Vox Day claims to have mathematically shown that "evolution is impossible". His argument appears to be that simple math shows that there isn't enough time to account for the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees.
The argument looks badly flawed to me, but I am not a biologist and am likely missing or misunderstanding some things. My question is if I have correctly identified problems or if I am getting things wrong myself.
The JFG-VD Debate - Vox Popoli
First, is he confusing the number of base-pair differences with the number of fixed mutations that must have occurred? As I understand this, a single mutation can change many base pairs. It appears that throughout the rest of his argument, when he says "fixed mutations", he is really talking about fixed base-pair changes.
Maximal mutations - Vox Popoli
He averages several estimates the time since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor (CHLCA) to get 9 million years. Using twenty years per generation, he calculates that there have been 450,000 chimp and human generations since the CHLCA. He then uses an average rate of 1600 generations per "mutation" (single base-pair change) to conclude that there could only be at most 562 "total fixed mutations" in this time (the 125 figure appears to be from using 4 million instead of 9 million years). His justification for using the 1600 rate doesn't make much sense to me.
He is citing a Nature article that I don't have access to:
Human mutation rate revealed - Nature
Biologists REALLY Don't Get Math - Vox Popoli
This is 1600 generations per "mutation". How does the number of generations that bacteria have factor into this number that is supposedly being very generous? He is trying to justify using the rate ("generations per fixed mutation") of bacteria for humans and chimpanzees because he claims it is faster due to bacteria having many more generations for a given period of time, but then uses 20 years per generation to calculate the "maximum fixed mutations". Am I missing something or does this just not make any sense?
Also, is 1600 "generations per fixed mutation" way too slow of an estimate of this rate for humans and chimpanzees since they reproduce sexually and have a much larger genome than bacteria?
The argument looks badly flawed to me, but I am not a biologist and am likely missing or misunderstanding some things. My question is if I have correctly identified problems or if I am getting things wrong myself.
The JFG-VD Debate - Vox Popoli
We’re told that they [humans and Chimpanzees] are 98% identical in terms of DNA. So that would imply that there are sixty million different base pairs, which would tell us, because it’s two different paths, we’re talking each – they both have thirty million mutations since the common ancestor. And that’s kind of close to that other number, with the thirty-five million plus the five million.
First, is he confusing the number of base-pair differences with the number of fixed mutations that must have occurred? As I understand this, a single mutation can change many base pairs. It appears that throughout the rest of his argument, when he says "fixed mutations", he is really talking about fixed base-pair changes.
Maximal mutations - Vox Popoli
He averages several estimates the time since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor (CHLCA) to get 9 million years. Using twenty years per generation, he calculates that there have been 450,000 chimp and human generations since the CHLCA. He then uses an average rate of 1600 generations per "mutation" (single base-pair change) to conclude that there could only be at most 562 "total fixed mutations" in this time (the 125 figure appears to be from using 4 million instead of 9 million years). His justification for using the 1600 rate doesn't make much sense to me.
He is citing a Nature article that I don't have access to:
Human mutation rate revealed - Nature
Source: Sequencing of 19 whole genomes detected 25 mutations that were fixed in the 40,000 generations of the experiment.
NATURE, 2009
Biologists REALLY Don't Get Math - Vox Popoli
What JFG is claiming in his clarification is that because sexual reproduction CAN result in faster gene fixation than bacterial cloning when measured in terms of generations, it is possible for the fixation rate to be high enough to account for genetic divergence between chimps and humans since the LCHCA, as well as every other observed genetic divergence over time.
However, this is not true. What JFG and his followers forgot to take into account is that it is not generations that are relevant here, but time. And although bacterial cloning may – or may not – be slower to fixate a gene across a population than sexual reproduction in generational terms, bacteria also have considerably more generations over a given period of time than humans do.
I used the bacterial model in order to demonstrate that the case for natural selection was impossible even when applying the fastest possible fixation rates ever observed.
This is 1600 generations per "mutation". How does the number of generations that bacteria have factor into this number that is supposedly being very generous? He is trying to justify using the rate ("generations per fixed mutation") of bacteria for humans and chimpanzees because he claims it is faster due to bacteria having many more generations for a given period of time, but then uses 20 years per generation to calculate the "maximum fixed mutations". Am I missing something or does this just not make any sense?
Also, is 1600 "generations per fixed mutation" way too slow of an estimate of this rate for humans and chimpanzees since they reproduce sexually and have a much larger genome than bacteria?