|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: As I understand the paper at Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans | Genetics | Oxford Academic, (k) is estimate under a neutral model for total divergence between chimps and humans (their number 1.33%). Mutation rate by empirical measurement was found to be ~70 new mutations per generation (that is a mutation rate of 1.1 x 10^-8 mutations in the diploid genome per generation) that would be (u). The calculation they preformed estimating mutation rate was based on effective ancestral population (Ne), specie divergence and time of divergence being 5.6 million years. This produced a calculated mutation rate of ~175 mutations per generation (u) or(2.5 x 10^-8) to time of divergence. This is about twice the measured mutation rate in humans. You claim mutation rate of indels to be 1/7 that of substitutions, that would be ~ 10 per generation. This would give a new mutation rate of (1.3 x 10^-8) per generation. This has nothing to do with the (k).
quote: That is fine, I accept 1/7 that of the empirical value for substitutions. The actual value calculated for the generations from divergence did not change that much. Sorry. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given. Edited by zaius137, : correction...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Perfect time to present your understanding. I am familiar with the evo perspective but my personal view differs somewhat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: You have pointed out an inconsistency in the way I was using the Nachman and Crowell paper. You are correct about mutation rates and Percent divergence. As you have suggested mutation rate of indels is less than that for substitutions. you say about 1/7 (u). Also I have been using the wrong (k). It must only consider indels. Following is my corrections: (u) for substations is ~70 per generation. 1/7 (u) makes (u’) = 10 mutation per generation in humans for indels only. (u’) is calculated by (10/6.4x10^9 ~ 2x 10^-9). (u’) for indels is ~ 2x10^-9 A new number for (k) must be arrived at from the following:
quote: With repeats and low complexity DNA is excluded 2.37% -1.52% Gives ~.8% for human and chimp divergence concerning indels this seems low but it must be true. Subbing in for indels gives: t= number of generations since divergence (Generation =20 years)k= percentage of sequence divergence Estimated at .8% (for indels) Ne= effective size of population ~10^5 (u')=mutation rate 2 x 10^-9 (for indels) t= .5(k/u-4Ne) from Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans | Genetics | Oxford Academic t = 1.8 million generations or 36 million years since divergence considering indels. So the HCLCA was about 36 million years ago. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Yes I can accept the consensus on this: Using this much faster mutation rate from the two studies as a basis for a new mitochondrial clock speed, Eve can be calculated to have lived a mere 6500 or 6000 years ago, rather than 200,000 years ago. http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondrial.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Your presented evidence so far = 0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Not knowing anything about the location or nature of the indel, you can not come to that conclusion.
quote: sfs has confused the (k) with the (u), sfs can correct me if I am wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: I am confused, here is a question you can answer about mitochondrial Eve. If Neanderthals interbred with humans 40,000 to 60,000 years ago but diverged from humans 200,000 to 250,000 years ago. That means they lived before mitochondrial eve who was around ~100,000 years ago. Would there be a reintroduction of ancestral mitochondria at that interbreeding? There should not be a mitochondrial Eve, since the humans and Neanderthals remixed ancestral mitochondria around 40,000 years ago. How can that be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: That is number of mutations per generation. not total. The (u). Divergence is the total percentage of number of bases changed. The (k). Maybe we are talking about the same thing and you are not labeling them. No I am not comparing apples against oranges. All my variables are in terms of indels. Which by current thinking must be accounted for under a neutral modeling. I know you would like to reject indels altogether, all evolutionists would.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: No, (u) and (k) are related by: u = k/(2t+4Ne) You measure the (k) and calculate a (u). if you have (k) and (u) you can back calculate (t). P.S. indels are quantifiable under a neutral mutation regiment. Otherwise there would not be a 1/7 (u) relationship. Get it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Well I guess you better notify Michael W. Nachman, and Susan L. Crowell that the units do not match in the equation they used for this paper. By the way do you know the units of (k) and (u)? My guess is the following, might save you some embarrassment. k = is mutations (%)u = is mutations per generation (rate) k/u = generation t = generation and 20 years per generation The problem is where? (t) x 20 years = years Edited by zaius137, : No reason given. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
RAZD,
I really like your posts, but this one is a bit far out.
quote: Only cranial material? Keep in mind I am a narrow minded creationist who needs more proof than a speculation. I think I will use this one in future debates thanks. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Are you claiming interbreeding populations (by the way the populations at this point were relatively large) did not have a female female linage? That is what would have to happen again and again. You accuse me of having improbable mechanisms? That is total nonsense. I think the average human would find the Neanderthal woman very attractive. You know the Elmer Fud types.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Units are mutations and represent variance is percentage. Any way the mutation units (what ever they may be) are canceled in the first division. k/u leaves generation. (t) is in units of generation.
quote: OK let us count every site difference between the two genomes and see what percentage of variance comes up. The number is bp adjusted via alignment tool.
quote: Again bp is not completely counted, it is defiantly the adjusted percentage difference between the human chimp genome. Look, if you did a bruit force comparison between base pairs, human against chimp, the similarity of base pairs would be in the 65% range. You do not want to go there. So saying that all base pairs are accounted for in variance is just not true. I used to write algorithms for variance (not for biology). The alignment tools used in these comparisons adjust for distances and gaps and bp, in the genomes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
You are a agenda driven evolutionist and I am a faith driven creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
It is great far better than my chicken scratch. How do you get to the generation units of (t)?
Remember: t = .5(k/u - 4Ne). Units of (u) cancel all units of (k) except the generation unit. Does your point even matter? My point may not be as pretty, but it carries more weight.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024