there aren’t any mutations that can become fixed in each generation unless the population is very low- say one or two individuals.

scottrobinson:
Do we?

“Do we” what?

scottrobinson:
Care to expand on that?

Ya see mutations are supposed to be random genetic mistakes, ie copying erors.

Now if we had a population say of 1 million individuls, then in order for any mutation to become fixed it must be in all individuals in the population.

Simpson, back in his day, stated it is more likely that a mutation, even a beneficial one, is more likely to get lost then it is to become fixed.

Haldane stated that it should take 300 generations for a mutation to become fixed.

But anyway scottrobinson, how long do you think it would take a mutation to become fixed in a population?

And remember in sexual reproduction half of each parent’s genome gets tossed. And that means even the best beneficial mutation is not guaranteed to get passed on.

IOW sexual reproduction basically put a stop on evolution in the form of universal common descent.

there aren’t any mutations that can become fixed in each generation unless the population is very low- say one or two individuals.

Do we? Care to expand on that? Any maths to go with that? Citations?

That may not matter as we know there aren’t any mutations that can become fixed in each generation unless the population is very low- say one or two individuals.

But even that is moot if it cannot be demonstrated that the genetic differences account for the physiological and anatomical differences.

But who cares what they think.
Their stated purpose is largely to “oppose the tide of creationism”. Of course like all others of that category of Darwinist fanatics, they fail to realize how many of the founders of science were full fledged creationists.

This was by far their strongest piece of suggestive evidence they had going for them, since ENCODE and negative mutation rates were definitely killing them evidence-wise, but alas how come I think that a major piece of obfuscation will soon hit PT and PZ blogs as well as other Darwinian propaganda mills?

—

I’ve updated my notes:

naturalists/materialists USE TO say that evolution is proven true when we look at the 98.8% similarity between certain segments of the DNA in a Chimpanzee and compare them with the same segments of DNA of a Human. Yet that similarity was not nearly good enough to be considered “conclusive” scientific proof. For starters, recent preliminary comparisons of the complete genome of chimps and the complete genome of man yield a similarity of only 96%. As well, the December 2006 issue of PLoS ONE reported that human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by a whopping 6.4% (Hahn). Whereas, Dr. Hugh Ross states the similarity may in actuality be closer to 85% to 90% when taking into account the chimp genome is about 12% larger than the human genome. A recent, more accurate, Study in 2008, which compared the entire genomes of Chimpanzees and Humans side by side found the similarity at below 70%!

Chimpanzee?
10-10-2008 – Dr Richard Buggs
…Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.
http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/1.....anzee.html
The author of the paper is a research geneticist at the University of Florida.

Secondarily, at the protein level only 29% of genes code for the exact same amino acid sequences in chimps and humans (Nature, 2005). As well, using their old method, our DNA is 92% similar to mice as well as 92% similar to zebrafish (Simmons PhD., Billions of Missing Links). So are we 92% mouse or are we 92% zebrafish? Our DNA is 70% similar to a fruit fly; So are we therefore 70% fruit fly? Our DNA is 75% similar to a worm; So are we 75% worm?

Decoding the dogma of DNA similarity
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5111

That’d be an enormous difference! Wow, huge, even!

I’m so used to hearing we’re 90-something-percent all the time. xD

http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/