :

So, if we have 35 millions of neutral mutations fixed in our lineage then it´s necessary to have occured 35 * 10^6 * 10^10 = 35 * 10^16 mutations.As we have 130 mutations per individual then it´s necessary 2,69 * 10^15 individuals in 250,000 generations.It will lead us to 10.76 billions of individuals per generation for the last 5 million years

If we devide all those individuals by a population of 100,000 per generation we´ll have 26,900,000,000 generations.In years it means 538,000,000,000 billion years, what is veryyyyyyy worse.

#60 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 17 November 2008 - 05:29 AM

it´s irrelevant if it consists only of beneficial mutations or neutral mutations.Look at all of my posts and you´ll see I´ve already proved this :

So, if we have 35 millions of neutral mutations fixed in our lineage then it´s necessary to have occured 35 * 10^6 * 10^10 = 35 * 10^16 mutations.As we have 130 mutations per individual then it´s necessary 2,69 * 10^15 individuals in 250,000 generations.It will lead us to 10.76 billions of individuals per generation for the last 5 million years

If we devide all those individuals by a population of 100,000 per generation we´ll have 26,900,000,000 generations.In years it means 538,000,000,000 billion years, what is veryyyyyyy worse.

View Post


I'm sorry, can you explain better? This is a bit cryptic.

Can you walk me through your logic here? How do you reach the conclusion that ONLY BENEFICIAL mutations can become fixed in a population?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users