On DNA percent differences between taxa and YEC timelines

[Mark Quayle]

Can you specifically explain what numbers you are missing?

I think an issue is that beneficial versus neutral versus detrimental can be situation and environment dependent.

A slight variation in ability to retain heat might be a huge advantage for an arctic animal and a massive detriment to a desert dweller.

From what I understand, there were billions, maybe trillions or more, of beneficial mutations necessary to reach the present state of evolution. Yet (and admittedly, I don't know what I would see if it was still ongoing at such a great rate) the rate at which I see things at present doesn't [seem to] begin to accommodate even a few billion years.

I don't know how anyone would calculate an average number of beneficial mutations per generation, nevermind per year, in any one species' chain of past mutations, nor how fast they would need to happen to reach modern day, but I'm left with the feeling the numbers just don't add up.

One guy told me, in trying to defend the numbers, that now and then, evolution takes a giant leap forward! When I asked how he knows that (did he get if from an X-MEN movie?), he says it is in the fossil record. Huh? I hope there is something more to that than what sounds so doggone circular, because I hate to think our scientific community is that blind in their pursuit of proof for what they already believe.

Most descriptions of the need for a First Cause seem to be special pleading and most explanations about its "necessary" properties seem to be bald assertions.

I'll give you that it's certainly mysterious... but mysterious isn't a licence to assume your personal preference is correct.

(First Cause concepts, while interesting, are not on topic for this thread. If you want to discuss it please start a thread and reply to my post with a link to it and I will happily discuss it further there.)

Fair enough.

Inheritance, mutation, differential success over generations are all established points of fact... but you want people to find specific numbers for not particularly specific scenarios, that you are already going to ignore.

So, if you can find a specific road block to the understood systems I'm curious enough to have a look for you... but I'm not going to make an extended effort for no reason.

I don't know how to be more specific than I have been, but fair enough.

How many beneficial reproducible (pardon the redundancy, but I'm trying to be as specific as I can) mutations did it take, to progress from primordial soup (or life's eventual cell form or whatever even CAN mutate) to present day man? (Side question: How many generations of beneficial mutation does it take to show significant (readable) useful mutation?) How long did it take to progress from primordial soup to modern man?

HOW do these many many many necessary beneficial mutations necessary to progress from primordial soup to modern day man, happen in only the several million years scientists claim it took to do so?

 

[Shemjaza]

From what I understand, there were billions, maybe trillions or more, of beneficial mutations necessary to reach the present state of evolution. Yet (and admittedly, I don't know what I would see if it was still ongoing at such a great rate) the rate at which I see things at present doesn't [seem to] begin to accommodate even a few billion years.

I don't know how anyone would calculate an average number of beneficial mutations per generation, nevermind per year, in any one species' chain of past mutations, nor how fast they would need to happen to reach modern day, but I'm left with the feeling the numbers just don't add up.

One guy told me, in trying to defend the numbers, that now and then, evolution takes a giant leap forward! When I asked how he knows that (did he get if from an X-MEN movie?), he says it is in the fossil record. Huh? I hope there is something more to that than what sounds so doggone circular, because I hate to think our scientific community is that blind in their pursuit of proof for what they already believe.



Fair enough.



I don't know how to be more specific than I have been, but fair enough.

How many beneficial reproducible (pardon the redundancy, but I'm trying to be as specific as I can) mutations did it take, to progress from primordial soup (or life's eventual cell form or whatever even CAN mutate) to present day man? (Side question: How many generations of beneficial mutation does it take to show significant (readable) useful mutation?) How long did it take to progress from primordial soup to modern man?

HOW do these many many many necessary beneficial mutations necessary to progress from primordial soup to modern day man, happen in only the several million years scientists claim it took to do so?

In modern complicated life forms we have genetic repair mechanisms that reduce the frequency of mutations, but increase the surviveability. Simpler organisms don't benefit as much from this.

Despite limiting factors humans have approximately 40 mutations each.

Now let's imagine we have an ancient population of creatures with a stable population of 300,000 (like modern chimpanzees).

40 mutations per individual * total population 300000 == 12 million mutations.

Let's assume the population recycles itself every 50 years and we are watching this population for 100000 years.

100000 / 50 == 20000 "generations"

so we have 12000000 mutations per generation * 20000 generations == 240 billion mutations

That's an example of a smallish population of very slow breeding creatures over a very short evolutionary time scale.

Not all mutations are beneficial and even if they are fortune plays a role in whether they become fixed in the population. But not new all traits found in species are beneficial, for example humans can't produce their own vitamin C, due to a broken gene and need to get it from their diet.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In modern complicated life forms we have genetic repair mechanisms that reduce the frequency of mutations, but increase the surviveability. Simpler organisms don't benefit as much from this.

Despite limiting factors humans have approximately 40 mutations each.

Now let's imagine we have an ancient population of creatures with a stable population of 300,000 (like modern chimpanzees).

40 mutations per individual * total population 300000 == 12 million mutations.

Let's assume the population recycles itself every 50 years and we are watching this population for 100000 years.

100000 / 50 == 20000 "generations"

so we have 12000000 mutations per generation * 20000 generations == 240 billion mutations

That's an example of a smallish population of very slow breeding creatures over a very short evolutionary time scale.

Not all mutations are beneficial and even if they are fortune plays a role in whether they become fixed in the population. But not new all traits found in species are beneficial, for example humans can't produce their own vitamin C, due to a broken gene and need to get it from their diet.

You end, after all your calculations, with an acknowledgement that not all are beneficial. That is, (again in my ignorance, I say this), a huge understatement, no? Barely any of them are beneficial and reproducible, (again from what I understand) on the order of less than 1 per ten thousand.

 

[BeyondET]

How many mutations takes place in order to make a noticeable difference in a species, the peppered moth did it around 30 years, what about larger animals, seems things can change fairly quickly when presented a different inviroments

 

[Mark Quayle]

How many mutations takes place in order to make a noticeable difference in a species, the peppered moth did it around 30 years, what about larger animals, seems things can change fairly quickly when presented a different inviroments

I've heard the peppered moth will also revert back, and remain a peppered moth, instead of continuing on to become something else. Is that what evolutionist refer to as mutation? I would think it would be a permanent thing they are looking for.

 

[BeyondET]

I've heard the peppered moth will also revert back, and remain a peppered moth, instead of continuing on to become something else. Is that what evolutionist refer to as mutation? I would think it would be a permanent thing they are looking for.

I don't think so, but it is a survival gen of sorts that can be triggered to cause mutations to combat a threat to its species. like the reason it did mutate evolve into a darker color, it realized itself was easy prey on dark tree, when the threat is gone a revert

 

[Shemjaza]

I've heard the peppered moth will also revert back, and remain a peppered moth, instead of continuing on to become something else. Is that what evolutionist refer to as mutation? I would think it would be a permanent thing they are looking for.

Would you call this a timber wolf?

 

[Shemjaza]

You end, after all your calculations, with an acknowledgement that not all are beneficial. That is, (again in my ignorance, I say this), a huge understatement, no? Barely any of them are beneficial and reproducible, (again from what I understand) on the order of less than 1 per ten thousand.

Most variation doesn't need to be strictly beneficial.

The constant warping and shifting of life add variation to the population and that will be beneficial if circumstances are right.

White skin is an awesome adaptation for living the long dark winters of northern Europe... but it's a a liability for living in the Sahara.

The vast majority of our genome doesn't need to change to generate considerable variation of species.

For example this set of creatures have less than 2% different between them:

 

[Mark Quayle]

Would you call this a timber wolf?

View attachment 306390

I don't follow. Is the peppered moth not still a peppered moth?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Most variation doesn't need to be strictly beneficial.

The constant warping and shifting of life add variation to the population and that will be beneficial if circumstances are right.

White skin is an awesome adaptation for living the long dark winters of northern Europe... but it's a a liability for living in the Sahara.

The vast majority of our genome doesn't need to change to generate considerable variation of species.

For example this set of creatures have less than 2% different between them:
View attachment 306391

2% = how many mutations productive to that change?

 

[Astrid]

From what I understand, there were billions, maybe trillions or more, of beneficial mutations necessary to reach the present state of evolution. Yet (and admittedly, I don't know what I would see if it was still ongoing at such a great rate) the rate at which I see things at present doesn't [seem to] begin to accommodate even a few billion years.

I don't know how anyone would calculate an average number of beneficial mutations per generation, nevermind per year, in any one species' chain of past mutations, nor how fast they would need to happen to reach modern day, but I'm left with the feeling the numbers just don't add up.

One guy told me, in trying to defend the numbers, that now and then, evolution takes a giant leap forward! When I asked how he knows that (did he get if from an X-MEN movie?), he says it is in the fossil record. Huh? I hope there is something more to that than what sounds so doggone circular, because I hate to think our scientific community is that blind in their pursuit of proof for what they already believe.



Fair enough.



I don't know how to be more specific than I have been, but fair enough.

How many beneficial reproducible (pardon the redundancy, but I'm trying to be as specific as I can) mutations did it take, to progress from primordial soup (or life's eventual cell form or whatever even CAN mutate) to present day man? (Side question: How many generations of beneficial mutation does it take to show significant (readable) useful mutation?) How long did it take to progress from primordial soup to modern man?

HOW do these many many many necessary beneficial mutations necessary to progress from primordial soup to modern day man, happen in only the several million years scientists claim it took to do so?

Anyone speaking of "leaps" is ignorant and
their opinion is worthless.
How many do you think is the "several"
million years you speak of?

Also- as the fossil record does clearly show
a developmental sequence, what other than
evolution could explain it?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've heard the peppered moth will also revert back, and remain a peppered moth, instead of continuing on to become something else. Is that what evolutionist refer to as mutation? I would think it would be a permanent thing they are looking for.

It is my understanding (from HS biology back in the dark ages), that the difference is created by just one gene and two variants. I don't know how many mutations there are between the two.

In this case, all that matters is that the currently disfavored variant survives (isn't completely wiped out) and a reversal of optimal protection (light <-> dark) can be reflected quickly in the population.

(I have some recollection recently about the coats of polar bears and the loss of the very white, icy environment that it protects them in...)

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't follow. Is the peppered moth not still a peppered moth?

Sorry, I misunderstood your initial post.

I thought you were implying that all mutated variants of species just reverted to the original version.

I posted Abby as an example of a descendant of mutated timber wolves or grey wolves, who is clearly not a wolf.

The moths are a good example of how evolution can work. The newer mutated dark moths became super common when their environment got covered in soot and the pale variety became much less common... however when the environment changed again the dark ones lost their edge and became a much less common variety.

The non mutated strain wasn't completely wiped out in this case, but it remains a good example of the mechanisms of mutation to create the new variety and natural selection to encourage it.

 

[Shemjaza]

2% = how many mutations productive to that change?

Okay let's work on some more non-expert maths with our vaguely human/chimp example.

Human genome: 3.2 billion base pairs.

2% genetic difference: 64 million base pairs

So out previous figures had 12 million mutations in the population, recycled every 50 years.

This becomes : 240000 mutations per year

We'll use your figure of 1 in 10000 so we now have 24 mutations a year.

64000000 / 24 == 2.7 million years


Obviously there are a multitude of factors this very loose model is taking into account. What exactly do we mean with the one in ten thousand model, how likely any particular trait is to spread through the population.

If significant variation in the environment was shifting so advantageous/disadvantageous was constantly shifting but neutral drift was able to continue unchanged.

But based on the very loose numbers for a couple of non experts, I think I've made my point.

(Interestingly the experts put the human chimp difference at 1.2% and calculate the genetic divergence at 13 million years).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Anyone speaking of "leaps" is ignorant and
their opinion is worthless.
How many do you think is the "several"
million years you speak of?

Beats me! I was hoping some of you guys would know.

Also- as the fossil record does clearly show
a developmental sequence, what other than
evolution could explain it?

Or does it show races dying off? I knew an old lady who looked like Lucy.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So out previous figures had 12 million mutations in the population, recycled every 50 years.

This becomes : 240000 mutations per year

We'll use your figure of 1 in 10000 so we now have 24 mutations a year.

Am I right in assuming you mean, beneficial mutations here?

 

[Astrid]

Beats me! I was hoping some of you guys would know.

Or does it show races dying off? I knew an old lady who looked like Lucy.

Never mind.

 

[Shemjaza]

Am I right in assuming you mean, beneficial mutations here?

Not necessarily.

The differences between species are variation not some kind of platonic ideal of inferior or superior.

Both seals and wolves are carnivora, but how would you measure if their different traits are "beneficial" or not? It comes down to if you live in a bay or in a forrest.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not necessarily.

The differences between species are variation not some kind of platonic ideal of inferior or superior.

Both seals and wolves are carnivora, but how would you measure if their different traits are "beneficial" or not? It comes down to if you live in a bay or in a forrest.

Well, let me ask it like this then, according to what I have read, the mutations are either beneficial, neutral, or harmful. Which are these you are talking about?

 

[Shemjaza]

Well, let me ask it like this then, according to what I have read, the mutations are either beneficial, neutral, or harmful. Which are these you are talking about?

That's the problem... those definitions are context sensitive.

If you lose the ability to produce a necessary vitamin in your body that would be a serious genetic flaw... but if you just happened to naturally have a lot of it in your diet it might not be a problem and would allow your body to have more accurate feelings of hunger and nutritional needs.

If you have half your blood forming weird crescent shapes so they don't work as effectively that would be a nasty problem... but if you had extremely dangerous disease in your environment that the blood disorder made you resistant to then it becomes an advantage.

Slick waterproof fur might be great if you swim... but it would probably be greasy and stinky if you try to sneak up on a deer in a forest.