It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ...
Comments
118,301 - 118,320 of 136,248 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#120447 Jul 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...
http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstrea...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2793169
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8314556
It appears (but is not certain) that there were waves of immigrants to NZ, but this is not clear. Where are you getting a minimum founder population of 150 from. I have not yet run across any numbers for that.
This narrative in a popular reference work explains more, but I have no way to confirm its accuracy.
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/when-was-new-zeal...
But if correct it seems that settlement was not a one time event, but rather there was a great deal of coming and going.
There is a list of references at the end that I am not interested enough to go through, but through which you may find your answer.
http://www.pnas.org/content/95/15/9047.full

This article based on haplotype analysis suggests that the founder female population was 70 and it constitutes the overwhelming bulk of the native population. Note that since Euro arrival, the local Maori population is 40% white on average and its said there are no pure-bloods left.

There may have been some tiny gene flow on occasion. BTW, by the time the Euros arrived, Maori had long stopped using or apparently even remembering double hulled canoes and the single hulled dugouts were not seaworthy for the long traditional voyages. In the Pacific we really are talking about needles in Haystacks. Google Earth Samoa some time, its mind blowing! And its a 4 hour flight from NZ. Thats not far by Pacific standards.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120448 Jul 31, 2013
Chimney,

RE: your "needles/haystack" reference.

It might be a tad off-topic, but perhaps not. Have you seen the documentary about "The Navigators" in the S.Pacific who navigated using the patterns seen in the waves?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/polynesi...

Incredibly fascinating, and a damn shame that this will soon be a lost art.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#120449 Jul 31, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
Chimney,
RE: your "needles/haystack" reference.
It might be a tad off-topic, but perhaps not. Have you seen the documentary about "The Navigators" in the S.Pacific who navigated using the patterns seen in the waves?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/polynesi...
Incredibly fascinating, and a damn shame that this will soon be a lost art.
No, I haven't though I know something of their navigations. But I think the NZ case does show the MVP is quite a low figure (though 6 I doubt!). Will look at your link when I get the chance, cheers.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120450 Jul 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I haven't though I know something of their navigations. But I think the NZ case does show the MVP is quite a low figure (though 6 I doubt!). Will look at your link when I get the chance, cheers.

I still think the reference to there being more than one group of immigrants is interesting. Ultimately we just don't know. Maybe genetics will some day be able to give us the answer as I doubt archeology or history will.

KAB

United States

#120451 Jul 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
KAB, the analysis is based on what is known about haplotype variation. Its origin in a mutation event that occurs in an individual and then disperses through the population by drift - the random chance that in this case the female line will preponderate.
If you want to alter the analysis to MAKE IT FIT your predefined conclusion, then
A / you have to change one of these assumptions and explain why its reasonable to do so and
B / admit that you are about as far from objective and balanced as a person can get.
Please note that before any analysis was done, scientists did not have a preconceived view the m-Eve was 200k years ago. Could have been 8000, could have been 800, 000. They accept the answer of logic and evidence, you do not. Fine, but why do you feel the need to pretend?
I have to know the assumptions before I can change them. I don't recall seeing them given. If you know some of the assumptions, please provide them for consideration.

Before these relatively recent genetic analyses were conducted what was the generally accepted scientific view of the age of modern humans?
KAB

United States

#120452 Jul 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply cannot. Even if I wanted to. Same goes for so called creation scientists. None have them have been able to come up with a remotely plausible scenario cosistent with what you are asking.
See the problem yet? The Flood just does not work. Thats called falsification of you hypothesis. Welcome to science.
Would you accept maximum initial genetic diversity among 4 of the 6 breeding humans in the post-global-flood?
Would you accept minimal deleterious genes among them?
Would you accept general population growth following the flood?
If you don't accept something, please explain its implausibility with confirming data/analysis.
If further assumptions are needed, please identify them for consideration.
So far, I commend your attempt at a scientific approach.
KAB

United States

#120453 Jul 31, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, You're missing a rational approach to reality. But to answer your question, I'm using the following paragraph within the reference:
"An MVP of 500 to 1,000 has often been given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored.[3][4] When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands. Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals."
<quoted text>
Yes, it is possible for a population of 6 to double in about 20 years.
But in the history of mankind, a population growth rate of 100% has never...NEVER been seen for populations of any appreciable size.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
"The world population has experienced continuous growth since the end of the Great Famine and the Black Death in 1350, when it stood at around 370 million.[6] The highest rates of growth – global population increases above 1.8% per year – were seen briefly during the 1950s, and for a longer period during the 1960s and 1970s. The growth rate peaked at 2.2% in 1963, then declined to below 1.1% by 2012."
The ranges given were based on what assumptions? If the assumptions don't span the full range of possibilities, then neither will the results.
How was the the post famine and Black Death 370 million determined. I don't recall ever seeing that a 1350 era international census was conducted.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#120454 Jul 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Dogen, Lowell Guy, Kong et al
I have a problem with these MVP estimates, based on the Pacific Islands.
In New Zealand, the founder population may have been as low as 150 and yet when Europeans arrived a fit local population of more than 100,000 existed, based on the founding population that arrived 600 years earlier.
In addition, the Polynesians who arrived had also been through bottlenecks at each stage of the migration and the genetic variability was low.
Note that the impression Cook et al had of the native populations of New Zealand and other pacific islands was that they were very fit and healthy.
Also, there are idlands like Nauru and Tuvalu etc where very small populations existed independently for centruries or millenia. The Samoan population goes back 5-6000 years. I have been to Samoa. Shyte, its tiny (but beautiful).
It seems that MVPs of 5000 etc are way off the mark.
In an aside Chimney, I think you post sets a fine example of the kind of discussion we (the science folks on here) are talking about. You make your point and provide supporting evidence.

I should do so well.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#120455 Jul 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you accept maximum initial genetic diversity among 4 of the 6 breeding humans in the post-global-flood?
Would you accept minimal deleterious genes among them?
Would you accept general population growth following the flood?
If you don't accept something, please explain its implausibility with confirming data/analysis.
If further assumptions are needed, please identify them for consideration.
So far, I commend your attempt at a scientific approach.
Since the haplotype data clearly shows that a global flood did not happen, it is all academic. You can start with a fully equipped expeditionary force if you want.

Commendations from you? An interesting concept.
KAB

United States

#120456 Jul 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Then, pray tell, what do you find to contend with in my summary?
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand there has never been a sustained period of time in human existence where that has ever been confirmed to have happened?
And do you understand that population does not have the genetic diversity to sustain ANY growth much less doubling the population every 20 years.
Do you understand a population of 6 would be doomed to extinction EVEN IF the subject were hand picked for maximum diversity?... and further understand that half of them being siblings is going to hurt rather than help?
And do you also understand that such a bottleneck would be very obvious in the genetic record (assuming they survived by a literal miracle)?
Given these cavets I agree with your premise (not yet a hypothesis) if you also agree that.
1. You have not presented any evidence for your premise.
2. You have no evidence for your premise.
3. You have no evidence for a global flood which is the foundation of your premise.
4. You would not have come to proposing this premise if it were not for religious beliefs.
Yea or Nay?
Inquiring minds would love to know. If that does not break your precept of lying for your cult.
I don't understand any item of your dataless summary to be correct. Getting me to do so would require confirming data. If you finally decide to proceed in that direction, please address only one item per post since I will only respond to one at a time. That helps to keep the analysis simple, focused, and orderly.
KAB

United States

#120458 Jul 31, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
If I'm to accept everything in it as literally true? YES.
You don't have such a reasonable standard of evidence. You're willing to accept claims as true as long as you've decided that the source is "reliable." Well, your admittedly subjective standard with undefined criteria is not a valid method of determining reliability, and even if it were, reliability is inadequate justification for accepting a claim as true.
Believe me, I understand. You don't care if the things you believe are true, as long as they make you feel good. Lots of people do the same thing. It's not intellectually honest, and it does end up forcing you to lie about pretty much everything related to your beliefs, but it's your prerogative to delude yourself in the name of comfort.
You apparently don't understand. You have, however, acknowledged that you cling to that which is not confirmed, such as the possibility that Earth is cubic in shape.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#120459 Jul 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't understand any item of your dataless summary to be correct. Getting me to do so would require confirming data. If you finally decide to proceed in that direction, please address only one item per post since I will only respond to one at a time. That helps to keep the analysis simple, focused, and orderly.
I don't see any data in this post. I can't agree with you if you don't provide data. Why won't you provide data?

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#120460 Jul 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You apparently don't understand. You have, however, acknowledged that you cling to that which is not confirmed, such as the possibility that Earth is cubic in shape.
You apparently don't understand. You have, however, confirmed that you cling to that which is not confirmed, such as the possibility of global flood. Refuted in fact.
KAB

United States

#120461 Jul 31, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, sure, as long as you're going to let magic be a variable in the equation.
I see no need for magic. Where do you see magic needed?
KAB

United States

#120462 Jul 31, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Except inbreeding results in extinction within several centuries. I am willing to bet absolutely anything on it. If you can find ANY legitimate scientific evidence (i.e., not from creationist websites, which are known to be dishonest) that your scenario is even REMOTELY possible without 100% extinction of the species within, say, 500 years without the intervention of magic, I'll give you anything you want.
Unfortunately, I am unaware of any species known to have been bottlenecked to 3 or less breeding pairs 500 years ago. BTW, isn't it deleterious genes that are the downfall of inbreeding?
KAB

United States

#120463 Jul 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should he confirm elements of YOUR myth??? and anyway, either way it does not matter...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =W7x1ETPkZskXX
is the result.
He need not confirm my elements any more than I need to accept his.
Also, isn't the inbreeding problem a direct result of deleterious genes?

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#120464 Aug 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you accept maximum initial genetic diversity among 4 of the 6 breeding humans in the post-global-flood?
Would you accept minimal deleterious genes among them?
Would you accept general population growth following the flood?
If you don't accept something, please explain its implausibility with confirming data/analysis.
If further assumptions are needed, please identify them for consideration.
So far, I commend your attempt at a scientific approach.
When we are talking mtDNA then its only the diversity of the 3 females that matters. Ok make them different. Ok minimal deleterious genes, to minimise the impact of the inbreeding. That is not my argument anyway. I will give you all of that. Ok allow for doubling and redoubling etc early on.

Now you ask, could the present level and structure of haplotype variation result? And the answer is still no, becuase the haplotypes cannot disperse that fast. The first variants might, but no way for daughter and grandaughter variants through timebto continue to accumulate fast enough. It just takes longer KAB.

In a small polulation a hap could spread in a few generations if it was lucky but thay actually harder if the total pop is growing fast, as discussed earlier. And when pop reaches millions and the growth rate slows that too wont allownrapid dispersal. Even natural selection cannot help since most of these changes are neutral and anyway, you assumed a high degree of perfection in the early ones making changes more likely to be deleterious and so LESS likely to spread!

Like I said I doubt I could help you even if I wanted to and no creationist has managed it either.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#120465 Aug 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
He need not confirm my elements any more than I need to accept his.
Also, isn't the inbreeding problem a direct result of deleterious genes?
Yes it is, so I gave you that. For your sake we will pretend that Noah's lot were perfect.

However I need to point out that this would be the mother of all dataless assumptions. We have absolutely no reason to assume humans 4500 years ago were perfect or nearly so. I wonder about that 5000 year old corpse discovered in the Swiss Alps, or the various mummies from Egypt etc. Perhaps they could be tested and if you are right theor genome should be nearly perfect right?

Lacking good medicine I would expect them to be reasonably fit but certainly not free of defects. Assuming we could even classify what is abdefwct and what is merely a variation.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#120466 Aug 1, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>In an aside Chimney, I think you post sets a fine example of the kind of discussion we (the science folks on here) are talking about. You make your point and provide supporting evidence.
I should do so well.
Sometimes I think even arguing with these fools is only worthwhile because of the insights some of the more enlightened other posters provide in response. I learn a lot here. I also enjoy the occasion when one ot the anti evos makes a good thinking point though. Rare but it happens.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120467 Aug 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is, so I gave you that. For your sake we will pretend that Noah's lot were perfect.
However I need to point out that this would be the mother of all dataless assumptions. We have absolutely no reason to assume humans 4500 years ago were perfect or nearly so. I wonder about that 5000 year old corpse discovered in the Swiss Alps, or the various mummies from Egypt etc. Perhaps they could be tested and if you are right theor genome should be nearly perfect right?
Lacking good medicine I would expect them to be reasonably fit but certainly not free of defects. Assuming we could even classify what is abdefwct and what is merely a variation.
There is this:

http://phys.org/news/2012-02-genetic-analysis...

"Ötzi was genetically predisposed to cardiovascular diseases, according to recent studies carried out by the team of scientists working with Albert Zink and Angela Graefen from Bolzano’s EURAC Institute for Mummies and the Iceman, Carsten Pusch and Nikolaus Blin from the Institute for Human Genetics at the University of Tübingen, along with Andreas Keller and Eckart Meese from the Institute of Human Genetics at Saarland University. Not only was this genetic predisposition demonstrable in the 5,000-year-old ice mummy, there was also already a symptom in the form of arteriosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries. "

<<more at link above>>

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Asheville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Should Welfare recipients face mandatory steril... (Jun '12) 27 min Dixie Hillbilly 55
How democrackkks RIG elections ... 1 hr OneWhoKnows 1
NC Who do you support for U.S. Senate in North Car... (Oct '10) 3 hr Victoria 58,827
ABIDE WITH ME Oh Lord Abide With Me 7 hr Dixie Hillbilly 21
When This Weary Life Is Over I'll Fly Away (Feb '14) 7 hr Dixie Hillbilly 10
BRINGING IN The SHEAVES 7 hr Dixie Hillbilly 1
corruption and fraud in our city and courts (Nov '13) 14 hr JUANITA OWENS 29
•••
•••
•••

Asheville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Asheville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Asheville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Asheville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••