Total Posts:185|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution ('megathread)

Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 9:30:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Let me start:

How many mutations (approx) it takes to result in something as complex as human brain? Can you even guess?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 10:00:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Creationists say it takes 0 mutations.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 7:37:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 9:30:02 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Let me start:

How many mutations (approx) it takes to result in something as complex as human brain? Can you even guess?

Of course no one knows that. Why don't you ask something that can be answered?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 8:25:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 9:30:02 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Let me start:

How many mutations (approx) it takes to result in something as complex as human brain? Can you even guess?

Yea, that question has very little real merit. It seems valuable, but there is no way to give some answer. If you wanted how many generations homo sapiens have existed, you might get some valid guesswork, but this question is just not useful for much of anything.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 8:43:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 8:25:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/27/2016 9:30:02 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Let me start:

How many mutations (approx) it takes to result in something as complex as human brain? Can you even guess?

Yea, that question has very little real merit. It seems valuable, but there is no way to give some answer. If you wanted how many generations homo sapiens have existed, you might get some valid guesswork, but this question is just not useful for much of anything.

Well, this is really fascinating! So you guys have no clue, acknowledge that there is no way to have a clue, yet you would insist that the human brain is the result of mutations.

It is fascinating how consensus can substitute for objective reality. It says a great deal about human nature, and I don't mean that as an insult.
This space for rent.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 8:52:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 8:43:30 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/27/2016 8:25:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/27/2016 9:30:02 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Let me start:

How many mutations (approx) it takes to result in something as complex as human brain? Can you even guess?

Yea, that question has very little real merit. It seems valuable, but there is no way to give some answer. If you wanted how many generations homo sapiens have existed, you might get some valid guesswork, but this question is just not useful for much of anything.

Well, this is really fascinating! So you guys have no clue, acknowledge that there is no way to have a clue, yet you would insist that the human brain is the result of mutations.

It is fascinating how consensus can substitute for objective reality. It says a great deal about human nature, and I don't mean that as an insult.

How would you like to even start classifying the question? Mutations that started with hominoidea? Well, there was a very complex brain before that, so, no... Point is, you would have to think about where a "brain" started, then ask at best how many generations of each species etc. Honestly the question lacks definition.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 8:57:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 8:43:30 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/27/2016 8:25:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/27/2016 9:30:02 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Let me start:

How many mutations (approx) it takes to result in something as complex as human brain? Can you even guess?

Yea, that question has very little real merit. It seems valuable, but there is no way to give some answer. If you wanted how many generations homo sapiens have existed, you might get some valid guesswork, but this question is just not useful for much of anything.

Well, this is really fascinating! So you guys have no clue, acknowledge that there is no way to have a clue, yet you would insist that the human brain is the result of mutations.

It is fascinating how consensus can substitute for objective reality. It says a great deal about human nature, and I don't mean that as an insult.

Can you state exactly how God created the human brain?

You probably don't know, yet you believe God created the human brain. Am I right?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 12:20:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 8:57:25 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/27/2016 8:43:30 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/27/2016 8:25:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/27/2016 9:30:02 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Let me start:

How many mutations (approx) it takes to result in something as complex as human brain? Can you even guess?

Yea, that question has very little real merit. It seems valuable, but there is no way to give some answer. If you wanted how many generations homo sapiens have existed, you might get some valid guesswork, but this question is just not useful for much of anything.

Well, this is really fascinating! So you guys have no clue, acknowledge that there is no way to have a clue, yet you would insist that the human brain is the result of mutations.

It is fascinating how consensus can substitute for objective reality. It says a great deal about human nature, and I don't mean that as an insult.

Can you state exactly how God created the human brain?

You probably don't know, yet you believe God created the human brain. Am I right?

Yeah, the moral relativism starts immediately: The fact that I do something wrong is justification for you to be wrong. Which confirms to me that for most people evolution is an argument from authority, moral authority even, not an argument from science.

But some differences:

1) I "believe" God created the brain, as you say. I do not claim this is scientific fact. I would never think of demanding the public school systems present this opinion as fact.

2) Design, however, is a known thing, and thus consistent with science. We know that design can create computing machines, like computers. So it's a reasonable extrapolation to suppose the brain is designed. That doesn't come anywhere near scientific proof, but it is a reasonable guess.

3) The idea that mutations can accumulate to produce novelty, however - this is pure speculation. It's never been seen in the wild, never been reproduced in the lab, and just doesn't make a bit of sense even as a thought experiment. So "mutations created the brain" is simply "the rabbit emerged from the hat". The problem, in this context, is that people demand that "the rabbit emerged from the hat" be presented as "settled science"
This space for rent.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 12:48:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Computers basically design themselves now. The current generation of computers "designs" the next generation of computers. No person can design a microprocessor with, say, 2 billion transistors. It takes computers using chips with 1 billion transistors. It's a bootstrapping process like evolution.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 2:19:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 12:48:22 PM, user13579 wrote:
Computers basically design themselves now. The current generation of computers "designs" the next generation of computers. No person can design a microprocessor with, say, 2 billion transistors. It takes computers using chips with 1 billion transistors. It's a bootstrapping process like evolution.

No, it's not like evolution. You're in my wheelhouse now. I don't design chips, but I design and lay out boards, and write code for FPGAs. So we use CAD tools (computer aided design) but the key word there is 'tool'. Humans tell the tools what they want them to do and then intelligently select the output. I use auto-routers for printed circuit boards all the time, for instance, but getting good results requires a lot of time up front setting up the 'constraints', as they call them. And typically there's a certain percentage of a board you can't or shouldn't auto-route, or want to change what the auto-router did, so there is always some amount of manual work involved.

It's the same for compilers or interpreters (C, Java, Perl, etc), to give a more familiar example - they are crazy sophisticated, but a human feeds the source code in, tests the results, and reiterates as necessary to get the desired behavior.

There is no analog of Darwinian evolution. There can't be, because nothing can work like that. There can be bootstrapping, as you say, and there is continuous improvement and things like that, but they are all guided processes. The idea of life forming and blossoming spontaneously is just a fantasy. It's 21st century naturalist's origins myth, and it is myth in every sense of the word.
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 2:41:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
How many mutations (approx) it takes to result in something as complex as human brain? Can you even guess?

Well, this is really fascinating! So you guys have no clue, acknowledge that there is no way to have a clue, yet you would insist that the human brain is the result of mutations.

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org...

That's just one simple study, but you can actually find COUNTLESS brain evolution studies in PNAS, the National Library of Medicine, and in other biological journals...just do research instead of asserting that the research doesn't exist.

It is fascinating how consensus can substitute for objective reality. It says a great deal about human nature, and I don't mean that as an insult.

Do you wipe your mouth after you crap out of it?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 3:03:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 2:41:04 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
How many mutations (approx) it takes to result in something as complex as human brain? Can you even guess?

Well, this is really fascinating! So you guys have no clue, acknowledge that there is no way to have a clue, yet you would insist that the human brain is the result of mutations.

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org...

That's just one simple study, but you can actually find COUNTLESS brain evolution studies in PNAS, the National Library of Medicine, and in other biological journals...just do research instead of asserting that the research doesn't exist.


Wow, so much wrong with this. But you should start by reading what's actually been said in this thread. Makes you sound like a brainiac, you know, when you respond to what people are actually saying.

So what was the conclusion of these studies, btw - how many mutations did it take to make the brain? You don't need to be precise, but I should think it should be something like estimating how many nails go into a 3000 square foot stick house. The scientists know how the mutations produce the brain, right? They must know.

It is fascinating how consensus can substitute for objective reality. It says a great deal about human nature, and I don't mean that as an insult.

Do you wipe your mouth after you crap out of it?

I sense fear. Take a deep breath, make the choice to open your mind to opposing ideas.
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 3:15:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Wow, so much wrong with this. But you should start by reading what's actually been said in this thread. Makes you sound like a brainiac, you know, when you respond to what people are actually saying.

Um, you've said that because we haven't given you some arbitrary number of mutations, that we're teaching crap to our students, which takes a shot at my profession, sir.

So what was the conclusion of these studies, btw - how many mutations did it take to make the brain?

It'd be like asking how many grains of sand are on all of the beaches on earth combined...so here's my answer... It took about 10 X 10^21 mutations to make the brain.

You don't need to be precise, but I should think it should be something like estimating how many nails go into a 3000 square foot stick house. The scientists know how the mutations produce the brain, right? They must know.

Knowing HOW and know HOW MANY are incongruous.
You should really read the research on this topic.

I sense fear. Take a deep breath, make the choice to open your mind to opposing ideas.

What, are you a bee or a dog?
You need to open your mind BEFORE you open your mouth, because EVERYTHING you have said isn't the case with evolution, IS...it'd be like an ignorant student in math saying that the quadrilateral equation doesn't stand up to evidence...it's ri-god-damn-diculous.
imperialchimp
Posts: 246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 4:34:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 8:43:30 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/27/2016 8:25:47 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/27/2016 9:30:02 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Let me start:

How many mutations (approx) it takes to result in something as complex as human brain? Can you even guess?

Yea, that question has very little real merit. It seems valuable, but there is no way to give some answer. If you wanted how many generations homo sapiens have existed, you might get some valid guesswork, but this question is just not useful for much of anything.

Well, this is really fascinating! So you guys have no clue, acknowledge that there is no way to have a clue, yet you would insist that the human brain is the result of mutations.

How would some stupid stone age humans build planes, advanced computers, electron microscopes, and flappy bird? It took time to do that!

"How do Darwin's finches support evolution?"
Atheist says the beaks. Theist says they are still birds.
Well aren't birds still animals? And aren't animals still organisms? Only problem with evolution is that it is hard to observe. With enough time though, I'm pretty sure evolution can work. Though a creator (doesn't have to be god) that made the first organism is possible.
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

Don't waste your time trying to find truth...you pleb!
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 4:44:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 3:15:22 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
...so here's my answer... It took about 10 X 10^21 mutations to make the brain.

And all these mutations contributed to brain, they were positive mutations.

How much time will it take for 10 X 10^21 mutations to happen?

now,

see the fun.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 4:49:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 3:15:22 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Wow, so much wrong with this. But you should start by reading what's actually been said in this thread. Makes you sound like a brainiac, you know, when you respond to what people are actually saying.

Um, you've said that because we haven't given you some arbitrary number of mutations, that we're teaching crap to our students, which takes a shot at my profession, sir.


I'm sure you're very good at passing along what was passed to you. But that is not science.

So what was the conclusion of these studies, btw - how many mutations did it take to make the brain?

It'd be like asking how many grains of sand are on all of the beaches on earth combined...

Its not a bit like that. Again - you cannot come up with any analogy to evolution. Nobody can, or somebody would experimentally demonstrate it.

so here's my answer... It took about 10 X 10^21 mutations to make the brain.


Which would be way too many. Not enough time for that. (and you know that's the same as 1 x 10^22, I trust?)


Knowing HOW and know HOW MANY are incongruous.
You should really read the research on this topic.


It is by reading that I know what is not known. No, sorry, if it was know how mutations produced the brain, there would be some idea of how many it took. Again, don't get pissed at me for pointing out bullsh*t. Get angry at the people who misled you.

I sense fear. Take a deep breath, make the choice to open your mind to opposing ideas.

What, are you a bee or a dog?
You need to open your mind BEFORE you open your mouth, because EVERYTHING you have said isn't the case with evolution, IS...it'd be like an ignorant student in math saying that the quadrilateral equation doesn't stand up to evidence...it's ri-god-damn-diculous.

"The quadrilateral equation" - ? Do you mean 'a quadratic equation', perhaps? Look, you're obviously bluffing to beat the band. To what end? How is bluffing me, if you were able to succeed at it, going to help you?
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 4:50:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
And all these mutations contributed to brain, they were positive mutations.

Uh, this is irrelevant.
That there were mutations that lead to the emergence of the brain affirms "Did the brain evolve via mutations" regardless if all of the mutations were "positive' which seems like an arbitrary term from you.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 4:56:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 4:50:00 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
And all these mutations contributed to brain, they were positive mutations.

Uh, this is irrelevant.
That there were mutations that lead to the emergence of the brain affirms "Did the brain evolve via mutations" regardless if all of the mutations were "positive' which seems like an arbitrary term from you.

YOU HAVE CENSORED MY REPLY

WHERE IS THE TIME FOR SO MANY MUTATIONS TO HAPPEN?
.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 4:58:01 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I'm sure you're very good at passing along what was passed to you. But that is not science.

Yes, the evidence is being passed on to my students.

Its not a bit like that. Again - you cannot come up with any analogy to evolution. Nobody can, or somebody would experimentally demonstrate it.

We've observed speciation directly...why isn't that enough of a demonstration for you?

Which would be way too many. Not enough time for that. (and you know that's the same as 1 x 10^22, I trust?)

Yes, I understand that those two numbers are the same, and I just gave you a random number because knowing how many mutations is irrelevant to knowing HOW the mutations occur.

It is by reading that I know what is not known.

WTF are you reading?

No, sorry, if it was know how mutations produced the brain, there would be some idea of how many it took.

Did you read the article I gave you on the brain's evolution...the amount of mutations is irrelevant to HOW, which is well explained!!

Again, don't get pissed at me for pointing out bullsh*t. Get angry at the people who misled you.

I'm not pissed. You're dishonest about the evidence that you don't understand.

"The quadrilateral equation" - ? Do you mean 'a quadratic equation', perhaps?

Yes, I made a mistake I meant the quadratic formula, my bad.

Look, you're obviously bluffing to beat the band. To what end? How is bluffing me, if you were able to succeed at it, going to help you?

I'm in the business of filling gaps in people's knowledge and the chasm that exists in your brain about evolution could use some filling.

You blatantly ignore evidence and claim you've been studyin it for 40 years.

Explain why polyploidy doesn't satisfy new information from mutation.
Go ahead 40-year-scholar.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 4:58:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 4:49:38 PM, v3nesl wrote:
...

so here's my answer... It took about 10 X 10^21 mutations to make the brain.


Which would be way too many. Not enough time for that. (and you know that's the same as 1 x 10^22, I trust?)


I'm probably wrong about that. A billion years with a billion mutations/year, that would be 10^18, so this isn't out of the ballpark like I thought at first.
This space for rent.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 5:10:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 4:59:14 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
WHERE IS THE TIME FOR SO MANY MUTATIONS TO HAPPEN?

Life started about 3.5 billion years ago, so there's the time needed.

Are you claiming that - ' within 3.5 billion years, 10 X 10^21 mutations happened ' and those mutations resulted in human brain.

Good.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 5:22:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The human genome is about 3.2 billion pairs long. Of course this doesn't tell you how many times the genome changed length, or how many times a given pair mutated, or how many pairs were changed per mutation.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 5:23:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 5:10:27 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/28/2016 4:59:14 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
WHERE IS THE TIME FOR SO MANY MUTATIONS TO HAPPEN?

Life started about 3.5 billion years ago, so there's the time needed.

Are you claiming that - ' within 3.5 billion years, 10 X 10^21 mutations happened ' and those mutations resulted in human brain.

Good.

Yea, again, trying to put some number on this is silly. The question has been poorly formulated. You have to discuss the total population of each species that is breading at any given time, add all these potential mutations up, it is just not a useful question.

As an example, each human has ~60 mutations. So, are you asking how many mutations are in this generation? 60*7.5b? Now, do that for every generation back till when exactly.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 5:35:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 5:22:49 PM, user13579 wrote:
The human genome is about 3.2 billion pairs long. Of course this doesn't tell you how many times the genome changed length, or how many times a given pair mutated, or how many pairs were changed per mutation.

But we guess the minimum no.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 5:36:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 4:58:01 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
I'm sure you're very good at passing along what was passed to you. But that is not science.

Yes, the evidence is being passed on to my students.


Do you tell your students the difference between evidence, which is the basis for a hypothesis, and testing the hypothesis? Would you be able to explain to your students that the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution have NOT been demonstrated?


We've observed speciation directly...why isn't that enough of a demonstration for you?


First, your definition of 'speciation' is no doubt quite different from Darwin's so the casual student may not realize that "observe speciation" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "origin of species'. You no doubt mean "reproductive failure" where a group of specimens loses the ability to breed with other members of the species. That's a loss of function, not the evolution of something new.

Which would be way too many. Not enough time for that. (and you know that's the same as 1 x 10^22, I trust?)

Yes, I understand that those two numbers are the same, and I just gave you a random number because knowing how many mutations is irrelevant to knowing HOW the mutations occur.


I disagree. That's like saying the amount of oil in an engine is irrelevant as long as you know what oil does. In the real world, too little or too much causes problems or outright engine failure.


Did you read the article I gave you on the brain's evolution...the amount of mutations is irrelevant to HOW, which is well explained!!


It's a coherent story, but it's a story. People are making reasonable guesses, but the guesses are not tested. Seriously, there is a profound lack of real-world experience that has corrupted the evolutionist community. Far too many of even highly educated people have no real sense of how hard and rare it is to make something work.


I'm in the business of filling gaps in people's knowledge.


We live in the age of google and wikipedia. We need to get back to teaching kids to think.

Explain why polyploidy doesn't satisfy new information from mutation.
Go ahead 40-year-scholar.

We recently had a long thread on this, I'm sure you can find it if you're interested. To summarize: if the DNA evolved, it doesn't contain information. By definition. So the question you might want to ask is: Do means exist for mutation to extend the length of DNA, to which I would, "sure".
This space for rent.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 5:41:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 5:23:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/28/2016 5:10:27 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/28/2016 4:59:14 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
WHERE IS THE TIME FOR SO MANY MUTATIONS TO HAPPEN?

Life started about 3.5 billion years ago, so there's the time needed.

Are you claiming that - ' within 3.5 billion years, 10 X 10^21 mutations happened ' and those mutations resulted in human brain.

Good.

Yea, again, trying to put some number on this is silly. The question has been

TBR, I am asking for all the mutations that ever contributed to make human brain.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 5:46:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 5:41:18 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/28/2016 5:23:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/28/2016 5:10:27 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/28/2016 4:59:14 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
WHERE IS THE TIME FOR SO MANY MUTATIONS TO HAPPEN?

Life started about 3.5 billion years ago, so there's the time needed.

Are you claiming that - ' within 3.5 billion years, 10 X 10^21 mutations happened ' and those mutations resulted in human brain.

Good.

Yea, again, trying to put some number on this is silly. The question has been

TBR, I am asking for all the mutations that ever contributed to make human brain.

I understand, and I am point out some of the issues in attempting to give you a number like that.

If we just looked at mutations that are in the current generation of humans it would be ~450,000,000,000. Somewhere around 10,000 generations of homo-sapien alone, then keep walking back to when exactly? When a "brain" first formed?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 5:48:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 5:46:28 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/28/2016 5:41:18 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/28/2016 5:23:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/28/2016 5:10:27 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/28/2016 4:59:14 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
WHERE IS THE TIME FOR SO MANY MUTATIONS TO HAPPEN?

Life started about 3.5 billion years ago, so there's the time needed.

Are you claiming that - ' within 3.5 billion years, 10 X 10^21 mutations happened ' and those mutations resulted in human brain.

Good.

Yea, again, trying to put some number on this is silly. The question has been

TBR, I am asking for all the mutations that ever contributed to make human brain.

I understand, and I am point out some of the issues in attempting to give you a number like that.

If we just looked at mutations that are in the current generation of humans it would be ~450,000,000,000. Somewhere around 10,000 generations of homo-sapien alone, then keep walking back to when exactly? When a "brain" first formed?

That is, 450b = 60 mutations (estimate) in every human alive on the planet at this moment (about 7+ billion).