Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Page's misuse of Haldane's Dilemma
mark24
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 57 (5516)
02-26-2002 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
02-26-2002 2:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
I have posted a refutation of Scott Page's latest claims on my web site:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/page_refutation_2.htm
I've been pretty busy, but I hope to find time to engage evolutionists here when I do find time. Sorry Mark that I haven't gotten back to you, I realize you have posted a few things that I just didn't have time to address.

No problem Fred.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 02-26-2002 2:03 AM Fred Williams has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 15 of 57 (5605)
02-26-2002 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by John Paul
02-26-2002 7:00 PM


I actually don't have a problem with the graph. It shows a higher proportion of harmful mutations to beneficial, most are nearly neutral, slightly on the harmful side. As such these will be weeded out in the ns process. Go much further to the left, & potential monkey man simply isn't going to make it out of the uterus alive.
This leaves us with the mostly neutral mutations. And a negative mutation CAN be positive in other circumstances (& vice versa, of course).
What the graph DOESN'T show us, is where the beneficial line ends. The more it goes to the right the greater the benefit, & the greater the chance that mutation stands of being fixed in the population. All the while the negative ones are being removed.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John Paul, posted 02-26-2002 7:00 PM John Paul has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 17 of 57 (5673)
02-27-2002 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Quetzal
02-27-2002 7:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:

1. neutral mutation: A neutral mutation would be a change in nucleotide triplet(s) that: a) took place in an intron, and hence had no effect, b) eliminated or modified a redundant codon (again, no effect), or c) produced an alternative form of a gene that made no difference on the efficiency or form of the final product (ex: if the third base in the TCT codon for serine is changed to any one of the other three bases, serine will still be encoded). Since something on the order of 97% of the genome doesn't actually code for anything at all, neutral mutations would tend to be the rule, rather than the exception.

One more for the neutrals. A nucleotide substitution that changes the amino acid coded for. If this amino acid makes no difference to the function of the protein, & it looks like a high percentage of any particular protein doesn't mind which amino acid is at a particular location in the sequence, & will therefore be neutral.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Quetzal, posted 02-27-2002 7:55 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Quetzal, posted 02-27-2002 9:30 AM mark24 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