Evolution/Creationism Thread - If Humans evolved from Monkeys, Why are there still Monkeys?

[Mayor Adam West]

Personally I think that it could have gone either way. God is all powerful so I don't see why He couldn't create the world the way it is said in Genesis. However we have scientific evidence to the contrary. Unless we are utterly stupid and do not understand science, then I think it is very likely that the world was not created in 6 days. But at the end of the day what matters is the fact that God is the Creator and He is the true Sovereign over existence. The whole question is kinda a moot point theologically speaking.

 

[Getting tard comed]

Are you some kind of stupid person?
Molecular clock dating is literally the study where you estimate the time two species diverged based on their respective mutation rates. Humans split from other apes between 8 and 12 million years ago, btw.

Literally where did you get this idea from?

Molecular clock dating doesn't take into account rate of mutation. Do the math. It's not that hard. Take the fastest average rate of mutation observed(bacteria's) multiply it by the amount of separate fixed mutations needed in both species and see that that number is bigger than the amount of years the earth has been around. Then remember the rate of mutation doesn't separate between positive vs negative mutations. Then remember the rate of mutation isn't the rate of fixed mutations which is necessarily slower.

It's mathematically impossible. Do. The. Math.

 

[Penis Drager]

Molecular clock dating doesn't take into account rate of mutation.

That's literally what it is. Relative mutation rate between two species is exactly what it accounts for.

Do. The. Math.

Okay.
Human mutation rate equates to roughly 0.1% of the entire genome per million years. Human/chimp genetic distance is about 1.2%.
So applying this method mindlessly without even bothering with any sort of calibration technique that actually gets used in the molecular clock gives us a branching date of about 12 million years.

 

[Getting tard comed]

That's literally what it is. Relative mutation rate between two species is exactly what it accounts for.

Okay.
Human mutation rate equates to roughly 0.1% of the entire genome per million years. Human/chimp genetic distance is about 1.2%.
So applying this method mindlessly without even bothering with any sort of calibration technique that actually gets used in the molecular clock gives us a branching date of about 12 million years.

The human rate of mutation is not .1% per million years. Even if it was the math is still wrong since rate of mutation is not rate of fixed mutations. That number is smaller necessarily than the rate of mutation since you need thousands of mutations before you get a fixed one in a species. Plus you need to factor in most mutations in any species is a negative, not a positive. Even in your basterdized math the number is still astronomically higher than you think it is.

Spoiler: A Breakdown

BACTERIA
Years: 3,800,000,000
Years per generation: 0.000071347 (37.5 mins per generation)
Generations per fixed mutation: 1600
Years per fixed mutation: 0.114
Maximum fixed mutations: 33,288,000,916

Source: Sequencing of 19 whole genomes detected 25 mutations that were fixed in the 40,000 generations of the experiment.
NATURE, 2009

NOTE: These 25 mutations were fixed in parallel. The 1600 generations per fixed mutation represent an average. So an appeal to massive parallel propagation is already accounted for, at least with regards to observed fixation in bacteria.

MAMMALS
Years: 200,000,000
Years per generation: 4.3
Generations per fixed mutation: 1600
Years per fixed mutation: 6880
Maximum fixed mutations: 29,070

NOTE: the bottom number represents the maximum number of fixed mutations from Morganucodontid to Homo sapiens sapiens.

CHLCA(Chimp/Human Last Common Ancestor)
Years: 9,000,000
Years per generation: 20
Generations per fixed mutation: 1600
Years per fixed mutation: 32000
Maximum fixed mutations: 125

NOTE: the 9 million represents the latest average estimate for the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor, which estimate has ranged from as little as 4 million years on the basis of the molecular clock to 25 million years.

Now, the primary problem with appealing to parallel gene propagation is that it requires a minimum of 15,000,000 mutations to become fixed in the human population, and another 15,000,000 mutations to become fixed in the chimpanzee population, and to do so in an amount of time that permits 125 fixed mutations in series.

In other words, there must be 120,000 genes simultaneously fixing throughout the entire population in parallel at all times, and the same process has to happen TWICE. This does not strike me as credible, even if we don’t bother questioning the claim that the observed genetic differences between human and chimpanzee lie on a spectrum and that not all humans will possess the 15 million mutations that separate Homo sapiens sapiens from Pan troglodytes and that not all chimpanzees possess the additional 15 million mutations that separate Pan troglodytes from Homo sapiens sapiens.

Or, to put it more simply, there have been 450,000 chimp and human generations since the CHLCA. Based on the number of mutations observed fixing in parallel in the Nature study, that would permit 562 total fixed mutations in that time frame. Which is only 29,999,438 short of the approximate number observed.

A Breakdown for you. You can look up the study in Nature used for the break down. The math makes it impossible.

 

[Penis Drager]

The human rate of mutation is not .1% per million years. Even if it was the math is still wrong since rate of mutation is not rate of fixed mutations.

Modern humans (homo sapiens) have been around for about a million years.
The genetic distance between modern humans is about 0.1%.
Yup. math checks out.

most mutations in any species is a negative, not a positive

Most mutations, in fact the vast majority, are completely benign and don't do much of anything at all. You, yes you, on average have about 70 base pairs that came neither from your mother nor your father (mostly your father since men are the primary source of mutation).

 

[Getting tard comed]

Modern humans (homo sapiens) have been around for about a million years.
The genetic distance between modern humans is about 0.1%.
Yup. math checks out.

Glad you ignored the breakdown.

Most mutations, in fact the vast majority, are completely benign and don't do much of anything at all. You, yes you, on average have about 70 base pairs that came neither from your mother nor your father (mostly your father since men are the primary source of mutation).

Not knowing the difference between a mutation or a fixed mutation.

Good going mate. Reread the breakdown and get back to me.

 

[Penis Drager]

Glad you ignored the breakdown.

Me too. Looked like a waste of time given it was "number of mutations" which is basically an irrelevant metric. One mutation can be anything from a single base pair (extremely common but not very consequential to the genome) to gene duplication (quite rare but adds a lot of new material).

Not knowing the difference between a mutation or a fixed mutation.

I do know the difference. That's precisely why I made the point of current human genetic distance and how long we've been around.

Reread the breakdown

no.

 

[Getting tard comed]

Me too. Looked like a waste of time given it was "number of mutations" which is basically an irrelevant metric. One mutation can be anything from a single base pair (extremely common but not very consequential to the genome) to gene duplication (quite rare but adds a lot of new material).

I do know the difference. That's precisely why I made the point of current human genetic distance and how long we've been around.


no.

You either don't know what you're talking about or are being disingenuous. I'm fairly certain it's the first one.

TENS requires "number of mutations" inherently to get a fixed mutation in the species. It isn't an irrelevant meteic it's the fundamental backbone of the entire theory. You need a shit ton of mutations to occur in a species generation to get a fixed mutation within that species.

You obviously don't know the difference seeing as bringing up the 70 base pairs I have in reference to a fixed mutation is so far from the point, it's a complete category error. A fixed mutation is in the species not the individual organism.


And you should because for a subset of people who claim to be for logic + rationalism + data, 95% of the time they are introduced to information or logic or data that goes agaisnt their chosen belief they immediately dismiss it and try to hand wave it away. Almost like they have faith in something and their faith is being attacked.

Anyone can take the time to do the math presented(don't work backwards from the conclusion you already believe like the person I'm quoting is doing) and the breakdown I posted spells it almost as simple as possible.

Here's another way to put it. The theory of evolution is like asking you to believe an American football team rushed for 2000 yards in a game averaging 3 yards per carry for a 60 minute game. It isn't possible.

 

[EyeGuy]

 

[Penis Drager]

TENS requires "number of mutations" inherently to get a fixed mutation in the species

No. The metric is "percent of genome."

You need a shit ton of mutations to occur in a species generation to get a fixed mutation within that species.

Not really. Do I need to explain the founder effect to you? That's just one example of how benign and even deleterious genes can get fixed in a population. That's irrelevant anyway because we can see results. In the roughly 1 million years humans have been around we have accrued about 0.1% of genetic diversity.

A fixed mutation is in the species not the individual organism.

A fixed mutation is in the population, not the species.

95% of the time they are introduced to information or logic or data that goes agaisnt their chosen belief they immediately dismiss it and try to hand wave it away. Almost like they have faith in something and their faith is being attacked.

You are basing your conclusions on an irrelevant metric. One mutation can even be entire genome duplication as we have seen with Paris Japonica. Asking "how many mutations occurred" and trying to base the time evolution takes is like asking a thief how many times he stole something and using that raw number to measure how much lost revenue that equates to. A $2 candy bar is not the same as a $10,000 car.

I ask again: are you some kind of stupid person?

 

[Zonga]

Look, if you don't believe the universe spontaneously created itself (and then stopped for some reason) you're just unscientific, that's all.

It probably didnt stop, tho?

Was reading some theory awhileback that suggested that every time a black hole forms inside any universe, the inside of that black hole spawns another big bang/universe, which then unfolds along its own timeline independent of its "parent" universe. So creation just keeps happening, over and over and over again, in all sorts of crazy new ways.

We just happen to be in *this* one.

 

[Zonga]

The Big Bang doesn't "just happen" and then God makes things out of the resultant random bits (for He would then not be the Creator, but merely the Organizer), and likewise the "scientific" view is that macro evolution renders God unnecessary (because Darwin was mad that his niece died)

And if "it's more complicated than that" had any merit, it could be discussed, but it doesn't. Because there's no scientific way to do anything but guess about what happened before matter.
So, then, it's faith either way, if you believe anything at all.

I suppose you could argue for Steady State, of course, but we all know that's been debunked. After all, a man of science knows full well the force of entropy.

Steady-state hasnt necessarily been debunked; whats been debunked is that the local horizon is steady-state. Our universe could easily be embedded within a steady-state multiverse that regularly spawns new universes via "big bangs", each of which plays out its timeline before disintegrating back into the primordial froth.

 

[Windows 10 Upgrade]

Monke is superior, no matter how many sub-monke offshoots may arise