I stand corrected.
i think it is worth clarifying which statement is meant. It appears to be this one:
I think we can be sure that this claim is not intended to apply to "LME"s.
1 Like
The parents always wondered, what on earth is my kid saying?
7 Likes
First of all, thank you so much for saving me from having to argue this point.
In context, when I said âperfectâ, I was not referring to Godâs original design. I was talking about DNA replication happening with zero errors. Which we can now apparently all agree is very, very unlikely to happen in LMEs, ever. Even if it did, it would be irrelvant to GE because of how rare of an occurance it would be.
No, they wonât. Very, very unlikely to be born without mutations, we can dismiss that possibility.
Actually, IIRC (and Iâm going from memory), Rob Carter has shown that certain people groups do seem to have higher mutation rates than other people groups, so that is a distinct possibility. However creationists do not have to assume that all genetic diversity has its root in mutations. We believe God would have created the original kinds in a heterozygous state to pre-load life with the ability to diversify.
I would agree, logically there was a moment when a person first spoke French. I am not claiming anybody would be practically capable of naming that moment, but if you construct a precise definition for what counts as âFrenchâ, then there was definitely a moment in history when someone first spoke it.
What exactly is this argument supposed to entail? Youâve lost me in how what youâre saying here is relevant to GE. The segregating load of mutations will be overwhelmingly near neutral and deleterious.
With what you have set up here, we would define the moment when the first individual transitioned from B to C as the moment when a new species was formed with respect to A.
Even then it requires that the new species must reproduce, at least in the first few generations, by selfing or vegetative reproduction. Not the sort of thing available to the majority of animals.
What religion are you? - because that is not in the Bible. Do you have a reference from the Church fathers, or a mention from the reformers or anyone else in history?
Thatâs rich coming from you. If you construct a precise definition for traits, they exist as definite entities.
3 Likes
Iâm talking about both. The most common mutations are caused by tautomeric flickering of the substrate. Itâs baked in; Goddidit in your interpretation of the Bible. Calling them âerrorsâ in the context you are using is just wrong.
Not even close.
Instead of reactively grasping at straws, why not learn the objective facts? Differences in mutation rates (which themselves may be artifacts) do not come close to explaining the disparities in polymorphism.
And Iâm pretty sure that Rob Carter has not shown anything relevant. In scientific discourse, that verb tends to be reserved for those who actually did the work.
How does that explain the differences in both heterozygosity and polymorphism between groups of the human kind? These are simple, objective facts.
I wouldnât.
Not any that weâd use today. Your flexibilityâtraits are fuzzy human constructs while languages and species are notâis amazing.
Itâs supposed to help you understand what we know about evolution and you are avoidingâespecially relevant, objective, measurable facts.
I know, because you donât understand the basics of evolution and popgen.
Again, individuals donât transition. Only populations do.
2 Likes
I believe you are correct, and this seems to go back to me and Hancock talking past each other on this point and referring to different things when we say âno mutationsâ. Itâs safe to say weâre all in agreement that all humans will be born with new mutations. Originally Hancock was trying to make some kind of argument about how GE compares a loaded population to a theoretical unloaded one. Thatâs also what his own simulation did, and he claimed he was showing that fitness didnât decline (so Kondrashovâs paradox was not a real danger). The problem was, almost all his parameters were significantly off the mark with respect to LMEs.
First, a reminder of the context: In response to Mercer stating that there is no first individual of any species, you asked (rhetorically I know) to explain Hancockâs statement about population sizes being sufficiently large to allow individuals to be born without mutations.
I answered that question by stating that Hancockâs statement does not entail there being a âfirst individualâ. He said that, with sufficiently large populations, there would be individuals born without any mutations relative to their parent(s)⌠NOT relative to a supposed âfirst individualâ.
So that was the original point of my answer.
Regarding your obtuse response, I can also explain why that is wrong too. Letâs use bacteriophages as a case study, which can have population sizes over 10^30. Letâs also pick a relatively high mutation rate for them: 10^-3. The average genome size of bacteriophages is ~60,000, so that would mean that each new bacteriophage has on average 60 new mutations relative to its immediate mother.
The probability of 0 mutations follows a Poisson distribution: with k = 0 and lambda = 60.
> dpois(x = 0, lambda = 60)
[1] 8.756511e-27
In other words, the probability is 1 in 8.67 x 10^27. Thatâs very small, but within a population size of 10^30, we expect in each generation, an average of 8757 individuals will have no new mutations relative to their mother.
You may respond obtusely again by claiming I am cheating with very large population sizes, but thatâs exactly what Hancock stated before. With sufficiently high population sizes, this is what happens.
Why that point? It is indistinguishable from drawing the line between A and B, and claiming that is where a new species was formed with respect to C.
And if we allow the populations to overlap with each other (which they often do) then we can just as easily draw the arbitrary line somewhere in the middle.
Iâm Christian. Thereâs all sorts of true facts that we can infer in various ways that arenât explicitly in the Bible, or even in the church fathers. This question is a non sequitur.
Sure, but then you have to be so precise that the whole thing collapses right back down into neutral theory all over again! Beak length 1.0001 will be a different trait than length 1.0002, and now there is no selectable difference between them, which means they will be dominated by drift, not selection.
The point is that Charlesworth (and now Hancock) are handwaving away the real problem and changing the subject to something irrelevant to the issue (which is called a red herring by the way). Artificial selection is not natural selection. âTraitsâ have nothing to do with genetic entropy. Mutations do.
This whole discussion becomes yet another of many red herrings that distract away from the actual point of the debate.
You specifically stated that A = B, and B = C, but A =/= C. If we ignore the inherent absurdity of this claim, which is a violation of the law of identity, and then we assume a linear move from A to C in time, then, by definition, the species officially changes when B turns into C.
In reality, if A and B and C are all distinct enough to be counted as different letters, then we would just say they are each distinct species.
If we properly define the species with enough specificity, then we can certainly point to the exact moment of the shift. As Iâve said, this is a problem of lacking precise definitions of words.
If I recall, he showed that if you root the mitochondrial tree where he thinks it ought to be rooted, African lineages stand out with anomalously long branches, and thatâs his evidence. The problem there is that his root is bogus.
1 Like
God did it in the respect that God cursed the creation. There would have been no copying mistakes at all in the original unfallen world.
Okay, pointlessly quibbling about the word âshownâ. Moving on.
History, not science, would explain the differences. Obviously.
I said precisely the opposite. These things are fuzzy precisely because our definitions are fuzzy. If you make a clear definition for a language then you can pinpoint when it was first spoken. Same for a species. This is a problem of definitions, not an actual scientific impossibility.
I seem to be holding my own, actually.
Typical evolutionist doublespeak once again. Populations are composed of what? Individuals. Itâs like saying ice molecules donât melt - only blocks of ice melt. Youâre ignoring the fact that the only reason the block of ice melts is because of changes on the molecular level. Same with populations. They only transition because the individuals that make them up are transitioning. Again, this is obvious and should go without saying.
Did you know that traits can be defined in bracketed terms, such as a length measuring between L1 and L2?
Did you know that traits are a core tool for determining membership in purported kinds in creationist baraminology? Maybe you should talk to your colleagues before dismissing the objective reality of traits.
Or even inferred in the Bible, and by anyone in church history, because it is contrary to the plain reading, and is an ad hoc contrivance invented because the catalog of species blew past the holding capacity of the ark. According to which, after breeding after their kind for more than a millennium until the deluge, the boarding animals preserved enough heterozygosity for sheep to hyper evolve into goats, and giraffes to sprout long necks which for decades was the creationist poster creature for an impossible transition, and then radiated throughout the world where they speciated only for most to promptly go extinct. Maybe all that heterozygosity included big dollups of GE. All this happened during human history which documents and depicts, and even mummifies, familiar modern animals and only modern animals, just like named in scripture. Sequitur that ridiculous fabrication, because you know what - all of that is what YEC presents as YEC canon and none of it is a caricature.
2 Likes
I find these sorts of claims fascinating. Not only are they not support scientifically, but theyâre not even supported Biblically.
Itâs a purely speculative invention.
4 Likes
So what? The buckets you choose are going to be subjectively-defined.
Iâve not studied a lot into baraminology, but obviously there will be subjectivity there too, since we cannot wind back the clock and actually observe what original kinds God created. There are limits to what historical science can accomplish.
Godâs creation being heterzygous originally is somehow contrary to the plain reading? Please explain. Use direct scripture quotes and show me how a âplain readingâ would have anything at all to say on the issue of zygosity.
Creationists donât believe in the fixity of species, and the Bible doesnât teach it. The Bible talks about kinds and reproducing âafter their kindsâ. Kinds are a higher organizational stratum compared to species.
Where are you getting the notion that long-necked giraffes have only come into being after the Flood?
What is a âdollup of GEâ? This conversation should be winding down at this point, as clearly nothing of substance or actual relevance to the debate is any longer being discussed.
Your claim that humans only depicted modern animals in all of recorded history is patently false.
Sigh⌠if you really think so, then why did you waste our time by asking that (rhetorical) question for an answer you donât think is worth discussing? This is a rhetorical question.
Lastly, are you willing to retract your statement (see nested quote below).
If you retract this statement, then we can all move on from the âdistracting red herringâ.
My example was not a âlinear move in timeâ. I explicitly stated that my example was evolution across the spatial dimension. All populations exist at the same time.
Regardless, your conclusion [the species officially changes when B turns to C] does NOT follow from premise 1 [assuming a linear move from A to C] and premise 2 [by {what?} definition].
This is the 2nd time I am asking this question: Explain why the line lies between B and C? Why not draw the line between A and B, and claim that is where the species âofficially changesâ? Not a rhetorical question.
To illustrate this point further, I can use the identical structure of your non sequitur and come to a different conclusion, just by switching the labels around.
If we assume a linear move from C to A, then, by definition, the species officially changes when B turns into A.
This non sequitur is equally (in)valid, since the example I gave is perfectly symmetrical. Moving in space (or time) from A to C is the same as moving from C to A.
1 Like
This is a classic âJudgment of Parisâ moment[1] - when it becomes clear that the speaker doesnât understand the conversation.
@Nesslig20 didnât say A=B, he said A and B were the same species, i.e. interfertile. Being the same species is not being identical.
Space, not time.
You might. But you might also think âParisâ can only mean the city. The rest of us know about subspecies.
Lord Edgware dies, A. Christie. âŠď¸
4 Likes
Jane Wilkinson thought the same.
1 Like
Fail.
I can assure you that ice molecules do not melt, that equations of state represent bulk properties based on statistical mechanics, and that the molecules are exactly unchanged.
This is what I mean when I state you cannot claim to be an expert in a narrow focus while deficient in general background knowledge.
5 Likes