Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Extent of Mutational Capability
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 6 of 279 (793012)
10-18-2016 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by 1.61803
10-18-2016 11:40 AM


Re: From shrew to you
In 1997 scientist discovered that whales are related to cows and hippos. That is about as counter intuitive as it gets imo.
Scientists were aware that whales are related to cows and hippos long before 1997. What changed (and it changed earlier than 1997) was the realisation that whales are related to hippos more closely than cows are. See here for Dan Graur's 1994 paper arguing that cetaceans are nested within, rather than sister to, artiodactyls.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by 1.61803, posted 10-18-2016 11:40 AM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 127 of 279 (793396)
10-27-2016 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Taq
10-26-2016 10:46 AM


Re: Clades
1. If there was free interbreeding then they would fall into the range of variation for modern humans. They don't.
That doesn't follow. If you take a highly variable species then apply some intensive selection pressure to it, you'll eliminate a lot of that variability. A lot of the now dead members of the species will fall outside the range of variation of the more homogenous population you're left with. Obviously that doesn't mean it's a new species.
And a lot of distinctive Neanderthal traits are completely within the range of variation of modern humans. If we extend 'modern humans' to prehistoric specimens classified as anatomically modern, then much more of them do; since neanderthalish features are more common in Upper Palaeolithic humans from Eurasia than they are today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Taq, posted 10-26-2016 10:46 AM Taq has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(2)
Message 204 of 279 (794256)
11-12-2016 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by CRR
11-12-2016 1:50 AM


Re: The Maths
Estimates of the population of the world at the time agriculture emerged in around 10,000 BCE have ranged between 1 million and 15 million so it is unlikely any of those have been fixed either.
The probability of any allele reaching fixation in the human population in the last 10,000 years is very low. However, this time period represents about 0.2% of the time elapsed since the estimated divergence from chimps; and humans 10,000 years ago were already human and in possession of the full set of alleles that distinguish humans from chimps, so I am unclear why this would matter.
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by CRR, posted 11-12-2016 1:50 AM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by PaulK, posted 11-12-2016 5:12 PM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 219 of 279 (794756)
11-24-2016 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by NoNukes
11-23-2016 11:51 PM


Re: nit picking on Thanksgiving eve...
I think you mean to state that the odds are 1 in 52!
If we're nitpicking, '1 in 52!' is the probability - the odds of it occuring would be 1 : 52!-1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by NoNukes, posted 11-23-2016 11:51 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 228 of 279 (797481)
01-22-2017 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by CRR
01-21-2017 9:46 PM


Re: Look Sharp
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by CRR, posted 01-21-2017 9:46 PM CRR has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 261 of 279 (799132)
02-07-2017 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Taq
02-06-2017 12:45 PM


Re: Probabilities
Would this also apply to the fixation of alleles? Each human is born 50 mutations. In a population of just 1 million, that is 50 million mutations in a single generation. With that many mutations isn't it possible for many of those mutations to reach fixation in a much shorter time frame than the mean fixation rate?
While some would go to fixation quicker than the mean, wouldn't a larger population mean it's harder for any mutation to go to fixation? A mutation is much more likely to be fixed (or lost) in a small population than a large one, isn't it? Am I missing something obvious?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Taq, posted 02-06-2017 12:45 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Taq, posted 02-07-2017 5:38 PM caffeine has not replied
 Message 263 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-07-2017 7:30 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 279 of 279 (802443)
03-16-2017 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by CRR
03-15-2017 1:51 AM


Re: Absurdidies
The major source for our current Egyptian chronologies are the works of an Egyptian priest called Manetho. They are still the most popular used today, mainly because they are viewed as the most complete and, thus, the best we have. This is despite the fact that both secular and Christian Egyptologists know that these ‘standard’ chronologies are in desperate need of revision.
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.
This is one of those times where creationism has apparently failed to notice the previous century or so of historical and scientific research.
I have next to me a chronology of ancient Egyptian history written in 1904. It dates the start of the first dynasty to 4,400 BC. As you can see, you are quite correct that a naive counting back through Manetho's king lists causes one to overestimate the antiquity of Egyptian civilisation. However, you are quite wrong that this is what modern chronologies are based on. Thankfully, people didn't stop doing research in 1904, and with the advent of radiometric dating modern estimates put this about 3,100 BC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by CRR, posted 03-15-2017 1:51 AM CRR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024