Another poor response to ERV evidence for common ancestry by a creationist.

[Zaius137]

“The article you cited (from jewsandjoes.com) presents a population graph and equation implying that these were used as the basis for human population growth as estimated by Steve Olson and colleagues in the linked-to article from FoxNews. That, however, is a deception because Olson and Chang never used such an equation, as I very clearly demonstrated. In fact it is obvious they could not use such an equation.”

I don’t really see a problem here. Where did I claim that paper Joe Chang wrote used the exponential growth curve? The growth curve was my example used to illustrate a population of 6.4 billion could be readily calculated from the same method used for predicting wild populations. I would not have cited Joe Chang’s paper and did not.

Here is a CAP from the article:

http://jewsandjoes.com/exponential-human-population-growth-from-noah.html

“Exponential population growth is a fundamental component in the computer simulation of the news story above. It is difficult for most people to fathom today's world population reaching it's current number in less than 5,000 years, but when the phenomenon of exponents is considered properly, it doesn't take any great mental leap.”

Looks like the author of the article believes that is was from exponential growth.

That makes reference to the news article from Fox:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201908,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution

I don’t know how that relates to your evolutionist dogma article if it is in there OK…

“You are wrong! The two axes are simply labelled X and Y, time and population size, but they lack any units. It looks like the graph was simply knocked together by jewsandjoes in their attempt to deceive its readers. (Actually, I've just discovered it was lifted from here, where it is presented as an example of different types of growth).”

No I’m right here was the graph from Wiki I cited earlier. Because you did not read all my posts and jumped in the middle of a conversation; you are confused.
Notice the population is stable around 10,000 BCE at 4 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_(lin-log_scale).png

If the Wiki is wrong not my problem.

“Well, I'm shocked, because the paper I quoted was used as the basis for the FoxNews article!”

I’m not; Fox news is the same as all the rest of secular programming and wrong to the same degree.



“As I said, no population can grow at an exponential rate indefinitely, though it can for a short period. Get wise and read this:- Principles of Population Growth”

Wow I thought when we migrated to the other planets we could just keep expanding.

“Do less skimming is my advice”.

Good advice please take it…

“Here's a graph of the global human population since 10,000 BC. What do you think is wrong with it?”



It conflicts with the Wiki of estimated population… I can’t see the resolution at 10,000 BC… is it zero? If it is it must reflect the Biblical population; I will go with your graph.

 

[Zaius137]

Sorry double post.

 

[Zaius137]

Still no response from you on Nachman U-Paradox problem…

 

[cupid dave]

Zaius137

I skimmed the paper you cited… it uses the same old evolution assumptions.

1) Wright-Fisher model for populations.
2) MRCA from a mitochondrial Eve of 100,000 to 200,000 years.
​

Mike Elphick:

Well, I'm shocked, because the paper I quoted was used as the basis for the FoxNews article!

This seems to fit perfectly with what Genesis reports in that Noah had three sons, a caucasian, mongloid, and negroid, about 100,000 years before the the flood out of Africa which happened 40,000 years ago.

This supports the small initial population @ 150,000 years ago of all men related to one woman, Noah's wife.


Gen 5:30-32 says Noah was 500,000 years old when he had these three racial stocks, and that the flood began when he was 600,000 years old.

So by the end of the flood, modern Homos would have existed 150,000 years and all other humoid apes would have become extinct.

 

[Zaius137]

So at what point did the descendent's of Noah start to change to look like Chinese, Nigerians and Swedes?

Hey how did The missing link get to look like you?

 

[Zaius137]

Naraoia:

If you don’t mind what does that handle mean?

“Turkana Boy is an erectus/ergaster. (That distinction is largely a matter of where you stand on the lumper-splitter scale.) What's the problem?”

But he looks so human?

(sfs)

“Where in the scientific literature has ReMine ever presented a calculation of anything? If you think he's able to calculate a stringent limit on the number of neutral substitutions that can take place in a species, present it.”

You will have to read his book “Biotic Message” for the details; he did deal a bit with it there. ReMine, as you so aptly pointed out deals with refinements in Haldane’s calculations. But neutral mutation loading was dealt with by Nachman. His analysis deals with the costs to evolution (purification of neutral mutations). I have some notes on this but there is some ground that needs to be covered first (if you want to talk?).

 

[Naraoia]

This seems to fit perfectly with what Genesis reports in that Noah had three sons, a caucasian, mongloid, and negroid, about 100,000 years before the the flood out of Africa which happened 40,000 years ago.

And Khoesan and Aborigines just sprang from the ground.

So by the end of the flood, modern Homos would have existed 150,000 years and all other humoid apes would have become extinct.

When exactly was the end of the flood?

Naraoia:

If you don’t mind what does that handle mean?

Naraoia is a Cambrian arthropod somewhere in the phylogenetic neighbourhood of trilobites. Quite well known from Chengjiang and the Burgess Shale. (My avatar is a Naraoia spinosa from the former.) But to be honest, when I first picked it, I just thought it sounded cool

“Turkana Boy is an erectus/ergaster. (That distinction is largely a matter of where you stand on the

lumper-splitter scale.) What's the problem?”

But he looks so human?

Because he is...

 

[Zaius137]

You trying to make a monkey out of me?

OOPs I am a monkey… don’t waist your time.

You know he was dated by the paradigm to 1.6 million years. So how far back does the human race go… according to evolution?

 

[Naraoia]

You trying to make a monkey out of me?

OOPs I am a monkey… don’t waist your time.

You know he was dated by the paradigm to 1.6 million years. So how far back does the human race go… according to evolution?

Depends on your definition of "human". Genus Homo goes back more than 2 million years. The split between humans and our closest living relatives occurred several million years before that.

Again, what's the problem?

(And yes, strictly speaking, you are a monkey. By the same token, you are also a fish, a vertebrate and a eukaryote. Strange how I never hear creationists sneer about being vertebrates.)

 

[Mike Elphick]

The article you cited (from jewsandjoes.com) presents a population graph and equation implying that these were used as the basis for human population growth as estimated by Steve Olson and colleagues in the linked-to article from FoxNews. That, however, is a deception because Olson and Chang never used such an equation, as I very clearly demonstrated. In fact it is obvious they could not use such an equation.

I don’t really see a problem here. Where did I claim that paper Joe Chang wrote used the exponential growth curve? The growth curve was my example used to illustrate a population of 6.4 billion could be readily calculated from the same method used for predicting wild populations. I would not have cited Joe Chang’s paper and did not.

Here is a CAP from the article:

Exponential Human Population Growth from Noah | Genetics

Exponential population growth is a fundamental component in the computer simulation of the news story above. It is difficult for most people to fathom today's world population reaching it's current number in less than 5,000 years, but when the phenomenon of exponents is considered properly, it doesn't take any great mental leap.

Looks like the author of the article believes that is was from exponential growth.

Except that exponential growth is NOT a fundamental component of the news story. The feature that is exponential is the doubling of one's ancestors as one goes BACK in time through the generations, not forward. Let me quote the complete section:-

How fast has Exponential Human Growth been?

FoxNews:- Statisticians: Common Ancestor of All Humans Lived 5,000 Years Ago

That was the title of an important news article published in July of 2006 (here is a pdf version in case the link is ever taken down). The substance of the article threatens to throw icy cold water on more than just one Evolutionary doctrine. It showed that all of humanity is likely descended from a recent common ancestor who lived only 5,000 years ago (which fits very nicely with the timeframe of the Great Flood of Noah's day).

Unfortunately, this monumental news story received little exposure, although Steve Olson talks about it briefly in his book Mapping Human History, some of which is quoted further below (pg. 46-48).

Exponential population growth is a fundamental component in the computer simulation of the news story above. It is difficult for most people to fathom today's world population reaching it's current number in less than 5,000 years, but when the phenomenon of exponents is considered properly, it doesn't take any great mental leap.

But this does not accord with the FoxNews story:-

Seven years ago one of Olson's colleagues, a Yale University statistician named Joseph Chang, started thinking about how to estimate when the last common ancestor of everybody on Earth today lived.

In a paper published by the journal "Advances in Applied Probability," Chang showed that there is a mathematical relationship between the size of a population and the number of generations back to a common ancestor.

Plugging the planet's current population into his equation, he came up with just over 32 generations, or about 900 years.

Chang knew that answer was wrong because it relied on some common, but inaccurate, assumptions that population geneticists often use to simplify difficult mathematical problems.

For example, his analysis pretended that Earth's population has always been what it is today. It also assumed that individuals choose their mates randomly. And each generation had to reproduce all at once.

Chang's calculations essentially treated the world like one big meet market where any given guy was equally likely to pair up with any woman, whether she lived in the next village or halfway around the world.

Chang was fully aware of the inaccuracy — people have to select their partners from the pool of individuals they have actually met, unless they are entering into an arranged marriage.

But even then, they are much more likely to mate with partners who live nearby. And that means that geography can't be ignored if you are going to determine the relatedness of the world's population.

You can examine the mathematics used by Chan in his paper published in Advances in Applied Probability "Recent Common Ancestors of all Present-Day Individuals". It's important to see that Chan is calculating the number of generations back to a most recent common ancestor, not population growth, and consequently he does not use your exponential equation.

Conclusion
When the jewsandjoes article claims that "exponential population growth is a fundamental component in the computer simulation of the [FoxNews] story", they are deceiving their readers, because it is not.

 

[sfs]

Still no response from you on Nachman U-Paradox problem…

The usual statement of the "paradox" only applies if the deleterious mutations are effectively lethal, which is obviously nonsense. There is only a problem at all if most selection is hard (in Wallace's sense); deleterious alleles that operate by soft selection impose no fitness load at all. (Hard selection means that an allele is deleterious not only relative to another allele, but also reduces the overall population fitness after being fixed.)

 

[sfs]

“Where in the scientific literature has ReMine ever presented a calculation of anything? If you think he's able to calculate a stringent limit on the number of neutral substitutions that can take place in a species, present it.”

You will have to read his book “Biotic Message” for the details; he did deal a bit with it there.

I've read plenty of ReMine's prose online over the years, mostly on talk.origins; it will be a sunny day in Tartarus before I read his book. Since he hasn't published his argument in the scientific literature, you're stuck with presenting it yourself.

ReMine, as you so aptly pointed out deals with refinements in Haldane’s calculations. But neutral mutation loading was dealt with by Nachman. His analysis deals with the costs to evolution (purification of neutral mutations).

I'm reasonably familiar with the population genetics literature on the fixation of alleles, and what you write here makes no sense. Please provide the citation to Nachman's paper discussing this.

I have some notes on this but there is some ground that needs to be covered first (if you want to talk?).

I just want you to present the argument, preferably from the scientific literature.

 

[Zaius137]

To Mr. Mike…

This entire discussion started from population estimations of recent human populations.


“Except that exponential growth is NOT a fundamental component of the news story. The feature that is exponential is the doubling of one's ancestors as one goes BACK in time through the generations, not forward. Let me quote the complete section:-“

Author said it was but I Don’t care… Your observation against the authors.

“You can examine the mathematics used by Chan in his paper published in Advances in Applied Probability "Recent Common Ancestors of all Present-Day Individuals". It's important to see that Chan is calculating the number of generations back to a most recent common ancestor, not population growth, and consequently he does not use your exponential equation.”

This subject was not being dealt with at the moment, only current population size leading to Noah’s day.

“Conclusion
When the jewsandjoes article claims that "exponential population growth is a fundamental component in the computer simulation of the [FoxNews] story", they are deceiving their readers, because it is not.”

Well I guess its official evolutionist calculations can come up with a 5000 year old MRCA. It is hard to believe that any results from evolution dogma will come up with 5000 years; if Rohde did it and did not use the exponential growth curve. He must have used the evolution model; it is one or the other….

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201908,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution

 

[Huram Abi]

So by the end of the flood, modern Homos would have existed 150,000 years and all other humoid apes would have become extinct.

Except for Neanderthal and Denisovan Man.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think we were talking about the cost of fixation and neutral selection not genetic diversity in a population. Apples and oranges.

Not apples and oranges at all. They are directly related to each other.

Paleovirology nonsense. These may turn out to be regulatory sequences.

I have already shown that a consensus sequence of HERV-K insertions produces a viable retrovirus. Their origin is retroviral. Also, I already addressed the regulatory features of HERV's, and I notice that you completely ignored it.

Fixation parameters need to take into account the number of individuals in that population. The authors of this article interrupted the figure from evolution dogma and I use the actual estimated population from real numbers of human population in modern times. My problem with these papers in a nutshell.

You also need to know the genetic diversity of that population, genetic bottlenecks, and other parameters which are included in the effective population size. I'm sorry, but real population geneticists use Ne to do their calculations. A non-expert calling it nonsense does not make it nonsense.

This estimate is for humans and would imply a birth rate of “B=2e^4.2” about 133 offspring per parent just to keep the small human population from going into extinction. Evolutionists are nuts…

Already covered by others.

 

[Loudmouth]

So around 4,000 years ago the worlds population could have been 10,000 people?

Very doubtful, at least from my understanding (sfs can correct me if I am wrong). The chances of the effective population size being the same as the actual population size are very remote, especially when this is calculated retrospectively for a modern population. The chances of all these alleles being perfectly dispersed in the minimum number of individuals is extremely small. Chances are that the actual population is much larger than the effective population.

I know in my family we have multiplyed from 2 people to about 12 million people in 600 years. That is 12 million decendants from a 50 year old women on her second marriage.

If you go back 600 years and follow the lineages of other women from that time you will find that some are just as successful, less successful, and downright unsuccessful. Obviously, we would have more than the current population if every women from 600 years ago was as successful as your ancestor. In fact, some of the women (perhaps most?) from 600 years ago may very well not have any direct female descendants alive today as measured by mitochondrial DNA.

 

[Zaius137]

To the LoudMouth...

“I have already shown that a consensus sequence of HERV-K insertions produces a viable retrovirus. Their origin is retroviral. Also, I already addressed the regulatory features of HERV's, and I notice that you completely ignored it.”

Just as real as evolution, besides your imagination where else does it exist?

“You also need to know the genetic diversity of that population, genetic bottlenecks, and other parameters which are included in the effective population size. I'm sorry, but real population geneticists use Ne to do their calculations. A non-expert calling it nonsense does not make it nonsense.”

Again just another confused viewpoint from that evolution nonsense (not real).

You still did not explain how a hominid can produce 133 offspring just to avoid extinction of the species.

Here is a new discovery that could prove me wrong though…

Bozo could prove Evolution.

A final hope for the theory of evolution could rest on Bozo. He is the ideal example of natural selection, symbiosis, mutation, gene drift and horizontal gene transfer. The fossil record shows that Tiktaalik’s flippers explain Bozo’s flipper like feet in an amazing way. Fossil evidence may be somewhat lacking for his direct ancestry but that should not be considered an obstacle for traditional evolution. Although my right wing Christian friends have cast doubts that maybe Bozo is just some want to be actor dressed up as some freak.

What do they know? They also consider evolution as want to be science.
My frustration here is not with the critics of evolution but the lack there of. The branches of that hominid family tree, according to the theory, should support the phylogenic tree. But these days’ recent findings in the fossils are causing an explosion of new supposed of hominids. You evolutionists have no reason for concern; evolution will just change its view (again). Looking forward to the day when scientists wake up and views like mine are no longer considered as sacrilege under penalties of scientific heresy.

 

[seastone]

You trying to make a monkey out of me?

OOPs I am a monkey… don’t waist your time.

You're not a monkey you're an ape.

 

[Naraoia]

Except for Neanderthal and Denisovan Man.

And hobbits. Don't forget the hobbits.

 

[Loudmouth]

To the LoudMouth...

“I have already shown that a consensus sequence of HERV-K insertions produces a viable retrovirus. Their origin is retroviral. Also, I already addressed the regulatory features of HERV's, and I notice that you completely ignored it.”

Just as real as evolution, besides your imagination where else does it exist?[/quote]

It exists in the real world.

Here, we derived in silico the sequence of the putative ancestral “progenitor” element of one of the most recently amplified family—the HERV-K family—and constructed it. This element, Phoenix, produces viral particles that disclose all of the structural and functional properties of a bona-fide retrovirus, can infect mammalian, including human, cells, and integrate with the exact signature of the presently found endogenous HERV-K progeny.
Identification of an infectious progenitor for the multiple-copy HERV-K human endogenous retroelements
​

When they reconstructed the HERV-K insertions they produced infective retroviruses. This is not my imagination. This is real. Every post that you ignore this fact is a post that exposes your bias.

You still did not explain how a hominid can produce 133 offspring just to avoid extinction of the species.

No, I don't. sfs explained why.

A final hope for the theory of evolution could rest on Bozo. He is the ideal example of natural selection, symbiosis, mutation, gene drift and horizontal gene transfer. The fossil record shows that Tiktaalik’s flippers explain Bozo’s flipper like feet in an amazing way. Fossil evidence may be somewhat lacking for his direct ancestry but that should not be considered an obstacle for traditional evolution. Although my right wing Christian friends have cast doubts that maybe Bozo is just some want to be actor dressed up as some freak.

What does this have to do with ERV's?