None of the "scientists" on the creationist websites responded to my challenge but eventually—after being prodded—Vincent Torley (a philospher) picked up the challenge. I tried to explain why his response was inadequate.
Here are the three relevant posts.
Why are the human and chimpanzee/bonobo genomes so similar?
So, why are the human and chimpanzee/bonobo genomes so similar? A reply to Professor Larry Moran
An Intelligent Design Creationist explains why chimpanzees and humans are so similar
It's interesting to read the comments below Vincent Torley's post. You'd expect to see comments from the scientifically literate creationists pointing out that my calculations are basically correct and the IDiots better learn how to deal with it. After all, none of this is complicated stuff. It's the sort of evolution you would find in any introductory textbook.
Well, so far there haven't been any comments from IDiots who understand evolution.
As far as Moran’s numbers, of course they’ll match up! The circularly reasoned mutation rate is reasoned based on the divergence amount and the supposed time of a split. Because of Kimura’s formula highlighted here:This is disappointing since I spent a lot of time and effort explaining mutation rates and I linked to these posts.
If not Rupe or Sanford
the number fixed will always agree with the circularly reasoned mutation rate. It’s circular reasoning pretending to make a prediction when in fact it’s a post diction. But this is all circular reasoning.
Or maybe the IDiots have a good explanation that they haven’t revealed?No Moran, you’re the …… for not recognizing circular reasoning. You can take a tree and a frog, make up a timeline and you’ll never get inconsistent results as long as the mutation rates being used are the circularly reasoned ones and not the actual field-measured ones (which are too expensive for anyone to do right now)! The fixation rate will always match the circularly-reasoned mutation rate. The way to settle the issue is to use real-time mutation rates, but that is too expensive right now.
Estimating the Human Mutation Rate: Biochemical Method
Estimating the Human Mutation Rate: Direct Method
Estimating the Human Mutation Rate: Phylogenetic Method
The first one shows that the mutation rate can be estimated from the known properties of the DNA replication complex and repair mechanisms. The second one shows that the mutation rate from direct sequencing of the genomes of parents and children agrees pretty much with the biochemical estimate. The third one shows that the estimates from phylogeny agree with the mutation rates calculated independently from the other two methods. The phylogenetic estimate would only be circular if there were no other independent methods of estimating mutation rate.
The three posts also contain references to other methods of getting the human mutation rates. Some of them date back to the 1930s.
I don't understand why Sal Cordova didn't bother to read up on the subject before spouting off. Is he deliberately lying to the audience on Uncommon Descent because they can't handle the truth?
There aren't any other comments from IDiots that qualify as scientific. Here's a few for your amusement.
Joe says,I think that what he meant to say is that HE doesn't know anything about fixation rates and he wouldn't know what "scientific testing" looks like if it bit him on the .....
I don’t accept universal common descent because it cannot be scientifically tested.
Also, contra Moran, we don’t know anything about fixation rates. And similarities can easily be explained by a common design.
Larry Moran’s “proof” of the ape-like-ancestor to human evolution is based on a series of unsupported claims:This seems to be the very best that they can offer. Do you think there are Intellignet Design Creationists who are embarrassed by this display of ignorance? If so, why aren't they speaking up?
(1) actually there is no proof that DNA is the unique cause of the formation of a certain species. It is likely that many other factors play a role.
(2) also if #1 is ok, 98.6% genomic identity between chimp and human (= 22.4 million DNA bases) is highly debatable, because genomic comparison can be done in many different ways and depends on many presuppositions.
(3) also if #1,2 are ok, 130 mutations fixed in the human population in each generation is another highly debatable issue.
(4) also if #1,2,3 are ok, no one can prove that such 130 mutations fixed are exactly those necessary to the transformation.
(5) also if #1,2,3,4 are ok, no one has proved that natural selection passed along those mutations. Lab experiments show that natural selection passes along a beneficial mutation when it has at least a 10% fitness advantage.
(6) also if #1,2,3,4,5 are ok, it is again highly debatable and unproved that chimps and humans diverged five million years ago, based on fossils. Fossils tell nothing about the deep differences between man and apes. For example, can a fossil prove a difference in intellect?
As a consequence Moran’s claim about human evolution from ape-like-ancestor based on the very simple computation “130 x 185,200 = 22.4 million mutations” is ridiculous and gives a good idea of the lack of reliability of Darwinian biology.
Where are you Michael Denton and Michael Behe? A village of IDiots needs you. Talk to Sal Cordova and give him a copy of your books.