ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, February 11, 2019

Whopping the floor

This is highly amusing. A reader sent me a transcript of JF's absurd attempt at performing a victory lap after his inept retreat to rhetoric in what passed for our debate about the theory of evolution by natural selection:
So there was the debate about the theory of evolution with our friend Vox Day. Vox Day has now made a reply, a kind of analysis after the debate. He considered that I have been winning rhetorically which is hilarious because I could basically not speak, I was unable to speak because I had a deep cough and I was unable to say much sentences. To claim that I have been playing it, playing it dishonest with the rhetoric that is the, is so beside reality that I do not know what to say about this. That being said, he seems to not have understood fully my point. So let me just clarify with the paint description. [JF opens up a paint file and takes notes while talking]

So, Vox Day’s argument. Vox Day he set his own threshold, he came here and said: Alright I have all sorts of takes on the theory of evolution, but today I’m going to do a case that I have a few premises about what should happen in evolution, and this includes mutation and fixation of the mutation. So the mutation must occur and then the mutation must spread across the population, and this is what we call fixation. And he says I have calculated the fixation rate. I have obtained this rate from single cell organism. Maybe it was bacteria, maybe it was single cell nucareat, I don’t know where he got his number, but he said based on this premise my conclusion is that the human-chimp division could not have happened in less than 12 million year as is claimed by evolutionary theorists.

Alright, so that is an argument with a structure, and I have not been winning rhetorically against this freaking argument. I said Vox Day I reject your premise here, you got it wrong. [JF is circling the note that says: “Fixation → rate bacteria” under “1. Premise”] And I even specified why you got it wrong. Because fixation rate, fixation rate greatly vary. Fixation rate in single cell organism is not equal to fixation rate in mammal. And there is two reasons for it. One is sexual reproduction. The second is variability of population size.

Why do we not use fixated rates? It’s because fixated rate are highly dependent on the number of population you have, the number of competitors you have to overcome before a gene becomes widespread in the population. It depends a lot on what you are fighting against, and a million bacteria are fighting together for dominance of the whole population. But because bacteria do not reproduce sexually, or if we are talking about since cell nucareat they do, but only optionally unlike mammals. They are stuck in a replicative cycle that keeps all of the mutations in the same genome. In other words there are no short cut for evolution. If you want to evolve two good genes in a bacteria it needs to be the case that the first gene mutates, and the second gene then mutates. That’s what happen in a non sexual life form.

In a sexual life form like mammals, mutations can get fixed much faster because sometimes you have bottleneck effects, sometimes you will not have a million mammal in a population. Sometimes the productively relevant population that will leave decent in the future can be reduced to thirty, sixty, one hundred fifty. Because all of the others may be subject too have facing environmental pressures that will end up either having them die or their decedents. So the rate of fixation for bacteria is totally unrelated to the rate of fixation in mammals. Because on top of it in mammals the mutation is not stuck in a single individual and all of its decedents. It can jump, because you can fuck woman. And if you fuck woman it is an opportunity for your mutated genes to jump and combine with other mutated genes. Not only because the chromosomes will come from, one from your father, one from your mother and they will link together to form your chromosome, but on top of it there is crossover. So there are scissors that come in, they cut DNA and they re-plug DNA at different parts. This generates a lot of mutations on its own, but it also generates an opportunity for mutations to spread into the population at much much much faster rates than bacteria. The only way for a bacteria to fix their a mutation is to out compete all others.

And on top of it Vox Day is working with a fallacy witch is a fallacy of species as a natural category. It is one thing to say that today chimpanzees cannot reproduce with humans, homo sapiens. It is another thing to know exactly when that lack of reproduction possibility has started for real. Could homo erectus reproduce with a chimpanzee? Who knows, we don’t have homo erectus sperm, we’ll never know. Are there some transitional life form between the two species that could reproduce? Possibly, we don’t know. So that is why we do not talk about fixated, because fixated is a mathematical illusion, created by your understanding of the population size. We do not have population sizes back in Africa in seven million years ago. So we follow mutations and lines of descent like a fucking boss. This is what Vox Day has not understood and he thinks that I have misunderstood him. Motherfucker, I am a PhD in biology. I whopped the floor with you, I have cleaned the floor with you and I had a big cough. I was suffering and I could only use a few words per sentence and I was suffering.
He's going to be suffering a lot more once people start explaining the difference between rhetoric and dialectic to him, to say nothing of the fact that he completely failed to understand that I specifically addressed the possibility - which is not at all the certainty that he assumes it to be - that fixation rates are considerably faster in mammals than in bacteria for a variety of proposed reasons that include the Fisher–Muller effect and the Ruby in the Rubbish effect, among others. And I did so in the debate, he simply did not understand that I had done so, and not only that, that I had done so in a manner extremely favorable to the orthodox perspective.

Remember, in my initial bacterial model, I utilized the observed average fixation rate of 1,600 generations. First notice that JF completely omits to mention that he incorrectly assumed that this was a successional-mutations regime and tried to claim that I was wrong because I was unaware of parallel mutations. However, it was a concurrent-mutations regime, which is why I pointed out in my post-debate analysis that JF was wrong and that particular objection was irrelevant.

Second, I directly addressed the possibility of faster fixation rates in mammals. In fact, I came up with a completely different fixation model which was built around the idea of a minimum viable population mutating into a recurring series of minimum viable populations. It should be conceptually impossible for fixation to occur any faster than this barring genetic engineering, even if we take asteroids, volcanoes, Biblical floods, and other possible catastrophes into account. This rate reduced the average fixed mutation propagation time from 1,600 to 15.7 generations, more than two orders of magnitude faster than the observed parallel fixation rate. And despite this average rate being considerably faster than any fixation event that has ever been observed or even seriously proposed, the recurring minimum viable population scenario still renders even the maximal evolutionary timelines highly improbable to the point of being considered a mathematical impossibility given the observed genetic differences.

So, it is clear that despite his PhD in biology, JF completely failed to grasp that I had already foreseen and accounted for his objections, and not only that, he still doesn't understand the significance of the numbers that I cited any better than he understood the math of Askhkenazi intelligence before having it explained to him three times. And he still doesn't understand that the number of seeds scattered about the forest floor has very, very little to do with calculating the average annual growth rate of the tallest trees in the forest. And finally, his claim that fixation is a mathematical illusion is belied by the continued attempts of more serious and competent biologists to address that very issue.

Labels: , ,

102 Comments:

Blogger carry_bit February 11, 2019 7:24 AM  

Notice first that JF completely omits to mention that he incorrectly assumed that this was a successional-mutations regime

JF is explaining why it's a successional-fixation regime here:

They are stuck in a replicative cycle that keeps all of the mutations in the same genome. In other words there are no short cut for evolution. If you want to evolve two good genes in a bacteria it needs to be the case that the first gene mutates, and the second gene then mutates. That’s what happen in a non sexual life form.

and this is because The only way for a bacteria to fix their a mutation is to out compete all others.

Blogger Avalanche February 11, 2019 7:28 AM  

JF: "And if you fuck woman it is an opportunity for your mutated genes to jump and combine with other mutated genes. Not only because the chromosomes will come from, one from your father, one from your mother and they will link together to form your chromosome, but on top of it there is crossover."

Is he suggesting that having sex means the adult(s) GAIN mutations from the partner?! So, if a woman chooses to only have sex with UHIQ men, she'll get SMARTER because she's picking up *(crossover) genes from them?! (Or her babies will because it only affects generative genes?) Or ???

It would probably waste your time Vox, but it would be interesting to see you try to get through to him when he's NOT ill... But your time is way more valuable to your Ilk doing what you're doing to change the world, rather than try to fix the "science" of biology. (Or is that the "scientists" of biology?)

Blogger Man of the Atom February 11, 2019 7:28 AM  

JF: Motherfucker, I am a PhD in biology. I whooped the floor with you, I have cleaned the floor with you and I had a big cough. I was suffering and I could only use a few words per sentence and I was suffering.

TOP. MEN.

... and a croissant.

Blogger mgh February 11, 2019 7:32 AM  

We don't know, we don't know, therefore I am right. Sounds like JF has an airtight argument.

Blogger Silent Draco February 11, 2019 7:44 AM  

JF engaged in the "fechez le vache!" argument. When overwhelmed by dialectic, catapult at cow at you.


A PhD in biology is the really good stamp collecting kit, to paraphrase Rutherford. So after all the rant, what is the rate fixed mutation rate in a species?

He introduces DNA splicing and crossover as a post hoc argument; no, this was part of the mutation rate, but much higher level than a single base change. Even some bacteria can splice like this.

A PhD in biology is the really good stamp collecting kit, to paraphrase Rutherford. So after all the rant, what is the rate fixed mutation rate in a species?

"Croissants!"

Blogger Damelon Brinn February 11, 2019 7:47 AM  

"which is hilarious"

Tell. They find so many things so very funny, it's a wonder they aren't happier.

Blogger basementhomebrewer February 11, 2019 7:48 AM  

JF wants us all to believe he is operating at a high level while not understanding that the argument "this is all too complicated for anyone to attempt to quantify, so therefore my unobserved theory is correct" is the very definition of rhetoric.

Blogger McChuck February 11, 2019 7:51 AM  

Scientists are not taught to think. They are taught to repeat what they have been told.

Those who are good with numbers are seldom good with reality. And those that are good with reality are seldom good with numbers. A precious few can and will think, observe, and compute. A scant few of those can communicate their thoughts and observations effectively with others.

Blogger Sam Sutherland February 11, 2019 8:00 AM  

Is it wee-yerd that I actually can hear JF's voice as I read the transcript?

Blogger artensoll February 11, 2019 8:06 AM  

@9 #MeToo

Blogger artensoll February 11, 2019 8:11 AM  

@5 "JF engaged in the "fechez le vache!" argument. When overwhelmed by dialectic, catapult at cow at you."

It's not his fault. His mother was a hamster.

Blogger pyrrhus February 11, 2019 8:12 AM  

Bravo...However, the Fixation rate doesn't really matter in the end, because the time scale for mutations, and the insoluble problem of irreducible complexity even told Marxist Darwinist Steven Jay Gould that Darwinian evolution couldn't work...

Blogger megabar February 11, 2019 8:16 AM  

Full disclosure: I did not (yet) watch the debate.

Oral debates are good for covering ground, but are bad at determining truth. Human thought is not setup for rapid fluidity -- changing one's mind and processing a new line of thinking takes time, and can not be done in the span of a debate. Thus, differences in opinion usually lead to defensiveness and an inability to hear the opponent. And once that happens, debates are just "won" by louder, more confident, or more glib people.

The downside of written debate is that people dodge the meat of the other side's points, and it often ends up being inconclusive and hard to get anything useful out of. So a good format for written debate is that each side has a period of time to respond per round, and you _must_ respond to each question posed by the other side in good faith before proceeding to your argument and questions. Further, the end goal of the debate should be a list of things that both sides agree upon, and a list of specific details (axioms, conclusions, etc) that they disagree upon. Both parties should agree to the end statement.

As an aside, I think the idea of working together to codify the disagreements is very useful; it gets the debaters on the same side, in a sense, and leads to more productive discussion.

Regardless of who's wrong and who's right on this issue, I'll observe that if it becomes radioactive for two people with different ideas to discuss things -- because the level of rhetoric descends to damaging personal attacks -- then everyone loses. It discourages any future discussion, because now discussion becomes risky. That is, the rules in most debates should not be the same as in war.

Blogger Iron Sharpens Iron February 11, 2019 8:20 AM  

"Motherfucker, I am a PhD in biology. I whopped the floor with you"

Methinks thou dost protest too much. Remember, you literally believe you share common ancestry with dog shit bacteria. You have no idea why and certainly cannot prove it, and wouldn't even know where to start for that matter.

Motherfucker.

Blogger The Truth February 11, 2019 8:25 AM  

I'm loving the additional content the evolution "debate" is generating. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

It's a shame that JF always doubles down, when the only alternative is admitting he didn't understand something. I wish he wasn't so desperate to maintain the illusion of perfection when he is so obviously far from perfect.

I would like to hear an intelligent response to your actual argument, but it's starting to seem like JF doesn't have one, which is quite interesting from the perspective of someone who has never seen a compelling case against evolution.

Blogger Drew February 11, 2019 8:25 AM  

megabar wrote:Debates are just "won" by louder, more confident, or more glib people.

Shabir Ally understands this perfectly. When he debates with David Wood, a lot of Shabir's responses border on heresy. But Shabir knows that as long as he asserts himself confidently, and always looks like he has a prepared answer for everything, the content of what he is saying is of secondary importance.

Blogger Drew February 11, 2019 8:27 AM  

@15. It would be nice to have another debate with a more graceful opponent. Someone like Darrel Falk of BioLogos is a bit more amiable, and yet has the education to provide substance to the discussion.

Blogger Gregory the Great February 11, 2019 8:32 AM  

I allow myself to delete this OT remark in the Joe Rogan thread (as that thread now seems "old news" and deserted) to repost it here:
BREAKING NEWS - The Joint Council of the Honorable Elders of the Chimpanzee Nation and the Honorable Elders of the Gorilla Nation has condemned JF's hereditary claims in a press release: "We unanimously condemn any claims from JF Gariepy regarding his membership in either of our great nations. Judging from his phenotype it would seem extremely improbable that his claims are true. We invite him to present a DNA test as proof."
One of the honorable elders quipped, "His physiognomy and behaviour are reminiscent of those of a mouse or a rat at most. He is certainly a fake monkey and might go down in history as the Troglodyte Fauxcahontas."

Blogger Withrow Legge February 11, 2019 8:33 AM  

I may be misunderstanding. But I cannot see what JFs point is.

You have a gene you are looking at, you determine there is a limited rate at which it could propagate through a population.
(Which you find by mathematical prediction)

If the observed changes in natural selection occur faster than the maximum possible rate, then you have established that natural selection alone cannot account for those changes.

What does looking at multiple genes at the same time prove? They would also all be subject to the same limits. Why does he think that bringing up parallel selection changes anything?

Now I have no idea if the demonstrated rate of either probable predicted gene changes or the observed rate of actual adaptation is precise enough to actually say for sure wether its true or not, but Either way, none of what he says seems to address anything. If I were going to argue against Voxs point I would just say that we don’t have accurate enough information to know the actual timeline to compare the rate to. Or maybe our estimates for how long our generations last was off. Maybe the early population was far bigger than estimated. There’s other criticism he could have made.

Frogs argument against It doesn’t make sense to me. What am I missing?

Blogger Avalanche February 11, 2019 8:41 AM  

@6 "Tell. They find so many things so very funny, it's a wonder they aren't happier."

They're not trying to convince US -- they're trying to convince themselves! "Look! I'm fake-laughing at that person, so I MUST be happy, right? Right? Mommy, right?"

Blogger John Regan February 11, 2019 8:42 AM  

oldesthumanfossil

Blogger Gregory the Great February 11, 2019 8:43 AM  

It all comes down to the fact that maths was not part of his PhD studies and he was also bad at it at junior high school.

Blogger Avalanche February 11, 2019 8:43 AM  

@9 "Is it wee-yerd that I actually can hear JF's voice"

Not ewwweird: truly deeply annoying! "How did THAT get lodged in here?! Get it out! Get it OUT!"

Blogger Nikephoros II Phokas February 11, 2019 8:45 AM  

Whopping?

Does JF think you're Italian?

Blogger Gregory the Great February 11, 2019 8:48 AM  

JF was using a whopper from Burger King to crush Vox.

Blogger wEz February 11, 2019 9:27 AM  

That, or a breakfast croissan'wich!

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother February 11, 2019 9:44 AM  

I think the problem here is that Vox unwittingly found himself in a debate with the knights from that unknown french castle in England.

Blogger FUBARwest February 11, 2019 9:45 AM  

How does a biologist say species are a fallacy? How could that possibly be a fallacy anyway? Who believes this stuff? If you are a JF fan I can get you siding with JF for since you dont understand the math of the situation, but how do you believe JF when he says species as a category is a fallacy?

Blogger David Ray Milton February 11, 2019 9:47 AM  

Something about speciation just occurred to me. What is the evolutionary explanation for how speciation occurs in the first place among creatures that occupy a similar geographic area? JF is trying to argue that speciation across time is a grey area more than a phenomena that happens at fixed intervals. Okay, I can conceptualize that. But with sexual reproductive cross over of genetic material, how could speciation occur at all unless the species were completely isolated geographically?

Take humans and chimps occupying Africa for example. A very slow divergence of the two species makes no sense as it would require geographical isolation (and separate selective pressures) of two proto-human and proto-chimp populations over the course of millions of years. How could the sexual isolation of these two populations be even remotely realistic over that time span?

Or am I missing something?

Blogger Balam February 11, 2019 9:55 AM  

JF: ''It is one thing to say that today chimpanzees cannot reproduce with humans, homo sapiens. It is another thing to know exactly when that lack of reproduction possibility has started for real.''

This line of thinking irritates me because evolution hypothesis, as the challenger to the idea that animal species exist as they are, should be responsible for explaining speciation away. Instead I get a handwave telling me to ignore my lying eyes and just have faith that species, differences between cats and dogs and tress, aren't real!

And even on top of that, why don't bacteria fixation rates matter? Wasn't the whole promise of evolution was that he would explain inert matter to bacteria to animal to human? If bacteria fixation is as laboriously slow as JF willingly admits, doesn't that sink his own evolution timeline? Bacteria fixation rates should matter at least as much as it takes to get to his mammal sex that he worships so much!

Blogger FUBARwest February 11, 2019 9:57 AM  

"Second, I directly addressed the possibility of faster fixation rates in mammals. In fact, I came up with a completely different fixation model which was built around the idea of a minimum viable population mutating into a recurring series of minimum viable populations. "

Is it possible JFG missed this second model in the debate? Also the audience never heard just how long it would take for evolution due to the fixation rate. People on the blog have argued you're wrong since the fixation rate is faster for various reasons not understanding that there isnt enough time either way. That might be because the audience had to follow the argument on their own since it wasn't finished in the debate with you and JFG.

Blogger Cary February 11, 2019 9:57 AM  

Sex selection may benefit fixation rates, but the smaller chimp and human population sizes work against it. They were mostly small and isolated in history where genetic drift or bottlenecks could cause the loss of beneficial mutations.

But none of that matters because of the math that VD is pointing out. You can drop the fixed time to 1 generation, which is not possible, and you still can’t get close to the needed number of mutations.

Use the max CHLCA time of 25 million years, reduce generation time to 16 years, use 1 generation to fix, and double for parallel processing rate observed in bacteria and you are still well short. Those ludicrous assumptions still only get one tenth of what is needed.

Blogger Vessimede Barstool February 11, 2019 10:00 AM  

@28 JF has the same attitude to species as SJWs do to gender

The definition of species is as clear as anything in biology. Sexual reproduction resulting in viable offspring that can also re-produce. So yes Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals were, apparently, the same species. As are Norwegians and Guinean Pigmies. (Mind blown!) JF postulates a stage in evolution where a chimp could bang a proto human and knock her up. Don't laugh, he speaks from his own personal experience.

Blogger Crew February 11, 2019 10:01 AM  

A non paywalled version of that paper:

Sex speeds adaptation by altering the dynamics of molecular evolution

Blogger Vessimede Barstool February 11, 2019 10:10 AM  

JF re-tweeted this gem of wisdom

"SwedishSupremacy

@JFGariepy I've made antibiotic resistant bacteria during medical school. It takes no time for it to fixate. Ignoring selection in the critique of natural SELECTION seems dishonest or moronic."


Case closed.

For those who don't know Swedish Supremacy is one of JF's butt boys competing for the mega faggot arse licker of the week award. If JF is re-tweeting this it's because he wrote the tweet in the first place.


On another note JF has had Alt Retard personality Mike Enoch on his stream. They were both in furious agreement that leftist Hindu Democrat, Tulsi Gabbard, would make a great POTUS. White nationalists indeed.

Blogger Desdichado February 11, 2019 10:14 AM  

On another note JF has had Alt Retard personality Mike Enoch on his stream. They were both in furious agreement that leftist Hindu Democrat, Tulsi Gabbard, would make a great POTUS. White nationalists indeed.

It does make you wonder why the Left is so united in painting her as unsuitable. She crossed the one line that you can't cross as a politician in America; questioning the role of Israel in our foreign policy.

For that reason alone, I support her candidacy (for the time being) because I'd like to see that message propagated.

Blogger Gregory the Great February 11, 2019 10:20 AM  

Burger King's market research is actually betatesting their new Croissant Whopper in the Quebec market as we speak

Blogger Vessimede Barstool February 11, 2019 10:23 AM  

@36 what part of SJWs always lie don't you get? Gabbard is a frothing at the mouth Berniebot. She isn't a lunatic warmonger, but on every other issue she's appalling. We should be 'supporting' whoever would be easier for the GE to beat. Gabbard is the best the Dems have to offer so I hope she doesn't win shit.


The fact Alt Retards are coming out for her, coz the Jooos, speaks volumes. VD's opinion is that the Spencer crowd are actual no shit leftists (or FBI plants) I 100% agree and here's more proof.

Blogger Tars Tarkusz February 11, 2019 10:39 AM  

One thing I noticed while listening to the debate is I thought VD was taking a conversational tone and laying out his idea while JF took the tactic of dismissing it before he even heard it. The format is just completely unsuitable for such a discussion.

@36 @35 JF is also alt-retard. JF invites fellow alt-retard David Duke onto the show all the time.

Enoch has a black brother and a Jewish wife. He claims there is some non-disclosure agreement in his divorce which prevents him from "defending" himself. Weev has said in the past that he would pose as the most extreme neonazi in order to discredit any pro-white movement.

While I find these people mildly entertaining from time to time, all of them are suspect. It would not surprise me in the slightest if they were on the ADL's payroll.

Blogger Desdichado February 11, 2019 10:42 AM  

@38. What makes you think that I don't get something? You seem to have missed the point of my post. Yeah, I get what you're saying, but you're missing an important element too. Even the Bernie-supporting (whether reluctant or otherwise) Democrats are all united in saying that Gabbard is not a legitimate candidate. She's stepped on a Third Rail, and they're trying to shut her down hard. The assault on her candidacy, which should have been the second, female Barack Obama based on the rules of the Left, was so obviously coordinated that it's not even funny.

Which means that regardless of how crazy she undoubtedly is, she's also saying something that the American people need to hear and that the DNC REALLY doesn't want the American people to hear.

So, I'd like to see her candidacy advance for the time being.

Blogger FUBARwest February 11, 2019 10:56 AM  

"Which means that regardless of how crazy she undoubtedly is, she's also saying something that the American people need to hear and that the DNC REALLY doesn't want the American people to hear."

Not sure if that's true. They are attacking her because she isnt as in bed with idpol as the the rest of the people running. The party is becoming the anti-white party and Gabbard is not as adamant in her anti-whiteness, that doesn't mean she is good for America, she is still on the left after all, it means she isn't the best anti-white candidate.

Blogger nbfdmd February 11, 2019 10:59 AM  

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but can't multiple mutations happen in parallel, and not only that, but be correlated, either because the molecular genetic process that generated them tends to generate them together, or the selection pressure favors a combination of mutations more than the sum of the individual mutations?

If this was addressed by Vox and JF, if someone could give me a quote or timestamp, I would be much obliged. It seems to be the place where the anti-evolution argument would fail.

Blogger DinduGoy(discordcantkillthisaccount) February 11, 2019 10:59 AM  

@39 the TRS crew are good to go. They provide a platform for everyone from Christians (the Godcast) to serious news analysis (FTN) to publish content. They have rough spots and blind areas, but they do good work. They even have local, non-affiliated groups which allow a means of networking and hanging out with fellow bad thinkers without as big a risk of doxxing as other means. Some of those local groups have grown and are now thriving networks of families.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia February 11, 2019 11:02 AM  

David Ray Milton wrote:Something about speciation just occurred to me. What is the evolutionary explanation for how speciation occurs in the first place among creatures that occupy a similar geographic area? JF is trying to argue that speciation across time is a grey area more than a phenomena that happens at fixed intervals. Okay, I can conceptualize that. But with sexual reproductive cross over of genetic material, how could speciation occur at all unless the species were completely isolated geographically?

Take humans and chimps occupying Africa for example. A very slow divergence of the two species makes no sense as it would require geographical isolation (and separate selective pressures) of two proto-human and proto-chimp populations over the course of millions of years. How could the sexual isolation of these two populations be even remotely realistic over that time span?

Or am I missing something?


One hypothesis -- or guess -- is that during the Miocene epoch, which ended about 5 million years ago, the tectonic plate movement that created the great East African rift valley, along with overall colder global temperatures, denuded the rain forests to the east and replaced that environment with open grasslands.

The chimps stuck on the east side had no more trees to escape from predators, and to provide fruit like foods, and so, to survive, began to (a) walk upright as a persistent form of perambulation (b) evolved their pectorals to go crosswise so they could throw rocks and stones at predators and potential game (c) created larger more cooperating groups and (d) made aprotein rich meat a more persistent part of the their diet, since the fruits were gone, leading to larger brain size fed by meat protein.

Certainly SOUNDS plausible, but, hey unless we can make a time machine to check it out, it's a guess.

Blogger DinduGoy(discordcantkillthisaccount) February 11, 2019 11:04 AM  

@38 I disagree. At this point, there is not national solution. We are not getting our nation back. Our votes should be used to further the interests of our people as a whole and particularly our local kith and kin. While I have mainly heard Enoch support Gabbard for the memes, it is possible he sees her opposition to Israel as worth supporting on a DNC ticket. Personally, I wouldn't vote for her in a general election, but I would be tempted to volunteer for her primary campaign to get her name and message out there. It could help the white Democrat base think about things they never had before.

Blogger nbfdmd February 11, 2019 11:07 AM  

Speciation doesn't require geographic separation, although that is probably the most likely trigger. But it could also happen from social stratification. From the gene's perspective, the social environment is just as real as the physical environment, it's just another input into the system.

Blogger testtesttest February 11, 2019 11:15 AM  

I don't care.

All of this is a waste of energy,time and is causing unnecessary invidiousness.

Publish your mathematical theory have it peer reviewed by the scientific community.


Blogger Desdichado February 11, 2019 11:20 AM  

Certainly SOUNDS plausible, but, hey unless we can make a time machine to check it out, it's a guess.

It sounds plausible, but I notice that evolutionary biologists and paleontologists in particular make this mistake frequently, where they appeal to changing environmental conditions as a causative factor in speciation. This doesn't make sense according to the TENS model. Environmental conditions could plausibly cause one species to have an advantage over another that lacks its specific features, but the causative factor for speciation is random mutation, and environmental changes doesn't have any input on the rate at which that happens. In other words, early hominids couldn't be favored in the grasslands over chimpanzees unless early hominids were already around, presumably even though they were UNFAVORED in the forested conditions that existed earlier, at which point their population could expand over the newly created grasslands.

Blogger FUBARwest February 11, 2019 11:22 AM  

"and so, to survive, began to (a) walk upright as a persistent form of perambulation (b) evolved their pectorals to go crosswise so they could throw rocks and stones at predators and potential game (c) created larger more cooperating groups and (d) made aprotein rich meat a more persistent part of the their diet, since the fruits were gone"

That's not how adaptation works. The species doesn't get to decide what to do to survive. Everything that can't survive dies and what's left in the species with the fittest mutations survive to propagate more of the fit mutated genes.

Blogger Cary February 11, 2019 11:23 AM  

if someone could give me a quote or timestamp

You must be new here. You are expected to do your own research, but since you asked nicely I will give you a hint. Click on the tag evolution at the end of the post and read carefully.

Blogger nbfdmd February 11, 2019 11:27 AM  

@50:

If I'm wrong, it should be easy to explain why. I don't even need a timestamp. Just an argument.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother February 11, 2019 11:46 AM  

Gabbard is good looking too, at least compared to the rest of the democratic wildebeests running for president.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia February 11, 2019 11:48 AM  

Desdichado wrote:Certainly SOUNDS plausible, but, hey unless we can make a time machine to check it out, it's a guess.

It sounds plausible, but I notice that evolutionary biologists and paleontologists in particular make this mistake frequently, where they appeal to changing environmental conditions as a causative factor in speciation. This doesn't make sense according to the TENS model. Environmental conditions could plausibly cause one species to have an advantage over another that lacks its specific features, but the causative factor for speciation is random mutation, and environmental changes doesn't have any input on the rate at which that happens. In other words, early hominids couldn't be favored in the grasslands over chimpanzees unless early hominids were already around, presumably even though they were UNFAVORED in the forested conditions that existed earlier, at which point their population could expand over the newly created grasslands.


Of course, I am not arguing for that position. I am simply explaining it.

But IF you are on the ground because the trees are gone, and IF you have to be able to throw stones with force and distance, and IF to throw stones, chimps with more crosswise pectorals -- developed by the scheme of random mutations are more likely to be evolutionarily successful, then that trait gets passed on.

Yep, a lot of "ifs."

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia February 11, 2019 11:51 AM  

FUBARwest wrote:"and so, to survive, began to (a) walk upright as a persistent form of perambulation (b) evolved their pectorals to go crosswise so they could throw rocks and stones at predators and potential game (c) created larger more cooperating groups and (d) made aprotein rich meat a more persistent part of the their diet, since the fruits were gone"

That's not how adaptation works. The species doesn't get to decide what to do to survive. Everything that can't survive dies and what's left in the species with the fittest mutations survive to propagate more of the fit mutated genes.


Of couse, that's not how random mutation works. But random mutuaons MAY increase fitness or eliminate delterious effects in the context of enviromental conditions. Then again, they may be totall random.

Blogger Tars Tarkusz February 11, 2019 12:00 PM  

@43 Oh, yeah... you mean the guy with a black brother and Jewish wife has a list of non-outed wrong thinkers who don't like Jews and blacks? What could possibly go wrong?

And in an entirely unrelated story, the guy with the black brother and Jewish wife was dismissed from the lawsuit against all the Charlottesville people.

Further, it is possible criticize a group of people without their level of spergery and crassness. Kevin Macdonald is more harsh than they are, yet doesn't end up serving as a bad example and roundly mocked.
Show me a Nazi sperg on Gab and I'll show you a TRS fan.

Blogger James Dixon February 11, 2019 12:16 PM  

> Whopping the floor

With apologies to Ernest Tubb, but I simply can't resist:

He's whopping the floor over you.
He can't sleep a wink that is true.
He's hoping and He's praying as his heart breaks right in two.
Whopping the floor over you.

Blogger nbfdmd February 11, 2019 12:17 PM  

@54:

I see your mistake. You're assuming that mutations are independent of one another (meaning, uncorrelated). This is a simplifying assumption that is sometimes used in statistics, but it's not true in this case. In fact, assuming independent variables is one of the most common errors people make when trying to understand statistics.

There are two ways in which mutations are clearly not independent:

1) Upon creation. There's no reason to assume that the molecular-genetic processes that spawn mutations would tend to make them in a way that's uncorrelated. It's much more likely that mutations arise in clumps sometimes, because that's more random than the alternative of every mutation forming in isolation. Randomness is very counter-intuitive.

2) Upon fixation. There's no reason to assume that mutations must be fixated one at a time, or independently.

Instead of thinking about individual mutations, it's more accurate to thing of highly correlated clumps of mutations moving together. Of course, an individual mutation is an example of a clump (a clump of one), but there could be larger clumps.

Blogger Damelon Brinn February 11, 2019 12:22 PM  

All of this is a waste of energy,time

The Internet sure has a lot of people who are experts on what others should do with their time and energy.

Blogger SDaly February 11, 2019 12:28 PM  

Just saw this: More than 1,000 scientists sign ‘dissent from Darwinism’ statement

Blogger FUBARwest February 11, 2019 12:43 PM  

"I see your mistake. You're assuming that mutations are independent of one another (meaning, uncorrelated)."

Extremely similar wording to someone else posting a couple days ago with a different name.

Is there any reason to think that fixations or mutations would develop in clumps? You claim it's more accurate to think of them in a certain way, what is your basis for thinking this?

Blogger DinduGoy(discordcantkillthisaccount) February 11, 2019 1:01 PM  

@55 That's the thing. Most people go by a false name and there are no lists. There is not national structure either. Many of the groups have drifted even farther apart due to regional needs and differences.
He was released from the lawsuit due to the amount of research he turned up showing how antifa was coordinated with the local government and journalists as well as how evidence was manufactured and falsified.
And yes, it is possible to not be as spergy as the TDS crew are, but they are an entertainment show. That's literally the point. If you want non-spergy analysis, go to FTN or something. TDS is meant to be a funny show. It's ok if you don't get the jokes, but they are jokes.

Blogger nbfdmd February 11, 2019 1:11 PM  

@60:

Because that's how randomness works. It's less likely that mutations would be uncorrelated because that introduces more information into the system. Saying that random variables are independently distributed random variables is a constraint on the possible values of said variables. Therefore, it's not truly random.

True randomness is when you can have individual mutations, OR pairs of mutations, OR triplets of mutations, on and on right up to N-let mutations.

Blogger Gregory the Great February 11, 2019 1:13 PM  

I can see JF becoming something like a running gag in one if the Arkhaven comics: "Do you see zis croissant in my hand?" he said raising his fist menacingly. "I will crush your dreams like I am crushing zis croissant."

Blogger Gregory the Great February 11, 2019 1:14 PM  

This would actually have been the first time JF ever whopped the floor with anything because normalement it is Maman who does this.

Blogger xevious2030 February 11, 2019 1:27 PM  

Generally, a fixed mutation would need to occur in a sperm, egg, or fetus, under controlled warm (similar to stomach, as potentially alluded to) temperatures and absence of UV radiation, and that one sperm/egg would have to combine with the counterpart and actually reproduce. Asexual reproduction of the eggs and the sperm in the ovaries or testes, if that were the location of the mutation. So, per human, out of the population of 525 billion sperm per person or 400,000 eggs, 1-20 would have to contain the material (for maximum mutation) actually transmitted if this was the method, meaning the best viability for the location of the change in probability would be at fertilization/early division, possibly through infection, whereby all the sperm or eggs for the new human contain the change for reproduction. Or, for sperm, the change would need to be in the sperm that was suited for joining the egg rather than a sperm that plays the role of blocking sperm from competing males at the time of fertilization, to increase the likelihood.

As a matter of explicit clarification, for bacteria, what is the population size (cumulative, not per generation) to achieve one fixed mutation per 1600 generations?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 11, 2019 1:41 PM  

nbfdmd wrote:There's no reason to assume that the molecular-genetic processes that spawn mutations would tend to make them in a way that's uncorrelated. It's much more likely that mutations arise in clumps sometimes, because that's more random than the alternative of every mutation forming in isolation. Randomness is very counter-intuitive.
Unless by "correlated" you mean the sort of package of selected mutations we call race or subspecies, this is false. We have experience of mutation. They are random, or at least independent. There are literally thousands of mutations running around the human genome, and your neighborhood. The correlation is at selection, not inception.
While it's possible that multiple mutations could be occur at the same time, their extreme rarity makes it effectively impossible in the absence of a chemical mutagen.

Blogger veryfunnyminion February 11, 2019 3:07 PM  

Oh dear, poor JF, whoppity whop:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-11/over-1000-scientists-sign-dissent-darwinism-statement

Blogger kh123 February 11, 2019 3:25 PM  

@44 KPK;
"The chimps stuck on the east side had no more trees to escape from predators, and to provide fruit like foods, and so, to survive, began to (a) walk upright as a persistent form of perambulation..."

Another way to play devil's advocate with the idea is to visualize what environmental conditions would favor bears, raccoons, or giant ground sloths to habitually walk upright. Hence the difference between facultative and obligate bipedalism.

Or for that matter, what conditions would favor obligates to successfully transition into quadrupeds. (Some sort of Terminator / Metro style environment where humans have to tunnel and crawl through debris for generations without spinal or hip problems.)


@48 Des;
"Environmental conditions could plausibly cause one species to have an advantage over another that lacks its specific features, but the causative factor for speciation is random mutation, and environmental changes doesn't have any input on the rate at which that happens."

Pretty much how I understood the latter part of JF's argument, that a genetic package of parallel mutations is just around the corner to overtake Vox's fixation-rate-dilemma in the lead. Just give it the right conditions, stir and blur your eyes long enough (species are now conveniently fuzzy according to JF), and you have your saltations that can account for... what was it?... ~25 million genetic differences between CHLCA.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 11, 2019 3:27 PM  

KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia wrote:The chimps stuck on the east side had no more trees to escape from predators, and to provide fruit like foods, and so, to survive, began to (a) walk upright as a persistent form of perambulation (b) evolved their pectorals to go crosswise so they could throw rocks and stones at predators and potential game (c) created larger more cooperating groups and (d) made aprotein rich meat a more persistent part of the their diet, since the fruits were gone, leading to larger brain size fed by meat protein.
This is, like ALL evolutionary arguments, a just so story.

Blogger Daniele Grech Pereira February 11, 2019 3:29 PM  

Fur-trading french faggot.

Blogger SirHamster February 11, 2019 3:36 PM  

Withrow Legge wrote:What does looking at multiple genes at the same time prove? They would also all be subject to the same limits. Why does he think that bringing up parallel selection changes anything?

...

Frogs argument against It doesn’t make sense to me. What am I missing?


If the model hadn't already accounted for parallelism, then it changes the time it takes to generate the number of mutations required.

Ex: It takes 1 person 1 day to dig 1 hole; 100 people digging holes dig more holes than that 1 person.

Still, it would take a lot more than 100 people digging holes to move a literal mountain.

But as for JF's objection, Vox used a number that already accounted for it. The number was from a study observing a bacteria population, not an individual. That population was mutating in parallel.

Maybe larger/smaller populations have different mutation fixation rates. But models are approximations, and it's okay to build crude models that are wrong if you understand the limitations.

Blogger nbfdmd February 11, 2019 3:42 PM  

@66:

You don't understand probability. Things that are random are not automatically uncorrelated. In fact, it's the opposite. Making random variables totally uncorrelated is difficult to do, and doesn't occur in natural systems like gene mutations.

Think about it this way: for mutations to be independent, each mutation would need to be caused by a distinct mutagen with no overlap. What are the chances of that? What are the chances that a mutagen doesn't cause multiple mutations are different points in the genome, EVER?

As for selection, yes. Mutations are selected for in highly correlated ways, obviously. I think we agree on that. So much for the argument that there aren't enough generations for fixation.

Blogger kh123 February 11, 2019 3:46 PM  

...So with JF's talk of parallel mutations blurring the fixation issue, why not wave a few more hands:

- If population sizes are too large, spreading a series of mutations successfully through would be unlikely since it has to outcompete the dominant (and thus "selected") variety within a certain amount of time and geographic space, with absolute extermination of any competing ancestral or branched continental populations.

- If a small population, it would mean isolation due to more extreme environmental pressures, and any expressed mutation would likely be selected against since anything rocking the genetic boat during lean times ist kaput.

So now I can see why the parallel package is appealed to. Fuzzy math covering up for even fuzzier maths.

Blogger SirHamster February 11, 2019 3:54 PM  

nbfdmd wrote:As for selection, yes. Mutations are selected for in highly correlated ways, obviously. I think we agree on that. So much for the argument that there aren't enough generations for fixation.

"Maybe random mutations are so random they are correlated in a way that can fix 30 million mutations over 9 million years."

450,000 generations in 9 million years.

at 15.7 generations to generate and fix a mutation, 28K fixed mutations in 9 million years.

Observed difference between Chimp/human is at least 2% of 3 billion base pairs, 30 million base pairs.

28K is about 1 thousandth of 30M. The model can only do 0.1% of the work that is needed, using very generous assumptions.


You propose that random correlation can make up 3 orders of magnitude. That's laughably stupid, let alone "obvious".

Blogger Станислав Бартошевич February 11, 2019 4:19 PM  

The whole point of the neo-Darwinian model was proposing a mechanism that could counter above-astronomic improbability of complex DNA sequences just forming themselves into meaningful code by random chance. (It didn't actually propose such a mechanism.)


The counterarguments evolutionists are now invoking in this thread boil down to... complex DNA sequences just forming themselves into meaningful code by random chance.

Blogger xevious2030 February 11, 2019 4:34 PM  

Too short for the ride, ignorant, whatever you want to call it. What is the population of the 1600 generations?

Multiplication of asexual cells by 2 per generation has 9.0E+307 zeroes by generation 1024, when Excel craps out. And it would not generally seem likely cells die off due to “old age” (but other reasons) in asexual reproduction as they do in multicellular bodies with limited reproduction cells (unused sperm/eggs). Number of human sperm in present population for a lifetime, half population male, is 2.1E+21 zeroes. 1 million males, with 525 billion sperm each, over 20 year lifetime generations at replacement level, for 200 million years, is 5.25E+25 zeroes sperm. Far, far, far less if you only calculate numbers of humans, not reproductive cells produced (available for mutation). Not even close to 307 zeroes either way, much less whatever would be for one fixed mutation by that formula.

Obviously that’s not it, so what is the population of the 1600 generations resulting in a fixed mutation?

Granted, looking at the observed gene mutations, counting them up and dividing that into a timeline based on reproductive rates is all great, but knowing the population size, the mutation rates, and successful mutation rates (contributing to any fixed mutation), within the population helps. As well as taking into account the successful mutations (non-harmful and dominant and fixed) that made a dead end would be helpful (for actual “successful” or “non-harmful” mutations, wiped out by cataclysm, and otherwise survivable). CO2 to O2 ratios in the breathed atmosphere over time. Seems that a lot of this (survivability of mutation) was discussed back in 2007-2008 on this blog, but it’s been a while since I came across it.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 11, 2019 4:56 PM  

nbfdmd wrote:Think about it this way: for mutations to be independent, each mutation would need to be caused by a distinct mutagen with no overlap. What are the chances of that? What are the chances that a mutagen doesn't cause multiple mutations are different points in the genome, EVER?
Mutagens cause cancer, not evolution. The vast majority of mutations that have any effect at all on the functioning of the cell are deleterious, at about 150:1 over beneficial or neutral. Any mutagen that causes multiple mutations will almost certainly kill the organism.
You REALLY don't understand probability if you think mutations caused by mutagens are random. While randomness will necessarily include correlations of unrelated things, it does not generate correlation to the point that correlation is the net effect.
You're just making stuff up at this point.
As for selection, yes. Mutations are selected for in highly correlated ways, obviously. I think we agree on that. So much for the argument that there aren't enough generations for fixation.
No, selection does not dispense with the argument. It corroborates it. But you're likely too dumb to work the numbers out yourself. Fortunately the commenters and VD have done so for you already.

Blogger Gregory the Great February 11, 2019 5:39 PM  

In JF's logic an atomic bomb explosion would probably be an excellent thing as it would greatly increase chances and numbers of mutations happening. Imagine all the fun and the revolutionary innovation. Now let's see if some that stuff goes through to fixation.
More proof that JF hates his own d**k.

Blogger xevious2030 February 11, 2019 5:51 PM  

I think this is the last addendum to the request for clarification of my question, if anyone is interested. If not, no worries, it’ll just be floating. The 1600 generations was observed. I would guess in a petri dish or some such. How many specimens were maintained in the petri dish? I’m guessing not something along the lines of 307 zeroes behind it (the human body has 75 with 12 zeroes behind it number of cells, so far fewer bacteria in a petri dish). Room and food would be factors. Which would mean that there would have been one observed fixed mutation among how many bacteria (maintained population)?

Blogger Quintus Maximus February 11, 2019 6:00 PM  

Genuine question, is this guy ESL?

Blogger Up from the pond February 11, 2019 6:07 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Up from the pond February 11, 2019 6:08 PM  

Now that we know the fixed rate of mutation and have postdicted the past 100 million years based on it, we ought to be able to predict the next 100 million years. I don't know why more biologists don't understand this. It is a fantastic, glorious tool put in their hands. Cast not thy pearls before swine is really true.

Blogger carry_bit February 11, 2019 6:26 PM  

SirHamster wrote:But as for JF's objection, Vox used a number that already accounted for it. The number was from a study observing a bacteria population, not an individual. That population was mutating in parallel.

JF is pointing out that although that population mutates in parallel, it does not fix in parallel. Mammals, on the other hand, can fix in parallel.

Blogger SirHamster February 11, 2019 7:40 PM  

carry_bit wrote:JF is pointing out that although that population mutates in parallel, it does not fix in parallel. Mammals, on the other hand, can fix in parallel.

The fixation rate measured in the 40K generations of bacteria aren't measuring it serially. Any fixation in any of the population is counted.

It's measuring parallel fixation, even if those mutations aren't distributed across the entire population.

JF's original objection in the debate doesn't distinguish between parallel fixation or mutation, and it doesn't matter.

I was not referring to the followup elaboration on fixation and sexual selection.

Blogger theartistformerlyknownasgeorge February 11, 2019 7:47 PM  

I'm not arguing that anything more than curiosity is needed to justify inquiry, but, aside from evidence for a materialistic apologetic, what is to be gained from TENS?

Other than headshrinkers being able to tell me that I have predispositions due to lobster brain?

Blogger Garuna February 11, 2019 7:52 PM  

I've lost all respect for JF. He's running away from the fixation rate question and he knows it. How much contempt he must have for his viewers to think they wouldn't understand.

Blogger stevo February 11, 2019 7:56 PM  

Being unable to say sentences would make for a limited debate

Blogger Damelon Brinn February 11, 2019 8:04 PM  

what is to be gained from TENS?

For those who would control others and make themselves as gods, only everything. On one hand, you believe you are made in the image of God, Who knows every hair on your head. On the other hand, you believe you are a smart animal, the meaningless result of billions of meaningless accidents. Which of these you believe informs everything else you believe, and affects how you respond to attempts to control influence you. If you're just a clever animal, it's much easier to lead you around by your urges and material needs.

Some try to square the circle by saying TENS can be part of God's creation plan. We've seen the fruits of that, with people claiming to believe in God while acting like animals. Not just sinning -- believers always sin, but they know they're sinning. I mean acting on impulse as if there are no consequences and no greater purpose to life. Life is just punching the clock to get to the next pleasurable event.

Blogger carry_bit February 11, 2019 8:35 PM  

SirHamster wrote:The fixation rate measured in the 40K generations of bacteria aren't measuring it serially.

It's not a matter of measuring it serially, it is the logical consequence of asexual reproduction. As the foundation of Vox's argument is the rate of fixation, not accounting for parallel fixation in mammals leaves a huge hole in the argument.

SirHamster wrote:28K is about 1 thousandth of 30M. The model can only do 0.1% of the work that is needed, using very generous assumptions.

With those very generous assumptions, only 0.000033% of the genome needs to fix in parallel in order to close the gap.

Blogger SirHamster February 11, 2019 9:12 PM  

carry_bit wrote:It's not a matter of measuring it serially, it is the logical consequence of asexual reproduction. As the foundation of Vox's argument is the rate of fixation, not accounting for parallel fixation in mammals leaves a huge hole in the argument.

You don't know what you're talking about. What is the "logical consequence of asexual reproduction"? You're treating Vox's model as an argument, and you're calling one variable of that model, the fixation rate, as a "foundation".

No, the foundation of Vox's argument is that evolutionary rate can quantified.

When you can't even label things correctly, you don't know what you are shooting at, and you aren't going to hit anything except by blind chance and luck.


carry_bit wrote:

With those very generous assumptions, only 0.000033% of the genome needs to fix in parallel in order to close the gap.


"only". Why don't you quantify that "parallel fixation in mammals", whatever the hell that is, and then explain how many orders of magnitude it boosts the fixation rate.

When you're arguing quantities, you're not arguing against the foundation of the argument.

Blogger carry_bit February 11, 2019 10:01 PM  

SirHamster wrote:What is the "logical consequence of asexual reproduction"?
As a result of having a single parent, for mutations A and B to both fix, either mutation B needs to happen to an individual that has mutation A or vice versa (excluding the rare case that both were introduced together). Merely having an individual with just mutation A and another individual with just mutation B will not suffice as the two will have to compete with each other.

When there are two parents, by contrast, an individual with both A and B can result from having one parent with just A and the other parent with just B.

SirHamster wrote:You're treating Vox's model as an argument, and you're calling one variable of that model, the fixation rate, as a "foundation".
Vox's argument (as I understand it) is that TENS supporters are caught between a rock and a hard place: according to the model, with the accepted fixation rate there aren't enough generations to account for the observed differences, and with a fixation rate high enough to account for observed differences, we should be able to observe (the progress towards) speciation.

Allowing parallel fixation gives an out to the dilemma: with sufficient parallelism, rate of fixation can both be low enough to be essentially impossible to observe (the progress towards) speciation, while allowing for the observed differences to arise in time.

SirHamster wrote:explain how many orders of magnitude it boosts the fixation rate
It doesn't necessarily increase the fixation rate for a single mutation; that could still be 10,000 generations. What it does potentially allow for is 10,000 mutations that each take 10,000 generations to fix to collectively fix in just 10,000 generations.

Blogger birdman February 12, 2019 12:36 AM  

Well JF fans really insist on it

Blogger SirHamster February 12, 2019 1:35 AM  

carry_bit wrote:with sufficient parallelism, rate of fixation can both be low enough to be essentially impossible to observe (the progress towards) speciation, while allowing for the observed differences to arise in time.
carry_bit wrote:What it does potentially allow for is 10,000 mutations that each take 10,000 generations to fix to collectively fix in just 10,000 generations.
You're arguing that the fixation rate is low, but also high thanks to parallelism. It can't be both, yet here you argue for the logically impossible.

But that is a result of you being sloppy with labels and mixing up different concepts.

When Vox talks about fixation rate, he's not talking about the fixation period for a single mutation. He's talking about the total number of fixed mutations divided by the time it takes. The fixation rate cannot be low if 30 million mutations happened in 9 million years. That rate cannot be low if sexual selection somehow boosts it by 3 to 6 orders of magnitude.

"But you're telling me there's a chance ..."

Blogger The CronoLink February 12, 2019 3:35 AM  

Vox, do you think JF will do this obnoxious silverback chestthumping, do the brave retreat and ride into the sunset, like "I win, now I retire undefeated, no refunds."?

Or will he bid his time, and then try to do a grandstand snipe while he believes you're not looking?

Blogger birdman February 12, 2019 4:11 AM  

😂😂😂👌

Blogger Brian Shortridge February 12, 2019 4:31 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Станислав Бартошевич February 12, 2019 5:30 AM  

@42
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but can't multiple mutations happen in parallel, and not only that, but be correlated, either because the molecular genetic process that generated them tends to generate them together,

If they can, proponents of the idea should explain how this mechanism works. No, "It's magic, I mean, evolution, ain't gonna explain shit" doesn't count.

or the selection pressure favors a combination of mutations more than the sum of the individual mutations?

Putting aside the fact that about half the biosphere sharply contradicts the idea of the selection pressure being a meaningful force, for the selection pressure to appear on the scene at all, even theoretically, a mutation must start coding something new which meaningfully improves an organism's survival chances. Which means dozens of mutations in a row stacking on the same DNA section in a very exact way before random chance wipes this change from the population before it can even theoretically become visible to natural selection. Unless the process mentioned above is discovered, this is farther in the realm of fantasy than genesis of humans in actual fantasy. Even before accounting for the need to remove deleterious mutations from the gene pool.

Blogger VD February 12, 2019 6:11 AM  

Allowing parallel fixation gives an out to the dilemma: with sufficient parallelism, rate of fixation can both be low enough to be essentially impossible to observe (the progress towards) speciation, while allowing for the observed differences to arise in time.

No, that doesn't work. Hence why I said in the debate that the theory is caught between a rock and hard place. It is impossible, and if it wasn't, it would be observable.

Or will he bid his time, and then try to do a grandstand snipe while he believes you're not looking?

He's a gamma, so he'll snipe. They all do.

Blogger carry_bit February 12, 2019 8:07 AM  

VD wrote:It is impossible, and if it wasn't, it would be observable.
Assuming that it's possible and that a single mutation takes 10,000 generations to become fixed, what experiment could we perform to observe it?

Depending on the answer, it might be something I can test in a computer simulation (using a genetic algorithm or the like).

Blogger xevious2030 February 12, 2019 10:25 AM  

The assertions below are more along the lines of questions and perceptions about what I’m reading. I am a layman not well versed or studied, and am quite willing to have the dunce cap placed on me in front of the class so long as I have the opportunity to learn.

Ok, way overlooked it. 1600 generations is just the math, not petri dish/vat count. Groggy mornings are good for dialing it down to catch simple mistakes.

At 1205 generations (307 zeroes (where Excel crapped out)), rounded to two decimals in powers of ten, divided by 307 zeroes, and continued by multiples of two, resulting in 174 more zeroes. So 2.22E+481, at 1600 generations.

Today, there are 5.0E+30 bacteria estimated today. Far less than 2.22E+481, by about 450 or so zeroes.

Reasonable enough starting place, though conditions were different (environment, presence of plants/animals, sea life/terrestrial life, atmospheric composition, whatever). Not taken into account are potential other lines that were successful otherwise calamity/catastrophe, that are not present today. Nor that the rate may not have been a constant, but due to periodic environmental/cosmic/various polar phenomenon fluctuation, allowing the rate (introduction of a keeper mutation and surviving to become the dominant prevalence) to have occurred within smaller numbers of generations and longer periods without. Assuming for giggles and a starting point 30 zeroes (power of ten) is the cap of a bacterial population on Earth, the keeper mutation rate is not evenly spread (but clumped due to conditions), and that not all keeper mutations are counted (calamity), the strength of a fixation rate is reduced, and the number of generations as a rate is less meaningful, as the bacterial would in no way even near 481 zeroes necessary for even one keeper mutation and fixation (based on generations of asexual reproduction without limitation). By 481 zeroes (generations of asexual reproduction without limit to space of food, no predators), the measure for the rate of mutation and fixation would never be reached by even the bacteria, at least not as one out of that number and a measure of time. In other words, they would not be very useful as a rate of keeper mutation, but almost limited to a rate of replacement of those without the mutation. And given the possibility that the conditions favorable for inducing mutation may be clumped, they may not even be useful for that. Not to mention that some/most of the mutation may be due to outbreak/rapid succession of outbreaks (with few strands immune/survivable) at a time of low resistance built in (due to infection being a “new” thing), which would monkey with the time for transmission of a mutation across an asexually reproducing population. Anyway, as good as it gets this early in the morning, ready to be mopped. Or, if this helps, that’s cool too.

Blogger xevious2030 February 12, 2019 11:02 AM  

1025, not 1205.

Blogger Agent Taylor February 15, 2019 5:30 AM  

ATTENTION!!!!!

Join the great Illuminati today and become rich and famous . Are you seeking for wisdom and knowledge ? Are you a business Man / woman , Pastor,politician , musician, doctor , footballer , Swimer? Do you
want to be a famous artist or an actor, and you want to be rich, powerful and famous in the world ? Join the Illuminati New World Order and let your dreams come through. Contact our supreme grand master via his WhatsApp number +1-414-219-9452

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts