I see mostly assertions, with a lack of supporting argument. It seems to depend on dubious assumptions. If you think you can support those claims, then start a new thread.
If you can refute any of the information from this paper, please by all means do so. In fact the author invites you to correct any wrong information and send it to him at the beginning of his paper. No need to start a new thread. Go over to the "Problems with evolution" thread and refute it over there if you want to.
I'm having trouble finding information in that web page. There's a lot of fluff, but little meat
Your having trouble all right, I'll agree with you up there. That paper copied on to the web-site is nothing but solid meat from start to finish. Every claim made about how evolution is a lie is backed up with facts and figures and mathematical calculations. I don't need to reshow that his calculations are correct and his references (which are many) are solid. You need to show that they aren't. Just saying it is a lot of fluff doesn't disprove one single thing. Show me where he is wrong.
Practically every argument made on this forum is researched and indirectly copied from links on the web. What difference does it make if your knowledge is learned from a book or links from the web? I'll be happy to copy the calculations he presented directly if you would like.
Quote: Now, apes and humans are thought to have split about 5 million years ago, according to a number of sources, and have about a 2 percent difference in DNA. The human genome has about 3 billion base pairs and about 300 million base pairs of functional DNA (assuming 10 percent of 3 billion base pairs are functional). Assuming that most of this 2 percent change is non-functional DNA, this implies a rate of evolution of two percent in 10 million years, which implies 6 million point mutations in 10 million years in the functional DNA. Two-thirds of these would be harmful, or, 4 million in 10 million years. This is about two point mutations in the functional DNA every five years, or about 12 every generation. Counting both parents, this gives 24 mutations per zygote, with a chance of only 1/(2.718 12 ) (less than 1 in 100,000) that a zygote will survive and be able to have offspring at equilibrium. Of course, this is ridiculous.
How much must we reduce the functional DNA to make this acceptable? It would have to be at least a factor of 12, to about 25 million base pairs (less than one percent of the DNA). This would imply one harmful mutation per zygote, and would contradict estimates that 10 percent of the DNA is functional. Typical genes have 1000 base pairs, so this would be 25,000 genes. Even this rate of mutation is much too high, so there would probably have to be only about 15,000 genes. A typical cell has over 10,000 proteins, so this is about the number of genes needed for a single cell. So this is too few to specify a complete human being. It also conflicts with estimates that humans have 100,000 genes.
How long ago would apes and humans have to split to allow evolution to have occurred? It would have to be 12 times 5 million years, or 60 million years. Even this is too high a mutation rate, as mentioned earlier. And at the rate of about 5 percent of gametes having a harmful mutation, it would have to be about one billion years. Quote taken from:http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/problem.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. A writes:
let's skip the figures pulled out of his ass and the occasional wild fits of innumeracy
Its not enough to claim he is wrong without showing your own calculations with the correct numbers. Show us how your calculations bring the ape to human split back down to the 5 million from the 60 million years his numbers show.
Calling it crap is not the same as showing it to be crap. Lets see a little show and tell.
This idiot assumes that all individuals with harmful mutations die without contributing to the gene pool. Then, he goes on to estimate that we still inherited 4 million harmful mutations from individuals who, according to his assumptions, shouldn't have contributed to our gene pool.
Where did he say all individuals with harmful mutations die? He would not have turned around and said we inherited 4 million harmful mutations if he already disqualified that possibility.
Again none of you seem to be able to show which of his numbers are faulty by showing what the correct numbers should be.
But, this is off-topic here: personally, I think we could have continued it at the "problems with evolution" thread. Still, I think it's time for you to start a new thread if you want to discuss this any further
Well according to ToE mutations have everything to do with life as we know it. The other thread would fit better but I don't see why a new thread is necessary when a mutation problem is obviously a problem with evolution....just post your reply over there and we can pick it up from there.
If someone calculates the net average wealth of the American family as $100,000,000 based on the assumption that all their furniture is made of solid gold
As to be expected from your side of the fence, another idiotic line of reasoning. I agree if the assumption was made using solid gold furniture, the calculations would be exaggerated. What part of his calculations do you equate to being solid gold furniture and why?
if you would like to look at some reality-based figures, I have them here.
Well at least you finally came up with some numbers to look at. The difference between the site I posted and the site you posted (besides mine being right and yours being wrong ) is that yours is bias.
A ridiculous, crass, stupid mistake
Oh yeah? Well my daddy can beat up your daddy. Not only that, but your sister is ugly too. ...I would say all the persons involved from both the sites we are posting from are very intelligent people. Obviously both sides of the fence can't be right. I'm sorry you have to be on the wrong side like this but it had to be one of us.
I don't have time today but I want to investigate the information from the site you provided. Thanks for passing it along, IC
You know what really stands out about you Dr. A.? You always insult everyone you disagree with. Your like this little spoiled brat always whining and insulting others. I don't mind saying it is way past old too.
Now, I have posted and linked to facts, figures, and reasoning. Do you have anything to say?
Yes. I told you I believe the site I posted to be the correct information. I also stated I wanted to investigate the information from your site when I get enough time to research its content. I don't have time for that today but I will get back to you.
You keep claiming you refuted the facts and figures from the site I posted when you did no such thing. If You did I don't see that post so please reference that post for me.
...OK, one last quick response on my way out the door...
This is, of course, not true. I do not "keep claiming" something that I have never ever claimed --- and the honesty of saying that I have is, to put it mildly, questionable. I skipped over his facts and figures, as I pointed out, and went straight for the gross error of reasoning. Because if the reasoning is crap, which it is, then the facts and figures on which it is based are irrelevant.
Oh, I misunderstood what you meant, sorry. I thought the way you were carrying on that you had offered something more than your opinion that the reasoning was crap. Thanks for clarifying.