|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Explaining the pro-Evolution position | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
So perhaps you want to tell us what those selection pressures were that transform keratinocytes from scale producers to feather producers? So you're one of those "Darwin", "Darwinism" naysayers that are stuck (or purposefully want to be stuck) on the idea that all traits of all organisms must be the product of selection. This is a glowing ignorance of the Theory of Evolution. Natural Selection is not the sole determinant of phenotypic features. Every detail of every organism is not the product of selection pressures. I suggest you take a few months off to research and learn the limits of selection and what other vectors are known to produce novel features in a phenotype. Most of the fine details, and even some major ones, of the phenotype are not adaptive through selection pressures.
"I came to work here six years ago and the dinosaur skeleton was a million years old then"! Cute. Nice way to dodge the question. Are you a YEC? [ABE] BTW, That dino skeleton had better be considerably more than 1 million and six years old. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Seems like Kleinman doesn't want to answer the question. Kleinman, are you a YEC?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Kleinman writes: Well, all modern birds (that I, personally, know of) have both scales and feathers. I'm therefore not to sure what you're asking. How do you take an ancestor which has scales and all the genes which produce scales and transform all those scale producing genes into genes which would produce feathers? Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13017 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.8 |
Kleinman writes: Well good! I've already had my work peer reviewed and published. Here are the links.The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection - PubMed The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance - PubMed Random recombination and evolution of drug resistance - PubMed From the Forum Guidelines:
In other words, at EvC Forum the evidence and argument must be entered into the discussion in your own newly original words (cut-n-pastes from your own past words don't qualify), not just linked to. Additionally, only abstracts are available. Full articles are behind a paywall. If you send PDF's of the papers to me at admin@evcforum.net I will make them available here at the board. Please, no replies to this message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Kleinman writes: The point of doing the probability calculations is to determine the population size necessary based on a given mutation rate to determine the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring. Fixation of a given variant is neither necessary nor sufficient for this process to work. It is even possible for the relative frequency of a variant in a population to decrease yet the variant is still able to evolve to the selection pressure. The hardest part is knowing how many beneficial mutations there are to begin with. Looking backwards, we can only see the beneficial mutations that did occur. Jumping to the much larger conclusion that these beneficial mutations are the only ones possible is what leads to bad conclusions. Like the old saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and that usually applies to be beneficial mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Kleinman writes: So do you want to try to compute the probability that a single beneficial mutation will occur on some member of a lineage? The problem is determining how many beneficial mutations are possible in a given lineage in a given environment. For example, let's look at flight in terrestrial animals. Many different lineages have evolved the ability to fly, and each independent lineage found different ways to achieve that ability. Bats, birds, and dragonflies all have different adaptations. There are many, many possible ways of achieving the benefit of flying. There is no way that we can currently know how many beneficial mutations are possible in a lineage to attain flight. They are probably nearly infinite in number, given background DNA sequences and possible solutions. So how in the world do we compute the odds of beneficial mutations occurring when we can't even know which mutations would be beneficial?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Taq writes: Like the old saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and that usually applies to be beneficial mutations. Just a very cursory glance at reality should be sufficient to support that. How many different forms of locomotion have appeared over history in living creatures? How many variations just in means of flight? How about different eye designs? Or maybe variations on digestive systems? How many variations on sexual identity are there and what about species that change sex at will? What about biological things that are both male and female at the same time? The error throughout this whole excursion into probabilities seems to be the old canard of a desired outcome with no evidence there is such a thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13017 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.8 |
I can see you're having trouble with quotes. What should be this:
quote: Becomes this in your messages with the indentation groupings backwards, and obviously requiring unnecessary editing:
quote: Next time you reply to a message, look for the "Normal" and "Peek Mode" radio buttons at the top of the message you're replying to. Click on the "Peek Mode" button. Now you can see the message with all its original markup. Cut-n-paste the part you want, putting a [qs] in front and a [/qs] at the end. Your can of course use [quote] and [/quote] if you wish, but most members use the convention of [qs] for quoting from messages and [quote] for quoting from elsewhere. The quoted portion would then look like this:
And there is a straightforward explanation why that happens. Malaria can achieve populations of a trillion or more in an infected individual. When you have populations that large, the probabilities will become realistic that you will get members of that population with double beneficial mutations. Is there some reason why the evolution of resistance in this case can't involve two or more sequential mutations? Easy peasy, just like the original text, only quoted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Kleinman writes: Yes. But the probability problem you must solve is the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring in a given number of replications. The analogous dice rolling problem would be for example the probability of rolling at least a single 1 in a given number of rolls. The probability of a beneficial mutation occurring is nearly guaranteed since no lineage is perfectly adapted to their environment. There are multiple adaptations that could occur, and multiple mutations that can achieve each adaptation. The problem you keep having is that you are committing the Sharpshooter fallacy. What you have is a person firing a bullet into a forest 1 km away. When the bullet strikes a tree, you paint a tiny little bullseye around it, and tell everyone just how improbable it is that the sharpshooter could hit that tiny target. That is what you are doing here. You are pretending that the observed beneficial mutations are the only ones possible. You are painting the bullseye around the mutations that did occur. We could discuss our own lineage, if you like. I am unaware of a single genetic difference between humans and chimps that rmns could not produce, and I have yet to see you present one. As long as the common ancestor of chimps and humans did not go extinct, some sort of change and possibly more than one species would have evolved. What did evolve (us and chimps) is a highly unlikely outcome given all of the possible species and adaptations that could have occurred. However, it is inevitable that a highly improbable nearly impossible species will evolve as long as a lineage survives, just as a highly improbable and nearly impossible shot will be made by a person firing a rifle into a forest 1 km away. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
jar writes: Just a very cursory glance at reality should be sufficient to support that. We could even point to specific examples involving known DNA sequences. For example, different solutions for erythromycin resistance. "We identified a novel erm gene, designated ermTR, from an erythromycin-resistant clinical strain of S. pyogenes (strain A200) with an inducible type of MLSB resistance. The nucleotide sequence of ermTR is 82.5% identical to ermA, previously found, for example, in Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci. Our finding provides the first sequence of an erm gene other than ermAM that mediates MLSB resistance in S. pyogenes."A Novel Erythromycin Resistance Methylase Gene (ermTR) in Streptococcus pyogenes - PMC Even Behe's original example of drug resistance in malaria failed to support the idea that you need 2 specific mutations, and they have to occur simultaneously. Instead, these mutations occur sequentially and there are more than 2 which confer drug resistance.
Sandwalk: Michael Behe and the edge of evolution
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Kleinman writes: Theodoric, my argument is that randommutationandnaturalselectioncan'tdoit. And the reason rmns can't do it is the multiplication rule of probabilities. Let's use the lottery as an analogy to show how you are improperly using probabilities. Let's say that the odds of winning our example lottery is 1 in 1 million. In 10 drawings there are 10 winners. What is the probability that those specific people are the winners? If, as you claim, we multiply the probabilities that those specific people would win, then it is 1 million to the 10th power, or 1x10^60. That's a 1 with 60 zeros after it. The odds of winning real lotteries is even less than 1 in 1 million. If we took the odds of the last 10 winners of the Powerball lottery being the winners, we would have an even larger number on our hands. The fact that those specific people won the lottery is nearly impossible, yet it happened. In reality, the odds of those people winning the lottery is 1 in 1, BECAUSE IT HAPPENED. That's the part you keep ignoring.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Kleinman writes: That's the point. When selection pressures target more than a single gene simultaneously, the beneficial mutations must appear simultaneously in order to improve fitness. Can you point to any two vertebrate species where two simultaneous mutations had to happen in one of those lineages since the time that they shared a common ancestor? If not, it seems that your line of argument is completely irrelevant, at least where the evolution of vertebrates is being discussed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Back in Message 92 I tried to point out his issues with his lottery examples.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Theories are not "true" or "false". They are good or bad, complete or incomplete, useful or not useful, etc. The Theory of Evolution is a good explanation of how evolution happens. It is also the only explanation we have, which makes it by default the best. It is fairly complete. It is very useful. And don't get me wrong, evolution does occur, but the mechanisms of evolution, in particular, rmns, can not make the genetic transformations necessary for the theory of evolution to be true. I'm sorry, but you can't use mathematics to trump that. If the mathematics disagrees with reality, it's the mathematics that you've got wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Kleinman writes: And it takes huge populations and/or large numbers of generations in order for the probabilities to become realistic in these situations. You only need to shuffle a deck once to get a highly improbable event to occur.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024