Keep flogging that stupid strawman you dragged in. I bet he’ll say 'Uncle" in no time. 
1 Like
Instead of arguing over
Naturalistic Large-Scale Evolution (NALS-Evolution)
would you be willing to discuss the actual focus of Genealogical Adam?
Which would be God-Led Evolution?
You know… the kind of evolution that most of America (48% to 33%) believes?
1 Like
You must not be under the law then. That’s real Good News!
1 Like
I don’t think that’s true. GA isn’t about evolution at all. As you probably know, GA contributes no genetic material to his remote descentants. No genetics, no evolution.
1 Like
Did you read beyond the first 2 paragraphs? There’s an entire thread, you know.
1 Like
I am new to this form of forums, so I am having difficulty seeing what the key ideas are (lots of comments but not clear what the key arguments are).
If you have a summary of the key argument and how it proves NALSE, or NUCD or NSTOL to be true, that would help.
In the absence of that, the title claim appears to be completely trivial (with no offense meant).
I don’t get this. Please elaborate. I of course obey the law at all levels. I also work to change laws that I feel need improving or repealed in legal and civil discourse sort of ways.
Come on, it’s not exactly a long thread. Of the 12(!) comments, #3-#5 by @T_aquaticus are the most relevant.
1 Like
Goodness this was a frustrating thread to get through. I have a headache (IHAH). Crazy frustrating (CF) CF ——— > IHAH. That’s basically what this thread is
3 Likes
This is probably the paper you mean.
I think that very few of the transcripts they identified are likely to represent protein-coding genes; see this paper from the following year:
They found 35. We should assume that number is an estimate of the “real” number, but I very much doubt that the real number is 1000.
2 Likes
Ok I read through the thread.
Aquaticus does a good job of explaining the biochemical reasons for certain non-completely-random mutations. So, copying mutations are not completely mathematically random. ok.
If I understand him correctly, he is applying that knowledge to the human and chimp genomes. And shows that the patterns of non-random mutations are statiscally similar.
Ok, so what are we to conclude from this?
All we can conclude is that there is a certain level of similarity (in proportions of CG vs AT bonds) between the chimp and human genomes.
But surely that is a trivial finding?
I.e., this adds nothing new to the finding of any alleged similarity between chimp and human genomes.
This does NOT prove that chimps and humans evolved by NATURALISTIC processes from a common ancestor.
To jump to the inference of Naturalistic Common Descent, we have to add in the Core Assumption of NALSE, i.e., Similarity is Proof of Naturalistic Common Descent without Intelligent Design.
However, it is very easy to see that that this Core-Assumption is FALSE.
So, the entire chain of reasoning fails.
Alleged similarity of biochemically biased mutation distributions does NOT prove Naturalistic Common Descent.
Cordially,
Peter
1 Like
Ok I read through the thread at the link you provided.
Aquaticus does a good job of explaining the biochemical reasons for certain non-completely-random mutations. So, copying mutations are not completely mathematically random. ok.
If I understand him correctly, he is applying that knowledge to the human and chimp genomes. And shows that the patterns of non-random mutations are statiscally similar.
Ok, so what are we to conclude from this?
All we can conclude is that there is a certain level of similarity (in proportions of CG vs AT bonds) between the chimp and human genomes.
But surely that is a trivial finding?
I.e., this adds nothing new to the finding of any alleged similarity between chimp and human genomes.
This does NOT prove that chimps and humans evolved by NATURALISTIC processes from a common ancestor.
To jump to the inference of Naturalistic Common Descent, we have to add in the Core Assumption of NALSE, i.e., Similarity is Proof of Naturalistic Common Descent without Intelligent Design.
However, it is very easy to see that that this Core-Assumption is FALSE.
So, the entire chain of reasoning fails.
Alleged similarity of biochemically biased mutation distributions does NOT prove Naturalistic Common Descent.
Cordially,
Peter
I accept your clarifications, @John_Harshman.
But that wasn’t what I intended by my highly abbreviated reference. So let me unpack that highly abbreviated reference. And maybe next time we won’t have to go through this all over again.
I was using “Genealogical Adam” as a broader category of discussion, and one which I would never intend to discuss just Adam’s ancestral donation to the human race without also intending to bring into the discussion the so-called pre-Adamites who are intended to be the “evolved” contribution to humanity.
You can tag multiple people. You don’t have to write it twice. There are discourse tutorials. Give it a google
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.
There you go again @Peter_Berean. You are relying on a version of evolution replaced a long time ago by Kimura in 1968. You need to read up here: The Neutral Theory of Evolution.
3 Likes