I will let have the last word on this conversation. I know that you understand at least part of the requirements to make a eukaryotic cell function even the single celled version.
Iâd love to see the answers to these questions. Axeâs conclusions are indefensible given the work he actually did and the assumptions he used to generalize his (very specific) observations. I would love to see an attempt to specifically address that point.
1 Like
Trust me, you wouldnât love that at all. Axe once wrote some blog post attempting to defend his choices against some of the many good points raised by @Mercer, and his response is⌠impressively deceptive.
3 Likes
I would say how little work he actually did.
To my knowledge heâs never entered into a single real-time discussion of it, but the absence of any followup is far more damning. Never have so many words been written about so little actual work AFAIK.
4 Likes
This.
If you genuinely believed that youâd discovered convincing evidence against one of the most successful and influential scientific theories in history, you wouldnât write one paper for publication in a reputable journal, based on one experiment, and then basically quit and write books about it for lay religious audiences.
4 Likes
Link to the questions posed by @Mercer?
1 Like
Oh OK. I thought it was on a different thread.
1 Like
If you want to look at it that way, then every child born is a statistical miracle. But it does not follow that there are no children ever born.
This is not a sound analogy. The reproductive process is very well understood. How much variation it can tolerate is not.
Protein evolution is well understood too, so whatâs your point?
2 Likes
Every person alive today has over 100 mutations compared to their parents, who in turn had the same with their parents.
And you are saying we all canât tolerate much variation??!
Especially if the YEC claim that there is no such thing as junk DNA is true.
1 Like
Good question. I would say in order to avoid the junk DNA debate, which is highly speculative, variation would include animals with different gene sets, How do deleted and add genes get fixed in an isolated population. Genes are transferred form parents to children. How do these changes take place and is there a mathematically feasible explanation given the common descent hypothesis.
Deleted genes donât get fixed in a population, well, because they are deleted. However, if a new gene arises, and several alleles of that gene are generated, genetic drift may or may not fix the alleles of that gene within a small, isolated population. In short, genetic drift is the major force that determines if alleles get fixed in a small, isolated population.
I donât understand what you are asking here.
PS: if you are asking how genes are transferred from parents to offspring, the answers are pretty much something you can look up in any basic biology textbook like the one Witchdoc linked below.
1 Like
Sounds like you need a biology textbook.
Campbell biology is amazingly good and very readable, might take a couple of months to get through
1 Like
The gene sets must get fixed. If we are observing a gene set with a different mix of genes that had to become fixed in the population. Genetic drift can fix this in a population however it takes lots of generations. The patterns in the pattern I posted previously is a very challenging problem for the common descent of vertebrates.
If you are making the claim that fish birds and mammals share a common ancestor you need to model how reproduction caused the pattern.
This seems incoherent. If a gene gets deleted, it doesnât get fixed, because it is no longer there. What do you mean by gene sets?
What patterns did you post?
Mutations provide the raw materials needed for evolutionary change, and that is what you need to study them to understand how morphological and biochemical features seen in extant populations of interest arose before or after they diverged from their common ancestors.
1 Like
This shows the gene sets. If the MYC gene gets lost in an individual then that loss needs to get fixed in the population to see patterns of gene gain and gene loss. The problem with the claim of ancestry among vertebrates is that gene loss may be deleterious which makes fixation unlikely.
In the process of reproduction genes get passed from the parent to the child. If you want to claim that vertebrates share a common ancestor then you need a model that shows how the above pattern emerged by reproduction.
The common ancestry claim among all vertebrates is likely false if the data I posted is valid.
Why? You arenât being clear at all. Genes can be both gained and lost. Both are well-known processes. Sure, it can take lots of generations for a mutation to reach fixation. So? Lots of generations are available. Donât you recall my demonstration that the gains and losses in that diagram fit the tree very well? Here it is again.
6 Likes
The claim has not been supported by a mathematical model which is the subject of this op. Saying genes can be gained or lost does not support the claim that the transition actually happened.
Saying gene gain happens is a conclusion that is not mathematically supported either by a single event or how all the events required for that gene gain became fixed in the population.