It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Microscopictopic
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by Microscopictopic
reply to post by randyvs
Randy if they would do the math they would realize that the time they have told us that the universe has existed does not give their theory of evolution enough time to justify their claims.
By all means. Please post the evidence behind this claim. What math are you referring to? Why is there not enough time for evolution when we've seen it happen in multiple scenarios? Show me the proof.edit on 18-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
Okay. 6 billion Dna that they search. Mutated Dna between generations. What would you say the rate would be. Lets go with 100. Probably lower, but we will use 100. 100 is what percent of 6 billion? Lets say .000000166667% Now a generation is generally labeled what....25 years? Now. How many years would it take for our dna to go from amino acids to what we are today? From this perspective it would take 150 million years to change one percent of our human dna. Cut the number of Dna in half double the number of years and well it is just doesn't add up to a logical assessment.
The assumptions upon which you base your math are a bit off.
Actually you're a little low on the number of mutations from generation to generation in humans. The average is closer to 150 distinct differences between a child and its parents. You go on to make a very common mistake here -- you're treating the process as a single lineage mutating from generation to generation. You're not taking into account population size. So while you're saying that only 1.7E-6 of our DNA is changing, you're forgetting that there are 7B people on the face of the Earth, so that's 105B mutations to select from at a given moment in our species alone.
Figuring this out was not an easy process. They had to look at the over 6 billion letters of DNA for each person over and over again (22 times!) to rule out any technical mistakes. Then they had to figure out which changes happened between generations and which just happened in some of the child's cells or for technical lab reasons.
The most recent study puts the number of new mutations somewhere between 30 and 50. Previous estimates had been around 100-200 new DNA changes per generation.
In our species, yes. In other organisms? Hardly. It's why we're able to observe evolution occurring both in the lab and in nature. E. coli, for example, can go through 5k generations in a year. And even in the case of a longer generational span in a species like ours, all it takes is a little bit of genetic bottleneck for a change to spread throughout a population. We're actually hindering our evolution as a species by having effectively no isolation of populations and by overcoming traits that wouldn't be selected for in the wild.
Given the above, it's obviously not as long as you had originally calculated.
Originally posted by Microscopictopic
Okay. 6 billion Dna that they search.
Mutated Dna between generations. What would you say the rate would be. Lets go with 100. Probably lower, but we will use 100. 100 is what percent of 6 billion? Lets say .000000166667%
Now a generation is generally labeled what....25 years? Now. How many years would it take for our dna to go from amino acids to what we are today? From this perspective it would take 150 million years to change one percent of our human dna. Cut the number of Dna in half double the number of years and well it is just doesn't add up to a logical assessment.
How many years would it take for our dna to go from amino acids to what we are today?
Actually they have found that mutations are slower than they believed. They need to do more studies to be conclusive, but with the studies they have done it is slower.
The most recent study puts the number of new mutations somewhere between 30 and 50. Previous estimates had been around 100-200 new DNA changes per generation.
I was actually just seeing for humans, but I would agree that other things that could change faster.
I would disagree.
www.thetech.org...
Previous results suggested that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor around 5 million years ago. Using the new numbers, it looks like 7 million is a more likely number. This second number is actually consistent with more recent fossil evidence. But it isn't set in stone either.
reply to post by iterationzero
This doesn't change the fact that your model is incorrect -- the way you're trying to calculate the rate is for a single lineage. You're still not taking into account the overall population of humans on this planet at a given moment. Take the estimate of 30 - 50 mutations from the article you linked instead of the 150 number I had read. That's still per individual, or 280B mutations at a given moment to select from at a given moment. Sorry that my math was off earlier, I forgot that you were working in % of our genome that is different from either of our parents; my number of mutations using the 150 per human per generation number should have been 1.05T to be selected from.
But that's exactly the point -- our ancestors would have evolved faster than we are today as they went through more generations in a shorter timeframe.
But the article you linked doesn't support your claim that there wasn't enough time for us to have evolved. All that article does is place our common ancestor with chimpanzees 2M years earlier than was believed through the genetic evidence alone, even though the fossil evidence said otherwise:
Originally posted by Microscopictopic
Shorter time frame? Please reference source for this knowledge.
I would say per individual it would come up to be approximately 52.5 mutations. When they do more tests of different families who really knows what the average will be, but by percentage it will make it easier to trace how fast evolution is.
As far as the overall population, if you are using the numbers of all of the mutations of the earth, then you would have to add all of their Dna to the equation also.
Shorter time frame? Please reference source for this knowledge.
How many years would it take for our dna to go from amino acids to what we are today?
I used the article because of the numbers that was used. Then using percentages I made my case.
Actually the article said that the fossil evidence supported the 7 M year theory.
Originally posted by mikelkhall
reply to post by HangTheTraitors
Would any REAL "god" wish to have such BRAIN-DEAD fools among him in the so-called "heaven" afterlife club??
Now think about what you just said. Now, what god would want a pathetic athiest in his afterlife club? We all know that the athiest would just tell him that he is not real and is a figment of imagination. How fun would that be for god? Not having someone to bow and scrape and be in awe of his might and awesomeness.