A whale of a tale

[TheLurch]

So about 60,000 years for one mutation, and > 100 million years for two.

No. Just no. You've got no idea what you're talking about, because of some combination of the following: you didn't read the Genetics paper, were incapable of understanding it, or didn't stop to think of how it might be relevant to whale evolution.

Hint: "we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one" is a remarkably specific set of circumstances, and one that likely isn't required for speciation.

Incidentally, if you'd read two sentences further, you'd hit:
"we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution."

[lee_merrill]

Incidentally, if you'd read two sentences further, you'd hit:
"we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution."

And I wrote: "To show that the authors are applying their results to independent mutations, note that the writers then go on to discuss Behe and Snoke's paper, with two independent mutations, with the writers' calculations based on the equations derived in their paper. ... All right, so a hundred million times two million years for humans, for a CCC (two mutations), so maybe half that for whales?"

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

And I wrote: "To show that the authors are applying their results to independent mutations, note that the writers then go on to discuss Behe and Snoke's paper, with two independent mutations, with the writers' calculations based on the equations derived in their paper. ... All right, so a hundred million times two million years for humans, for a CCC (two mutations), so maybe half that for whales?"

You're not even reading what i write anymore, are you?

[lee_merrill]

You're not even reading what i write anymore, are you?

I responded to your point that these first two mutations are unlikely, by pointing out that they applied their calculations to Behe and Snoke's scenario.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

I responded to your point that these first two mutations are unlikely, by pointing out that they applied their calculations to Behe and Snoke's scenario.

So, you've got two things completely wrong.

One is that this mutation rate modeling has anything to do with speciation. It's specifically looking at what is likely to be an extremely specific case of evolutionary change - completely swapping transcription factor affinities. It is irrelevant to speciation, making this aspect of your argument misguided. If the whale video bozo relied on it, then he's being just ill informed as you.

The second issue is whether some of the logic involved in looking at this from a population perspective (which is what the researchers have done here) can also be applied to Behe and Snoke. They do, and find that Behe and Snoke is, as many other researchers point out, bogus, going on to note that lots of people found Behe and Snoke bogus for a large variety of reasons. I note by the fact that you like both Behe's arguments and this paper that you're unperturbed by logical contradictions. But anyway...

The point here is that it's possible to use population genetics both to explore the frequency of this combination of mutations, which are independent, and to explore the frequency of two non-independent mutations, as in the point you're focusing on. You're trying to claim that, because they looked at the latter, non-independent case, then everything they looked at in the paper is non-independent. It's not. So your argument is fundamentally misguided in this aspect as well.

Which means, as far as i can tell, everything you've argued here is misguided. I assume it's either because you can't be bothered to read carefully, or just goes back to the fact that you don't understand biology.

[rogue06]

You cannot trust anything that the IDiots at the Discovery Institute says about the evolution of cetaceans in that they continue to demonstrate themselves to be utterly untrustworthy on the topic.

For instance, as titles of articles on their website like From Bears to Whales: A Difficult Transition by Jonathan Wells indicate that they continue pushing the demonstrably false claim that Darwin had proposed that bears were the direct ancestors of whales, which he did not^[1]. Moreover, and perhaps worse, they continue to portray a musing by Darwin as the latest word and that scientists teach that whales descended from bears. This is being willfully and wantonly dishonest and disingenuous on their part.

If someone cannot or will not get something as simple and basic as this wrong they cannot be trusted to get anything else correct.



1. Back in 1859, in a thought experiment included in the first edition of On the Origin of Species, Darwin speculated about how natural selection might, over time, cause some bears to become fully aquatic and maybe even as immense as whales.

[shunyadragon]

I responded to your point that these first two mutations are unlikely, by pointing out that they applied their calculations to Behe and Snoke's scenario.

Blessings,
Lee

In previous threads I cited actual academic sources on statistics and probability that document the egregious dishonest intentional misuse of probability and statistics by Behe and others at the Discovery Institute, and you as in the above statement, of course ignored the sources and continue Ad Infinitum you dishonestly continue. I repeated these sources several times.

My advice is to take a couple courses in basic graduate statistics. You apparently prefer intentional dishonest ignorance.

Remember the incompetence of Discovery Institute and intentional ignorance concerning Galling on trees.

[lee_merrill]

One is that this mutation rate modeling has anything to do with speciation. It's specifically looking at what is likely to be an extremely specific case of evolutionary change - completely swapping transcription factor affinities. It is irrelevant to speciation, making this aspect of your argument misguided.

But their results are more general than this, as shown by their applying their equations to Behe and Snoke.

The second issue is whether some of the logic involved in looking at this from a population perspective (which is what the researchers have done here) can also be applied to Behe and Snoke. They do, and find that Behe and Snoke is, as many other researchers point out, bogus, going on to note that lots of people found Behe and Snoke bogus for a large variety of reasons.

They find that their equations give a result of 100 million times 2, instead of Behe and Snoke's 100 million times 10 million. I don't think that makes Behe and Snoke's conclusions bogus, and I take their number, and still find that 2 mutations cannot become fixed in the amount of time allocated for whale evolution (about 10 million years).

You're trying to claim that, because they looked at the latter, non-independent case, then everything they looked at in the paper is non-independent. It's not.

No, I'm not trying to claim that.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

But their results are more general than this, as shown by their applying their equations to Behe and Snoke.

Their method general. Their results, in terms of the actual numbers they produce, are for very specific cases.

Which, again, you'd know if you actually bothered to read the full paper that you're citing. But it's long been clear that doing so is asking far too much of you. You'd rather leave it to other people to make all the effort.

They find that their equations give a result of 100 million times 2, instead of Behe and Snoke's 100 million times 10 million. I don't think that makes Behe and Snoke's conclusions bogus, and I take their number, and still find that 2 mutations cannot become fixed in the amount of time allocated for whale evolution (about 10 million years).

You clearly haven't read the paper. Do so.

[rogue06]

You clearly haven't read the paper. Do so.

Maybe he's waiting for a coloring book version to be released since it is obvious he doesn't understand the material

[shunyadragon]

But their results are more general than this, as shown by their applying their equations to Behe and Snoke.


They find that their equations give a result of 100 million times 2, instead of Behe and Snoke's 100 million times 10 million. I don't think that makes Behe and Snoke's conclusions bogus, and I take their number, and still find that 2 mutations cannot become fixed in the amount of time allocated for whale evolution (about 10 million years).


No, I'm not trying to claim that.

Blessings,
Lee

As with previous google search shotgun of scientific references you offer outside the ID closet, you do not understand them, because they are science, and their conclusions do not agree with your conclusions.

This also goes along with your voodoo probability.

[Seeker]

I pretty much stopped paying attention to what Young Earth Creationists (YEC) have to say about the evolution of Cetaceans after AnswersinGenesis' Jonathan Sarfati (who used to post here as "Socrates") offered an incredibly fraudulent critique of the PBS series Evolution (aired in 2001) targeting the segment on whale evolution specifically.

Among a virtual avalanche of obviously false statements the one that stood out for me was how he dishonestly pretended that Ambulocetus' pelvic girdle hadn't been found and any comments about it were nothing but baseless speculation. He used the following illustration saying that the yellow parts in the lowest picture are the only pieces recovered.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]48076[/ATTACH]

This is unmitigated balderdash at the very least. Here is a picture of the fossils that actually existed based on what was known at the time the PBS show aired.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]48077[/ATTACH]

Sarfati's claim that the pelvic girdle hadn't been found and anything said about it was nothing more than speculation was absolutely poppycock that even a cursory examination would have exposed. Either he was incredibly sloppy and incompetent or he was trying to fool those he knew would never bother to look at the evidence themselves.



Meanwhile, for those interested, here is a very short video (under 7 minutes) presenting the evidence for the evolution from a terrestrial mammal of a different type of marine mammal -- manatees. It has recently totally vanished from YouTube for some reason but is still available on Godtube https://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=DWYY7LNX (click "resume this video")

Pretty much an open and shut case

Can I still read today what ''Socrates'' has wrote?

[lee_merrill]

Their method general. Their results, in terms of the actual numbers they produce, are for very specific cases.

Yet Behe and Snoke is a general paper, with a general result, and they apply their equations to Behe and Snoke's scenario, to derive another general result.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Meanwhile, for those interested, here is a very short video (under 7 minutes) presenting the evidence for the evolution from a terrestrial mammal of a different type of marine mammal -- manatees.

It looks to me like manatees are protosirens that have lost their hind limbs. Not so much of a challenge to ID, as in the case of blind cave fish.

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

Can I still read today what ''Socrates'' has wrote?

He was around well before The Crash (even before I joined in 2006) but some stuff can be found using the Internet Wayback Machine although it isn't easy. He seemed at least as caustic as Jorge but more capable of defending his position.