RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 3548
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:23   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:06)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,08:07)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,08:01)

Sorry this is the correct link to the study

I don't know... the 1.1 x 10^-8 seems right in line with other studies,

Rates of Spontaneous Mutation

Homo sapiens: The human data are less reliable than the C. elegans, Drosophila and mouse data. A number of dominant-mutation rates have been inferred from the frequency of affected children of normal parents, and sometimes confirmed by equilibrium estimates for those dominants with severe effects. These values range from 10-4 to 10-6, with a rough average of 10-5 (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down). For genes of size 103 b, this corresponds to a rate of 10-8 per b per generation. An estimate based on specific changes in the hemoglobin molecule gave 0.74 x 10-8 per b per generation (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down), but this is clearly an underestimate because other kinds of changes are not included. A third, quite independent estimate is based on rates of evolution of pseudogenes in human ancestry, which are likely to be identical to mutation rates (KIMURA 1983A Down). This gives about 2 x 10-8 per b per generation (CROW 1993 Down, CROW 1995 Down). We shall take 10-8 as a representative value. However, because the overwhelming majority of human mutations occur in males (see below), the male rate must be about twice the average rate, or 2 x 10-8.

Doesn't this push back the common descent with chimps to about 12 million years? An therfore makes it not in line with fossile evidence.

As described here:


1) I have no clue, as far as I'm aware, the fossil record of chimpanzees is very, very spotty.

2) It doesn't matter, it's still longer than the creationist timeline anyway.  Remember, if your arguing with creationists, your job shouldn't be to defend science.  It should be to show them how wrong they are in every particular.  

Of course science can be wrong.  On the other hand, science corrects itself and (to my knowledge) no creationist has ever corrected mistaken science.  All the great hoaxes that creationists point to... corrected by science, not creationists.

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]