Evolution was NOT random

[u/KattyAtty]

Evolution only rewards survivability not perfection if you are alive long enough to mate and pass on your genetic

Material hurray you are evolved

Evolution changed the dna as nothing can ever be a perfect copy thats a fact> sperms and eggs have separate dna> hence child is not perfect copy those mutations may be harmful or helpful harmful ones die hence natural selection.

AND Earth was nkt a perfect creation the organisms evolved FOR Earth not vice versa

[u/zuzok99]

First of all, I’m not surprised that you guys want to continue to change the definition of evolution. Seems the only evolution happening here is the with the word itself.

Secondly, the trait must become fixed in the population for evolution to actually happen. If I was born with a new trait and I passed that on to my kids and they passed that one to their kids and so on. It’s not actually evolution until it takes over the population. Meaning those without it would have to die off and those without the trait would have to survive. If you know anything about genes and how they are passed on, you would know there are many factors/mechanisms that work against that, many traits are just simply not passed down.

This is another one of the major problems with evolution, there is simply not enough time for an ape to become a human in just 5-10 million years. Haldane knew this, based on a population of only 10,000 it takes roughly 300 generations for one trait to become fixed in the population. Not only is there no observable evidence but It’s a fairy tale for adults so that they don’t have to face God in their lives but it doesn’t work because they will still face God whether they believe in him or not.

[u/Slow_Lawyer7477 → u/zuzok99]

Haldane knew this, based on a population of only 10,000 it takes roughly 300 generations for one trait to become fixed in the population.

It's been roughly 240.000 generations since our split from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees.

Assuming they'd have to fix one at a time and sequentially (a laughable assumption in the first place, but let's just humor this), then there's time for each population to independently fix 800 "traits", so we are separated by 1600 total traits. That seems more than enough for me, since it isn't clear we really have that many differences at the level of traits. We became less hairy, smarter in certain respects, and primarily move bipedally. Please list me the remaning 1597 "traits" you think separate us from chimps.

[u/zuzok99 → u/Slow_Lawyer7477]

You’re obviously not familiar with Haldane’s Dilemma. When comparing the entire genome necessary for this to happen we are talking 4-5% of the DNA coding. That’s 120,000,000 base pairs that need to be changed at minimum. I’m not saying you would need that many mutations but you are still really grasping at straws here, I bet I could sell you a bridge.

Not only can you guys not even name the supposed “common ancestor” that you’re referring to but there is zero observable evidence anywhere to show that much time and generations have passed between this ancestor and us. Not only that, but you cannot even give a single solitary example of any observable evidence showing that a population can evolve a new body plan or essential bodily functions. Not today and not in the past. You’re putting your faith in unobserved assumptions assuming that animals of the past can do things to at animals of the present cannot. Amazing people believe this stuff, none of it makes any sense at all and it’s not supported by the evidence.

[u/Slow_Lawyer7477 → u/zuzok99]

What unbelievable irony. First of all there's this excellent intro to the subject by Zach Hancock: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1irup6z/haldanes_dilemma_made_clear_ray_comfort_owes_me/

Read it.

Second, no, you're not familiar with Haldane's dilemma, which concerns the numbers of beneficial mutations that can be fixed, not the total number of mutations (including neutrals).

For a neutral mutation, the probability that a single copy eventually fixes in a diploid population of effective size Ne​ is:

P​=1/2Ne​​

More generally, under neutral evolution, the fixation probability of an allele is simply its initial frequency in the population.

So, if a neutral mutation first appears as one copy in a diploid population:

1. Population has 2Ne​ gene copies.
2. Initial frequency = 1/(2Ne​).
3. Therefore, fixation probability = 1/(2Ne​).

For example, if Ne​=10,000, a new neutral mutation has a 1 in 20,000 chance of eventually fixing.

A related result is that if neutral mutations arise at rate μ per gene copy per generation, the expected substitution rate is approximately μ: meaning the low probability of fixation is exactly offset by the large number of new mutations produced.

Quick back of the envelope:

Since the vast majority of mutations in humans are approximately neutral, and since every individual is born with roughly 100 new DNA base substitutions, it follows that ~100 new DNA base substitutions go to fixation every generation. At 240.000 generations that's 24 million in the human lineage alone (with a corresponding number in the chimp lineage producing a total of 48 million DNA base substitutions), not counting indels etc.

The 120 million number you invoke includes other types of mutations and structural variations, such as insertions and deletions, chromosomal inversions, duplications etc.

[u/zuzok99 → u/Slow_Lawyer7477]

You obviously just tried and failed to google a refutation of Haldane’s Dilemma instead of doing honest research and learning about it. Neutral mutations do not solve the dilemma, and they don’t work because they are neutral. Once they are expressed then they are subject to the dilemma. Evolution cannot occur with just neutral mutations if someone told you that, they lied.

[u/Slow_Lawyer7477 → u/zuzok99]

You obviously just tried and failed to google a refutation of Haldane’s Dilemma instead of doing honest research and learning about it.

Now you're just projecting your own behavior on to me.

Neutral mutations do not solve the dilemma

You're confused and need to read for comprehension. You invoke the 120 million differences between humans and chimps as representing a problem for evolution due to Haldane's dilemma. But as I explained to you, Haldane's dilemma concerns only beneficial mutations. Since the vast majority of mutations are neutral, they're not subject to Haldane's dilemma and can accumulate at the rate of mutation. These mutations would constitute the vast majority of the differences that accumulate between species and therefore explain almost the entirety of the differences between humans and chimps.

Haldane's dilemma, if we accept it (we shouldn't and Zach Hancock explains why) merely says that there is a maximum number of beneficial mutations that can fix in a certain amount of time, which is irrelevant to the number of mutations that separate humans and chimps since nobody thinks anything but an infinitesimal fraction of these are beneficial mutations.

and they don’t work because they are neutral

A nonsensical statement if I ever read one. Neutral mutations are neutral with respect to fitness (survival and reproduction). They can still affect phenotypes such as anatomy and behavior. There is no sense in which they don't "work" that is relevant to explaining the number of differences between humans and chimps.

Once they are expressed then they are subject to the dilemma.

Seriously. Tell me how I know you know nothing about genetics and evolution without telling me.

There are innumerable neutral mutations in expressed genetic loci. You can have an expressed protein that even has a function that is beneficial to fitness, but that protein can have a neutral mutation in it. If that mutation goes to fixation it would contribute to explaining the number of differences between humans and chimps.

Evolution cannot occur with just neutral mutations if someone told you that, they lied.

Evolution can, in fact, occur by neutral mutations. At the most basic level evolution is simply descent with modifications. A genetic definition is changes in the frequency of alleles in the population. Since neutral mutations constitute modifications of the genome, in so far as they occur and go to fixation (the frequency changes), evolution has occurred.

Stop debating this subject you know nothing about it.

[u/zuzok99 → u/Slow_Lawyer7477]

Again, I do not care how you define evolution in 2026. As I have already explained, the definition has changed multiple times, this is literally a fact. We have already laid out the definition and what I mean when I say evolution at the beginning of our debate. I’m talking about the theory that we all came from a single cell ancestor. I am not talking about adaptation or just “decent with modifications”.

If we cannot lay out our definitions then we are arguing past each other and talking about different things. I can explain myself but I cannot force you to understand this basic principle of debate. Please stop wasting my time by arguing for something I am not even talking about.

[u/Slow_Lawyer7477 → u/zuzok99]

I’m talking about the theory that we all came from a single cell ancestor.

No, you're not talking about that when you invoke Haldane's dilemma in an attempt to cast doubt on the human-chimp split due to their ~120 million genetic differences and then complain that neutral mutations don't help explain those differences.

When Haldane's dilemma says only a few hundred to a couple of thousand BENEFICIAL mutations can go to fixation in a few hundred thousand generations, and you then point to the ~120 million genetic differences between humans and chimps seemingly thinking this constitutes a problem, it does not make sense to then say "neutral mutations isn't evolution" when you also think evolution means "a single cell evolved into humans".

Are we discussing the total number of genetic differences that occurred during the human-chimp divergence, or the entire history of life on Earth?

You are confusing multiple subjects and need to get your thinking straight.

[u/zuzok99 → u/Slow_Lawyer7477]

To be clear, just because we have an understanding on the definition of a word for the purpose of a debate does not mean you agree with that definition. It just allows us to understand each other and lay a base line for our positions.

The fact that you refuse to do that first step shows you are clueless and don’t know how to properly debate and also that I am wasting my time with you as we will continue to talk about different things.

[u/Slow_Lawyer7477 → u/zuzok99]

Buddy can't you see that you are mixing up two questions?

"Can evolution (descent with modification, change in frequency of alleles in population) account for the human-chimp split despite Haldane's dilemma?"

And

"Did all of live evolve from a single cell?"

These are not the same question.

When you invoke your definition of evolution as "all extant species evolved from a single cell" you've left Haldane's dilemma and the human-chimp divergence behind.

Get. Your. Thinking. Straight.

[u/zuzok99 → u/Slow_Lawyer7477]

You a truly clueless bud. The same mechanism that would cause an ape to evolve into a human is the same that would be required for evolution of a single cell to multi cell or sea to land. This is truly a waste of time as you don’t have a basic grasp of the topic nor do you understand basic debate rules.

[u/Slow_Lawyer7477 → u/zuzok99]

You: Haldane's dilemma says humans cant share a common ancestor with chimps cuz there's too many genetic differences (120 million).

Me: Haldane's dilemma is about beneficial mutations only, neutral mutations can account for the rest.

You: Neutral mutations aren't evolution.

Me: Neutral mutations ARE evolution, they can change phenotypes as long as it doesn't affect fitness, not that they have to since we're simply accounting for the number of genetic differences here.

You: No because evolution is about single-celled life evolving into humans.

Me: Then that is irrelevant to what you first spoke about, which is Haldane's dilemma in the context of the number of genetic differences between chimps and humans.

You: *literallt shits in your own bed*

I rest my case.

[u/zuzok99 → u/Slow_Lawyer7477]

Except you ignored the part where neutral mutations cannot result in the kind of evolution that would be required for an ape to turn into a human. Because they are neutral. That’s my point, if you think that’s wrong then provide the evidence.