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.
Didn’t Swamidass point out that you shouldn’t conflate abiogenesis with evolution as you are doing here?
Let’s stick to evolution: what mechanistic differences are there between macro- and microevolution, in your mind?
Even Behe has been on video stating this very thing!
There is a version of Intellugent Design where God does NOTHING miraculous (aside from answering prayers and such) once all his arrangements have been configured at the very moment of creation - - namely the Big Bang.
There are other forms where “woo woo” miracles are invoked… and “pooof”… bacteria have flagella.
It should be acknowledged for the record that Behe has not once mentioned super-natural woo-woo in connection with Gods infusing design into creation!
If so, he’s being very confusing. You’re talking about the pool shot metaphor, but very few people would consider that to be the same as divine intervention in evolution. And it’s quite different from what even Behe usually talks about, which is actual insertion of information into genomes at some point in time.
Further, this pool shot is physically impossible. It relies on quantum events, which most mutations are, being the result of causal chains, when by their very nature they are not and can’t be.
And while Behe has never been specific about supernatural woo, he has claimed that it’s possible that aliens did all the design he sees in life. That’s not a pool shot by any stretch.
He improves on this in the new book, but I don’t want to steal his thunder. You are going to like that he puts some stakes in the ground here.
Look here for example.
You take the RIDICULOUS position some have that God could arrange a master billiards shot… that completely designs the evolutionary output of the Universe, and you say “some” would not call that God’s “intervention” in Evolution.
Firstly, lets not use the word “intervention”… as though God was having some kind of argument with Himself.
God is 100% engaged in Evolution in the Billiards Shot scenario.
The “some” who disagree are idiots.
No we are not idiots.