[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by noguru

And that's relevant because?

That's a laugh line for you? I guess there is no accounting for taste or humor.

It is relevant because it was inferred that the YEC side of the discussion had stopped.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

That's a laugh line for you? I guess there is no accounting for taste or humor.

It is relevant because it was inferred that the YEC side of the discussion had stopped.

I really don't think the efforts will ever stop, misguided desperate people will always make misguided desperate attempts. However the real contribution of content from YECs in regard to scientific support for their YEC model has been discontinued for decades now. All I see being contributed by YECs in this regard (for about 30 years), is an effort at highlighting the mysteries in the material sciences which they believe undermine the progress of science. As well as downright misinformation like; "On his deathbed Darwin denounced evolution as a hoax."

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

They are readily available in the literature. Isn't it time you learned to do some of that for yourself?

It's your theory. It's up to you to provide the evidence of the claim that, on average, the number of nucleotide changes required to create a new trait is 1. Besides, you were the one that brought up the other claimed example.

[Yorzhik]

Sorry you are banned. If you weren't you might be able to explain this horrible excuse of a response to what I said.

And, yes, it is evidence against evolution regardless of what Darwin knew or thought.

So, back to you. Please give me a reference for this:

Stuart

You can be your own reference. What is the average number of nucleotide changes required to create a novel feature?

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by noguru

I really don't think the efforts will ever stop, misguided desperate people will always make misguided desperate attempts. However the real contribution of content from YECs in regard to scientific support for their YEC model has been discontinued for decades now. All I see being contributed by YECs in this regard (for about 30 years), is an effort at highlighting the mysteries in the material sciences which they believe undermine the progress of science. As well as downright misinformation like; "On his deathbed Darwin denounced evolution as a hoax."

So do you agree with Barbarian that the average number of nucleotide changes required to create a new feature is 1?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, after giving Yorzhik numerous examples:
They are readily available in the literature. Isn't it time you learned to do some of that for yourself?

It's your theory.

Nope. It's yours. You claim an average number of nucleotide substitutions of six to produce a favorable mutation, but you can't even show one such case. On the other hand, I've shown you numerous examples in which one did it. So it's time for you to support your claim or admit it's false.

We're waiting...

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

So do you agree with Barbarian that the average number of nucleotide changes required to create a new feature is 1?

I don't know yet. But I have seen Barbarian provide evidence for his claim. I cannot say the same about you.

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Nope. It's yours.

I think the theory of evolution is wrong (at least to the extent that mutations + NS is the claimed main driver). Therefore, it's your theory. To support your theory you have to show that nucleotide changes can be conserved when they cannot be selected for when building new traits.

You claim an average number of nucleotide substitutions of six to produce a favorable mutation,

You meant 'new trait' instead of 'favorable mutation'. That being the case, the average number was not originally my claim, but a biologist called Alate_One. Would you deny Alate_One made that claim? Is there a reason I shouldn't believe her?

but you can't even show one such case. On the other hand, I've shown you numerous examples in which one did it. So it's time for you to support your claim or admit it's false.

We're waiting...

So let's say I can find some examples where it took more than 1 nucleotide change to create a novel feature. Would you question evolutionary theory that mutations + NS is the main driver? Do you really think there are almost no cases where it took more than 1 nucleotide change to create a new feature?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Nope. It's yours. You claim an average number of nucleotide substitutions of six to produce a favorable mutation, but you can't even show one such case. On the other hand, I've shown you numerous examples in which one did it. So it's time for you to support your claim or admit it's false.

I think the theory of evolution is wrong (at least to the extent that mutations + NS is the claimed main driver).

Doesn't matter. It's been demonstrated to be true.

Therefore, it's your theory.

Nice try. If you want to back off and admit that it doesn't take that many mutations, or if you want to admit you don't know, fine. But if you continue to assert that it takes that many, then you're going to have to do more than stamp your foot and insist you're right.

To support your theory you have to show that nucleotide changes can be conserved when they cannot be selected for when building new traits.

As you see, that's not necessary. Even a single nucleotide substitution can be useful. And (of course), in a sexually-reproducing species, neutral mutations stick around for a very long time.

You meant 'new trait' instead of 'favorable mutation'.

A mutation is only favorable if it produces a useful new trait. I thought you knew.

That being the case, the average number was not originally my claim, but a biologist called Alate_One.

If you want to back off and drop your claim, and only say that someone else thought so, you're free. But if you claim it's right, then you need to produce some evidence. So far, you can' even find one case, and as you learned, we have numerous examples showing that six is not a minimum. One is a minimum.

So now, you can either back off and drop your claim or show us that six is necessary. Or shift to the weaker claim that it's usually necessary. We're waiting...

So let's say I can find some examples where it took more than 1 nucleotide change to create a novel feature.

Surely it must happen sometimes. But it doesn't seem very common, does it?

Would you question evolutionary theory that mutations + NS is the main driver?

For that, you'd have to come up with some convincing evidence that all the genetic data is wrong.

Do you really think there are almost no cases where it took more than 1 nucleotide change to create a new feature?

What I know about it is not on the table at this point. What is on the table, is your inability to show us one. Suffice to say, what we'll eventually get to, on series of mutations will not make you happy.

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Doesn't matter. It's been demonstrated to be true.

For that demonstration, you would actually have to know the average number of nucleotide changes required to get a new trait. Since you don't know that, you haven't demonstrated the mechanism of evolution yet.

Nice try. If you want to back off and admit that it doesn't take that many mutations, or if you want to admit you don't know, fine. But if you continue to assert that it takes that many, then you're going to have to do more than stamp your foot and insist you're right.

Are you talking about the overall average or the number of nucleotide changes it could take in any particular instance?

As you see, that's not necessary. Even a single nucleotide substitution can be useful. And (of course), in a sexually-reproducing species, neutral mutations stick around for a very long time.

Of course it can be useful. However this just shows you don't understand the problem.

A mutation is only favorable if it produces a useful new trait. I thought you knew.

It is favorable if it is part of building a new trait. Since there are nucleotide changes that that would stop a new trait from being built, they must be separated from those that are building into a new trait.

If you want to back off and drop your claim, and only say that someone else thought so, you're free. But if you claim it's right, then you need to produce some evidence. So far, you can' even find one case, and as you learned, we have numerous examples showing that six is not a minimum. One is a minimum.

Of course 1 is a minimum. This again shows that you don't understand the problem you have.

So now, you can either back off and drop your claim or show us that six is necessary. Or shift to the weaker claim that it's usually necessary. We're waiting...

The claim is not to show that 6 is necessary. If you understood the problem you have, you'd know that.

Perhaps you could restate what I'm claiming just so we can see that you understand?

Surely it must happen sometimes. But it doesn't seem very common, does it?

You tell me. It's your theory.

For that, you'd have to come up with some convincing evidence that all the genetic data is wrong.

The genetic data would infer, since it takes a great number of nucleotides to make a trait, it would take more than one nucleotide change to create a novel trait.

What I know about it is not on the table at this point. What is on the table, is your inability to show us one. Suffice to say, what we'll eventually get to, on series of mutations will not make you happy.

Again you show you don't understand the problem. We'll see if you can re-state the problem you have correctly.

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by noguru

I don't know yet. But I have seen Barbarian provide evidence for his claim. I cannot say the same about you.

It takes a great number of nucleotides to make a trait. Do you really think in almost all cases of a novel feature (all new features from all of history) that 1 nucleotide change created it?

[Stripe]

Barbarian clearly doesn't know anything about math.

[DavisBJ]

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

For that demonstration, you would actually have to know the average number of nucleotide changes required to get a new trait. Since you don't know that, you haven't demonstrated the mechanism of evolution yet.

I don’t see how knowing an average value is a necessity. For example, if I were to study the weight change over a year of a group of kids, I might keep records on every kid. If I never chose to see what the average was, that would not falsify any of my data, nor would it keep me from drawing conclusions about the data studied. An average value is only a number that gives a generalized measure of something, but in fact the average does not determine any of the actual measured values. It is derived from the measured values, it is not what determines them. The “mechanism of evolution” is fully operative whether or not one has seen a need to do the math to describe it in terms of averages.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by DavisBJ

I don’t see how knowing an average value is a necessity. For example, if I were to study the weight change over a year of a group of kids, I might keep records on every kid. If I never chose to see what the average was, that would not falsify any of my data, nor would it keep me from drawing conclusions about the data studied. An average value is only a number that gives a generalized measure of something, but in fact the average does not determine any of the actual measured values. It is derived from the measured values, it is not what determines them. The “mechanism of evolution” is fully operative whether or not one has seen a need to do the math to describe it in terms of averages.

Neither does BJ.

Having an average means you need to know the values of a significant sample from the population.

But it seems the evolutionists realise the nature of the challenge and don't want to play any more.

[DavisBJ]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Neither does BJ.

Having an average means you need to know the values of a significant sample from the population.

You are right when you say you need to know the individual values to compute the average. Now you explain why it is crucial to know the average.