|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why can creationists give straight answers? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Scott,
Hasn't the mutation "limit" been shown to be exceeded experimentally anyway? That is, that the maths that the 1667 beneficial mutation limit was derived from, has been shown to be wrong in studies on other organisms? Not sure if I'm confusing two different things....... Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Scott,
Thanks for the reply. So basically, Haldanes "limit" of 1 beneficial allele fixed/300 generations has been shown false. In that case the model has been clearly found wanting, so (rhetorical question imminent) how can you form an argument claiming a falsification, when the model you get that falsification from, is shown to be faulty? IMO, Scott, you needn't have asked the question "do we know that 1667 beneficial mutations weren't enough to separate man from chimps?" Since the question is already moot. Whilst I'm at it, it has just occurred to me that it's 1667 ben. mut. to go from a common ancestor of humans & chimps, to humans & chimps. This assumes that chimps ARE the common ancestor of man, & have had no beneficial mutations fixed themselves. This means you should roughly double the figure, since the chimps are getting 1667 be. muts. as well, not just humans. So wouldn't there have been 3334 fixed beneficial alleles in the two species from divergence (according to Haldane in '57), or has this been taken into account? Hope that made sense Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: The 1667 fixed beneficial mutations is a limit set by Haldanes 1957 model. 1 fbn/300 generations. Rather than an estimated difference between humans & chimps. Creationists think this too low, but are unable to say why. My point above was, if human/chimp divergence was 5 mya (or whatever), & Haldanes model allows 1667 fbm in that time, then surely the chimp clade gets 1667 fbn (or thereabouts) as well as us. This means that, according to Haldane in '57, there are 1667*2 = 3334 fbm (not /2) allowed as differences between humans & chimps. It's 1667 fbm each back to their most recent common ancestor, therefore 3334 fbm mutations relative to each other. As Scott laboriously points out whenever this comes up, Haldane himself recognised the weakness of his model, in that it was based on estimated assumptions, & not derived data. Today, his the maximum number of fbm has been shown to have have been exceeded experimentally. Hope this helps. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Good question, one that I will leave to Scott to answer in depth, if I may. That said... Firstly, if you have ANYTHING in Hardy Weinberg equilibrium, then it's an allele. It MAY be the result of an SNP, but not necessarily (no biggie). Therefore, assuming you can identify the different (homologous) alleles, who cares? As long as you don't mix them up, it shouldn't make much difference. Given that the coalescent point of two homologous alleles is likely to be after speciation, the derived phylogeny (inter-species) should be identical. There are exceptions that spring to mind, alpha/beta heamaglobins for example, that are extant in both humans & chimps (coalescence occurred before speciation). In this case, choose which allele from which to infer a phylogeny from, ie don't use alpha from humans & beta from chimps. If you can't tell the difference between alleles, then there's not likely to be an appreciable affect on any derived phylogeny, is there? Regarding SNPs...... Wouldn't it therefore be sensible to arrive at a consensus sequence before performing the analysis? What I mean by this, is to take (for the sake of argument) 100 sequences from humans, 100 from chimps, then orangutans etc. in order to eliminate SNPs. That is, if 99 samples say A at a particular locus, & one says G, then G can be thrown out, & A taken as the consensus for that loci. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: I figured as much re. Not necessary to eliminate SNPs. For the benefit of creationists, here’s why. When performing phylogenetic analysis, you are deriving a divergence (coalescence) tree of XX number of organisms. An SNP in a gene that appeared a generation ago should still return the same tree as the fixed allele. Even if the SNP occurs at a phylogenetically informative site, providing you have enough of those sites, it won’t make an appreciable difference. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Same goes for syphilis, gonorrhoea (sp?), etc. In fact, we might ask was it Adam, Eve, or both, that had the above? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024