Hello my dear friend.
My math completely ignores other types of animals because it doesn't matter. I'm talking about the variation in only mammals so why would I include the number of bacteria? I wouldn't and yes that is an estimate which I've said.
You came to an incorrect conclusion and wouldn't be disabused of your error, no matter what I said. I was talking about limits so cherry picking isn't an appropriate accusation.
It is simple mathematics. Tell me what you do not understand.
Yeah, why not? Because that isn't my point. The mutation rate of any single point change is only 10^9, two simultaneous changes is 10^18 and 3 is 10^27. Simple mathematics. Any change that requires 3 mutations at once is only going to happen once out of every billion times you go through 10^20 organisms. It will happen only 100 times for a change that requires on 2 every 10^20 organisms.
Hint, I'm not talking about CQ resistance here.
It didn't. You just kept saying what my point was and wouldn't listen when you were told you were wrong.
Ah perfect. Given all of your BS, we can talk about that later. Just like you continued refusal to explain why you posted a manuscript that refuted your own arguments. Just like your cherry picking of mutation rates, and trying to blame me for your own ignorance.
But let's put your ignorance on show in one simple sentence.
"The mutation rate of any single point change is only 10^9, two simultaneous changes is 10^18 and 3 is 10^27."
So where did you cherry-pick that data from? The estimated mutation rate in humans is 2.5x10^-8 mutations
per nucleotide site For those reading, see: Nachman MW, Crowell SL. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans.Genetics. 2000 Sep;156(1):297-304.
But what you don't understand because you lack any biological knowledge is what the denominator means. That is the mutational rate
PER NUCLEOTIDE SITE. Humans have a genome that is 7 x10^9 NUCLEOTIDES in size (per the same citation). So that mutational rate means that each generation there will be roughly 7x10^9 x 2.5 x10^-8 =
~175 spontaneous mutations PER diploid genome per generation.
Your stupid math blatantly omits the fact you have to multiple the mutational rate by the
genome size. And this is a simplistic average estimation because it only accounts for nucleotide changes, it does not account for the specific nucleotide change, genomic duplications, deletions, and environmental factors that would alter the estimated mutation rate.
But we all know how you will react to this. Run and hide. Block and try to hide your blatant distortion of facts. Your lack of biological knowledge is astounding. Next time you google what a mutation rate is, why don't you actually try to understand it?
This is what happens when creationists think they understand biology, but completely screw it up.
