Extent of Mutational Capability

So, you can't find anything you even think is wrong with my second argument?

Well, there are a number of problems with this. Problem 1You write: But you also write: So your calculations involve ignoring a number of unknown size --- unknown except that you treat it as though it's zero when it certainly isn't. Problem 2Your choice of population size is arbitrary. You make no attempt to take into account the bottlenecks evidenced in the human population. What effect would they have? You don't know. Problem 3Because of one line in a Wikipedia article, you take 100 mutations/generation to be an "upper limit". But in fact there are scientific methods that give higher figures. See the first method given here, for example. (Obviously we can make no use of the second.) Problem 4You treat the length of time from the split as though it was fixed. It could be millions of years bigger.---Can anyone do better? I don't know. But given these four uncertainties, what we can say is that the range of figures we could get in theory includes the number we measure in practice. We're in the right ballpark. And unless and until the uncertainties can be reduced in such a way that theory can be shown to differ from practice, this is sufficient to provisionally conclude that the genetic distance between humans and chimps was produced by known real processes and not unknown magical ones.---Now, can you find any faults with my second argument?

But as it is non-zero, it must make up some of it, and so you are not entitled to ignore it. I have shown that it is non-zero, which means I can disregard any calculation that treats it as zero.I can especially disregard such a calculation when its purpose has to be to set an upper limit on the genetic distance that could have been produced by non-magical processes. Not according to the evidence. And yet although you "acknowledge" them, you totally fail to take them into account. The higher figure is in fact also the product of measurement, and your speculations about his motives does nothing to cast doubt on the figure that was measured. Do you actually deny that more time will produce greater genetic distance? I have no idea what you could possibly mean by this.Do you agree that my second argument shows that the genetic distance between me and a chimp should be of the order of 2μG?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

OK. The amount of heterozygosity before the split will be greater than 0. The odds against the same alleles being fixed in two separate populations are astronomical. Therefore the contribution this will make to the final difference between the two populations is greater than 0. Therefore you are wrong. I never said it didn't. It does. The reasons are as follows: Did you have a point? What an interesting hallucination. Where do you think you showed this? Was it perhaps in post 248, where you admitted that there was "No problem with your second calculation"? Nothing in my calculation bore any relationship to this witless anti-scientific fantasy.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.