Is there any evidence for evolution?

[AdamSK]

You know, just making snide remarks isn't an argument, it's a weak rhetorical device.

Unsubstantiated claims aren't arguments either.

Asking for someone to substantiate their claims isn't a "rhetorical device". It's inviting discussion. You should try it some time.

 

[mark kennedy]

Unsubstantiated claims aren't arguments either.

Asking for someone to substantiate their claims isn't a "rhetorical device". It's inviting discussion. You should try it some time.

If it's all you do, and it's actually all you do, then it's a logical fallacy. Ad hominem attacks are always the first line of defense with evolutionists and the final fatal mistake. Once you start that downward spiral you never pull out. Sometimes early something substantive can be injected and intelligent discourse can emerge, at least briefly. When these empty rhetorical taunts begin that's the end of anything remotely substantive.

If you wanted to have a conversation you shouldn't have derailed it.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[AdamSK]

Ad hominem attacks

You think being asked to provide evidence for a claim is an ad hominem attack.

It's not, dude.

 

[mark kennedy]

You think being asked to provide evidence for a claim is an ad hominem attack.

It's not, dude.

Unqualified and without reference to anything substantive or relevant that's exactly what it is and like I said, once you start this downward spiral you can't pull up. That's why you just continue to argue it in circles, you have nothing else. Do the math yet?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[AdamSK]

Unqualified and without reference to anything substantive or relevant that's exactly what it is

No, it's not. And saying it again won't suddenly morph a challenge to substantiate an unsupported claim into an ad hominem attack.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, it's not. And saying it again won't suddenly morph a challenge to substantiate an unsupported claim into an ad hominem attack.

I'm not only saying that's what it is, I'm saying that's the only argument you are capable of. Your posts are getting shorter, exclusively personal and increasingly abrasive. That's a classic ad hominem fallacy and just because you think contradicting a Creationist is an argument doesn't make it any the less fallacious. I love it when you guys finally boil down to this because that's when I know you have nothing else.

Prove me wrong, do the math:

Table 3. Estimates of mutation rate assuming different divergence times and different ancestral population sizes

4.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.7 x 10^-8
4.5 mya, pop.= 100,000 mutation rate is 1.6 x 10^-8
5.0 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.5 x 10^-8
5.0 mya, pop.= 10,0000 mutation rate is 1.5 x 10^-8
5.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.3 x 10^-8
5.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 1.4 x 10^-8
6.0 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.1 x 10^-8
6.0 mya, pop.= 100,000 mutation rate is 1.3 x 10^-8​

Table 4. Estimates of mutation rate for different sites and different classes of mutation

Transition at CpG mutation rate 1.6 x 10^-7
Transversion at CpG mutation rate 4.4 x 10^-8
Transition at non-CpG mutation rate 4.4 x 10^-8
Transversion at non-CpG mutation rate 5.5 x 10^-9
All nucleotide subs mutation rate 2.3 x 10^-8
Length mutations mutation rate 2.3 x 10^-9
All mutations mutation rate 2.5 x 10^-8​

Rates calculated on the basis of a divergence time of 5 mya, ancestral population size of 10,000, generation length of 20 yr, and rates of molecular evolution given in Table 1. Calculations are based on a generation length of 20 years and average autosomal sequence divergence of 1.33% (Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans Michael W. Nachmana and Susan L. Crowella Genetics, 297-304, September 2000)

When the actual divergence is found to be between 5% and 6% does the calculation of the mutation rate change? There is a reason why this is crucial.

we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common. (Genetics 2000)​

With the multiplicative effects on fitness, or rather, with the deleterious effects working in concert being hard to reconcile to such a high mutation rate, what happens when it quadruples?

Let me guess, all you have less are snide personal remarks, aka ad hominem attacks. It's called trolling and it derails substantive discussion, on purpose and every single time.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[AdamSK]

I'm not only saying that's what it is, I'm saying that's the only argument you are capable of.

Ah. Well, it's nice to see that you're above ever making the discussion about the arguer rather than the argument.

Oh, wait.

Prove me wrong, do the math:

What math are we doing? Clearly not the math that was being discussed before - I don't see the relevance to the number of fossils produced over time.
You are apparently cutting and pasting data from a 16-year-old genetics paper, misspelling the author's names in the process. And you're asking me to extrapolate from it.
Please start with a claim, and then explain why this data is relevant to your claim. Based on data, I presume it's some claim about a discrepancy between some evolutionary timeline and the calculated rates of speciation. But I don't want to assume; I want you to tell me.
And there is no need to reply with some further opinion about my methods or abilities. I have asked you to clarify the argument you are attempting to support with your math. Please do so, and we will have the discussion you keep claiming I can't have.

 

[Loudmouth]

Some of them, yes. Others, no. I want to see what both sides have to say. Some of the creationist books were actually written by ex-atheists who point out all the flaws quite lucidly because they been on the other side and know what their talking about.

The opposite of creationist is not atheist.

I've read some really biased ID books and I've read some really biased evolutionist books, but the flaws I've observed remain the same.

What flaws would these be?

 

[mark kennedy]

Ah. Well, it's nice to see that you're above ever making the discussion about the arguer rather than the argument.

Oh, wait.


What math are we doing? Clearly not the math that was being discussed before - I don't see the relevance to the number of fossils produced over time.
You are apparently cutting and pasting data from a 16-year-old genetics paper, misspelling the author's names in the process. And you're asking me to extrapolate from it.
Please start with a claim, and then explain why this data is relevant to your claim. Based on data, I presume it's some claim about a discrepancy between some evolutionary timeline and the calculated rates of speciation. But I don't want to assume; I want you to tell me.
And there is no need to reply with some further opinion about my methods or abilities. I have asked you to clarify the argument you are attempting to support with your math. Please do so, and we will have the discussion you keep claiming I can't have.

It's called mutation rates, the article is cited, look it up and you tell me. Then when can have a real discussion not just you casting insults in ever tightening downward spirals.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[AdamSK]

It's called mutation rates, the article is cited, look it up and you tell me. Then when can have a real discussion not just you casting insults in ever tightening downward spirals.

Have a nice day
Mark

Answer my questions please.

 

[AdamSK]

My questions stand. In the meantime...

They are using a model in which mutation rate is directly proportional to divergence. For a given population size and number of generations, if you quadruple the divergence then the calculated mutation rate would also quadruple.

Where did you get your higher divergence than the one they measured?

 

[46AND2]

Like there is anything productive about being rude to someone who is being a perfect gentleman.

You mean like this?

Mike Snavely is a Christian minister, if you had bothered to do a Google search you would know that.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not only saying that's what it is, I'm saying that's the only argument you are capable of. Your posts are getting shorter, exclusively personal and increasingly abrasive. That's a classic ad hominem fallacy and just because you think contradicting a Creationist is an argument doesn't make it any the less fallacious. I love it when you guys finally boil down to this because that's when I know you have nothing else.

Prove me wrong, do the math:

Table 3. Estimates of mutation rate assuming different divergence times and different ancestral population sizes

4.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.7 x 10^-8
4.5 mya, pop.= 100,000 mutation rate is 1.6 x 10^-8
5.0 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.5 x 10^-8
5.0 mya, pop.= 10,0000 mutation rate is 1.5 x 10^-8
5.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.3 x 10^-8
5.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 1.4 x 10^-8
6.0 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.1 x 10^-8
6.0 mya, pop.= 100,000 mutation rate is 1.3 x 10^-8​

Table 4. Estimates of mutation rate for different sites and different classes of mutation

Transition at CpG mutation rate 1.6 x 10^-7
Transversion at CpG mutation rate 4.4 x 10^-8
Transition at non-CpG mutation rate 4.4 x 10^-8
Transversion at non-CpG mutation rate 5.5 x 10^-9
All nucleotide subs mutation rate 2.3 x 10^-8
Length mutations mutation rate 2.3 x 10^-9
All mutations mutation rate 2.5 x 10^-8​

Rates calculated on the basis of a divergence time of 5 mya, ancestral population size of 10,000, generation length of 20 yr, and rates of molecular evolution given in Table 1. Calculations are based on a generation length of 20 years and average autosomal sequence divergence of 1.33% (Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans Michael W. Nachmana and Susan L. Crowella Genetics, 297-304, September 2000)

Funny how I refuted this argument nearly 9 years ago, and yet here you are using the same failed argument.

"Even worse, MK gets his terms mixed up. Guess what the chimp genome gives as the per nucleotide divergence? (drum roll please) 1.23%!!! To quote the actual paper, “We calculate the genome-wide nucleotide divergence between human and chimpanzee to be 1.23%, confirming recent results from more limited studies.” EGADS!! HOW CAN THIS BE? One simple reason. An indel is considered to be a single mutation. The 5-6% difference is the total DNA difference, but not the per nucleotide genome wide divergence."
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...hare-a-common-ancestor.5784958/#post-37652590

Why are you still using this failed argument 9 years after it was refuted?

 

[mark kennedy]

Answer my questions please.

Answer your own question read the paper and do the math. I haven't the slightest intention of chasing your pedantic one liners in circles.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ah. Well, it's nice to see that you're above ever making the discussion about the arguer rather than the argument.

Oh, wait.


What math are we doing? Clearly not the math that was being discussed before - I don't see the relevance to the number of fossils produced over time.
You are apparently cutting and pasting data from a 16-year-old genetics paper, misspelling the author's names in the process. And you're asking me to extrapolate from it.
Please start with a claim, and then explain why this data is relevant to your claim. Based on data, I presume it's some claim about a discrepancy between some evolutionary timeline and the calculated rates of speciation. But I don't want to assume; I want you to tell me.
And there is no need to reply with some further opinion about my methods or abilities. I have asked you to clarify the argument you are attempting to support with your math. Please do so, and we will have the discussion you keep claiming I can't have.

First of all its mutation rates and has nothing to do with speciation. Secondly how mutation rates are calculated hasn't changed in the time the paper was written but the known divergence has. The formula is in the paper what is the mutation rate when the divergence jumps from 1,33 to 5 percent? You probably will never know and obviously don't care so you got a lot of nerve pretending feigning indignation when you can't even learn basic facts.

 

[AdamSK]

Answer your own question read the paper and do the math. I haven't the slightest intention of chasing your pedantic one liners in circles.

Okay, I have. Thanks.

 

[AdamSK]

First of all its mutation rates and has nothing to do with speciation. Secondly how mutation rates are calculated hasn't changed in the time the paper was written but the known divergence has. The formula is in the paper what is the mutation rate when the divergence jumps from 1,33 to 5 percent? You probably will never know and obviously don't care so you got a lot of nerve pretending feigning indignation when you can't even learn basic facts.

I answered your question an hour and a half ago.

And since you refuse to even explain what claim you are arguing for, I guess we are done. Thanks for demonstrating again that you have no interest in discussion.

 

[mark kennedy]

Funny how I refuted this argument nearly 9 years ago, and yet here you are using the same failed argument.

"Even worse, MK gets his terms mixed up. Guess what the chimp genome gives as the per nucleotide divergence? (drum roll please) 1.23%!!! To quote the actual paper, “We calculate the genome-wide nucleotide divergence between human and chimpanzee to be 1.23%, confirming recent results from more limited studies.” EGADS!! HOW CAN THIS BE? One simple reason. An indel is considered to be a single mutation. The 5-6% difference is the total DNA difference, but not the per nucleotide genome wide divergence."
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...hare-a-common-ancestor.5784958/#post-37652590

Why are you still using this failed argument 9 years after it was refuted?

I make mistakes? DNA is composed of nucleotides it never ceases to amaze me how you don't understand the most basic things.

 

[mark kennedy]

My questions stand. In the meantime...

They are using a model in which mutation rate is directly proportional to divergence. For a given population size and number of generations, if you quadruple the divergence then the calculated mutation rate would also quadruple.

Where did you get your higher divergence than the one they measured?

The initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and other papers put the divergence between 95 and 96 percent. Counting single base substitutions and indel. The indels are actually a sequence in one genome but absent in the other. The are sometimes over a million base pairs including the largest family of endoretrovirises in the chimpanzee genome.

It would help if you learned the particulars before you started pontificating about them. Lets try something straightforward. Do you know what a mutation is. Not a trick question.

 

[mark kennedy]

I answered your question an hour and a half ago.

And since you refuse to even explain what claim you are arguing for, I guess we are done. Thanks for demonstrating again that you have no interest in discussion.

You were done before I started in on you. Ad hominem fallacies are fatal.