Mutation Rates Argument

[Bradskii]

Something doesn't add up in those figures if dinosaur to human is 65 million.

Then change your figures.

And I'd recommend something like The Ancestors Tale by Dawkins. The Ancestor's Tale - Wikipedia

If you don't want to buy the book then the wiki has lots of interesting timelines and dates.

 

[sfs]

Well, I just looked at the linked discussion, and the answer about why they're using fixed mutations is that they're not, at least not really.

Now my last question, before I get into it, how many fixed mutations would you estimate separate humans from the common ancestor shared with chimpanzees? We’ve been told that the Chimpanzee Genome Project catalogs genetic differences between human and chimpanzee, with thirty-five million single nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various – so helpful – various chromosomal rearrangements. That’s, how many would you – again, I’m not going to hold you to this, I just want to get a general idea – how many fixed mutations would you estimate roughly."

Yeah, these guys really have no idea what they're talking about. The Chimpanzee Genome Project did not reported fixed differences -- they reported (or rather, we reported -- I was one of them) the differences between one chimp and one human genome. The paper did give a rough estimate of fixed differences, but that's not what's being quoted here.

Having skimmed more of the piece, I'd have to say that these guys have not the faintest idea what they're talking about. Trying to apply 1600 generations per fixed mutation is just nonsense. The actual number from what must be the right paper is 29 single-base substitutions in 20,000 generations, which is 690 generations per mutation. Since the human genome is about 600 times as large as the E. coli genome, we would actually expect from this about 1 generation per mutation if mutation acted the same in both species. But we also have to account for the different mutation rates -- humans have a rate that's about 40 times higher than E. coli, meaning we should expect 40 mutations per generation. So we're already in the ballpark of actual human mutation rates, even without accounting for the much greater selective constraint bacterial genomes are under, and nowhere close to 1600 generations per mutation.

Just blithering idiocy is what it is.

 

[QvQ]

Then change your figures.

And I'd recommend something like The Ancestors Tale by Dawkins. The Ancestor's Tale - Wikipedia

If you don't want to buy the book then the wiki has lots of interesting timelines and dates.

Thank you
I used Wiki and similar sites
You could add it all up and see if it comes out to 65 million.
Or not.
It is too primitive to be of any use for evaluation of the topic at hand.

I suspect the mutation rate is not linear nor periodic.
It is not linear so mathematically manipulating time (generations) by a number of supposed mutations (periodic) within and across generations may be wrong no matter who is doing the math. (as per the OP)

 

[Bradskii]

Thank you
I used Wiki and similar sites
You could add it all up and see if it comes out to 65 million.
Or not.
It is too primitive to be of any use for evaluation of the topic at hand.

I suspect the mutation rate is not linear nor periodic.
It is not linear so mathematically manipulating time (generations) by a number of supposed mutations (periodic) within and across generations may be wrong no matter who is doing the math. (as per the OP)

None of these times are set in stone. They are best estimates and are to be used as a guide. It's not like one year there were no primates and the next there was.

 

[QvQ]

None of these times are set in stone. They are best estimates and are to be used as a guide. It's not like one year there were no primates and the next there was.

Thanks again.

 

[Bradskii]

There would always have had to have been primates unless they crawled out of the ooze as amoeba when the dinosaurs died or came down as stardust.

No, they evolved from colugos. Which evolved from tree shrews. Which evolved from rodents. Which...well, look at the chart in the link I gave you. It shows you the proposed lineage.

 

[Shemjaza]

He just multiplies an estimate of the years per generation by an estimate of the generations per fixed mutation. As I explained, the problem is that his rational for the number he uses for the later estimate doesn't actually make any sense.

Yeah, that sounds like he's assuming you can only have one becoming fixed at a time... I can't see any logic behind that.

 

[AC83]

Yeah, that sounds like he's assuming you can only have one becoming fixed at a time... I can't see any logic behind that.

How does that imply that only one can become fixed at a time?

 

[Shemjaza]

How does that imply that only one can become fixed at a time?

The concept of "rate" of fixatrion. It's an abstraction that I don't see as a logical inference.

It's like if I cook 30 potatoes in 60 minutes then work out that my rate of potato cooking so now I have a rate of 30 per hour. Using that metric I should be able to cook 5 potatoes in 10 minutes... but that's not a realistic interpretation of data.

 

[AC83]

The concept of "rate" of fixatrion. It's an abstraction that I don't see as a logical inference.

It's like if I cook 30 potatoes in 60 minutes then work out that my rate of potato cooking so now I have a rate of 30 per hour. Using that metric I should be able to cook 5 potatoes in 10 minutes... but that's not a realistic interpretation of data.

I'm not saying that any of this was a good way to interpret the data. I just still don't see where the idea of a one-at-a-time assumption is coming from.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm not saying that any of this was a good way to interpret the data. I just still don't see where the idea of a one-at-a-time assumption is coming from.

It's using rate at all as a metric for simultaneous events... like the potato analogy it doesn't give good data.

 

[AC83]

The recent posts on prompting generative AIs about this argument actually manage to get even goofier.

An AI Disproof of Evolution - Vox Popoli

What appears to be happening is that AI has picked up the idea that genetic science requires 45 to 225 million years to cover the genetic ground – and it’s definitely closer to 225 million – but we already know that the geo-evolutionary timescale may be limited to only three million years.

So, it’s interesting to see that AI appears to already have a better grasp on evolution than the average biologist, although it’s not that surprising since we already knew that biologists are not very intelligent, given that they have the lowest IQs of all the scientists. And while AI is innumerate, so too are the biologists.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The recent posts on prompting generative AIs about this argument actually manage to get even goofier.

An AI Disproof of Evolution - Vox Popoli

Again, why should we put any credit to a non-scientist, alt-right bloggers "analysis"?

Second, what does AI actually know. AI is not a general thing. There are different AI/ML models and they are only good at their thing.

 

[sfs]

The recent posts on prompting generative AIs about this argument actually manage to get even goofier.

An AI Disproof of Evolution - Vox Popoli

You can't fix stupid. (And for the record, population geneticists, who are the sort of biologists who would make these calculations, are generally adept at math, some of it quite sophisticated.)

 

[AC83]

Second, what does AI actually know. AI is not a general thing. There are different AI/ML models and they are only good at their thing.

Have you considered that they might secretly be demons?
Spirits Accessing the Material World - Vox Popoli

If demons can hurl furniture around and turn lights on and off, then there is no reason to believe they cannot interact in a more sophisticated manner with more complicated material objects. While I’m not particularly concerned about AI qua AI, I can imagine how what purports to be AI might be something else merely pretending to be AI and operating in its guise.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Have you considered that they might secretly be demons?
Spirits Accessing the Material World - Vox Popoli

I don't believe in demons. Why should I?

 

[Bradskii]

Have you considered that they might secretly be demons?

'If demons can hurl furniture around and turn lights on and off...'

If you start with a nonsensical premise then everything that follows will be...nonsensical.