Extraordinary Claims, Abiogenesis, and the Ressurection

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@John_Harshman

Putting aside how unlikely 44 fixed mutations per generation is, we have a model to falsify evolution.

Of course, 44 fixed mutations per generation is highly likely. As Kimura showed, in neutral evolution the number of fixations per generation is equal to the mutation rate, and there are in the neighborhood of 100 mutations per human per generation. 44 is actually too few.

Exactly. What saves this is that coalescence is farther back in time, about 10 million years ago. Then that comes to be about 100 mutations per generation, almost exactly what we observe.

@glipsnort’s exposition of this is important (even though @Peter_Berean just blew by it). If you use different types of mutation as a control, then the evidence just comes into nearly perfect alignment. There is no reason it had to be this way, but it is. See the inappropriately named thread (Mutations Are Consistent With Biochemistry - #4 by T_aquaticus), and here @glipsnort’s article (Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - BioLogos).

Still no response from YEC, RTB (@AJRoberts), or ID (@pnelson, @Agauger) on this. I don’t suspect there is a good response.