Creationist Contradictions: "Natural Selection is Real" vs. "Mutation Rate = Substitution Rate"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- Inspired but not exclusive to a recent video by Dr. Rob Carter: • Eschatological genetic...
(Most) YECs: Natural selection is a real thing that happens and removes the worst mutations from a population.
Also YECs: The per-generation mutation rate is exactly equal to the long-term nucleotide substitution rate, and therefore the mitochondrial and Y-chromosome MRCAs existed within the last 6000 years or so.
YECs, you need to pick one of those and trash the other, because you can't have both. If natural selection operates, the substitution rate will be lower than the mutation rate. This is BASIC population genetics.
I look forward to hearing your decision on this matter.
This is just a hobby for me, but if you appreciate what I'm doing and want to say thank you, you can contribute here:
/ creationmyths
paypal.me/crea...
And if you want early access to pre-recorded videos, you can become a channel member: / @creationmyths
If you disagree with anything in this video and want an opportunity to make your case, email me: creationmythschannel@gmail.com. I'll give you as much time as you want, and then I'll take the time I want to respond, and we can have a conversation.
Yay, new video!
I wonder, how many times has this been explained to creationists already? Then again, I should probably also ask how many times it will be repeated to them. Great to see you making videos again :)
Oh I'm sure it's been explained a LOT. I'm sure Rob Carter understands the problem. They're not going to stop. But call it out! Every time! Every time a YEC says anything about natural selection doing this or that, say "thanks for acknowledging Mitochondrial Eve was too long ago for a YEC timeline".
Welcome back! It’s been so long, I was worried something bad had happened.
Thanks! Just busy with real life, kids, etc. But this is a great community and I should make sure I'm contributing to it.
It has been a while, welcome back, and I hope to see you again soon.
P.S. Great video as well.
I plan to do more soon.
Welcome back to TH-cam
Thank you! Hoping to be around more.
@@CreationMyths always welcome on my channel if there is a topic you want to discuss
Nice to see Home lurking in the background.
Homer is the shit. Especially the Emily Wilson translation of The Odyssey.
Ah yes, the critters I calls yercs, because they remind me so much of flerfs! 😂
I'm just here taking time to watch, enjoy, leave a like, and comment for the care and feeding of the Almighty Algorithm, in hopes it brings many more interested faces to your videos and shares your thoughts far and wide.
Welcome back ❤
Thanks!
He's back!
I'm back!
@@CreationMyths Hey! You're back!
Great video as always, Dan!
Love the shirt! I was out at Rutgers Camden in support during the strike, it was a terrifically spirited picket line and great to hear the stories of educators.
Awesome! Thanks for backing us up.
Good video. Do more of these. Its hard to spot these things in real time unless you are really familiar with the arguments.
good to see more vids from you
New video! Woot!
My dad loves this one, he repeats it as a response to everything
Great to see you again Dr. Dan ! Natural selection slows down the accumulation of mutation, hence makes the fixation (or substitution) rate significantly smaller than the original mutation rate, unlike Genetic Drift (under neutral evolution) which has the statistical effect of preserving these rates to fixation, because of it being random, and creationists don't know this (or rather ignore it), because it is inconvenient to their propaganda.
Greetings and Love.
@@tedbundy2379 You are wrong, There is a research paper, where Avihu Yona and his team removed a 100 base pair sequence (i.e lac promoter) ... then replaced this sequence by a totally RANDOM SEQUENCE.
These random sequences evolved in 3 bacterial lineages, not once, but three times ... They evolved to trhee different De Novo LAC Promoters , and as research shows, 2 of the evolved LAC Promoters have a better fitness compared to the removed LAC promoter. The 3rd is less fit but it works as well.
I personally contacted Avihu Yona, he confirmed that this is really what happened ... populations evolve, new information evolves.
Check it out : Random sequences rapidly evolve into de novo promoters...
There you have it .. Sequences generated randomly by scientists evolved to serve as LAC Promoters, some of them are far better than the original removed promoter. So new information evolves.
Spot on as usual
Creationists: The majority of mutations are harmful!!!!
Also creationists: The majority of mutations fall below the selection threshhold!
I don't know if there are cases of the same creationist saying both of these things but boy would it be funny if there was.
Literally the argument Sanford makes in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. That's basically the two-sentence version.
Good one! (As per usual 😅👍)
I think you've covered most of the creation myths. This channel seems to be a comprehensive debunk.
Even if we grant them K = u, their math is still off somewhere. K = u assumes mutation drift equilibrium, so pi = 4Nu. I had a human mtDNA dataset laying around, so I quickly got pi = 0.004. Mitochondrial u is ~1e-7, so N = pi / 4u = 10,000. If we take N as the coalescent effective size and 25 years as the average generation time in humans, then the coalescent time should be ~250,000 years ago (which is what all modern analysis suggest!). I literally don't know how to make the math fit a YEC timeline.
*~*~*~ M A G I C ~*~*~*
A bit-sized bust?
Sorry it's off topic, but what is your Solidarity shirt about?
It's from when full-time faculty, part-time faculty, and TAs and GAs went on strike together at my university this spring! It's the first time *every* type of classroom instructor was on strike together at a US university, and it worked. Our new contracts rock pretty hard.
Comment! :)