Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
At this point I do not even know what you point is.
That is the exact nature of your problem, yes. And yet the point is a very simple one, which has been explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you and explained to you.
You mean To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning (wiki)
I guess that leaves out the evolutionist by definition.
You should try to guess less often. Your guesses have a very poor track record.
Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
Please do not let the following chase you away from the conversation it has just started.
Examining the DNA sequences from their experimental animals (a total of over 4 million base pairs!), and comparing them with the controls, turned up a total of 30 mutations. 17 of these were insertions or deletions ("indels') ◦ 7 in exons all but 2 of which produced frameshifts and a premature STOP codon. ◦ 10 in introns or between genes 13 of these were single base substitutions ("point" mutations) ◦ 3 in exons : one "silent" producing a synonymous codon; two that changed the encoded amino acid. ◦ 10 in introns or between genes
Calculating Mutation Rate From these results I have pooled their data to calculate an approximate rate at which spontaneous mutations occur throughout the genome. Mutation Rate = # of mutations observed [30] (# of experimental lines [198]) x (average # of generations [339]) x (average # of base pairs sequenced [~21,000]) yielding a rate of 2.1 x 10-8 mutations per base pair per generation. The total C. elegans genome contains some 108 base pairs so this tells us that two new germline mutations occur somewhere in each of C. elegans's two haploid genomes in each generation.
Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
I do not know how you calculated 250 new mutations per generation . . .
I have given you this calculation several times now.
There are 70 new substitutions each generation. If the indel rate is 1/7th of that as sfs indicated, then that is 10 indels.
Indels can be more than one base. In fact, the average indel is ~20 bases. 10 indels at 20 bases each is 200 bases.
So we have 70 bases changed from substitutions and 200 bases changed from indels. 200 +70 is 270 bases changed per generation.
With a 5% autosomal sequence divergence between a human and chimp you need a mutation rate of ~5 x 10^-8 for 6 million years. That would be 320 new mutations per generation.
Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
That is how you calculate mutation rate using indels and SNPs.
Notice that they used number of mutations instead of number of bases changed.
If you are going to follow their lead, then you can't use the 5% figure. When you use number of mutations the indels count as 1 mutation instead of multiple bases.
Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
quote:
There are 70 new substitutions each generation. If the indel rate is 1/7th of that as sfs indicated, then that is 10 indels.
Note that all I did was take the 5 million indels from the chimpanzee genome paper and divide by the 35 million substitutions. (Also, I suspect the reason he's tried to denigrate the chimp genome paper and suggest it's been superseded is that he knows I'm one of the authors.)
Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
quote:I have given you this calculation several times now.
Thanks for your patients.
quote:There are 70 new substitutions each generation. If the indel rate is 1/7th of that as sfs indicated, then that is 10 indels.
The point that I am highlighting, at this time, is that the 70 new mutations include the indels and substitutions. See the break down for the mutations above the calculation of mutation rate.
quote:Indels can be more than one base. In fact, the average indel is ~20 bases.
Most indels (for average of papers) in the examined segments were 1 to 4 bp in length (that is dependent on the segments examined).
quote:So we have 70 bases changed from substitutions and 200 bases changed from indels. 200 +70 is 270 bases changed per generation.
Not at all. The 70 is the total number used in the mutation rate figure. Look at the break down for that particular example above.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
