6days, perhaps I should thank you for your repeated and consistent demonstrations that you haven’t the foggiest idea of what Kondrashov’s paper shows. Indeed Kondrashov understands simple math. I suspect you do too. The problem is that Kondrashov also understands (and uses) more advanced math that must look like gobbledygook to those (like you) whose math understanding stalled in junior high.
Again you rely on the simplistic idea that constantly adding VSDMs every generation means they will lead to extinction. You just can’t fathom that there might be mechanisms operative in the genome that counter that buildup. You are still not one sentence deeper into Kondrashov’s paper than the title, and it is pretty obvious by now that you cannot / will not / dare not actually engage it at a technical level to see if he provides a solution to your junior-high school conundrum.
Yup, you have claimed I am remiss in relying on a 20-year old technical paper, but now you rely on a paper that is more than 65 years old, predating Kondrashov’s by 45 years. Is hypocrisy really that addictive to you?
Since your childishly simplistic mathematical approach to the genetic load problem relies on ignoring the more complex aspects of the genetics that Kondrashov focuses on, I said:
To dodge, you replied:
Creationists hate reading. I have already (multiple times) been exquisitely clear that the very reason for Kondrashov’s paper is because a simplistic junior-high-level approach to this genetic problem is wrong.
Now, not that I have any confidence you will actually live up to your word, please show that you “can answer”, by showing where Kondrashov’s model fails. His title is predicated on the elementary mathematics you favor, and suggests there are more advanced considerations that you seem unwilling to allow. Now put on your big-boy pants and get into the paper itself.
And in your ignorance of science, you refuse to admit that the mathematics does not depend on what motivated the author. If Kondrashov had been a hard-core religious fanatic creationist, which of his equations would have been changed?
Yeah, Kondrashov did say that. How do I know? Well maybe I read it in his 2012 paper titled “The Rate of Human Mutation”, in the left-hand column, last paragraph, on page 468 of “Nature” magazine. Is that where you got his quote from? Or did you perhaps find it in an article at the ICR by Brian Thomas?
Naah, you and I both know that your source of almost all the quotes from scientists that you have posted come not from you reading their papers, but from your mindless reliance on what you find in creationist literature. Every time (in this thread and some others I checked on) when you quoted something that seemingly supported your position from a mainstream scientist, I found that exact quote in creationist literature and/or forums. Heaven forbid that should you actually have the integrity to go to the primary sources themselves.
In my last post I requested that you show you actually have Kondrashov’s paper. To show that, all I asked is that you copy from his paper a single author’s name and the name of a journal. That request required no math, no understanding of genetics, just a 3rd-grade ability to copy a few words. And you chose to ignore it. So now after a half-dozen modestly long exchanges, do you have anything more to offer than bland generalities about Kondrashov’s paper.
Inasmuch as you do not have, and have not read, Kondrashov’s paper, how do you know it is artificial and unrealistic?
Repeating simplistic junior-high arguments doesn’t make them more credible.
Alas, I was remiss in snipping out a portion of the quote in the article I referenced. In the missing portion – indicated by the ellipses – the author includes things like “large structural changes (involving mobile insertions and interchromosomal exchanges)”. These are all reflected in his final figure when he says “an average newborn contains ~100 de novo mutations.” My bad for not including more of the relevant text. Your bad for making a judgement without even having bothered to refer to the article itself (as usual) before making your poorly informed judgement.
You have alluded to more recent papers since Kondrashov’s 1995 article that you apparently think give Kondrashov problems. So when I ask for what specific papers, you offer nothing more specific than:
Only problem is, I did. Several times, much earlier in this exchange. Nothing that I saw that even comes close to what you need, and a fair amount there that is against your creationist idiocy. But in reality I use Google Scholar more than a generic Google search on questions like this. I don’t recommend Google Scholar for people like you that are still at the junior-high level, though. Google Scholar papers actually use mathematics more complicated than what you have shown you can handle.
Ahhhhh.....those ancient nomadic sheep herders wrote some pretty brilliant stuff.Interesting how a few thousand years later science keeps proving Gods Word correct... and evolutionists wrong.
I have responded to this claim before, only to be greeted by a deafening silence on your part. But if you insist – please provide the scientific evidence for:
---A couple of species of animals engaging in human conversations.
---Wooden staffs transforming back and forth into reptiles.
---Rivers transforming into hemoglobin.
---Wives transforming into pillars of salt.
---A fellow doing just fine inside a fish for a few days.
---Smelly decaying dead bodies getting up and socializing with the neighbors.
---Making a woman out of a man’s rib.
Etc. etc.
Creationists hate to read. I did mention people with an unusually low number of mutations, but the bit about them being trumped by beneficial mutations is just you resorting to spin doctoring once again.
One in a million, measured in standard deviations, is a bit under 5 SDs. In many aspects of science, when the spread of data points is the result of a random function, a data point that is 5 standard deviations away from the norm is likely to be considered pretty unusual. But when looking at the random spread of mutations in a population of 7 billion people, about 7 thousand of them will probably be 5 or more standard deviation units away from the norm. (Some will be even more extreme, but for passing on their genetic character, the outlying group needs to be big enough that interbreeding is likely.) Maybe you think being 1 in a million is just ho-hum stuff.
Do we? Most people would be expected to have more mutations than their parents, but I am not sure that is anywhere near a certainty. When the egg is fertilized the resulting DNA is basically half from each parent, but in some cases I would expect the 50% DNA from the dad could be from the parts of the Dad’s DNA that is a bit less “corrupted” than the other half was, and the same from the mom. If the child happens, by chance, to get just slightly less corrupted than usual DNA from both parents, then even the number of new mutations (100 or so) may not bring the total up to the mathematical average of the parents.
In your prior post when asserted that the estimates of how many mutations per generation may be much too low, you said:
I asked for a cite supporting that claim. You ignored that request. Do you stand by that claim you made, or not?
Finally, can we ever expect you to go to the original scientific sources yourself, or is it your intention to never rise above being a lackey who mindlessly passes on whatever you are fed from your creationist idols?
