No. Let's look at how the original one was done:
I thought my explanation in #41 was quite clear, and I can't make it any clearer: Britten's original study, by its nature, would never be able to detect sequence differences due to insertion or deletion mutations. The new technique can, and found an extra 3.9% difference in the sequences. But since a single insertion or deletion mutation can affect hundreds or thousands of base pairs with a single mutation, the extra sequence differences add a miniscule amount to the number of mutations necessary to account for them.
Which is why there are 42 million mutations separating us from the chimps, which caused 150 million base-pair differences.
As we have seen, interbreeding often is limited to the members of local populations. If the population is small, Hardy-Weinberg may be violated.
I am well aware of such statements being made by numerous evolutionists. I reject them because they contain numerous half truths. The first half truth (and a half truth is really a complete lie that because it contains and element of truth makes it more believable and thus a better sounding lie) is the implication that while Hardy-Weinberg can be violated in a small population, this makes it likely that a neutral mutation will take over the whole species from that blast off point is false.
You know, I'll bet that Hardy-Weinberg were two evolutionists! In fact, I'll bet they knew quite well that their equations were only valid for large populations.
Let's continue with the example of the population of a million in the species and let's say that the 'tribe' of 100 gets a neutral mutation and it spreads through it. Well, if the 'tribe' gets mixed into the general population (somehow, sometime, somewhere) then Hardy-Weinberg will be in effect again and those carrying the neutral mutation will be only 1/10,000 of the species and will remain so BECAUSE THIS MUTATION IS NEUTRAL. So again this neutral mutation will not take over the population or even become a significant part of the overall genome pool of the species. So this argument is bunk.
No, you're assuming the population of 1 million consists of 1 semi-isolated tribe of 100 and another mass of 999,900. I'm talking about a species that tends to live in tribes in the first place. So we're talking about a species of 1 million individuals who are split up into 10,000 tribes of 100 each. Every time the mutation gets introduced into a new tribe, it has just as good a chance of fixating within that tribe as it did in the first tribe.
There is an even bigger problem though with these mutations becoming through a small inbred group a part of the genome pool of the whole species. It is a scientific fact that harmful mutations far exceed all other mutations. It is a scientific fact that inbreeding is harmful for the tightly inbred group. What this means is that the inbred group will become much less viable due to the inbreeding and that any neutral mutations within it will (if the group does not die off due to the harmful mutations) will dissappear when (or if) it joins the larger group and those harmful mutations show that the inbred group is less viable and less 'fit' than the main group.
No, the scientific fact is that most mutations are neutral. You're thinking of the mutations that have some effect on the organism - they are mostly harmful. But virtually all of the harmful mutations aren't counted among the 42 million mutations that separate us from chimps anyway, since the proto-chimps & proto-humans who carried those mutations quickly died out. I think we can safely assume all those 42 million mutations were either neutral or beneficial. (Almost all of them neutral.)
As for inbreeding, you're now forcing yourself to argue that any species that habitually lives in tribes will die out! That's just absurd.
I did not say it was not clear, I said it was wrong. As I said, the proof of the pudding that the 5% is indeed the real genetic difference between man and chimp is that Britten, who had done the original study claiming the 1.5% or so, refuted himself. The question has always been about the genetic difference between the two. As I showed you also, the person who wrote the article you are following is a hack with no credibility. No legitimate scientist can say any longer that non-coding DNA is junk like that guy said.
You know, I'll bet that Hardy-Weinberg were two evolutionists! In fact, I'll bet they knew quite well that their equations were only valid for large populations.
Yup, Hardy, Weinberg, Fisher and Wright, the most famous figures in population genetics were all evolutionists. They worked for decades trying to figure out a way to get out of the problems posed by Mendelian genetics to the theory of evolution. They were pretty good mathematicians, but since they were lacking the scientific basis to apply their mathematical ideas they were very wrong. Specifically the problem came about with the discovery of DNA. The problem DNA posed was quite simple and quite awesome. It disproved for good the idea that one single mutation could effect a great change in function. With a single base pair being the result of a mutation, new species from one mutation became totally impossible. Evolution had always assumed that just one change could effect a large change in a species. The population geneticists, working on that assumption believed that a single mutation could have a large enough change in the selectivity to overcome the stasis of Hardy-Weinberg. However, with DNA showing that you would need numerous favorable mutations to achieve any significant change. These mutations would be first of all be subject to being unfavorable and kill the organism, secondly be neutral and be very likely to die off soon after arising, and the few, few favorable ones, because they had such a low or non-existent selective value until many more mutations would be added to it, would also face a high degree of chance of being lost.
What all the above means in essence is that since mutations start in a single organism:
1. Hardy-Weinberg makes the spread of mutations very unlikely to the whole population.
2. Neutral and slightly favorable mutations (those with a low selection coefficient) are likely to not only not spread, but to die off completely within a few generations.
3. And here's the kicker - because due to DNA insuring that a single mutation cannot have any large effect on an organism, all mutations are essentially neutral mutations and likely to die within a few generations.
The only 'out' from the above problem proposed by evolutionists (like you are doing here), is the small inbred population. There is a good scientific reason why calling someone an 'inbred' is an insult. Inbreeding causes harmful mutations to thoroughly make the inbred population less viable. That's a scientific fact and there is no talking their way out of it for evolutionists.