Pete's Quite Thread post

[Manic Depressive Mouse]

Edit

 

[Manic Depressive Mouse]

There isn't an ecological nitch anywhere on the planet that has not been inhabited by human beings.

Just because you claim something does not make it fact. This is absolute rubbish. The deep sea, for example, is one "nitch" that humans don't inhabit.

Oh and it's "niche" Mark. You don't even know what you're talking about.

Genetic drift, geologic isolation...

You claim that 5 million years isn't enough time for humans and chimps to speciate thus evolution is false. And in the very next breath you then claim that because humans havn't speciated in 10,000 years evolution is false.

Then you go on to claim...

the human race does not speciate. Gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees have but we are the only primates that didn't, because humans are immutable. The unique character of human physiology contradicts the most basic premise of evolutionary biology, universal common ancestory.

Do you even listen to yourself Mark? This is all baseless, unsubstanciated garbage. And you just ream it off.

The human race is not immutable, you yourself keep harping on about detrimental mutations.

Oh and Mark, sorry to burst your bubble, but we do speciate, say hello to your cousin:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3948165.stm

And Mark there is very little "unique" about human physiology. And what about it prevents mutation and evolution mark?

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm kind of bored so I'm going to answer your post even though I think its a waste of time.

Just because you claim something does not make it fact. This is absolute rubbish. The deep sea, for example, is one "nitch" that humans don't inhabit.

Yes we do inhabit the ocean. Ever hear of submarines and scuba diving, now while we don't inhabit the bottom of the ocean we have been in the deep ocean and travel it regularly.

Oh and it's "niche" Mark. You don't even know what you're talking about.

See, that's why I ignore you most of the time MDM

You claim that 5 million years isn't enough time for humans and chimps to speciate thus evolution is false. And in the very next breath you then claim that because humans havn't speciated in 10,000 years evolution is false.

It's not 5 million years, its more like 2 million and the primary reason is the expansion of the human brain. I don't know if you are refering to the split between humans and chimpanzees or the out of Africa migration but then again I don't think you do either.

Then you go on to claim...

Since this quote was followed by a string of personal remarks I think I can safely dismiss it as a rant. You did bring up an interesting fossil of some rather little humans, Homo floresensis. There is no real reason for them to be considered a seperate species since the differences related to size are the result of microcephaly.

Oh and Mark, sorry to burst your bubble, but we do speciate, say hello to your cousin:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3948165.stm

"When a research team announced last month that it had found a new species of 18,000- year-old tiny human in a cave on the Indonesian island of Flores, it seemed almost too amazing to be true (Science, 29 October, p. 789). Now a small but vocal group of scientists argues that the skeleton dubbed Homo floresiensis is actually a modern human afflicted with microcephaly, a deformity characterized by a very small brain and head.

Meanwhile, an Indonesian scientist who also challenges the skeleton’s status has removed the skull to his own lab for study. But members of the original team of Australian and Indonesian scientists staunchly defend their analysis, and outside experts familiar with the discovery are unmoved by the critique."

http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~awschalom/articles/pdfs/SpinHallScienceNews.pdf

 

[jnhofzinser]

Assuming the same ratio of beneficial mutations to total mutations, this means the rate of beneficial mutations in humans is 2.56x10^-6. How does this affect human evolution? Consider the scenario of human versus chimp evolution. Humans and chimps are estimated to have diverged anywhere from 5 to 10 million years ago. I'm going to go with the lower end of 5 million. If I assume 5 million years of evolution, an average generation time of 20 years, and a stable population size of 100 000 individuals, this means that during that time 64000 beneficial mutations could occur in the human population.

According to this (highly dubious, but nonetheless entertaining) math, a similar number of "beneficial mutations" will occur in a period of one hundred years given a stable population of five billion. In fact, there would be 3200 "beneficial mutations" in the most recent generation of human-kind! What COMPLETE RUBBISH.

This is yet another wonderful example of the "power of the paradigm". When you make up twaddle in support of "the right answer" (whether that is evolution among evolutionists, or creation among creationists), you are bound to get all kinds of support entirely out of proportion to the validity of said twaddle. Historically, folk could increase the chances of the publication of their material by injecting piety into it. Today, any bunko can get published somewhere, as long as it purportedly describes the selective advantage of transvestitism, tongue-rolling, or bingo.

 

[jnhofzinser]

there is very little "unique" about human physiology.

And the fact that we are debating the issue while the monkeys are fighting over bananas has nothing to do with physiology? Get real.

 

[yossarian]

there is very little "unique" about human physiology.

And the fact that we are debating the issue while the monkeys are fighting over bananas has nothing to do with physiology? Get real.

its true though, most of the differences are differences of degree - quantitative, not qualitative

 

[Pete Harcoff]

According to this (highly dubious, but nonetheless entertaining) math, a similar number of "beneficial mutations" will occur in a period of one hundred years given a stable population of five billion. In fact, there would be 3200 "beneficial mutations" in the most recent generation of human-kind! What COMPLETE RUBBISH.

Why is it rubbish? There are beneficial mutations that have been found in humans, so it's not like they don't exist.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

It's not 5 million years, its more like 2 million and the primary reason is the expansion of the human brain.

Humans and chimps speciated at least 5 million years ago, if not earlier. If you think they speciated only 2 million years ago, then you're simply inventing something (again) out of thin air.

 

[mikeynov]

According to this (highly dubious, but nonetheless entertaining) math, a similar number of "beneficial mutations" will occur in a period of one hundred years given a stable population of five billion. In fact, there would be 3200 "beneficial mutations" in the most recent generation of human-kind! What COMPLETE RUBBISH.

This is yet another wonderful example of the "power of the paradigm". When you make up twaddle in support of "the right answer" (whether that is evolution among evolutionists, or creation among creationists), you are bound to get all kinds of support entirely out of proportion to the validity of said twaddle. Historically, folk could increase the chances of the publication of their material by injecting piety into it. Today, any bunko can get published somewhere, as long as it purportedly describes the selective advantage of transvestitism, tongue-rolling, or bingo.

Instead of using the tried and true creationist argument from incredulity, perhaps you could critique the chain of reasoning that lead pete to this conclusion.

 

[jnhofzinser]

Why is it rubbish?

Let's collect data on the human population of the earth since the year 1 CE.
Let's be super-conservative: take the "lower" estimates, and integrate using a rectangular method. If we do this, we get (using Pete's arithmetic) a minimum of 279,000 "beneficial mutations" in THE LAST 2000 YEARS. Can you smell it yet, Mikey? (sorry dude, the ad hominem shoe didn't fit)

Let's be explicit, then: If
a) 64,000 "BM"s are necessary to evolve from a chimp/human-common-ancestor to human-kind, and
b) Pete's arithmetic is as advertised, then
WE WOULD HAVE EVOLVED FOUR TIMES THAT MUCH WITHIN RECORDED HISTORY.

All together now: COMPLETE RUBBISH (that is to say, one of the premises is incorrect: either Pete's arithmetic is totally bogus or vastly more than 64k BMs are needed to evolve a C/H-C-A into a human)

 

[jnhofzinser]

most of the differences are differences of degree - quantitative, not qualitative

This is correct. "Most" are. But there are "some", notably the neurological differences, that are qualitative. Why folks would prefer to treat these differences as insignificant is baffling.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Let's collect data on the human population of the earth since the year 1 CE.
Let's be super-conservative: take the "lower" estimates, and integrate using a rectangular method. If we do this, we get (using Pete's arithmetic) a minimum of 279,000 "beneficial mutations" in THE LAST 2000 YEARS. Can you smell it yet, Mikey? (sorry dude, the ad hominem shoe didn't fit)

Let's be explicit, then: If
a) 64,000 "BM"s are necessary to evolve from a chimp/human-common-ancestor to human-kind, and
b) Pete's arithmetic is as advertised, then
WE WOULD HAVE EVOLVED FOUR TIMES THAT MUCH WITHIN RECORDED HISTORY.

All together now: COMPLETE RUBBISH (that is to say, one of the premises is incorrect: either Pete's arithmetic is totally bogus or vastly more than 64k BMs are needed to evolve a C/H-C-A into a human)

See, like mark, you've taken what I wrote and blown it out of proportion.

a) I have no idea how many beneficial mutations would have to be fixed in a population to evolve a human from a chimp. It could be a thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand. I never claimed that 64000 was how many beneficial mutations it would take. It's just a conservative estimate of the number that could potentially occur within that time frame.

b) The number of mutations that could occur versus the number that become fixed are two different things. So arguing that we should have evolved "four times as much" in the last couple thousand years is a gross misunderstanding of how evolution works in the first place. Remember, rates of evolutionary change (i.e. alleles appearing and being fixed in a population) need not be constant.

 

[jnhofzinser]

It's just a conservative estimate of the number that could potentially occur within that time frame.

Given your logic, 279,000 is a "conservative estimate of the number [of beneficial mutations] that could potentially occur within THE LAST 2000 YEARS"

The number of mutations that could occur versus the number that become fixed are two different things.

This is a fair statement. Let's allow for a "become fixed" factor. And indeed, I can see a decent argument that such a factor would be higher (i.e., a higher proportion of beneficial mutations could "fix") in a small stable population. But how much smaller? I.e., in order for your arithmetic to be taken seriously, it needs to be significantly adjusted. The challenge is to make an adjustment that requires a minimum of hand-waving.

So arguing that we should have evolved "four times as much" in the last couple thousand years is a gross misunderstanding of how evolution works in the first place.

False. I was simply taking the logic of your simplistic arithmetic. Understand, please, that the "four times as much" was the ridiculous conclusion from YOUR premises.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Given your logic, 279,000 is a "conservative estimate of the number [of beneficial mutations] that could potentially occur within THE LAST 2000 YEARS"

Sure. And this is a problem why?

This is a fair statement. Let's allow for a "become fixed" factor. And indeed, I can see a decent argument that such a factor would be higher (i.e., a higher proportion of beneficial mutations could "fix") in a small stable population. But how much smaller? I.e., in order for your arithmetic to be taken seriously, it needs to be significantly adjusted. The challenge is to make an adjustment that requires a minimum of hand-waving.

Agreed, in order to be a more representative scenario it would need to take additional factors into account. But that was never my intent. I wasn't trying to argue human/chimp evolution. Just see if the potential rates of beneficial mutations would be a problem.

False. I was simply taking the logic of your simplistic arithmetic. Understand, please, that the "four times as much" was the ridiculous conclusion from YOUR premises.

Yes, there could be four times as many mutations that would occur. But evolution is not merely about mutation rates. You're stretching what I wrote.

My original post was in response to people claiming that rates of beneficial mutations were too low. That's it.

 

[Tomk80]

This is correct. "Most" are. But there are "some", notably the neurological differences, that are qualitative. Why folks would prefer to treat these differences as insignificant is baffling.

Are they really? Which are those?

 

[Tomk80]

Given your logic, 279,000 is a "conservative estimate of the number [of beneficial mutations] that could potentially occur within THE LAST 2000 YEARS"

And what would be a beneficial mutation according to you, and how do we detect it?

 

[jnhofzinser]

And this is a problem why?

What would be a beneficial mutation?

Let's address these two questions together, in reverse order.
First, the issue is NOT what I would consider a BM. The issue is what Pete would consider a BM. And apparently, he considers a BM to be the genetic quanta for which roughly 64,000 (modulo a "fixed" factor) are sufficient to result in the change apparent between a "chimp/human common ancestor" and modern human-kind. Note that I am not suggesting that a single BM is observable. But Pete IS saying that the accumulation of 64,000-ish BMs is incontrovertibly observable.
Now to the first question. The problem with 279,000 BMs in the last 2000 years is that there IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that human-kind has evolved in any respect at all in that time-frame. As counter-evidence, I submit the collected works of Plutarch. No semi-intelligent person could read these works and come to any conclusion other than the plain and simple fact that human-kind today is, for all intents and purposes, identical to human-kind at the "turn of the era".

Throughout the Lives, Plutarch pauses to deliver penetrating observations on human nature as illustrated by his subjects, so it is difficult to classify the Lives as history, biography, or philosophy. These timeless studies of humanity are truly in a class by themselves.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

First, the issue is NOT what I would consider a BM. The issue is what Pete would consider a BM. And apparently, he considers a BM to be the genetic quanta for which roughly 64,000 (modulo a "fixed" factor) are sufficient to result in the change apparent between a "chimp/human common ancestor" and modern human-kind.

Did you not read what I wrote? I said very clearly that I have no idea how many beneficial mutations it would take. And the fact is, nobody knows. And it certainly would take more than 64000 mutations in general (I've calculate rough estimates from a few sources and it would take a couple hundred thousand at least).

I just don't think a lower estimate of 64k beneficial mutations poses a problem.

Now to the first question. The problem with 279,000 BMs in the last 2000 years is that there IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that human-kind has evolved in any respect at all in that time-frame.

Bull-spit. In the last hundred years there is evidence that humans have been getting taller. Heck, I was even reading an article on shoe sizes not too long ago that talked about the average sized shoe for women has more than doubled in the last 80 years (!).

In addition to that, there are cases of evolutionary adaptations in response to disease. The CCR5d32 gene is one example of that.

Now, we simply won't see the same rate of evolution over a hundred or even a thousand years, because there are far fewer generations to accumulate mutations. 5 million years @ 20 years / generation = 250 000 generations. Over 2000 years, you've only got 100 generations. Even with larger population sizes, that's a heck of a lot less time for variation to accumulate. You also have to keep in mind the factors that drive evolution. I don't think you're going to see dramatic leaps in human intellect or anything, because there's no selective pressure on it.

 

[jnhofzinser]

I said very clearly that I have no idea how many beneficial mutations it would take.

You also said quite clearly that you thought 64k was sufficient.

In the last hundred years there is evidence that humans have been getting taller.

You are correct. Let me amend: the evidence is clear that the rate of "alleles appearing and being fixed in a population" (i.e., the sense in which we were discussing evolution) in the last 2000 years (with ~279k BMs) is not even remotely approaching the rate being claimed for the last 5M years (with ~64k BMs)

... there are far fewer generations to accumulate mutations. ...

Yes. This is in keeping with the "fixation factor" the arithmetic needs. However, as a first approximation, the "fixation" is simply a matter of time. This would suggest the remarkable (and almost certainly erroneous) conclusion that THE ALLELES NECESSARY FOR A NOTICEABLE LEAP IN HUMAN EVOLUTION ARE ALREADY PRESENT IN THE POPULATION. Since you cannot possibly be supporting this conclusion, can you improve upon the "fixation" approximation so that this embarrassing issue does not arise?

You also have to keep in mind the factors that drive evolution. I don't think you're going to see dramatic leaps in human intellect or anything, because there's no selective pressure on it.

Now it is my turn to accuse you of a "gross misunderstanding of evolution": selective pressure is always negative. If alleles supporting "dramatic leaps in human intellect" were present in the population, there is no reason to think that they would not eventually become fixed.

 

[Jet Black]

Now it is my turn to accuse you of a "gross misunderstanding of evolution": selective pressure is always negative.

on what basis do you make that claim?