|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 2686 days) Posts: 7 From: South Africa Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Extent of Mutational Capability | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
CRR writes: Then you provide a reference to an Electrical Engineer writing something somewhere about mutations. Lots and lots of words and formulaes and nothing else. No maths done. It's known as Haldane's Dilemma. From there:
Also, this paper focuses on single substitutions (non-overlapping in time). Multiple substitutions (overlapping in time) are an advanced topic to be covered in another paper. Until the basics are covered, we need to leave out genetic complexities, like sexual reproduction and diploidy. What? He writes a paper only dealing with point mutations in organisms having kids asexually and diploidy? Then goes on about humans and chimps? Colour me unimpressed. To me ReMine seems to be a bit of a loon. He missed all those other forms of mutations we know of and discovered since 1957. So, CRR, could you show us the maths? Not a reference. The maths supporting your claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13035 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.0
|
PaulK writes: You know, citing Walter ReMine is hardly going to prove your case. And I recognise "saintpaulscience" as ReMine's site and the claim of 1667 mutations as his assertion. ReMine's opinions are not accepted science. I'll make this same point to CRR, that he can argue any position he likes regardless of any current scientific consensus and that he's encouraged to argue Walter ReMine's position here, but that he must bring the arguments into the thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13035 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.0 |
CRR writes: You say you don't trust my source without looking at it; without evidence Participants here are encouraged to make their case in their own words and use links only as references. It's actually in the Forum Guidelines:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Coyote writes: You cite a website titled "saintpaulscience.com" as your source. I don't trust any religious group or evangelical type who claims to be doing science. If they were to say the sun rises in the east I'd have to check it the next morning to see if their claims were correct. The reason is, so many of their claims have been found to be nonsense. See the Index to Creationist Claims for a refutation of a lot of their claims: In this case it is a publishing company located in St Paul Minnesota but still just a vanity press it seems with the sole purpose of hawking the authors own books.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You say you don't trust my source without looking at it; without evidence And yet you have seen fit to engage with the only person who did dismiss your nonsense out of hand, rather than with any of the people who carefully pointed out what's wrong with it. Really you should be grateful to Coyote: it seems that without him you'd have had no comeback at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
From Musgrave's post cited in your quote, Weasels, ReMine, and Haldane's dilemma:
quote: I am that David Wise and MONKEY is my program (http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/monkey.html). Not only do I describe what MONKEY does, but I also analyzed the probabilities involved. I even provide the source code (then written in Pascal, but now also converted to C). What the program does is so easy to understand and information is so freely available, it boggles the mind how creationists like Remine and Royal Truman can get it so wrong. They have to be trying very hard to misunderstand it. They certainly have strong motivation to misunderstand everything: protecting their faulty theology from reality. Verily it was written: "Everybody's got something to hide, except for me and my MONKEY!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
dwise1 writes: Verily it was written: "Everybody's got something to hide, except for me and my MONKEY!"
And an obvious proof of Intelligent Design and Control is that I happen to be listening to the White Album right now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
You say you don't trust my source without looking at it; without evidence Looks like I was right in not trusting your source without looking at it. From the posts that followed mine it appears that site is Walter ReMine's! He's the one pushing the "Baraminology" nonsense! I'm familiar with that stuff--what a joke. He's just trying to make "kinds" seem scientific to bolster his religious beliefs. In fact, he's doing the exact opposite of science.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Yes, Coyote, for some reason YEC's think that nobody knows about nonsense YEC's write? Even me, as a non-genetisist could pick up that ReMine wrote nonsense.
Hey, CRR, show us the maths. YEC's really are delusional. What bothers me is that they think that all people are as delusional as they are. CRR, show us the maths. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2269 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Actually your (or sfs's) maths is wrong by several orders of magnitude.
By your argument the number of mutations in the human lineage should be 100 x average population size x 350,000. Say an average size of 1 million and you get ~3.5x10^13; which is larger than the size of the genome. If all those actually got fixed it would be error catastrophe! But they don't all get fixed; only a very small proportion do. Genetic drift is far more likely to eliminate a neutral mutation than to fix it. A large number of conceptions never even make it to birth if the mutations are lethal within the first 9 months so the a filter has already been applied to the types of mutations that appear in each succeeding generation. This is probably why so many of them appear to be near neutral. A bit of thought should show you that the calculation is flawed. If we have fixed 18 million mutations in 350,000 generations that comes to 50 mutations being fixed per generation. The human genome is not varying at anything like this sort of rate. There are only a couple of mutations that are currently in the process of being fixed, one of which is adult lactose tolerance. It would also mean that there would be a great deal of variation in the human genome around the world, but it is actually notable for the low variation worldwide. It appears you and sfs have been seduced by fortuitously good agreement between a wrong calculation and experimental results.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2269 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
I have a real life so can't always respond immediately. That happened to be one I could tackle in some down time on the train. I have now responded to you so you don't need to feel left out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2269 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Who has refuted ReMine's paper? No one that I know of.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
By your argument the number of mutations in the human lineage should be 100 x average population size x 350,000. [...] But they don't all get fixed; only a very small proportion do. I see what you're missing. You're not familiar with the math, are you? It's actually very pretty. Y'see, the chances of a neutral mutation going on to get fixed is inversely proportional to the size of the population (as you say "only a very small proportion"). Whereas (this is what you seem to be getting at with your "100 x average population size" bit), the number of mutations per generation in the population is proportional to the population size. And so these two things cancel out exactly, leaving us with the lovely result that the rate of fixation of neutral mutations in the population is exactly their rate of occurrence in an individual! Isn't that nice?
A bit of thought should show you that the calculation is flawed. If we have fixed 18 million mutations in 350,000 generations that comes to 50 mutations being fixed per generation. The human genome is not varying at anything like this sort of rate. Yes it is. The figures for the mutation rate are taken from observing how much mutation happens.
There are only a couple of mutations that are currently in the process of being fixed What a strange thing to say. Why in the world did you say it?
It appears you and sfs have been seduced by fortuitously good agreement between a wrong calculation and experimental results. It seems that you are being prematurely condescending. --- ETA: From Wikipedia:
Under conditions of genetic drift alone, every finite set of genes or alleles has a "coalescent point" at which all descendants converge to a single ancestor (i.e. they 'coalesce'). This fact can be used to derive the rate of gene fixation of a neutral allele (that is, one not under any form of selection) for a population of varying size (provided that it is finite and nonzero). Because the effect of natural selection is stipulated to be negligible, the probability at any given time that an allele will ultimately become fixed at its locus is simply its frequency p in the population at that time. For example, if a population includes allele A with frequency equal to 20%, and allele a with frequency equal to 80%, there is an 80% chance that after an infinite number of generations a will be fixed at the locus (assuming genetic drift is the only operating evolutionary force). For a diploid population of size N and neutral mutation rate μ, the initial frequency of a novel mutation is simply 1/(2N), and the number of new mutations per generation is 2Nμ . Since the fixation rate is the rate of novel neutral mutation multiplied by their probability of fixation, the overall fixation rate is 2Nμ 1/2N = μ. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024