You’re asking a question that has nothing to do with anything stated in the article. The chart shows an accumulation of mutations over time–are you suggesting that the amount of mutations Carter plotted is insufficient? That he’s missing data? Put your cards on the table and get to the point.
The Y axis says “mutation count”, not “base count”; why are you equivocating between them here?
@Mercer is making abundantly clear that you do not, not even remotely. And now you are demonstrating that your ignorance is willful, not just inadvertent.
But, hey, why should I care? It’s your reputation, not mine.
And you’re evading. Why are you pointing out that the axis labels are the same, when I challenged you to have the “humility to check the figure against the legend in the actual paper”?
I don’t see your confirming your aversion to evidence represents me playing a gotcha game.
It has everything to do with it.
That’s not what the legend in your article says. So what does “accumulation” mean, over 90 years?
How do mutations “accumulate,” given what we know about the numbers in the chart and the mutation rate of the virus?
I have and am. You’re completely missing the point because you don’t do evidence.
It’s not my fault that you don’t understand something so basic that you arrogantly claimed to understand, is it?
In what way have I equivocated between them?
It would be interesting to see how many mutations should have accumulated over that time period according to your population models.
Mutations in H1N1 ‘Spanish Flu’ over time
Is this what you’re taking issue with? Or the Y axis on the chart itself?
And why did you ignore when I said:
The Y axis says “mutation count”, not “base count”; why are you equivocating between them here?
Where’s the word “accumulations” in there? What does it mean, in the context of viral population genetics?
I didn’t. Perhaps you should take some more time to think before making so many reactionary accusations.
@PDPrice (and everyone else, for that matter)
I would strongly suggest reading this review article:
I think this will give you new insights as to why viruses become less and more common through time.
Maybe we should not be so hard on PDPrice. It’s become glaringly obvious over the past week he has almost zero understanding of the science involved in the YEC claims he’s been regurgitating. Not in genetics, not in biology, not in paleontology, not in geology, not in radiometric physics, not in any science having to do with evolutionary theory.
He’s the author of many YEC propaganda articles at CMI but I doubt he comes up with the nonsense. He just takes the science-free talking points others give him and adds fluff and window dressing before putting them online.
I suspect this is as good a literal example as we’ll find of Upton Sinclair’s famous observation:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair
I wouldn’t be if he displayed any sense of Christian modesty. 
True dat. Although I suspect it has nothing to do with being a Christian and lots to do with an over-inflated ego.
As a general note, it is rather disappointing to see all of the YEC’s who proudly claim they have conquered evolution, and yet they don’t understand what a nested hierarchy is how how they work. It’s like someone claiming to have defeated physics while not understanding how a lever works. I can’t help but believe that it evidences a lack of curiosity with respect to biology. Any YEC who claims that human designs fall into a nested hierarchy simply doesn’t understand what they are talking about. Ignorance is curable, but you have to want the cure.
@PDPrice calls himself a “Biblical” YEC, not a scientific YEC. I think that scientific debate with him is a red herring. For him, it has little to do with the scientific evidence, and everything to do with how he reads Scripture. Thus, “biblical.”
Focusing there first would probably be more productive and fun.
I don’t disagree but he came in claiming scientific support for his YEC position and keeps throwing mud at the actual science shown to him. It’s particularly irksome when he claims evolutionary scientists are committing deliberate fraud just to attack his God. If he just stuck to his interpretation of Scripture I don’t think there would be any problems.
He probably doesn’t know much better. But attacking it head on doesn’t do much good. Remember, it is not enough to be right, you also have to be trusted. If you flip people into fight-or-flight, the chances of building trust plummet, and the chances of persuading them of anything evaporate.
Try kindness instead. Far more persuasive.
@Mercer and @Faizal_Ali
I want to bring this particular fight to a close on a more constructive and positive note if I may.
I want to thank you both for your constructive criticisms of the article, as these always present me with an opportunity to learn more.
I will pass your objection to Dr. Carter’s graph of mutation accumulation on to him as I get the opportunity.
I’d like my interactions here to, in general, be more about learning than trying to convince everybody I’m right. I know that’s not going to happen anyway.
Anyway, thanks to both of you for your time and for looking at the article.
The first step may be to better understand what the scientific method is and how scientists use it. Paraphrasing Cleland, the methods are different for historical and observational science, but one is not superior to the other.
Just as a suggestion, you may want to understand why biologists, or perhaps christian biologists in particular, accept the theory of evolution. I strongly suspect that you will be surprised by all of the lines of evidence that led to scientists accepting the theory. If nothing else, you will need to learn what evidence scientists are using if you have any chance of falsifying the theory of evolution within the scientific community.
I appreciate that. It is gracious of you.
You’re welcome, but unfortunately, I don’t see any evidence that you understand my objection yet. I’m not objecting to the graph itself as it was presented in the scientific paper or the article on which Dr. Carter was the solo author. I’m objecting to the way it was presented in the article he coauthored with you–it was substantially different and highly misleading.
What change could I make to the article to correct this problem? How was it presented in a misleading way there?
By omitting “accumulation,” of course. It’s presenting the results of the EVOLUTIONARY fixation of a teeny minority of the mutations that occurred, not of their occurrence.
The mutation rate is 1.5 × 10^−5 mutations per nucleotide per infectious cycle.
Basically, every nucleotide gets mutated many times over. The graph shows the result of genetic drift and selection in combination–evolution.
If you’d like more, I’m happy to help.