• Sections
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the ...

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

There are 165425 comments on the Asheville Citizen-Times story from Mar 15, 2009, titled It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate. In it, Asheville Citizen-Times reports that:

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 ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Asheville Citizen-Times.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121441 Sep 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have I contended that population doubling has been continuous for 4500 years?
No, because you know that would result in a figure that is too high now. So lets just assume it for a while, say 28 generations of doubling until n goes from 3 to about 800 million. After that, a slow growth.

28 * 25 = 700 years.

As you have seen, at 800 million the earliest versions are still dominant after nothing but doubling. So in 3800 years of the following slower growth, they all have to disappear against the odds. And so does the next level and the next and the next etc so that by today, amazingly, all the dominant ones are gone and replaced by the ones that were in tiny minorities or did not even exist 3800 years ago.

Give it a try, it wont work. It just takes too long.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121442 Sep 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have I contended that population doubling has been continuous for 4500 years?
Following on, a quick calculation shows that from n=3 to n = 800m, given 1 mutation in every 68 individuals, that by n=800 million, roughly 530 million of them should still be the pure original haptypes with no mutations added. 270 million will have thousands of different variations, the most common being the earlier ones.

the 800m comes from 3 x 2^28

and the 530m comes from 3 x (2 x 67/68)^28 of the "unmutants"

That is where we start 3800 years ago according to your scenario.

OK, so we have reached 800m and we now reduce growth to a level that from there gives us todays population. Its about 1.5% per generation growth over 3800 years. Now the new haps will gradually overtake the old, as new mutations add up.

How many originals should be left? According to my calcs, they are still 8% of the population of 7 odd billion, or over half a billion people who should still have one of the n=3 original, unmutated mitochondrial DNA haplotypes. Yet we find neither them nor the first lot of mutations nor the second or third etc..20 levels, KAB.

It takes 8000 years for them to drop to 1%, which would STILL be easily found in today's population if they were around. And what about their "descendant" hap types? they would be around longer yet. And their descendents longer yet....but not just the base layer, MOST of the lower layers are all gone.

And now you might see why scientists say 160,000 years for this to occur...and NO WAY to compress it to 4500.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121443 Sep 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
This effort would be better served if, starting with 3 breeding pairs (4 mtDNA haps), you would think in terms of what would have to happen (no matter how unlikely you think it to be) to generate the hap tree in 4500 years (200 generations). If you can't construct a physically realizable scenario, then you will have made your point without pre-bias. I, of course, will be pleased to offer possibility ideas if/whenever you can't discern the next necessary condition along the way.
Well, read what I wrote after the last one...if you get my point.

Now its interesting that you want me to arrive at a figure YOU want, "without bias". I hope you can see that you are the one showing bias here, because you START, wanting a particular result.

Scientists came up with their figure and it could have been 5,000 or 50,000 or 500,000 but they got the results they got! They did not start with a needed or wanted number, they just made the observations, did the maths, and the number 160,000 came out. Of course, this is tweaked and criticised on the basis of refinements in data and methodology, but nobody has come close to 4500. It might drop to 100,000 or rise to 300,000 if they change some assumptions.

But the kind of assumptions needed to provide your figure are out of the ballpark. Two year generations? Dramatically higher mutation rates that would likely see us extinct instead of doubling, even if you could make it work?

No creationist has made it work yet. But try, by all means.

So how do you expect me to do it?

Strel
#121444 Sep 11, 2013
Number of posts: 119,328.

Number of Creationists that actually learned anything from this thread: 0.
KAB

United States

#121445 Sep 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in a stable population. Only in a rapidly growing one.
In a stable population, with the continual addition of new haps as we have seen, even though each one only has a tiny chance of replacing the existing type, the odds stack up over time.
But in a doubling one, there should be...
What about an initially rapidly growing population which then levels to stable and perhaps even decreases?

Also, some clarification of replacement is in order. When you refer to replacement, you are not referring to replacement of a specific "cc" element as a consequence of it mutating to something else (e.g., "cd"). You seem to be referring simply to a mutated genome. In that respect, since mutation rate at the genome level seems relatively high, I agree that older genomes could be expected to disappear (i.e., be replaced).
KAB

United States

#121446 Sep 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, because you know that would result in a figure that is too high now. So lets just assume it for a while, say 28 generations of doubling until n goes from 3 to about 800 million. After that, a slow growth.
28 * 25 = 700 years.
As you have seen, at 800 million the earliest versions are still dominant after nothing but doubling. So in 3800 years of the following slower growth, they all have to disappear against the odds. And so does the next level and the next and the next etc so that by today, amazingly, all the dominant ones are gone and replaced by the ones that were in tiny minorities or did not even exist 3800 years ago.
Give it a try, it wont work. It just takes too long.
Using your hap mutation rate (1/67), which I haven't verified yet, in a stable population we could expect the original haps to have been replaced in roughly 100 generations, correct?
KAB

United States

#121447 Sep 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Following on, a quick calculation shows that from n=3 to n = 800m, given 1 mutation in every 68 individuals, that by n=800 million, roughly 530 million of them should still be the pure original haptypes with no mutations added. 270 million will have thousands of different variations, the most common being the earlier ones.
the 800m comes from 3 x 2^28
and the 530m comes from 3 x (2 x 67/68)^28 of the "unmutants"
That is where we start 3800 years ago according to your scenario.
OK, so we have reached 800m and we now reduce growth to a level that from there gives us todays population. Its about 1.5% per generation growth over 3800 years. Now the new haps will gradually overtake the old, as new mutations add up.
How many originals should be left? According to my calcs, they are still 8% of the population of 7 odd billion, or over half a billion people who should still have one of the n=3 original, unmutated mitochondrial DNA haplotypes. Yet we find neither them nor the first lot of mutations nor the second or third etc..20 levels, KAB.
It takes 8000 years for them to drop to 1%, which would STILL be easily found in today's population if they were around. And what about their "descendant" hap types? they would be around longer yet. And their descendents longer yet....but not just the base layer, MOST of the lower layers are all gone.
And now you might see why scientists say 160,000 years for this to occur...and NO WAY to compress it to 4500.
According to my calcs, presented with the same level of detail as yours, we arrive at a 20 level hap tree with most earlier levels replaced, and your conclusion is incorrect. There, we're data even.
KAB

United States

#121448 Sep 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, read what I wrote after the last one...if you get my point.
Now its interesting that you want me to arrive at a figure YOU want, "without bias". I hope you can see that you are the one showing bias here, because you START, wanting a particular result.
Scientists came up with their figure and it could have been 5,000 or 50,000 or 500,000 but they got the results they got! They did not start with a needed or wanted number, they just made the observations, did the maths, and the number 160,000 came out. Of course, this is tweaked and criticised on the basis of refinements in data and methodology, but nobody has come close to 4500. It might drop to 100,000 or rise to 300,000 if they change some assumptions.
But the kind of assumptions needed to provide your figure are out of the ballpark. Two year generations? Dramatically higher mutation rates that would likely see us extinct instead of doubling, even if you could make it work?
No creationist has made it work yet. But try, by all means.
So how do you expect me to do it?
If your opponent proves your point, it makes the result much less suspect, don't you think?
BTW, personally I use 20 year generations and mutation rates found in non-creationist scientific sources.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#121449 Sep 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What about an initially rapidly growing population which then levels to stable and perhaps even decreases?
What about we let the evidence lead us to the conclusion, rather than formulating conclusions and then looking for evidence to support them? You know, like science?
KAB
#121450 Sep 11, 2013
Strel wrote:
Number of posts: 119,328.
Number of Creationists that actually learned anything from this thread: 0.
If I didn't constantly hound the opposition for confirming data I wouldn't learn anything here. I'm not about to add unconfirmed assertions to my "knowledge". You apparently would/do. I've confirmed too many of them to be incorrect to allow me to accept any.
KAB
#121451 Sep 11, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
What about we let the evidence lead us to the conclusion, rather than formulating conclusions and then looking for evidence to support them? You know, like science?
What is the evidence confirming what the population was doing 4500 - 4000 years ago? What evidence confirms what the population could have been doing 4500 - 4000 years ago?

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121452 Sep 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You just explained why there should be pure "cc"s after 10,000 generations,...

no.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121453 Sep 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have I contended that population doubling has been continuous for 4500 years?

It would be the most rational contention you have come up with yet.

Remember, you believe in storybook floods and naked people frolicking in gardens.

You believe that the Watchtower cult is God's government on earth.

LOL

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121454 Sep 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
This effort would be better served if, starting with 3 breeding pairs (4 mtDNA haps), you would think in terms of what would have to happen (no matter how unlikely you think it to be) to generate the hap tree in 4500 years (200 generations). If you can't construct a physically realizable scenario, then you will have made your point without pre-bias. I, of course, will be pleased to offer possibility ideas if/whenever you can't discern the next necessary condition along the way.

It can't be done in that time period. Even if Yahweh manipulated every coupling.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121455 Sep 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
This effort would be better served if, starting with 3 breeding pairs (4 mtDNA haps), you would think in terms of what would have to happen (no matter how unlikely you think it to be) to generate the hap tree in 4500 years (200 generations). If you can't construct a physically realizable scenario, then you will have made your point without pre-bias. I, of course, will be pleased to offer possibility ideas if/whenever you can't discern the next necessary condition along the way.

Most of the hap lineages began more than 5,000 years ago.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121456 Sep 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Using your hap mutation rate (1/67), which I haven't verified yet, in a stable population we could expect the original haps to have been replaced in roughly 100 generations, correct?

No.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121457 Sep 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
According to my calcs, presented with the same level of detail as yours, we arrive at a 20 level hap tree with most earlier levels replaced, and your conclusion is incorrect. There, we're data even.

LOL

and no.
KAB
#121458 Sep 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of the hap lineages began more than 5,000 years ago.
According to both sides of this issue, there were humans around more than 5,000 years ago.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121459 Sep 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What about an initially rapidly growing population which then levels to stable and perhaps even decreases?
Also, some clarification of replacement is in order. When you refer to replacement, you are not referring to replacement of a specific "cc" element as a consequence of it mutating to something else (e.g., "cd"). You seem to be referring simply to a mutated genome. In that respect, since mutation rate at the genome level seems relatively high, I agree that older genomes could be expected to disappear (i.e., be replaced).
Ok. Say you have a XXXccXXXXXXXX haptype. Now it can further mutate at any point (for our simple example).

So

XXXccXXXXXXdX

is a new type that came from the cc parent. It still has the cc element, but it has a new one stacked on top. And will, over time, accumulate even more so that eventually there may be

XXXccXXoXXXdX
XpXccXXXXXXdX
XXXccXXXXXXdz
etc.

or even

XXXcoXXXXXXXX, a second mutation in the same place.

As you will recall, the odds that ANY particular mutation will replace the parent is very low. Its only 1/67 in a stable population and its impossible in a rapidly growing one.

However, the sheer number of mutants does stack up over a long time and sooner or later some of them beat the odds (so long as the population is not growing too fast) and actually do replace the parent type completely.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121460 Sep 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Using your hap mutation rate (1/67), which I haven't verified yet, in a stable population we could expect the original haps to have been replaced in roughly 100 generations, correct?
Not far off. Scientists put it at around 3500 years.

And the 1/67 figure I got from some scientific source but cannot remember. You will find it if you look it up.

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

## 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.

### Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 7 min dollarsbill 5,108
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 41 min Subduction Zone 85,718
What's your religion? 47 min Subduction Zone 200
Humans evolved from Canadians Sat Mystic science 1
Evolution of the Tennessean species Sat Mystic science 1
Experiment In Evolution, Genetic Algorithms and... Sat was auch immer 10
God hates Tennessee Jan 20 Ajsjdjjdjd 6

#### Evolution Debate News

More Evolution Debate News from Topix »

More from around the web