|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 7 From: South Africa Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Extent of Mutational Capability | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
God, it's been years since I researched this. Take a look at my opening post in the thread Percy's Alife Project and then at Message 53. This thread reflects ideas I picked up from studying other genetic simulation programs. ... In any event, these are a small subset of the number of computer programs, and likely were not considered by CRR in his post. They become a teaching moment when we can say "but look at this program designed to mimic evolution and see the results" but I don't think we are there yet. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Most probability exercises involve a particular series of independent events all happening in a particular sequence. ... Which, as you say, is not the way evolution works.
But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about a population and about the probability of at least one of them succeeding. What we want to know is the probability of at least one member of the population succeeding. ... Now let's assume a larger population size, like 10,000, which in the wild shouldn't be too unreasonable:Q = q10 000 = 4.517-5 P = 1-Q = 0.99995483 Approaching dead certainty, wouldn't you agree? ... Thank you for supporting my more bald assertion that "For the purpose of maths we can say that this has a probability of >0.99, so we can use 0.99 and be conservative." For each generation. But the question I was addressing was the probability of two successive mutations and whether one was dependent on the other. They aren't. The probability of the second mutation occurring is not reduced because another mutation preceded it. The probability of a mutation is dependent on the whole genome, not any previous mutations.
Of course, my MONKEY, like Dawkins' WEASEL, does not simulate evolution, but rather it compares two different kinds of selection: single-step selection and cumulative selection. The target is the alphabet in alphabetical order. Single-step selection involves trying to put the alphabet together randomly in one attempt and, when that fails, start all over from scratch. I calculated that in order to have one in a million chance of success, you have to run the program on a supercomputer (performing 1,000,000 attempts per second, hence running 1000 or 10000 times faster than the fastest PC) for many several times the 14-billion-year ago of the universe. Yet both MONKEY and WEASEL succeed within seconds (or within a half-hour in the case of the original WEASEL), every time without fail. By using cumulative selection, which is based on evolution. Single-step selection is based on creation out of nothing, creation ex nihilo. Even though single-step selection has absolutely nothing to do with how evolution works, creationists continually try to saddle us with that loser of theirs. Precisely. When a mutation happens in one generation then it becomes part of the genome for the next generation, and the probability of a mutation in the next generation is still 0.99, and whether or not it forms a synergy with the previous one is the same as whether or not it forms a synergy with the rest of the genome. That successive mutations do happen has been observed in experiments ([i]E.coli[i]), but that occurs because the first mutation is built into the genome where the second mutation occurs, not because they are linked into a pattern that must happen. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
YEC's really are delusional. What bothers me is that they think that all people are as delusional as they are. I don't think this is accurate. Deluded maybe, but not necessarily (insane) delusional. Being deluded is similar but worse than ignorant, imho, because they are mis-informed not uniformed. This is like Faux Noise Nutwerk listeners knowing less real facts about current events than people that don't listen to any news.
CRR, show us the maths. Again, the problem is that mathmatic models cannot change reality, they can only model it, and when the results do not match reality then either the assumptions used or the model itself is wrong, not reality. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
On the other hand the chance of a bridge player getting dealt 13 cards of the same suit in order is so small (~1/10^60) it might never have happened, at least with a properly shuffled deck. (I hope I got my maths right) As has been discussed (a) this math is wrong and (b) it is much smaller than the chances of being dealt 13 cards of the same suit in ANY order. Can you tell me the functional difference between getting them all in one order or them arriving in any order? Can I suspect that you will agree that functionally they are the same? In terms of winning in bridge I can replace the deuce with an ace from any other suit and still have a grand slam. I can replace the trey with another ace and the four with the third ace, then I can start replacing other low cards with kings ... and still have a grand slam. SO there are many functionally equivalent combinations of cards that will produce the desired effect.
Douglas Axe has estimated the chance of a chain of amino acids forming a functional protein is ~1 in 10^77. ... I recommend you read the the old improbable probability problem thread:
quote: Curiously I wrote that article in 2004, and as yet see no reason to make any corrections or adjustments. Next, in order to have a better understanding of the biology of where and when proteins were evolved, I suggest you read Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I) quote: and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) quote: To my mind "life" began when evolution -- mutation and selection -- began to operate.
You can read more on this in Axe's "Undeniable". Why should I read something that starts with an erroneous preposition? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
minor quibble
And so on. It follows that if there have been G generations since the chimp-human split, I have accumulated μG mutations, and so will any given chimp. The difference between us will be 2μG. This assumes the same number of generations in humans and chimps. Chimps are fertile sooner and don't live as long as humans, while many humans delay reproduction, so I would expect them to have more generations ... now. They would have started out with the same generation length at the time of the split. On the flip side though, I expect selection pressure was higher for humans due to changing their environments, chimps likely selected more for stasis. Shouldn't affect the ball-park however. by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There is good reason to think these greatly exaggerate the duration of the Egyptian civilization. Many other historical events are dated with reference to Egyptian chronology. [edit] Consequently it is likely that the Egyptian civilization was established not long after the flood, probably after the Tower of babel confusion. Well there is Egyptian history and the radiocarbon dating of various archaeological finds:
Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt*
quote: Note that there are several other sample dates with similar correlation of 14C measurement to dendrochronology correlations, here it is the earliest/oldest set that is of interest as a measure of accuracy and precision. The dendrochronology correlation is shown as two lines in Fig 2 (+1σ and -1σ ) The earliest/oldest dates in Fig 2 are shown at ~2660 BCE, with 7 samples placed together (with two more placed nearby). There are several possible matches for each of these samples, running from 2580 BCE to 2860 BCE -- due to the wiggle of the 14C amounts in that portion of the graph -- I get 5 possible matches for the lowest point with an average age of 2693 BCE, 8 possible matches for the next point with an average of 2660 BCE, 6 possible matches for the third point for an average of 2702 BCE, 12 possible matches for the fourth point for an average of 2733 BCE, 9 possible matches for the fifth point for an average of 2754 BCE, 6 possible matches for the sixth point for an average of 2750 BCE, 8 possible matches for the seventh point for an average of 2771 BCE, 8 possible matches for the eight point for an average of 2787 BCE, and 6 possible matches for the highest point for an average of 2788 BCE. Assuming these points all represent the same age, the overall average age is ~2740 BCE with σ of +/-88 years (2827 BCE to 2651 BCE). Shaw's date for the tomb is 2660 BCE, so this is in close agreement with that dating. Note that +/-88 years in over 4,700 years of tree ring chronology is an error of +/-1.9%. The error is partly due to the two stage process of using 14C data to convert to dendrochronological calendar age, but mostly due to the wiggle of the 14C levels that match these points. Note that this conversion does not depend on the calculation of 14C 'age' -- that is a purely mathematical conversion of the measured amounts of 14C and 12C in the samples, and then comparing those 14C/12C values to ones found in the tree rings to find the best match to the tree rings, but it does introduce an error due to the number of rings that match those levels inside the +/-1σ margins of error. So we have another historical calibration date of 2660 BCE with 99% consilience between history and European oak chronology. This chronology extends back to 12,410 cal BP (before 1950), or 10,460 BCE, and ~40% of its length is consilient with documented historical events\artifacts, and most of it's length, to 8650 BCE, is consilient with the Bristlecone pine chronology with 99.5% accuracy and precision and to the German oak and pine chronology back to 7980 BCE. This results in very high confidence for the accuracy and precision of the dendrochronologies. Enjoy * - Ramsey, C.B., Dee, M.W., Rowland, J.M., Higham, T.F.G., Harris, S.A., Brock, F., Quiles, A., Wild, E.M., Marcus, E.S., Shortland, A.J., Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt, Science 18 June 2010: 328 (5985), 1554-1557. [DOI:10.1126/science.1189395] Just a moment... by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024