Creationist genotype/phenotype challenge!

[evoguy313]

Creationist electrical engineer Walter ReMine wrote:

Take an ape-like creature from 10 million years ago, substitute a maximum of 500,000 selectively
significant nucleotides and you would have a poet philosopher?... Is this enough to account for the significantly improved skulls, jaws, teeth, feet, speech, upright posture, abstract thought, and appreciation of music, to name just a few?
- The Biotic Message, p. 209

Clearly, ReMine thinks that 500,000 beneficial mutations is just not enough to get a human from an apelike ancestor.
He never says why he thinks this, but it has become a mantra among creationists that even if evolution were true, there are not enough beneficial mutations to explain us evolving from an apelike ancestor.

So... the challenge -

How many mutations would it have taken to get a human pelvis (left) from an Australopithecine pelvis (right)?

Show your work please.

I was once told by a creationist computer tech that it must be 1 million! He could not explain why, he just "knew" it.
And yet... We actually know that a single mutation can produce this kind of pelvis:

from normal human phenotype parents... so, I'm thinking a million is maybe ~999,990 too many..

But do put forth your amazing skills in genetics, developmental biology, etc., and show us all how it is done!

 

[docphin5]

Creationist electrical engineer Walter ReMine wrote:



Clearly, ReMine thinks that 500,000 beneficial mutations is just not enough to get a human from an apelike ancestor.
He never says why he thinks this, but it has become a mantra among creationists that even if evolution were true, there are not enough beneficial mutations to explain us evolving from an apelike ancestor.

So... the challenge -

How many mutations would it have taken to get a human pelvis (left) from an Australopithecine pelvis (right)?

Show your work please.

I was once told by a creationist computer tech that it must be 1 million! He could not explain why, he just "knew" it.
And yet... We actually know that a single mutation can produce this kind of pelvis:

from normal human phenotype parents... so, I'm thinking a million is maybe ~999,990 too many..

But do put forth your amazing skills in genetics, developmental biology, etc., and show us all how it is done!

I could not find in the link provided any mention of the australopithcicne connection. The article discusses a single mutation that results in human dwarfism so how did you make the connection between the mutation in humans to austalopithicine? Thanks.

 

[Cisco Qid]

Creationist electrical engineer Walter ReMine wrote:



Clearly, ReMine thinks that 500,000 beneficial mutations is just not enough to get a human from an apelike ancestor.
He never says why he thinks this, but it has become a mantra among creationists that even if evolution were true, there are not enough beneficial mutations to explain us evolving from an apelike ancestor.

So... the challenge -

How many mutations would it have taken to get a human pelvis (left) from an Australopithecine pelvis (right)?

Show your work please.

I was once told by a creationist computer tech that it must be 1 million! He could not explain why, he just "knew" it.
And yet... We actually know that a single mutation can produce this kind of pelvis:

from normal human phenotype parents... so, I'm thinking a million is maybe ~999,990 too many..

But do put forth your amazing skills in genetics, developmental biology, etc., and show us all how it is done!

This is theoretical conjecture. In every theory ever proposed it has always been left to the composers of the theory to justify their own theory. So the burden of such a outlandish proposition does not fall on us who don't accept it. It's a simple matter just start modifying genes and see how far you get to creating a human - you can start with the pelvis. And Creationism is not ID - there is a difference.

 

[TeabagSalad]

And Creationism is not ID - there is a difference.

The difference being that ID is dressed in a cheap suit.

 

[rossum]

The difference being that ID is dressed in a cheap suit.

With a green-screen lab photoshopped in behind the suit.

 

[evoguy313]

I could not find in the link provided any mention of the australopithcicne connection. The article discusses a single mutation that results in human dwarfism so how did you make the connection between the mutation in humans to austalopithicine? Thanks.

Wow...

I didn't realize that this would be so hard for some.

The article was linked to demonstrate that a single mutation can alter things like bone length and shape, numbers of joints in digits, muscle shapes, etc., and thus the unsupported YEC claims that to get a human pelvis from an australopithecine pelvis would have taken "millions".

Get it now? Or shall I use stick figures and crayons next time?

 

[evoguy313]

This is theoretical conjecture. In every theory ever proposed it has always been left to the composers of the theory to justify their own theory. So the burden of such a outlandish proposition does not fall on us who don't accept it. It's a simple matter just start modifying genes and see how far you get to creating a human - you can start with the pelvis.

You could have just been honest and written "I lack the requisite knowledge of genetics and phenotype to be able to address this issue. My creationist pals were foolish to throw out such ambiguous and unsupported claims, and I condemn them for their dishonest antics."

But you didn't.

And Creationism is not ID - there is a difference.

I have never encountered an ID advocate that was not also a creationist. Like the person that wrote these"

"While ID advocates believe that there is evidence for design in creation ..."

"Yet I do accept the scriptures as the inspired word of God and see science as a study of His creation."

".It is not us who are under the onus to show that life is designed because anyone with an ounce of sense can tell that we and the rest of Creation are designed."

 

[docphin5]

Wow...

I didn't realize that this would be so hard for some.

The article was linked to demonstrate that a single mutation can alter things like bone length and shape, numbers of joints in digits, muscle shapes, etc., and thus the unsupported YEC claims that to get a human pelvis from an australopithecine pelvis would have taken "millions".

Get it now? Or shall I use stick figures and crayons next time?

Then your OP is poorly written and misleading.

You explicitly stated that it takes one mutation to go from an australopithecine pelvis to a modern human pelvis then you linked a reference that has nothing to do with your claim.

This is what you wrote (see below). How is it not misleading others? It is bad enough that fundies mislead others all the time but science guys should be better than that.

<snip>

How many mutations would it have taken to get a human pelvis (left) from an Australopithecine pelvis (right)?
Show your work please.

I was once told by a creationist computer tech that it must be 1 million! He could not explain why, he just "knew" it. And yet... We actually know that a single mutation can produce this kind of pelvis:

Fact is that you and the mouse in your pocket do NOT know how many mutations it took to “produce this kind of pelvis”. And the article you linked is of no help.

 

[evoguy313]

Then your OP is poorly written and misleading.

Not to the sane and intelligent.

You explicitly stated that it takes one mutation to go from an australopithecine pelvis to a modern human pelvis then you linked a reference that has nothing to do with your claim.

I should report for lying.

I never said any such thing.

You must be desperate to cover up your laughable error or just trolling for YECism. Here is what I wrote for the comprehension/humility impaired:

​

Clearly, ReMine thinks that 500,000 beneficial mutations is just not enough to get a human from an apelike ancestor.​

He never says why he thinks this, but it has become a mantra among creationists that even if evolution were true, there are not enough beneficial mutations to explain us evolving from an apelike ancestor.​

​

So... the challenge -​

​

How many mutations would it have taken to get a human pelvis (left) from an Australopithecine pelvis (right)?​

...​

​

Show your work please.​

​

I was once told by a creationist computer tech that it must be 1 million! He could not explain why, he just "knew" it.​

And yet... We actually know that a single mutation can produce this kind of pelvis:​

The sensible person could have seen that the pelvis I indicated was NOT an australopithecine pelvis - one of which I had already provided a picture of above.

This is what you wrote (see below). How is it not misleading others?

Simple - the last picture was not claimed to BE that of an australopithecine.

It is bad enough that fundies mislead others all the time but science guys should be better than that.

Good thing I didn't. You are literally the first person that has gotten so confused about this.

Fact is that you and the mouse in your pocket do NOT know how many mutations it took to “produce this kind of pelvis”. And the article you linked is of no help.

Really? You could not put 2 and 2 together and realize that the link was describing the pelvis below it? It was really that hard for you to grasp?
That pelvis is that of a HUMAN with achondroplasia, which is caused by a single point mutation. Explained by the link.


Like most creationists, you seem to have major comprehension problems.

 

[vbj]

Which mutations can produce these from a non-human apelike creature?

abstract thought, and appreciation of music

 

[Gus Bovona]

Which mutations can produce these from a non-human apelike creature?

Not knowing how a necessary consequence of a claim happened does nothing to refute all the other evidence for a claim.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Creationist electrical engineer Walter ReMine wrote:



Clearly, ReMine thinks that 500,000 beneficial mutations is just not enough to get a human from an apelike ancestor.
He never says why he thinks this, but it has become a mantra among creationists that even if evolution were true, there are not enough beneficial mutations to explain us evolving from an apelike ancestor.

So... the challenge -

How many mutations would it have taken to get a human pelvis (left) from an Australopithecine pelvis (right)?

Show your work please.

I was once told by a creationist computer tech that it must be 1 million! He could not explain why, he just "knew" it.
And yet... We actually know that a single mutation can produce this kind of pelvis:

from normal human phenotype parents... so, I'm thinking a million is maybe ~999,990 too many..

But do put forth your amazing skills in genetics, developmental biology, etc., and show us all how it is done!

There is no evolution, there is no mutation to form new species... STOP POSTING wrong science!

 

[TeabagSalad]

There is no evolution, there is no mutation to form new species... STOP POSTING wrong science!

You don't know the first thing about science. You don't even know what evolution explains! ?

 

[vbj]

Not knowing how a necessary consequence of a claim happened does nothing to refute all the other evidence for a claim.

Then why did the original post imply abstract thought, music appreciation, plus a bunch of other stuff can be produced from non-humans in 500k steps or less? If I file a patent for a new method to teach monkeys how to jump, do a handstand, and sing Happy Birthday then lawyers will verify that all 3 claims can be done.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Then why did the original post imply abstract thought, music appreciation, plus a bunch of other stuff can be produced from non-humans in 500k steps or less? If I file a patent for a new method to teach monkeys how to jump, do a handstand, and sing Happy Birthday then lawyers will verify that all 3 claims can be done.

It's a necessary implication of the theory of evolution, even though we don't know the details of how it happened.

 

[vbj]

It's a necessary implication of the theory of evolution, even though we don't know the details of how it happened.

Fair enough. I think you can see that human-level intelligence evolving from something else is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence. If the evidence has gaps people have valid reasons to reject it.

 

[rossum]

Fair enough. I think you can see that human-level intelligence evolving from something else is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence. If the evidence has gaps people have valid reasons to reject it.

Chimps have better short term memory than humans: Chimp vs Human - Memory Test. The gap is not as great as you seem to think it is.

 

[Temujin]

Fair enough. I think you can see that human-level intelligence evolving from something else is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence. If the evidence has gaps people have valid reasons to reject it.

Not that extraordinary. And a lot less extraordinary than the claim that a disembodied superior intelligence manufactured the entire universe so that human beings could live in a tiny portion of it.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Fair enough. I think you can see that human-level intelligence evolving from something else is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence. If the evidence has gaps people have valid reasons to reject it.

Gaps in evidence are not a valid reason to reject a necessary consequence of a claim if the claim is otherwise validated sufficiently to accept it. That doesn't remove the possibility that evidence might come along to invalidate the theory which shows that that gap is impossible (but that's a tall order, too).

 

[vbj]

Gaps in evidence are not a valid reason to reject a necessary consequence of a claim if the claim is otherwise validated sufficiently to accept it. That doesn't remove the possibility that evidence might come along to invalidate the theory which shows that that gap is impossible (but that's a tall order, too).

Matter of interpretation. For this kind of claim, I expect the "believe it when I see it" kind of evidence to believe.