Extraordinary Claims, Abiogenesis, and the Ressurection

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.

1 Like

As @John_Harshman said, 44 fixed mutations is very possible. We have on the order of 100 mutations per generation, and since most of these are neutral we can approximate that almost 100 mutations are likely to be fixed per generation due to random drift.

We can use ancient DNA samples to estimate mutation rates, a well-known example is Fu et al. (2014):

To quote from the abstract:

We present a high-quality genome sequence of a ~45,000-year-old modern human male from Siberia.

We estimate an autosomal mutation rate of 0.4–0.6×10−9/site/year and a Y chromosomal mutation rate of 0.7–0.9×10−9/site/year based on the additional substitutions that have occurred in present-day non-Africans compared to this genome…

0.4-0.6x10-9/site/year works out to about 1.2-1.8 mutations per year, or about 30-45 mutations per generation, assuming a generation time of 25 years. I’d say that’s a match.

2 Likes

Great post, but one issue.

You have to be careful here, because the denominator (number of sites) is poorly defined. We are likely underestimating the rate by overestimating the denominator. (@AJRoberts, this is a great paper for you to understand and read).

What do you mean? We know the size of the human and chimp genomes, and how much can be compared.

Actually we don’t have a good bead on what amount of the genome has high enough coverage to pick up a de novo mutation. About 10% of the genome is not always included because it doesn’t align to the reference genome. If you read the methods sections on those papers they often note this. Moreover, a bare number of mutations per generation (e.g. 44) leave open the size of the genome we are measuring. This creates some real ambiguity.

The conversation here is still correct. We just have to be cautious about giving a false illusion of more precision than we have. We already have a lot of precision. So just be a little cautious in how we state things and we’ll be fine.

1 Like

This question is exactly why the simulation example I spoke about in another thread would be instructive. People have a hard time picturing the continued fixation of neutral mutations, or how it can be the case that the rate of fixation of neutral mutations is actaully equal to the rate of mutation.

3 Likes

I don’t see how that follows. The fact that reason is one of the attributes of the methods we use to analyze nature does not mean it is above or beyond nature. You’ve made a statement about how we analyze nature, not a statement about nature itself, or the relationship between nature and reason.

I’d say the same thing for logic and reason here, they are axioms necessary for rational analysis. If we do not assume that the rules of reason or logic obtain, then we can do no meaningful analysis of anything. This is not a statement about the ontological status of reason itself, or of nature, it is a statement about the prerequisite for rational analysis.

I don’t see how reason being an axiom for us to be able to do any kind of rational analysis somehow means reason has some particular ontological status. I’m sorry but what you write is very obscure to me and I have a hard time making sense of it.

1 Like

@Djordje

Tell me how long your tribal clan group would last if every eligible male went on a 7 day hunt, leaving the women alone with children and the elderly?

Survival of the group does not always come down to the individual survival drives of the individual.

2 Likes

A couple of references that will say it better than I can:

“If naturalism is true, then we cannot sensibly believe it or virtually anything else.”

And of course C.S. Lewis’ book, Miracles, mentioned in the article (not a particularly easy read, if I recall correctly from 40+ years ago :slightly_smiling_face:).

Uh, those weren’t Djordje’s words. He was giving an example of the morons approved of by Vox Day by quoting a clueless idiot named Fred Reed.

1 Like

Yep, I understand, @Timothy_Horton. But the example is frequently used, revealing the originator’s poor grasp of population survival vs. individual survival.

We see the same thing with sickle-cell traits in populations that face long term exposure to Malaria. Sickle-cell doesn’t do much for the individuals with both genes… but it is an important survival factor for the population as a whole.

Ok but it seems like you were banging on Djordje for words that weren’t his.

The current scientific assessment is non-hetero sexual orientation is caused by a combination of genetic factors, in utero hormonal factors, and to a lesser extent post natal environmental factors. There is no “one size fits all” cause. As it turn out the genetic component is also strongly correlated with increased fecundity in female family members who carry it, which explains why the genetic component hasn’t been eliminated by natural selection. Of course no one consciously selects their sexual orientation of any stripe.

1 Like

@Timothy_Horton

I knew they weren’t his words… and I banged on them because he didn’t bang on them himself.
Is that clear enough now?

I have no animus against @Djordje.

He is a clear poster… generally speaking.

1 Like

OK, we’re good. :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes

Thanks, I’ve seen similar argument before and I have some problems with it.

It seems to me that nothing could justify belief in reason for which you wouldn’t have to use reasoning in your attempt demonstrate or justify it’s validity. If you argue that God makes it so reason is “reliable” or something to that effect, first of all you’re using the very thing you’re supposed to be establishing the validity of. That would make it, well, circular reasoning.

Second, you can of course just believe on faith that God has made reasoning valid, but how would that be different from simply assuming that reasoning is valid? And is it not possible that God has made reasoning invalid? How do you know God is not a deceptive trickster that takes some sort of pleasure in watching His creations flail around in essentially invalid trains of thought? You have to simply assume something about the nature of God, and then assume God made reasoning (whatever that even means).

I don’t see how theism offers a way out of this quagmire about the reliability or “veridicalness” of reasoning that doesn’t essentially boil down to blind faith, and so it isn’t in any way superior to the naturalistic position.

Neither of us can rationally justify reason “externally”, we both have to take it as an axiom of meaningful discourse. We have no other choice if meaningful discourse is something we desire to have.

1 Like

@Rumraket

There is a difference between an educated leap of faith … and just “blind faith”.

It might not be enough of a difference for you … but that’s why poker is interesting. What another person thinks is a sure thing… someone else considers too much of a gamble.

How can you do an “educated” leap of faith for the “veridicalness” of reason itself, when the thing that would make your faith “educated” has to assessed rationally?

@Rumraket,

Assuming i can even tell what you mean by the words you are using, there are categories of evidence that can provide some degrees of confidence despite the lack of formal proof.

we can expain it by the molecular clock. if 2 different species were very similar in their initial state- then we can get almost the same result, without a common descent.

@scd

You mean if God was guiding evolution, right?