KINDS and ADAPTATION

[Donray]

EarthScienceguy wrote:

I believe in adaptation not evolution. Adaptation says that organisms change because of heredity not mutations.

God created kinds of animals. So yes He only created one species of humans.


In another topic when I asked EarthScienceguy what he believed instead of evolution he wrote back the above. I asked him several times to explin his theory and he incapable of explanation and debate of his theory.
I would like to find from any Christians that believes like EarthScienceguy something about this belief and some proof using known fossils and how these fit in.
How do you explain Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthal) and The Denisovans that both had sex with modern humans? If you are from Europe for your background you have some Neanderthal DNA.

Since this theory uses “kinds of animals� that a lot of creationist do could someone list all the kinds that were on the ark and then the list of animals, insects, bacteria, etc that these kinds adapted into. Are you with a lot of the undereducated people that think the world is less then 10K years old?

What is adaptation and not evolution? Does it have anything to due with DNA changing? Could someone point out all the articles that support this theory? I would hope that there is a list of science articles that shows your science of adaptation of kinds on the ARK to all the diversity we have.

I would like to have a debate on this theory since Christians like to debate evolution we should have this debate also.

[Still small]

Possibly because it’s rather difficult to summarise. I’d say it’s essentially applying a statistical method to one aspect of an outdated theory, but I don’t really fully understand the paper. Perhaps you do? What, for example, should we take from:

Put simply, the passage from the paper to which you refer is a correction of a theorem proposed by Fisher as a proof the ToE effect of “life’s� ability to continually increase in fitness to an environment and complexity through speciation. Fisher’s theorem, while incorporating mutations (in His corollary), proposed that all deleterious mutations would be eliminated via natural selection in offspring, thereby avoiding genetic loading and allowing beneficial mutations to accumulate into the next generation. While this may be true for lethal mutations, Fisher did not allow for the many deleterious but non-lethal mutations (of which, at the time he was unaware) that accumulate within a population that eventually prove fatal. Hopefully, the following may simplify it -

We now present equations for deterministic models for the mutation–selection process that assume an infinite population.

A model that helps to determine the effect of the mutation-selection process on the species as a whole for n generations (unlimited) as opposed to a small population limited by environmental niches. Genetic loading accumulates rapidly within smaller populations without the need for all possible deleterious mutations being present.

The mutation process in the model is explicitly incorporated by a matrix of values that provide the mutation rate from one genotype (or allele) to a different one.

[/quote]
The matrix displays, using n mutations over n generations, all the possible steps between two expressed alleles, (i.e. allele for brown eyes vs blue eyes up to genome difference between species). Thus giving a mutation rate, depending upon the species plus giving an overall ‘picture’ of the possible mutations and genetic loading.

I don’t understand this, so can’t meaningfully comment. Not because I think it’s ‘rubbish’, or ‘biased’. Can you explain in simple terms what exactly about it you found so compelling?

What I found compelling was the falsifying of Fisher’s theorem which guaranteed increased fitness through the mutation-selection process of ToE leading to continual improvements and complexity. The new theorem includes the fact, according to research (listed), of genetic loading of deleterious mutations which was unknown, at the time, to Fisher. This indicates decreased fitness having a greater probability (up to 1000:1), thereby, causing a degenerative outcome leading to extinction over the possibility of increased fitness in species evolution. This would also imply that biological evolution could not continue for the supposed 3 billion years before resulting in complete extinction.
I hope that helps to explain this peer-reviewed research paper.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 378 by Still small]

If you find the paper quoted as ‘compelling’ evidence for your case, then to what degree do you accept its following conclusions:

On a practical level, all biological populations are finite. In the case of finite population models, the focus has been upon measuring mutation accumulation, as affected by selection. Finite models clearly show that natural populations can either increase or decrease in fitness, depending on many variables.

And:

What we have discovered is that, contrary to Fisher’s claim, continuously increasing population fitness is not an inherent property of life. Mutations by themselves drive fitness down. Natural selection may or may not be able to reverse this genetic degeneration. There are a large number of biological variables that determine whether the fitness of a population will increase or decrease.

The authors seem at least willing to accept the limitations of a purely mathematical model as it relates to a theory which is best tested in its natural state.

Given that we can physically observe many, many effects of evolutionary change through numerous means (not just mutation), and that the paper acknowledges the existence of ‘biological variables’, it seems unreasonable to conclude that:

biological evolution could not continue for the supposed 3 billion years before resulting in complete extinction.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Evidently not since you responded with comments on a completely different issue. And this comment is also not related to Sanford's belief that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old:

Quote:
That according to genetics life could not have been around as long as theories in geology say the Earth has been around. Geologist can have whatever theory they want to have but life was not here that long.


What does the age of the Earth have to do with when the first life forms appeared? Geologists and other scientists can determine the age of the Earth (and have) completely independent of when life first appeared. The two are not related other than the obvious fact that life on Earth could not have appeared before the Earth formed and cooled sufficiently. I don't know of anyone who claims that life has been around for as long as the Earth has been around ... but I believe evidence of biological activity has been observed in Zircons some 4 billion or so years old:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... diment-fir...

But again, your comment above doesn't make any sense ... geologists don't claim that life has been around on Earth for as long as Earth has been around, and neither do biologists.

Boy, you totally missed my point. You made the comment that Stanford believed the Earth has existed less than 100,000 years. Geologist claim that the Earth 4.6 billion years old, with life existing for almost 3.8 billion years. Stanford is claiming that genetics says that is not possible for life to exist that long because of genetic load. So according to genetics the Earth could not possibly be that old, so we have a discrepancy between disciplines.

Quote:
If evolution was truly a theory and not a theology these observations would have to be included into the "theory", or the theory would have to be discarded. But evolution is not a theory but a theology.

Evolution IS a theory whether you accept it or not. The science community has decided that already. And like any scientific theory, it is subject to refinements as new observations and data become available. You can call it a theology all you like, but unfortunately (for you) the science community doesn't listen to everyone with a random opinion without some evidence to back up that opinion. If genetic entropy is shown to be valid then the science community will indeed have to deal with it. And my guess is that they won't base any necessary modifications on comments from a fine internet forum like DC&R.

Really, here is a 25 page list of names of scientist who do not agree with you.

https://dissentfromdarwin.org/download/

And the list grows everyday. I am sure you will dismiss this list because it does not fit in to your theology. But there is a reason why panspermia has now become mainstream, pointing to the utter failure of the mechanisms of evolution to explain the fossil record.

Sanford will have to go through the usual peer-review process and prove that his ideas are sound, reproducible, and supported by evidence. He doesn't help his cause when he claims that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old ... because we know with 100% certainty that this is false. Is he friends with Russel Humphreys?

The newest edition of Genetic Entropy (2014), has shown that genetic degeneration is not just a theoretical concern, but is observed in numerous real-life situations. Genetic Entropy has reviewed research that shows: a) the ubiquitous genetic degeneration of the somatic cells of all human beings; and b) the genetic germline degeneration of the whole human population. Likewise Genetic Entropy has reviewed research that shows rapid genetic degeneration in the H1N1 influenza virus. Genetic Entropy also documents “evolution in reverse� in the famous LLEE bacterial experiment (https://www.logosra.org/lenski).



A new paper (Lynch, 2016) written by a leading population geneticist, shows that human genetic degeneration is a very serious problem. He affirms that the human germline mutation rate is roughly 100 new mutations per person per generation, while the somatic mutation rate is roughly 3 new mutations per cell division. Lynch estimates human fitness is declining 1-5% per generation, and he adds; “most mutations have minor effects, very few have lethal consequences, and even fewer are beneficial.�


Our new book “Contested Bones� (available at ContestedBones.org) cites evidence showing that the early human population referred to as Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis) was highly inbred, and had a very high genetic load (40% less fit than modern humans) (Harris and Nielsen, 2016; Roebroeks and Soressi, 2016). See pages pages 315-316. This severe genetic degeneration probably contributed to the disappearance of that population (PrÜfer et al., 2014; Sankararaman et al., 2014).


Similarly, the new book Contested Bones (pages 86-89), cites evidence that the early human population referred to as “Hobbit� (Homo floresiensis), was also inbred and apparently suffered from a special type of genetic degeneration called “reductive evolution� (insular dwarfing) (Berger et al., 2008; Morwood et al., 2004). This results in reduced body size, reduced brain volume, and various pathologies (Henneberg et al., 2014).


Contested Bones (pages 179-210) also cites evidence that the early human population referred to as Naledi (Homo naledi), was likewise inbred and suffered from “reductive evolution�, again resulting in reduced body size, reduced brain volume, and various pathologies.


Contested Bones (pages 53-75) also cites evidence that many other early human populations, broadly referred to as Erectus (Homo erectus), were inbred and suffered from “reductive evolution� (Anton, 2003). However, it seems the genetic degeneration of Erectus was less advanced—generally resulting in more moderate reductions in body size, brain size, and pathologies. Indeed, many paleoanthropologists would fold both Hobbit and Naledi into the more diverse Erectus category.


An important but overlooked paper, written by leading population geneticists (Keightley et al., 2005), reported that the two hypothetical populations that gave rise to modern man and modern chimpanzee both must have experienced continuous genetic degeneration during the last 6 million years. The problems associated with this claim should be obvious. Their title is: Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes, and they state that there has been the “accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.� (emphasis added).


A new paper (Gaur, 2017), shows that if a substantial fraction of the human genome is functional (is not junk DNA), then the evolution of man would not be possible (due to genetic degeneration). Gaur states that human evolution would be very problematic even if the genome was 10% functional, but would be completely impossible if 25% or more was functional. Yet the ENCODE project shows that at least 60% of the genome is functional.


A new paper (Rogers and Slatkin, 2017), shows that mammoth populations were highly inbred and carried an elevated genetic load (likely contributing to their extinction due to “mutational meltdown�).


A paper (Kumar and Subramanian, 2002) shows that mutation rates are similar for all mammals, when based on mutation rate per year (not per generation). This means that mammals (both mice and men) should degenerate similarly in the same amount of time. This suggests that the major mutation mechanisms are not tightly correlated to cell divisions.


A new paper (Ramu et al., 2017), shows that the tropical crop, cassava, has been accumulating many deleterious mutations, resulting a seriously increasing genetic load, and a distinct decline in fitness.


Another paper (Mattila et al. 2012), shows high genetic load in an old isolated butterfly population. “This population exemplifies the increasingly common situation in fragmented landscapes, in which small and completely isolated populations are vulnerable to extinction due to high genetic load.�


Another paper (Holmes, E. C. 2003), shows that all RNA viruses must be young—less than 50,000 years. This is consistent with our H1N1 influenza study that show that RNA virus strains degenerate very rapidly.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 380 by EarthScienceguy]

Boy, you totally missed my point.

I didn't miss the point ... you're just doing your usual game of changing the subject.

You made the comment that Stanford believed the Earth has existed less than 100,000 years. Geologist claim that the Earth 4.6 billion years old, with life existing for almost 3.8 billion years. Stanford is claiming that genetics says that is not possible for life to exist that long because of genetic load. So according to genetics the Earth could not possibly be that old, so we have a discrepancy between disciplines.

According to Sanford's genetics (and his name is Sanford, not Stanford). You're assuming he is right and then concluding that the Earth can't be 4.6 billion years old because his genetic entropy would prevent that age. But according to the genetics that the rest of the world accepts there is no discrepancy. Remember, Sanford is a creationist, so he starts with that viewpoint and works to make sure it isn't violated. He probably started with a max 10,000 year old Earth, and couldn't make that fit even with his wildest imagination, so he settled for 100,000 years for some attempt at legitimacy. Russell Humphrey's all over again, although not nearly to that extreme.

Really, here is a 25 page list of names of scientist who do not agree with you.

And the list of names who support ToE is orders of magnitude larger. But the number of names on a list isn't what counts ... it is whether or not the science is correct. And on that point ToE still leads the pack. Creationist attacks are nothing but minor distractions and have yet to gain any momentum, because they are wrong. Just noise at the fringes.

[Diagoras]

Our new book “Contested Bones� (available at ContestedBones.org) cites evidence showing that the early human population referred to as Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis) was highly inbred, and had a very high genetic load (40% less fit than modern humans) (Harris and Nielsen, 2016; Roebroeks and Soressi, 2016). See pages pages 315-316. This severe genetic degeneration probably contributed to the disappearance of that population (PrÜfer et al., 2014; Sankararaman et al., 2014).

<bolding mine>

Was? This is a question about the past, isn’t it? What were you saying about historical events not being able to be tested using the scientific method? Another paper in that list of yours referenced mammoth populations! How could we possibly test what happened to mammoths when they don’t exist today?

Or maybe, the validity of scientific theory only applies in certain situations..?

You can’t have it both ways.

[Still small]

If you find the paper quoted as ‘compelling’ evidence for your case, then to what degree do you accept its following conclusions:

On a practical level, all biological populations are finite. In the case of finite population models, the focus has been upon measuring mutation accumulation, as affected by selection. Finite models clearly show that natural populations can either increase or decrease in fitness, depending on many variables.

And:

What we have discovered is that, contrary to Fisher’s claim, continuously increasing population fitness is not an inherent property of life. Mutations by themselves drive fitness down. Natural selection may or may not be able to reverse this genetic degeneration. There are a large number of biological variables that determine whether the fitness of a population will increase or decrease.

The authors seem at least willing to accept the limitations of a purely mathematical model as it relates to a theory which is best tested in its natural state.

True and to a limited extent, this was posted in response a comment in Post 356 relating to bias of interpretation according to an a priori- “This is certainly true for some of the "soft" areas of science such as philosophy, but it is not true for the "hard" sciences such as mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, etc.� (Emphasis added). This peer-reviewed research, being based on both mathematics and biology, should therefore be free of such bias.

Also to follow on from the first passage to which you have referred is - “Not only do other finite mathematical population models show that fitness can decrease—they often show that only a narrow range of parameters can actually prevent fitness decline. This is consistent with very many numerical simulation experiments, numerous mutation accumulation experiments, and observations where biological systems have either a high mutation rate or a small population size. Even when large populations are modeled, very slightly deleterious mutations (VSDMs), can theoretically lead to continuous fitness decline. (Emphasis added)

And following the second passage you quoted - “Arguably, the only way to account for the many biological variables that simultaneously affect the mutation–selection process is by using comprehensive numerical simulations (See Sanford et al. 2007a, b; Nelson and Sanford 2013). As numerical simulations become more comprehensive (hence more realistic), net gain in fitness seems to become increasingly problematic (See Sanford et al. 2007b; Carter and Sanford 2012; Gibson et al. 2013; Sanford et al. 2013; Nelson and Sanford 2013), consistent with the results of this paper.� (Emphasis added)

Given that we can physically observe many, many effects of evolutionary change through numerous means (not just mutation), and that the paper acknowledges the existence of ‘biological variables’, it seems unreasonable to conclude that:

biological evolution could not continue for the supposed 3 billion years before resulting in complete extinction.

Fair enough, maybe I should modify my statement to “biological evolution could not continue for the supposed 3 billion years before resulting in stasis and/or complete extinction.�. After reading this paper, would you not agree?

Have a good day!
Still small

[Diagoras]

True and to a limited extent, this was posted in response a comment in Post 356 relating to bias of interpretation according to an a priori- “This is certainly true for some of the "soft" areas of science such as philosophy, but it is not true for the "hard" sciences such as mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, etc.� (Emphasis added). This peer-reviewed research, being based on both mathematics and biology, should therefore be free of such bias.

<This was in answer to my question about biological variables>

You appear to be answering a different question. We may be able to agree that the paper is free from bias, but my question was, “do you agree with the same authors’ conclusion that biological variables may actually increase fitness?�. If anything, claiming that the authors aren’t biased should lead you to more strongly agree with me.

And following the second passage you quoted - “Arguably, the only way to account for the many biological variables that simultaneously affect the mutation–selection process is by using comprehensive numerical simulations (See Sanford et al. 2007a, b; Nelson and Sanford 2013).�

<bolding mine>

Equally, it could be argued that there exist multiple ways to account for biological variables other than numerical models. I wouldn’t expect Sanford to necessarily use them, as mathematics is his specialised field.

Fair enough, maybe I should modify my statement to “biological evolution could not continue for the supposed 3 billion years before resulting in stasis and/or complete extinction.�. After reading this paper, would you not agree?

No, I wouldn’t. The closest supportable statement would be something like:

“Evolution through natural selection has been observed for the well-documented 3.5 billion-year history of life on Earth, from simple (likely hyperthermophilic) organisms through to the estimated 8.7 million discrete species in existence today. Throughout this history, an estimated 99% of all species which have ever existed have become extinct, either when they were no longer able to survive in changing environments (including mass extinctions) or against superior competition.�

[Still small]

<This was in answer to my question about biological variables>

You appear to be answering a different question. We may be able to agree that the paper is free from bias, but my question was, “do you agree with the same authors’ conclusion that biological variables may actually increase fitness?�. If anything, claiming that the authors aren’t biased should lead you to more strongly agree with me.

Well, yes, I do agree with the authors’ statement when taken in full context - “Finite models clearly show that natural populations can either increase or decrease in fitness, depending on many variables� (Emphasis added). This appears to be the passage from the “Conclusions� to which you are referring which is immediately followed by - “Not only do other finite mathematical population models show that fitness can decrease—they often show that only a narrow range of parameters can actually prevent fitness decline. This is consistent with very many numerical simulation experiments, numerous mutation accumulation experiments, and observations where biological systems have either a high mutation rate or a small population size. Even when large populations are modeled, very slightly deleterious mutations (VSDMs), can theoretically lead to continuous fitness decline.� (Emphasis added). So while I agree with the authors’ statement that fitness may increase, this occurs in only a very limited number of circumstances when decreased fitness is prevented. Whereas fitness decrease is consistently seen to a far greater extent in other models, experiments and observation. As stated in the paper, the selected ratio, (being generously in favour of beneficial mutations), was 1000 deleterious mutations/ 1 beneficial mutation (1000/1). This is not referring to a new beneficial trait but only a beneficial genetic mutation, which may well be knocked out in the very next generation.

Equally, it could be argued that there exist multiple ways to account for biological variables other than numerical models. I wouldn’t expect Sanford to necessarily use them, as mathematics is his specialised field.

While Sanford et al, in this paper, do restrict their results to those based on numerical models, they do make several references to actual biological research backing up the results of their models. For example, in “Section 2.3 Finite population Models�, the authors make numerous references to such biological research such as -
‘The predominance of deleterious mutations over beneficial ones is well established. James Crow in (1997) stated, “Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious�. Keightley and Lynch (2003) given an excellent overview of mutation accumulation experiments and conclude that “...the vast majority of mutations are deleterious. This is one of the most well-established principles of evolutionary genetics, supported by both molecular and quantitative-genetic data. This provides an explanation for many key genetic properties of natural and laboratory populations� ‘
- Crow J (1997) The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380–8386
- Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685
There are many more in that section alone.

No, I wouldn’t. The closest supportable statement would be something like:

“Evolution through natural selection has been observed for the well-documented 3.5 billion-year history of life on Earth, from simple (likely hyperthermophilic) organisms through to the estimated 8.7 million discrete species in existence today. Throughout this history, an estimated 99% of all species which have ever existed have become extinct, either when they were no longer able to survive in changing environments (including mass extinctions) or against superior competition.�

This passage, being in quotation marks and italics, may indeed be yours or from a seperate un-referenced source but I’m am uncertain. But yes, while the idea of this passage may be what is taught and accepted without question by many people like yourself, it is not exactly correct. Let me explain, using italics within brackets to avoid equivocation.
Evolution through natural selection has not ‘been observed for the well-documented 3.5 billion-year history of life on Earth’. What actually has been observed (directly) is speciation within the Family level of taxonomy ( and not beyond the Family level) for the past few hundred years. This observed evolution (being the change in population over time) has then been extrapolated under the a priori of the Theory of Evolution (a prior assumption of the truth of the theory that all life descended from a single common ancestor ) back for an assumed 3.5 billion years. And it is, also, upon this extrapolation that the assumed “estimated 99% of all species which have ever existed have become extinct�. How do we know how many species have existed in the first place and then become extinct? Surely not from the poor fossil record!

Have a good day!
Still small

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 385 by Still small]

This is consistent with very many numerical simulation experiments, numerous mutation accumulation experiments, and observations where biological systems have either a high mutation rate or a small population size.

In other words, mathematical models and specific cases (small populations). How about observations of large populations? By excluding those, you exaggerate the effect of deleterious mutations overall.

Both Crow’s studies, and the work of Keightley and Lynch, both suffer from the same flaw. There are two distinct aspects of mutational effects that their experiments looked at: firstly, the average effect on fitness of new mutations, and secondly, the fraction of mutations that reduce fitness. It’s the evidence for the second aspect that was far weaker than that concerning the former, and has been the subject of criticism in later scientific publications. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to source anything more detailed than a brief summary that’s not behind a paywall.

How do we know how many species have existed in the first place and then become extinct? Surely not from the poor fossil record!

The fossil record is about as far from ‘poor’ as it could be.

Creationists love to claim that there are ‘gaps’, and every time a new discovery ‘fills’ that gap (e.g. with Tiktaalik), they simply move the goalposts (gap-posts?) and ask for evidence of yet more intermediates between the old and the new fossils. Here’s an article on such transitional fossils:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamont ... evolution/

Here’s another fascinating article about recent fossil discoveries that should inspire anyone who is genuinely interested in the subject:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamont ... s-of-2016/

These show a very small sample of the astonishing range and detail of fossils of species that have gone extinct, but whose evolutionary descendants are often existing today.

Your claim that the fossil record is ‘poor’ is probably your weakest yet.

[Still small]

In other words, mathematical models and specific cases (small populations). How about observations of large populations? By excluding those, you exaggerate the effect of deleterious mutations overall.

Hence the reason that Basener and Sanford have included a model for both infinite populations and finite populations which are defined in the paper. But, as shown, despite the size of the population, the degenerative effect is the same.

Both Crow’s studies, and the work of Keightley and Lynch, both suffer from the same flaw. There are two distinct aspects of mutational effects that their experiments looked at: firstly, the average effect on fitness of new mutations, and secondly, the fraction of mutations that reduce fitness. It’s the evidence for the second aspect that was far weaker than that concerning the former, and has been the subject of criticism in later scientific publications. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to source anything more detailed than a brief summary that’s not behind a paywall.

There are several studies referenced which show “the fraction of mutations that reduce fitness�, a majority of which show a greater ratio than the ‘1000 to 1’ used in these models. The authors were trying to give the ‘best case scenario’ for beneficial mutation and the increase of fitness. Though I would love to see any of the studies or summaries, even if behind the dreaded paywalls (we may have access to them) because, as of yet, I have been unable to find any similar to that which you refer.

These show a very small sample of the astonishing range and detail of fossils of species that have gone extinct, but whose evolutionary descendants are often existing today.
Your claim that the fossil record is ‘poor’ is probably your weakest yet.

My reference to the ‘poor fossil record’ was not in relation to transitionals or the lack there of. Though your reference to Tiktaalik may have been somewhat of a poor choice on your part. This being due to the verified discovery of tetrapod tracks some 18 million years older than Tiktaalik (according to evolutionary thinking) (link 1, link 2) which has reassigned Tiktaalik to the ‘evolutionary dead end’ heap or that of a concurrent species.
The reasoning behind my reference to the ‘poor fossil record’ was in relation to the oft spouted claim of “an estimated 99% of all species which have ever existed have become extinct�. My query was concerning the method of estimating this “99%� which I assign to extrapolation rather than actual evidence. Why? Well if this estimate is from fossil evidence, then the number of species, being the “99%� would be 861.7 million extinct species (the current 8.7 million representing the remaining 1%). Is there actual fossils of 861.7 million species? Is there even 861.7 million fossils, in total, that have been unearthed? Or is this figure, in fact, just the result of extrapolation according to a ‘ToE’ a priori?
Does the fossil record support this claim? Or is it somewhat ‘poor’ in actual numbers?

Have a good day!
Still small