Does evolution have a chance?

[Micaiah]

Some further notes about the mean rate of mutation which came up in discussing mtDNA.

1. In discussing the mtDNA, it was stated by Notto that only point mutations could be used.

...with more reliable methods (that only look at point mutations....

2. If you estimate the mean change per population based on observed genetic differences between chimps and humans, you need to correct for possible reversal of a mutations, so mutation rates need to be significantly higher.

 

[Gracchus]

Some further notes about the mean rate of mutation which came up in discussing mtDNA.

1. In discussing the mtDNA, it was stated by Notto that only point mutations could be used.

Then he was wrong.

2. If you estimate the mean change per population based on observed genetic differences between chimps and humans, you need to correct for possible reversal of a mutations, so mutation rates need to be significantly higher.

How often are point mutations reversed? Can you cite any documented instances of such a reversal? What sort of correction must be applied? Please support your assertion.

 

[Micaiah]

If you go to this thread and check out some of the links, you will find these statements in the literature. I am not making these claims, simply noting that they have been made.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2373080-evidence-that-eve-lived-6000-years-ago.html&page=1&pp=20

 

[Gracchus]

If you go to this thread and check out some of the links, you will find these statements in the literature. I am not making these claims, simply noting that they have been made.

You are not making any claims? You are simply tossing out statements that you are not supporting? Can you spell "disengenuous"? Cite the links where these statements are made. I have no patience with trying to track down links you can't be bothered to cite.

:sneer:

 

[Micaiah]

Your smiley didn't turn out.

Can you spell "disengenuous"?

 

[Jet Black]

Can you then explain how the bat echolocation system evolved from the ability to hear?

why are you switching the argument? I'm fed up with discussions slipping around all over the place. The issue here is over Spetner's shoddy claims. This is rapidly turning into anouther ID where Spetner has a claim but absolutely nothing to base his claim on (ID with the flagellum and blood clotting). The marvellous example of the Pax6 gene clearly does not fit his bill, so go on, hunt and find another one.

 

[Micaiah]

Not much more to say about the evolution of the eye, unless you have further questions. If you are growing tired of the discussion, we're not forcing you to join in.

 

[Jet Black]

In case you hadn't noticed, I am not talking about the evolution of the eye. It's the basis for Spetner's whole argument that is flawed. have you given up trying to defend him now then?

 

[Jet Black]

We previously discussed this ad nauseum. I know the game and don't want to play. It goes like this. I give a definition, you try to pick holes in it and somehow claim that anything stated is wrong because you claim to have found an error in the definition. This is the kind of argument that lawyers and evolutionsits thrive on. It is not the way of true science.

sorry, but if you are going to make the scientific statement that information cannot increase, you have to be able to say what information is, otherwise your statement is meaningless.

 

[Micaiah]

In case you hadn't noticed, I am not talking about the evolution of the eye. It's the basis for Spetner's whole argument that is flawed. have you given up trying to defend him now then?

I think it is fundamentally sound. Evolutionists are obviously working hard to get around the headaches it causes.

Any information on the evolution of bats surfaced as yet?

 

[Jet Black]

I think it is fundamentally sound.

but it isn't even based on anything.

Evolutionists are obviously working hard to get around the headaches it causes.

what headaches? the argument extinguished itself because there is no basis for it. Look the basis of spetner's argument is that if evolution is correct two genes would have had to independently evolve and this is highly unlikely/impossible. he picks the Pax6 gene in the eye. remember here that he is making the assumption that evolution is correct and then attempting to demonstrate a massive improbability, a kind of disproof by contradiction. The problem is that the gene he is making his claims about exists in more basal organisms and is involved in more fundamental points of development than the thing he is claiming. I fail to see how you can say his argument is still sound. His argument was nonsense in the first place, because we already knew that Pax6 existed in these more basal organisms.

Any information on the evolution of bats surfaced as yet?

no because it is irrelevant to the issue here. The only reason I bought it up because you were touting it as a fascinating example of convergence, but they are all based on hearing. if you are going to tout it as an example, do us a favour and demonstrate some of the genetic evidence you require to make your claim.

<mini rant>
I'm not going to start wildly swinging on tangents such as the specific evolutionary pathway of some feature. I've done that enough in this forum and am tired of seeing creationists doing it over and over again. as soon as the evidence starts to weigh in against one of their points, they start going on about some superfluous issues and the point that they make gets forgotten about. I'll give an example of which there are hundreds: a creationist claims that the fossils are sorted by intelligence because the cleverer and faster animals run to high ground, someone points out that in the recent tsunami there were very few animal deaths because the animals ran away, but lots of humans died, then the creationist goes on about how many humans were fossilized. the initial claim gets forgotten yet again.
</mini rant>

 

[notto]

1. In discussing the mtDNA, it was stated by Notto that only point mutations could be used.

No, What I said is that the studies that refer to an age for a mitochondrial eve use point mutations (remember, context is important). This was to point out that the article you used did a bit of a slight of hand by using rates on heteroplasmy and then using them to adjust a date range that was determined by point mutations. It is like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Micaiah]

using them to adjust a date range that was determined by point mutations.

Any refereces for this date range determined by point mutations.

 

[notto]

Any refereces for this date range determined by point mutations.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html

Most of the studies do this It is the comparision that is used to ansestral relationships and mutation rates. The comparision used in the original article you provided took the rate of a particular combination of mutations and then used it to adjust a rate determined from point substitutions.

Apples and Oranges.

 

[Micaiah]

Thanks. And can you now explain how the dates for mtEve from this paper are calculated?

 

[Micaiah]

When you are ready Notto.

 

[notto]

When you are ready Notto.

Did you read the link? It explains it in there.

[font=Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The robust phylogenetic tree reconstructed with this dataset of complete mitochondrial genomes gives strong support to the 'recent African origin' theory. By determining the substitution rate of the genomic sequences, it is possible to derive dates for points on the tree and build a chronology of events in the evolution and migration of our species.

[/font][font=Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Can you explain how the dates are obtained that supposedly show ~6500? What researcher came to this conclusion?[/font][font=Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

 

[Micaiah]

Yes I did and it doesn't help much. Maybe you could show us arithmetically how it is done.

 

[USincognito]

I turn over a pack of card that I claim was shuffles. It starts with the ace of spades, and all the spades in consecutive order ie. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,J,Q,K, then the same order with clubs, and hearts and finally diamonds. The pack is laid out in from on me in perfect order.

How is "perfect order" analogous to DNA when we know that a lot of DNA is junk, viral insertions and broken or scrambled versions of that found in other species? You need to insert a few "Uno" and "Magic the Gathering" cards into your "perfect"(ly) "order"(ed) deck to make the analogy line up more with reality.

 

[Micaiah]

How is "perfect order" analogous to DNA when we know that a lot of DNA is junk, viral insertions and broken or scrambled versions of that found in other species? You need to insert a few "Uno" and "Magic the Gathering" cards into your "perfect"(ly) "order"(ed) deck to make the analogy line up more with reality.

If you are saying that there is evidence in DNA that when a random mutation occurs that it results in a scrambled mess then I agree.