Your repeated flogging of the Nachman U-Paradox and claim that 100 deleterious mutations is a better number than 3 is an attack on Kimura’s methods as you’d know if you read the paper. You don’t have to mention Kimura by name, since you are advocating a position in that thread that cannot be reconciled with Kimura.

What is that phrase??? Oh yeah “We’ve just annihilated Darwin’s Tree Of Life”,,, Dang thing is that evolutionists don’t ever listen to the evidence… Why is this Sev? Did you somehow rationalize that whole annihilation thing away?

It is amusing to see you pushing Kimura’s theory of neutral mutations and drift here, while on Mr Johnnyb’s “Academic Freedom” thread you’re claiming it doesn’t work. Nachman’s deleterious mutation rate of three mutations per genome per generation is calculated using Kimura’s assumptions.

You can’t have it both ways.

Unfortunately this isn’t the place for me waste readers time with your misrepresentations and distortions of what I said.

I didn’t say Kimura’s theory doesn’t work in Johnnyb’s thread. That’s your fabrication, and one which readers can verify for themseleves by reading the thread here:

Modest Proposal for Academic Freedom. The readers are invited to search for the phrase “Kimura” in that thread and see if I said anything resembling Nakashima’s claim.

Gee Nakashima, if you want to fabricate something about what I said, wouldn’t it be better to make sure it isn’t in a venue where readers can be independently verify the claims by going to the actual threads themselves. (rolls eyes)

If Pagel is correct, natural selection shapes existing species in a gradual and somewhat predictable way

Of course natural selection shapes species! That idea was published by creationist Blyth before it was plagiarized by Darwin.

What Darwin got wrong is the Origin of Species by means of natural selection. And in Darwin’s sense, that mean the origination of eyes, proteins, lungs wings. That’s never been proven. And Pagels has helped disprove Darwin’s claims of the adequacy of Natural Selection.

Blyth’s conception was accurate and even described “radiations” from ancestral forms.

Creation of complex features via Darwinian evolution has only been speculated, not proven.

As I’ve said, it’s been known and experimentally established the vast majority of molecular evolution is non-Darwinian.

Kimrua’s reasoning is articulated here:

Molecular evolution and Neutral Theory. The link provides some anemic and misplaced criticisms of Kimura, but it lays out arguments in favor of non-Darwinian evolution quite well.

The problem of inadequate population resources relative to the number of traits is something that can’t be hand waved away by the selectionist camp. If the vast majority of molecular evolution is non-Darwinian, it stands to reason the vast majority of speciation is non-Darwinian.

This has implications for one of the most contentious aspects of evolution: whether it is predictable or not. If Pagel is correct, natural selection shapes existing species in a gradual and somewhat predictable way,> but the accidental nature of speciation means that the grand sweep of evolutionary change is unpredictable. In that sense his findings seem to fit with the famous metaphor of the late Stephen Jay Gould, who argued that if you were able to rewind history and replay the evolution of life on Earth, it would turn out differently every time.

So selection, neutral theory, punctuated equilibria are all still on the board. Pagel’s paper just suggests that environmental accidents play a greater role. Still no sign of God or a designer, though

Accidental origins: Where species come from – March 2010
Excerpt: If speciation results from natural selection via many small changes, you would expect the branch lengths to fit a bell-shaped curve.,,, Instead, Pagel’s team found that in 78 per cent of the trees, the best fit for the branch length distribution was another familiar curve, known as the exponential distribution. Like the bell curve, the exponential has a straightforward explanation – but it is a disquieting one for evolutionary biologists. The exponential is the pattern you get when you are waiting for some single, infrequent event to happen.,,,To Pagel, the implications for speciation are clear: “It isn’t the accumulation of events that causes a speciation, it’s single, rare events falling out of the sky, so to speak.”
http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....tml?page=2

Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy – video
http://www.gvsmedia.com/1/vide.....28086.html

,,,Why don’t you find it amusing that here you are on a site, discussing the sheer discontinuity found from the in-depth analysis of DNA trees, trying to salvage a slight hope for Neo-Darwinian gradualism?

It is amusing to see you pushing Kimura’s theory of neutral mutations and drift here, while on Mr Johnnyb’s “Academic Freedom” thread you’re claiming it doesn’t work. Nachman’s deleterious mutation rate of three mutations per genome per generation is calculated using Kimura’s assumptions.

You can’t have it both ways.

Denyse – I guess you are talking about the margin of error in an opinion poll. This depends on the size of the sample and the acceptable confidence level (plus things like the quality of the sampling). There is no “conventional percentage” – although I believe that in practice a lot do have a margin of 3-4% with 95% confidence.

Most importantly this margin of error is utterly irrelevant to the study above. Margin of error of what? There is nothing being estimated!

Or maybe you mean something other than margin of error?