That makes no sense. The whole point of the accumulation of VSD mutations is they are invisible to selection and won’t be weeded out. Now Carter says in mice, etc. they are weeded out. Which is it?
1 Like
I don’t think you get what I was saying. I was saying both factors can be relevant. In your hypothetical example, I don’t think it would help, because you’re specifying that organism B has the same rate per generation. But that’s not usually the case. Organism B would degrade faster, all other factors being equal, since that means more mutations in a smaller amount of time. But usually shorter generation times will correspond with fewer mutations per generation. RNA viruses are an exception to this.
Of course they can’t. That would make the current theory deader than a doornail. Better to obfuscate.
So in fact the generation time is irrelevant. If you hold all other factors constant, and only change the generation time and it makes no difference, then the factor is not relevant. Case closed, game over.
2 Likes
While I do think there is value in the site (mostly because of comments from you and other knowledgeable scientists), I definitely don’t think there is much value in attempting substantive dialogue with people whose primary mission is the promotion of propaganda. And this conversation has demonstrated that pretty well.
10 Likes
I’ll repeat since you ducked the question:
Mice have a germline mutation rate of 5.4 × 10e−9, about half that of humans at 1.2 × 10e−8. But mice time per generation is approx. 60x faster than humans. That means mice accumulate VSD mutations 30x faster than humans. So why haven’t mice gone extinct from GE now?
6 Likes
Onlookers should watch this comment to see if Paul responds to it.
3 Likes
Your response here does not make sense to what you are quoting me say. Of course they(who?) can’t what?
And nobody is obfuscating but Price, with his deceptive bait-and-switch.
2 Likes
The only value is to show the dishonesty and hypocrisy some Creationists will go to in pushing their religious agenda.
2 Likes
6 Likes
Somebody whose only contribution to said conversation is to label one side as being “propaganda” doesn’t strike me as a person who is interested in dialogue to begin with. Certainly not, at least, dialogue with the other side of the debate.
Probably will not. Paul prefers to respond to PhD’s because that is where the quote mining potential is. The progression is always the same. “Thank you for engaging with me and clarifying some of these fine points in your theory” inevitably moving to “you cannot deal with the implications of your own theory because you are brainwashed”. It is all rather disingenuous and tiresome.
5 Likes
Sorry Paul, you had a chance to show us why we should take GE seriously, but you blew it. Anyone who reads through the thread, checking to see if you really made your case, would happily agree with @davecarlson remark.
1 Like
I’ve noticed you like to grandstand, making sweeping claims of victory for your side of the debate. You’re light on substance, though.
They also have 20-40x the effective population size, but still should be accumulating VSDs under GE within an order of magnitude of the rate of humans.
2 Likes
There is no debate Paul. Data is the judge and jury here, and it has found GE wanting.
I am a layman on the issue, but I am capable, with some effort, of examining any data provided to support the claims made here. I read the article you linked, and your points here, but I didn’t find data to support your claim that the DFE for slightly neutral mutations are vastly deleterious.
Hopefully, I will soon be able to make more substantive comments on the topic. I am reading and watching basic material to get a somewhat good foundation.
2 Likes
What data? All the data we have available on mutational effects show a strong skew toward deleterious. The most educated participant here, Dr Schaffner, has not made any appeal to any data. He has attempted to discount the only data we possess. I think you need to look more closely. You’re very eager to be confirmed in your pre-existing bias in favor of Darwinism. That much is clear. Look past that and you’ll see a different picture emerges.
It is an odd thing. GE is, at its heart, a mathematical argument and as such should have very specific mathematical predictions, extensible to any population given known values of a set of established parameters (population size, mutation rate, generation time, etc). And yet the GE people run from math every time. Not only do they not have math, they usually don’t even have numbers! That’s why their ‘supportive evidence’ is from summary quotations and their figures have no axes labels. These are the marks of a charlatan. @thoughtful should take note of this behavior as well.
9 Likes
What data do we have that shows the DFE of slightly neutral mutations strongly skew towards deleterious?
If memory serves me correct, Steve asked you for a theoretical basis or data to show that the DFE for slightly neutral mutations are vastly deleterious, but you didn’t provide any.
What “only data” did you provide?
Strawman. I am not a darwinist (which posits natural selection as the only means of evolutionary change).
2 Likes
Before you start asking me new questions (which, by the way, I’ve already responded to elsewhere), I’d like you to answer the question I posed to you. You claimed that the “data” have found GE wanting, and these “data” are the judge and jury here. So what data were you referring to?