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

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

There are 152230 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

#121476 Sep 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the real kicker. Flood believers have to assume a rapid re-population to make the ideal internally consistent, but that is a little hap problem.
We have now accumulated a number of reasons why the flood is impossible or at least nearly infinitely improbable. I wish I kept a list of them all.
I think this one qualifies as impossible!
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121477 Sep 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then your calcs are wrong.
My calcs are based on the principles we have discussed.
Whatever the rate of growth, there is one new mutation per 67 females. That means 66 will produce the hap of their mother and 1 will produce a variation on that. I have ignored lethal changes (which helps your case, not mine, see how generous I am?)
Thus in any population, the existing tree will be 66 out of 67 daughters. In a stable population that means a decline in the existing tree. In a growing one (faster than 1/67th growth per generation or 1.5% per gen), it means that the existing tree will continue forever but as a shrinking percentage of a growing pie.
In fact, the way I modelled the growth helped your case too. I had doubling every generation up to 800M, very rapid growth, followed by very slow growth as soon as possible. If we slow the early growth rate, we also shrink the low growth "after period"...and its only in this slow growth period that haps are likely to disappear. My method extended the low growth period as long as possible. So I already skewed the calcs in your favour.
The existing haps will grow or shrink in number at
population n times growth rate (e.g 1.1 per gen) minus 1/67 (i.e 0.015)
and new haps will be the difference of course
ie
If you have n=1000 and double pop the next gen will be
1000 * 2 = 2000. 1/67 x 2000 = 30 mutants
Old haps shrink as percentage from 100% to 98.5% but grow in total numbers from 1000 to 1970. So they never disappear. A slower growth gradiant applied right up to modern times e.g. the Creationist favourite of doubling every 150 years, would see NO haps disappearing since the Flood times!
With zero pop growth
1000 * 1 = 1000 1/67 x 1000 = 15 mutants
Old haps shrink as percentage from 100% to 98.5% AND shrink in total numbers from 1000 to 985.
Iteratively, we see them disappearing but its logarithmic not linear. So for example when they are down to 50% of the population only half the 15 mutations will be affecting them directly and the other half will be applying to the multitude of new mutations, adding more "generations" in the hap tree.
So I already modelled things in your favour as much as possible.
Of course, none of it is a problem with the very slow growth 200,000 or so years of hunter gathering pre-agricultural period that science now considers the most likely one. We WOULD expect to see a 20 layer hap tree with most of the earlier ones already gone!
Now consider the oldest haps isolated in stagnant perhaps even decreasing population clusters in harmony with what the hap tree viewed geographically regarding the hap levels readily supports as humanity spread over the planet thru time. The result is older haps dropping like flies while newer ones become fixed much more readily, each generally in its own geographic location just like the real world!
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121478 Sep 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So far "my" opponents have proved my point by their inability to come up with a calculation that matches the data in a 4500 year framework.
If you have any disagreement with this, by all mean show me the link.
The principle I stated involves the opponent proving your point WITH data, not LACK of it. The latter is actually the norm I had in mind in noting the much more potent variant. Yours is business as usual. Nothing to crow about.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121479 Sep 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
However, the problem is that you can only have a limited number of haps going through 3 pairs, 4,500 ybp. And since that is the actual point, not how long humans have been around,....
Keep watching Chim and me. We're working thru the details.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121480 Sep 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The principle I stated involves the opponent proving your point WITH data, not LACK of it. The latter is actually the norm I had in mind in noting the much more potent variant. Yours is business as usual. Nothing to crow about.
Well this is a case of positive data proving a poiint. Its proving that we cannot condense the female population to n=3 within 5000 years.

The creatonist failure to find a way out is not through lack of data. The haps ARE the data. Its through the inability to make it fit their worldview.

Thus the existence of data proving that their case is lost. So it not merely lack of data. Its actual data that falsifies the flood hypothesis.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121481 Sep 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Now consider the oldest haps isolated in stagnant perhaps even decreasing population clusters in harmony with what the hap tree viewed geographically regarding the hap levels readily supports as humanity spread over the planet thru time. The result is older haps dropping like flies while newer ones become fixed much more readily, each generally in its own geographic location just like the real world!

No.

Nice attempt at twisting SOME of the data to try to make it fit your mold, but still wrong.

haps are haps not old haps and young haps.

Human populations have been increasing across the board.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121482 Sep 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The principle I stated involves the opponent proving your point WITH data, not LACK of it. The latter is actually the norm I had in mind in noting the much more potent variant. Yours is business as usual. Nothing to crow about.

The principle involves the opponent proving your point WITH data, not LACK of it. The latter is actually the norm I had in mind in noting the much more potent variant. Yours is business as usual. Nothing to crow about.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121483 Sep 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep watching Chim and me. We're working thru the details.

If by "working through the details" you mean that chimney is handing you your arse then I completely agree.
KAB

Salisbury, NC

#121484 Sep 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well this is a case of positive data proving a poiint. Its proving that we cannot condense the female population to n=3 within 5000 years.
The creatonist failure to find a way out is not through lack of data. The haps ARE the data. Its through the inability to make it fit their worldview.
Thus the existence of data proving that their case is lost. So it not merely lack of data. Its actual data that falsifies the flood hypothesis.
You have yet to confirm the data shows the hap tree could not be generated from 3 in 5000 years. Granted, you do keep declaring it to be so.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121485 Sep 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You have yet to confirm the data shows the hap tree could not be generated from 3 in 5000 years. Granted, you do keep declaring it to be so.
No. You have seen the data. We have worked through the maths of how replacement occurs and why it takes as long as it does. I have even stretched the assumptions in your favour, maximising early growth so that tje period of low growth could be maximised so as to eliminate as much of the early tree as possible.

What data or assumptions are missing that you think could shrink the timescale from over 100, 000 years down to 4500?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121486 Sep 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You have yet to confirm the data shows the hap tree could not be generated from 3 in 5000 years. Granted, you do keep declaring it to be so.

Pay attention.

The math has been demonstrated. That is the data in this case.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121487 Sep 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Now consider the oldest haps isolated in stagnant perhaps even decreasing population clusters in harmony with what the hap tree viewed geographically regarding the hap levels readily supports as humanity spread over the planet thru time. The result is older haps dropping like flies while newer ones become fixed much more readily, each generally in its own geographic location just like the real world!
That does not work either.

Consider a population of 100,000. Some individuals, say 10,000, migrate and thrive, while the rest stay behind.

There is no reason to believe the haplotype mix is statistically different in the emigre group than in the stay-behind population. So moving forward, each group will start with the same mix.

Now they are isolated. Lets see what happens.

Group one declines to zero over many centuries. The emigre group does well and grows 10x, so that the total number of people is unchanged.

Well, now we have a situation where the first group no longer counts, but the second group has undergone rapid growth, meaning the old hap is MORE likely to survive in this group. So departures from a uniform population growth with full mixing all the way (our basic simplification before), do not help you. They make it even harder to lose old haptypes!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121488 Sep 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Nice attempt at twisting SOME of the data to try to make it fit your mold, but still wrong.
haps are haps not old haps and young haps.
Human populations have been increasing across the board.
Go easy man. KAB is looking at scenarios. Pity he is not actually doing the work, but I am finding it quite fun.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121489 Sep 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Go easy man. KAB is looking at scenarios. Pity he is not actually doing the work, but I am finding it quite fun.

Lather
Rinse
Repeat

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#121490 Sep 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Lather
Rinse
Repeat
Until the bottle's empty?
KAB

Salisbury, NC

#121491 Sep 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Nice attempt at twisting SOME of the data to try to make it fit your mold, but still wrong.
haps are haps not old haps and young haps.
Human populations have been increasing across the board.
Ask Chim about older and younger haps. We've already been considering them, but I don't expect you to pay attention.
KAB

Salisbury, NC

#121492 Sep 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You have seen the data. We have worked through the maths of how replacement occurs and why it takes as long as it does. I have even stretched the assumptions in your favour, maximising early growth so that tje period of low growth could be maximised so as to eliminate as much of the early tree as possible.
What data or assumptions are missing that you think could shrink the timescale from over 100, 000 years down to 4500?
As you have noted, 3500 years is sufficient for a hap to disappear. On that basis, 10 to 15 in 4500 years shouldn't be a problem.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121493 Sep 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask Chim about older and younger haps. We've already been considering them, but I don't expect you to pay attention.

No, you don't understand what Chimney is trying to teach you. The rest is projection.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121494 Sep 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As you have noted, 3500 years is sufficient for a hap to disappear. On that basis, 10 to 15 in 4500 years shouldn't be a problem.

Incorrect. I really want to know if you are this stupid intentionally or if your cult had damaged your brain this much.
KAB

Salisbury, NC

#121495 Sep 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That does not work either.
Consider a population of 100,000. Some individuals, say 10,000, migrate and thrive, while the rest stay behind.
There is no reason to believe the haplotype mix is statistically different in the emigre group than in the stay-behind population. So moving forward, each group will start with the same mix.
Now they are isolated. Lets see what happens.
Group one declines to zero over many centuries. The emigre group does well and grows 10x, so that the total number of people is unchanged.
Well, now we have a situation where the first group no longer counts, but the second group has undergone rapid growth, meaning the old hap is MORE likely to survive in this group. So departures from a uniform population growth with full mixing all the way (our basic simplification before), do not help you. They make it even harder to lose old haptypes!
Let's consider instead that only 100 migrate and thrive. Probabilistically, the mix in the 100 need not be the same as in the 100,000. Let's also allow that neither the first group nor the second declines to zero, but the old hap virtually disappears in both groups, being a small percentage in the new thriving group and a large percentage in the large declining group.

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
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 min emperorjohn 20,281
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min Dogen 209,868
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr ChristineM 45,559
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sep 25 Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sep 24 One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sep 24 One way or another 4
News A better theory of intelligent design Sep 23 Chazofsaints 21
More from around the web