The Theory of Evolution is Mathematically Irrational-part 6

In order to try to avoid splinter threads, we are continuing this
discussion of the mathematics of genetic transformation here.
Presently we are discussing neutral evolution and the possibility that
tens of millions of genetic differences could be fixed in both the
human and chimpanzee populations in only 500,000 generations.

We are using Thomas Schneider’s (from the National Cancer Institute)
computer simulation of mutation with and without selection to study
genetic transformation. For the purposes of studying neutral
evolution, we are running Schneider’s model without selection turned
on. At the end of thread “The Theory of Evolution is Mathematically
Irrational-part 5”, Frank Smith had presented a case for Schneider’s
model using a genome length of 10,000, a population size of 1000 and a
mutation rate of e-8. His case showed that in takes about 1000
generations for one of the genomes to become the dominant genome in
the population.

We now have Greg Guarino’s case of a genome length of 256 bases,
population size 64 and a mutation rate of e-4. We pick up the
discussion at this point. Greg’s post from part 5 of this thread is
posted in its entirety with my comments interspersed.

Amy (Greg) Guarino Jun 19, 9:53 pm
From: Amy Guarino <amy.l.guar...@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Jun 19 2012 9:53 pm
Subject: Re: the Theory of Evolution is a mathematically irrational
On Jun 19, 12:15 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

What you need to
do with Schneider s model is start out with identical genomes in the
population and demonstrate how multiple neutral mutations can be fixed
simultaneously. So far you have not done this.

In fact, I have. I posted the example several days ago. Here's what I
Default parameters, except for the following:
1 mutation in 10,000 bases,
No selection
200,000 cycles
Single founder

All of the original genomes were indeed identical. The first 5 bases
were GTAGG in all 64 genomes. I checked.
You are making the same blunder that Schneider made. Schneider drew
many incorrect conclusions about the mutation and selection phenomenon
based on a single case of a 256 base genome and population of 64. Your
own evolutionist model give the probability of fixation as 1/N and now
you are well on the way to making mathematically irrational
extrapolations with your tiny population case.
After 200,000 generations, many of the genome sites seemed to be
fixed, with some flickering. I scrolled through all 64 genomes, paying
attention to the first 5 bases. All were identical, as follows:
If you want to understand the behavior of this process, you must
systematically vary each of your parameters. This includes varying the
mutation rate and population size. Your example uses a mutation rate
of ~e-4. This is a very high mutation rate (4 orders of magnitude
higher than e-8) compared to a realistic mutation rate. When you
couple this with your tiny population size, you have set yourself up
to make some mathematically irrational claims.
In four out of the five, a mutation had become fixed
somewhere along the way.
So are you ready to claim that this shows that tens of millions of
neutral mutations in humans and chimpanzees can be fixed in 500,000
generations based on this result? If you are then all you have shown
is that you are sloppy and incomplete in your analysis.
Although there is no reasonable possibility that those were the only
four mutations that became fixed, let's assume they were. Do you still
think the multiplication rule somehow applies here?
Absolutely the multiplication rule still applies here. With your
population size of 64 and 200,000 generations, drift should have fixed
over 700 mutations. What do you think that the neutral fixation of
over 700 neutral mutations would do to a 256 base genome in 200,000
generations and does your case show this?

If you had read my post in response to Frank Smith’s case of a
population of 1000, genome length 10,000 with random initial genomes
you would have learned that the drift process is dependent on which
variants happen to have a few more offspring early in the drift
process. Those variants with more clones early in the drift process
have a better probability of doubling each generation and ultimately
fixing their genetic sequences.

I wonder if you evolutionists will ever do a thorough analysis of any
form of genetic transformation.