It’s truly remarkable how evolutionists will keep repeating obviously false statements over and over again, even after they have been a) shown that the statement was always false and b) told directly that they are repeating a false statement. A woman named Rebekah with a YouTube channel called Examining Origins has obviously read Probability Zero and challenged evolutionists to address its arguments there. The video already has 598 comments, and not one single one of them even demonstrates a basic grasp of the issues involved, let alone presents a coherent response.
Philalethist_Physikos: I respect your work, Rebekah! A quick word of caution to the audience on Vox Day’s formula in Probability Zero: his math assumes mutations fix strictly one after another in a single-file line. In real biology, sexual reproduction and recombination mean mutations sort across the genome simultaneously in parallel, so the math doesn’t hold up in population genetics. If you want rigorous mathematical challenges to evolutionary timescales, stick to researchers like Douglas Axe (coordinated mutations) or Walter ReMine and Royal Truman Haldane’s Dilemma and selection cost). They address real population genetics without making the single-file error!
No, literally none of my math assumes serial fixation. Not MITTENS, not the separate and unrelated math addressing the misapplication of Kimura’s steady-state identity, and not the separate and additionally unrelated math proving the impossibility of punctuated equilibrium.
I quote from yesterday’s post: The LTEE runs twelve identical populations of bacteria in parallel from the same ancestor. Every single evolutionary mechanism from natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, hitchhiking, epistasis, compensatory mutation, and frequency-dependent selection, to clonal interference operates simultaneously in all 12 populations for 85,000 generations and counting.
Which is how we know Philalethist_Physiko isn’t merely ignorant, but dishonest. He appears to have read my post, which is why he mentions “sexual reproduction and recombination” and therefore knows that recombination isn’t included in the LTEE calculations, but he still claimed that I assumed serial fixation which is not at all the case. And he also assumes that recombination will help speed up the fixation rate, which it won’t.
And to demonstrate how wildly ignorant the scientists themselves are, consider this comment from someone who claims he is a research geneticist......