But are those outside the garden supposed to have evolved through divine intervention, at least in a way that’s different from natural processes? GA doesn’t say, and I believe @swamidas thinks not.
Do you just continue to make stuff up?
Who says that!?!?
Why would it be any different? … It is exactly as it should be.
If God is in charge, there is no way to evaluate what things would be like if he weren’t in charge.
So, I believe you are trying to provoke a minor rebellion of some sort… but your comment would only elicit one from someone who doesn’t understand the circumstances.
I know it seems like I’m making stuff up … because you can’t remember what we discussed for breakfast.
Thank you. I think you are right about the 2015 paper I saw. Sounds like different papers come up with different numbers based on different search and match criteria.
The reality (of the number of de novo genes) is likely somewhere between the reported numbers of 35 and 1000. BUT, for the purpose of this discussion, let’s go with the very conservative 35 genes.
The de novo gene-sizes range from 100-200 AA. Probability of random-chance formation of such a de novo gene is about 1E-60 or lower (significant underestimate based on the literature).
So for 35 genes needed for the chimp-human difference that would require (1E-60)^35 = 1E-2100.
So, let’s say 10^2100 site-substitutions / attempts needed (approx.) to get the required 35 genes.
JBS Haldane calculated a total of 1667 possible site mutations (fixed) in a ape/human population in the available 6 million years. Change the time to 10 million years. This leads to a maximum of 2800 fixed site-mutations in 10 million years (approx.).
This is enormous orders of magnitude too small for the arising and fixation of the 35 de novo genes (as a vast underestimate of the actual de novo genes required).
Alternatively, population 10,000 ch-luca-H-population; 10 million years = 3.2e14 seconds. 3billion base pair genome; 1e-9 mutation rate per site per copying; 20 minutes per copy (vast over estimate) = 1200 seconds; Number of genome copyings in 10 million years = 3.2e14/1.2e3 10,000 = 3e111e4 (approx.) = 3e15. Number of site copyings in 10 million years = 3e153billion = 3e153e9 = 9e24. Number of site mutations in 10 million years in the CH-luca-H population = 9e24*1e-9 =9e15, round up to 1e16 (approx.)
So, we have a total of 1e16 site-substitution attempts (in 10 million years, with the CH-LUCA-H population) to create humans (in particular the 35 orphan genes).
However, as above we need 1e2100 attempts (statistically speaking) to create that 35 genes.
So, there is simply NOT enough time in evolutionary history for the orphan genes to arise by naturalistic random chance (to form humans from the alleged chimp-human luca).
This is Strong Rational inductive evidence AGAINST Naturalistic Large-Scale Evolution without Intelligent Design.
Joshua, Kimura basically showed that Natural Selection does NOT explain the origin of molecular (or even morphological) complex traits, organs or organisms.
That is what Neutral Theory is about as you know.
So, ALL that is left then is Random Chance (as in neutral theory).
SO, that confirms that ToE has NO valid Naturalistic mechanism for the formation of complex traits, organs or organisms.
That is not true. @Peter_Berean, you have a lot to educate yourself about. Haldane showed Natural Selection could not explain fixation rates. Kimura solved Haldane’s Dilemma, by showing neutral drift could. You apparently don’t know this. You need to catch up.
Moreover, drift is really important in producing complex traits.
You appear to be misled by the term “de novo” in reference to these genes. They do not arise from end to end from nothing, but are converted by mutation from a non-coding sequence. The likelihood of this occurance is many orders of magnitude greater than you have assumed.
Probably also a good idea to remember that genes are nucleotide sequences, not amino acids.
That’s a calculation that assumes that genes come together by random throwing-together of nucleotides in some kind of bizarro world. It doesn’t deserve any further discussion or consideration. If you want to learn more (and this thread suggests that you don’t), look at the 2016 paper for discussion of where new genes can come from. Bye.
Not even close. Have you read Kimura’s, King and Juke’s paper’s?
How many times are you going to regurgitate your same silly Creationist strawman while ignoring the actual evolutionary process you’ve had described to you?
I may or may not understand the circumstances, but I certainly don’t understand anything you said in that post. Are you saying there’s no difference between divine intervention and natural processes?
Ah, the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Why does that come up so often?
No, we conclude that the nucleotide differences that separate humans and chimps match the expected pattern if natural mutations are responsible for them. If humans and chimps were specially created independently, there’s no reason to expect that the created differences between the genomes would match this pattern. As @T_aquaticus said:
The evidence is consistent with biochemistry and common descent producing the differences between genomes.
Where did that probability come from? I feel like you’re missing the point that the vast majority of these orphan genes come from pre-existing non-coding DNA, so the required changes were primarily in the promoter region.
And yet we can observe that humans and chimps have tens of millions of fixed differences, so that should immediately tell you that your numbers are wrong. Genetic drift happens, so can’t be left out of the equation.
I’ve no idea why you’re trying to calculate mutation rates in terms of seconds and minutes. We already have estimates of the human mutation rate per nucleotide per year: about 0.5x10^-9 mutations per site per year. In other words, over 3 billion base pairs, and about 16 million years (2x 8 million years since LCA), there has been time for around 24 million single nucleotide mutations to separate humans and chimps (which is about what we se when we compare the genomes), not 10 quadrillion as you calculate.
Only if you assume (contrary to the data) that each of the 35 genes had to generate a highly specified sequence from nothing
I think you’ve misunderstood what you read. You are probably thinking of “Haldane’s Dilemma”, but Haldane calculated the number of mutations fixed by natural selection, not the total number of mutations fixed.
Holy hell this person has so many misconceptions it’s hard to know where to even begin to disentangle this mess.
Classic example of someone that has read a lot, but from a single angle and without taking the time to understanding the arguments.
Sadly that angle wasn’t from science textbooks and published papers but from ID-Creationist websites and books.