A problem with molecular evolution?

[Dan_Eastwood]

@scd

Lets assume that indeed something like one in 10^9 mutations will give us a new function. now, if we are talking about 2 parts that depend on each other (such as hormone and its receptor or venom and venom sack), in that case we will need about 10^18 mutations to get that new function, which doesnt fit with the geological time.

Didn’t we JUST GET DONE hashing this one out with Kleinman already?

Does neutral evolution explain the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees

I watched the following video where Dr. Swamidass tries to explain the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees using the concept of Distance = Rate x Time, neutral evolution. [Dr. Joshua Swamidass Explains Why He Changed His Mind on Evolution] (41min). There is a flaw in this argument. What that flaw concern is the meaning of beneficial, neutral, and detrimental mutations. Those adjectives for the word mutation concern reproductive fitness. A beneficial mutation increases reproductive fitness, a neutral mutation does not change reproductive fitness, and a detrimental mutation reduces reproductive fitness. At this time, there are about 7.1 billion humans on earth. At this time, there are about 300,000 common chimpanzees on earth. The chimpanzee population size is about 0.0042% of the size of the human population size. Therefore, humans have vastly greater reproductive fitness than chimpanzees. If you want to claim that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a …