Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > 
> > DAVID:[i]The article has a discussion of mutation rates, which is different than looking at generational rates:[/i]
> > "[i]The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years (according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper), that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility."[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: I would suggest that generations are a far more significant factor than time, and this brings us up to a million generations, as opposed to my 500,000! I'm not sure what the authors mean by “two specific co-ordinated mutations”. If mutations (by which I mean changes, not necessarily random) are beneficial, I'd have thought they were bound to be coordinated or they wouldn't survive. And if it is not beyond the bounds of credibility for God to do the engineering within a million generations, why is it beyond the bounds of credibility that a possibly God-given intelligent inventive mechanism could do the same?
> 
> You are stepping into the arcane field of population genetics and its convoluted math that I am not trained to understand. But I know the opinions it offers. It starts with Haldane in 1957 and his 'dilemma', and again voiced in the Wister 1967 institute conclusion that Darwin's approach does not have enough time to accomplish evolution by random mutation.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma
> 
> I think it is best to accept the opinions of these genetic mathematicians that whalegenetic changes at each step don't fit the time limits we find. If chance mutations can't work, the implications for design become overwhelming. Your alternative?