How many mutations to get Y from X?

[renniks]

I was an example of functional changes from a very limited number of mutations.

So if we have a similar pelvis structure to that of a primate, that makes us primates?

 

[Shemjaza]

So if we have a similar pelvis structure to that of a primate, that makes us primates?

It's one of the commonalities, certainly.

But that is in no way the point that tas8831 was making.

Creationists commonly describe Australopithecus afarensis as "Just an ape" or a chimpanzee, but those comparative hip structures show that a very small amount of mutation separates the Australopithecus hip structure from a typical modern human one.

The reason we are primates is that we have all the indicative traits of primates. The evidenced explanation for why we have all those traits is that we evolved from a common ancestor...

But even if evolution was false and all life was specially created 6000 years ago, humans would still be primates, mammals and animals.

 

[renniks]

The reason we are primates is that we have all the indicative traits of primates. The evidenced explanation for why we have all those traits is that we evolved from a common ancestor...

Or have a common creator.

 

[tas8831]

No concessions here. Just amusement.

Creationists often write things like to try to save face.
If you had anything of relevance to add, you would.

 

[tas8831]

Passive agression isn't making you convincing.

I'm not trying to be convincing. But if you had anything of value to add to the topic, you would have done so by now. Many creationists feel compelled to write something, anything, to try to help out the cause despite not having the intelligence or relevant knowledge to address the topic. And it shows.

 

[tas8831]

Or have a common creator.

A common creator that 'creates' via mechanisms indistinguishable from understood natural processes. How clever.

 

[renniks]

I'm not trying to be convincing. But if you had anything of value to add to the topic, you would have done so by now. Many creationists feel compelled to write something, anything, to try to help out the cause despite not having the intelligence or relevant knowledge to address the topic. And it shows.

Many evolutionists feel compelled to write something, anything, to try to help out thier cause despite not having the intelligence or relevant knowledge to address the topic.

 

[tas8831]

So if we have a similar pelvis structure to that of a primate, that makes us primates?

In part.
It would be awesome if creationists could use Google for purposes other than to find creationist websites.

A nice definition from Britannica (converted to bullet points), plus a few from other sources:

- brain to body weight ratio
- presence of calcarine sulcus in brain
- presence of nails on at least some digits
- presence of Meissner’s corpuscles in the hands and feet
- stereoscopic vision
- unique (among mammals) molar cusps
- a single pair of pectoral mammae
- external (scrotal) testes
- external pendulous penis
- pentadactyly
- etc.

But that is irrelevant to the topic of this thread - the topic is regarding common creationist claims regarding the numbers of mutations they claim are "required" despite never explaining their rationale or providing evidence in their support.

Like what you do.

 

[tas8831]

Many evolutionists feel compelled to write something, anything, to try to help out thier [sic] cause despite not having the intelligence or relevant knowledge to address the topic.

Most interesting, as I started this thread for the purpose of discussing it BECAUSE I possess the intelligence and relevant knowledge to address the topic, which is also how I know that most creationists do not.

I have also started these threads:

On DNA percent differences between taxa and YEC timelines
For those wishing DNA worked exactly like computer code
IS DNA sequence data used in analysis "cherry picked"?
Fertilization and The "Kind"
Courts of law and YEC disinformation
On pontificating on things you do not understand (more YEC stuff)
Short post on "Haldane's Dilemma"
Jon Wells - failed scientist
Georgia Purdom - Adam and Eve genetics?
Genesis Genetics, revisited
Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post
'Gill slits' = 'ear holes'???
On the Cambrian Explosion and phony expertise

and many more in order to clear up creationist misconceptions or to debunk creationists claims - BECAUSE I possess the intelligence and relevant knowledge to address the topic.

And look at your posts.

So address the topic or take a hike.

 

[renniks]

and many more in order to clear up creationist misconceptions or to debunk creationists claims - BECAUSE I possess the intelligence and relevant knowledge to address the topic.

Humble too, I see.

 

[renniks]

In part.
It would be awesome if creationists could use Google for purposes other than to find creationist websites.

A nice definition from Britannica (converted to bullet points), plus a few from other sources:

- brain to body weight ratio
- presence of calcarine sulcus in brain
- presence of nails on at least some digits
- presence of Meissner’s corpuscles in the hands and feet
- stereoscopic vision
- unique (among mammals) molar cusps
- a single pair of pectoral mammae
- external (scrotal) testes
- external pendulous penis
- pentadactyly
- etc.

But that is irrelevant to the topic of this thread - the topic is regarding common creationist claims regarding the numbers of mutations they claim are "required" despite never explaining their rationale or providing evidence in their support.

Like what you do.

I suspect that the creationists who count the numbers of mutations necessary, aren't just referring to mutations of the pelvis, which is why I asked if we are just pelvis'.

Evolutionists try to explain all the variations within and among species on the basis of random changes..."mutations."
It's not a complete explanation.
For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
It's a recipe for degradation...not creation of new species.

 

[tas8831]

Humble too, I see.

Says the fellow that thinks a few quips trumps actual evidence.
Yes, humble because I am not claiming ultimate authority on all subjects like pretty much every creationist I have ever encountered does.

You are getting more and more boring with each post.

 

[tas8831]

I suspect that the creationists who count the numbers of mutations necessary, aren't just referring to mutations of the pelvis, which is why I asked if we are just pelvis'.

The pelvis is just 1 thing that creationists have, in fact, referred to as requiring a huge number of mutations - as I mentioned in the OP.

For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.

Citation, please. I ask for a citation because the notion that a particular gene must experience thousands of harmful mutations 'for each' favorable mutation comes across as absurd and a mere fabrication.

So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
It's a recipe for degradation...not creation of new species.

Creationist assertions are amazing in their simple-mindedness. Not so amazing is the evidence they provide in their support (or lack thereof).

I could use a laugh so please try to explain/support your assertions. Specifically, I would like to see the evidence that any particular gene - many of which are only a few thousand base pairs in length - "must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene... for each favorable mutation."

 

[renniks]

Citation, please. I ask for a citation because the notion that a particular gene must experience thousands of harmful mutations 'for each' favorable mutation comes across as absurd and a mere fabrication.

Are you trying to claim most or all mutations are beneficial?

 

[pitabread]

Evolutionists try to explain all the variations within and among species on the basis of random changes..."mutations."
It's not a complete explanation.

You're right, it's not a complete explanation. Which is why current evolutionary theory has a lot more identified mechanisms than just mutations to explain population variations.

For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.

That's not necessarily true and is an example of the inverse gambler's fallacy.

So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
It's a recipe for degradation...not creation of new species.

This is where other mechanisms like recombination, selection, etc., come in to play.

 

[tas8831]

Are you trying to claim most or all mutations are beneficial?

Wow.... No, I am claiming that any specific gene does NOT, in fact, have to experience ""thousands" of harmful mutations before experiencing a beneficial one, or if they have a beneficial one it is cancelled out or whatever by "thousands" of other harmful ones.

Your naïve assertion would require some genes to be nearly 100% 'mutated'...

Shall we all conclude that this is your way of admitting that you cannot support your assertion?

 

[renniks]

This is where other mechanisms

Selection by what? The only selection is if one happened to survive while another doesn't.

 

[pitabread]

Selection by what? The only selection is if one happened to survive while another doesn't.

Huh? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

By selection I'm referring to differential reproductive success. It doesn't necessarily mean that organisms don't survive. Rather, it means that certain organisms will be more successful at reproducing and passing on their respective genes.

 

[Shemjaza]

Or have a common creator.

There is no justification for why an unlimited common creator would use a nested hierarchy when creating diverse species.

It has been repeated many times that it's not simply the fact of similarity between life that is evidence, it's the pattern of similarity.

I suspect that the creationists who count the numbers of mutations necessary, aren't just referring to mutations of the pelvis, which is why I asked if we are just pelvis'.

Evolutionists try to explain all the variations within and among species on the basis of random changes..."mutations."
It's not a complete explanation.
For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
It's a recipe for degradation...not creation of new species.

You numbers seem really off.

Are you contending that beneficial mutations are only one in a thousand?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Selection by what? The only selection is if one happened to survive while another doesn't.

I think he means evolutionary selection - the various ways in which some genes spread through the population and become fixed, and others don't. Typically, it involves variations in reproductive success.