|
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 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 2681 days) Posts: 7 From: South Africa Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Extent of Mutational Capability | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2263 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Nevertheless Doc, you've managed to disprove your first position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Nevertheless Doc, you've managed to disprove your first position. No. Why would you say such a bizarre thing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1045 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic 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) I don't think you did. I got approximately 1/10^21. That's based around getting A-K, in order, of any suit. (4/52*1/51*1/50*....*1/40).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Yes, if the cards can be in any order it changes the odds a lot. Bridge probably has a similar problem to whist in that you have to follow suit where possible and shuffling between hands might not be perfect. Isn't the probability exactly the same for any specified order of cards? Singling out an order in which the cards are dealt to each player in order, suggests that there is just one possible ordering to consider. Single ordering does not model abiogenesis because multiple resulting orders may be possible with only the sharpshooter's fallacy forcing you to so focus. And that's just the case for having random arrival without any selection or replication process that preserves useful orders which also does not model the proposed process very well. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
CRR writes: So even with those vast probabilistic resources the odds are fantastically small that a protein could have formed by chance. I think you'll get broad agreement that "the odds are fantastically small that a protein could have formed by chance," regardless of whose calculation of the odds is correct. The odds of random formation aren't relevant because proteins don't form by chance They're constructed in cells according to the blueprint provided by DNA. We don't know what the first proteins were like, but we don't think they came about by chance. We don't think life is some fantastically unlikely accident. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Douglas Axe has estimated the chance of a chain of amino acids forming a functional protein is ~1 in 10^77. Denton estimates that no more than 10^40 proteins have ever existed on Earth. So even with those vast probabilistic resources the odds are fantastically small that a protein could have formed by chance. (obviously there are lots of assumptions and boundary conditions in any estimates of this kind). Pro-evolution researchers have done estimates and come up with the chance forming a functional protein as ~1 in 10^50. However that still leaves the chance at ~1/10^10 so it remains fantastically improbable. Note this avoids the sharpshooter fallacy because any functional protein would be success. You can read more on this in Axe's "Undeniable". I have seen this claim made for decades, so, no, I will not buy that book just in order to read the same false claim yet again. Just making bare assertions and bare links instead of presenting the argument is frowned upon here. That is basically what you have done, minus any links (just naming an ID book is less than a bare link). Here is a reply I posted on CompuServe two decades ago. Please let us know whether Axe's claim is different than Charles Wagner's was and describe how they are different:
quote: Bottom line:
PSI mention and contrast single-step selection and cumulative selection. If you are not familiar with those concepts and how they differ, then read the first half of Chapter 3, "Accumulating Small Change", of Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. Or you could go to my page, MONKEY, in which I discuss my own implementation of Dawkins' WEASEL program and link to my MPROBS.DOC file which analyzes and discusses the probabilities involved in cumulative selection. Basically, creationists keep using single-step selection whose probability of success are abysmally small, whereas evolution uses cumulative selection which succeeds with extreme rapidity and certainty. So far, the creationist attempts I've seen to "disprove" both WEASEL and MONKEY rely on lying about how they work (which I discuss on that page). Edited by dwise1, : PS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Douglas Axe has estimated the chance of a chain of amino acids forming a functional protein is ~1 in 10^77. Denton estimates that no more than 10^40 proteins have ever existed on Earth. So even with those vast probabilistic resources the odds are fantastically small that a protein could have formed by chance. Here is an online lecture that I've posted to these threads before that demonstrates that the odds cited by creationists do not reflect reality. It is an hour long, so I can't post much here beyond the abstract: Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of. Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsbKzFdW2bMReligious 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2263 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
At Message 176 you posted a copy of sfs's post claiming that genetic drift could explain the difference between human and chimp genomes. At Message 195 you showed that you were talking about fixed mutations.
My argument was that taking mean time to fixity into account meant that less than half of the mutations could have been fixed in that time. At Message 203 you presented what appeared to be the same argument from a different perspective. Once again I showed that not all of the mutations could possibly have been fixed by drift. You are going to have to do a lot more to show that genetic drift is a plausible explanation for the genetic difference between humans and chimps. Edited by Admin, : Replace message numbers with message links.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
At Message 176 you posted a copy of sfs's post claiming that genetic drift could explain the difference between human and chimp genomes. At Message 195 you showed that you were talking about fixed mutations. My argument was that taking mean time to fixity into account meant that less than half of the mutations could have been fixed in that time. And how very wrong you were. (And if you were right it would hardly matter, this is an order-of-magnitude calculation.)
At Message 203 you presented what appeared to be the same argument from a different perspective. It was not the same argument, nor did it seem to be so, since I explicitly said I was calculating something else. Can you find an error in the calculation?
You are going to have to do a lot more to show that genetic drift is a plausible explanation for the genetic difference between humans and chimps. Perhaps to show you that I would have to perform an actual miracle. Geneticists, on the other hand, consider the thing to be proven.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2263 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Well perhaps you will have to explain it again so that even I can understand it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Or, maybe you need to get some degree in genetics to learn how to understand the basics?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Well perhaps you will have to explain it again so that even I can understand it. Hmph. I'm not sure there is a simpler way to put it. I'll explain it again, and you point out where you stop understanding me. First, bear in mind that what we're doing here is getting a ballpark figure of the genetic distance between one human and one chimpanzee. It is not going to be an exact figure, for reasons I will explain at the end, nor are we calculating the fixations that differentiate the populations as wholes. So, I have μ mutations that my parents didn't have. My parents in turn each have μ mutations that my grandparents didn't have. I inherit half of each of these, and I have two parents, so my parents contribute μ + μ = μ mutations to my inheritance: put that together with my own mutations, and I have 2μ mutations that my grandparents didn't have. My grandparents in turn each have μ mutations that my great-grandparents didn't have. I inherit a quarter of each of these, and I have four grandparents, so my grandparents contribute μ + μ + μ + μ = μ mutations to my inheritance: put that together with my own mutations and the ones I got from my parents, and I have 3μ mutations that my great-grandparents didn't have. 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 is an underestimate. Why? Because it doesn't take into account the diversity which existed before the split, which will have been lost in different ways on the way to me and the chimp. (Usually this will involve fixation in the two populations as a whole. ) But we're not striving for great accuracy. A ballpark figure would do for now. That figure is clearly of the same order of magnitude as the differences that actually exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
This assumes the same number of generations in humans and chimps. Yeah, when I said we're not striving for great accuracy, I meant it. Ballpark is all we're going to get.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024