Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   natural selection is wrong
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 226 of 276 (121996)
07-05-2004 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Steen
07-04-2004 6:52 PM


Yes B is more likely to reproduce, but my point was that since there are so few of them at the start, they have a high chance of getting wiped out, becoming extinct. B has an uh.. about 79 percent chance of getting *wiped out* in the first generation.
You are merely demonstrating once again how deceptive it is to look comparitively to variants, which was my point all along. B has a 79 percent chance of *decreasing* it's populationshare to 0. Your wording like "The "B" is 10% more likely to reproduce, thus increases its precence roughly by 10% in each generation" is entirely deceptive of the fact that it will most likely be wiped out. And 10 percent is generally said to be an enormous difference in natural selection theory. Even enormous advantages are likely wiped out, as in general the share between organisms that reproduce and organisms that don't produce in a population is quite small.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Steen, posted 07-04-2004 6:52 PM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Steen, posted 07-05-2004 3:09 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 276 (122009)
07-05-2004 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Syamsu
07-05-2004 2:10 AM


Utter nonsense. Given that B is more competitive, it is harder to wipe out any B than any A. B is MORE likely to procreate than is A. You DO know that the same mutations are likely to occur time after time again, don't you? Even if B is once wiped out, because it is competitive, it is a given that it WILL dominate the population. Here is a site with examples you should take a look at:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2004 2:10 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2004 5:47 AM Steen has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 228 of 276 (122042)
07-05-2004 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Steen
07-05-2004 3:09 AM


I was talking about extinction. It is obviously easier to make B go extinct, if there is only 1 B in the population, then to make A go extinct, when there are 999 A's.
If the mutation get's wiped out 4 times, and sweeps to fixation one time, it is still true that beneficial mutations get wiped out most times, like I said. But true enough if you have the beneficial mutation occurring repeatedly, then eventually one would sweep to fixation. The likelyhood of reoccurrence of the mutation just depends on the nature of the mutation. This reoccurrence is only a given when there is an infinity of chances for mutation, which infinity doesn't exist.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Steen, posted 07-05-2004 3:09 AM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Steen, posted 07-05-2004 3:21 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 276 (122154)
07-05-2004 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Syamsu
07-05-2004 5:47 AM


You didn't take a look at that example I linked to, did you? That showed the same mutations happen in repeated experiements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2004 5:47 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2004 3:51 PM Steen has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 230 of 276 (122161)
07-05-2004 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Steen
07-05-2004 3:21 PM


It showed it yes, what is your point? Would you like to deny that the repeatability of mutations differs much, or to argue that most types of mutations are repeated? Good luck with that.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Steen, posted 07-05-2004 3:21 PM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Steen, posted 07-06-2004 2:42 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 276 (122334)
07-06-2004 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Syamsu
07-05-2004 3:51 PM


Eh? You claim to have read it but still post nonsense? Please go back and actually READ it to the point where you understand what happened in their experiment. Because you sure still seem to be off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2004 3:51 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Syamsu, posted 07-06-2004 1:58 PM Steen has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 232 of 276 (122399)
07-06-2004 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Steen
07-06-2004 2:42 AM


You seem to have great difficulty in talking about this in general terms. You gave some references to some papers about repetitive mutations, now go and make general statements about the nature of mutations, or whatever your point is.
It is not nonsense to say that advantageous mutations get wiped out most times, when, well they do, where you in stead make highly deceptive statements that it is a given that the advantaged will dominate, and whatnot, which is untrue most times.
So do advantageous mutations get wiped out most times?
Do mutations repeat themselves normally within an appreciable timeframe?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Steen, posted 07-06-2004 2:42 AM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Wounded King, posted 07-06-2004 5:16 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 234 by Steen, posted 07-06-2004 7:44 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 233 of 276 (122450)
07-06-2004 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Syamsu
07-06-2004 1:58 PM


Dear Syamsu,
For someone who doesn't intend to continue with this thread you still seem to be posting a lot. Any objections if I contributed to the debate?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Syamsu, posted 07-06-2004 1:58 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Syamsu, posted 07-07-2004 4:01 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 276 (122490)
07-06-2004 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Syamsu
07-06-2004 1:58 PM


quote:
You seem to have great difficulty in talking about this in general terms. You gave some references to some papers about repetitive mutations, now go and make general statements about the nature of mutations, or whatever your point is
Frankly, this leads me to feel that your comprehension of mutations is quite limited; certainly more limited than what is needed to have a discussion about it.
quote:
It is not nonsense to say that advantageous mutations get wiped out most times, when, well they do,
Because YOU say so, apparently. You have said enough nonsense that I really don't take your word for anything anymore.
quote:
where you in stead make highly deceptive statements that it is a given that the advantaged will dominate, and whatnot, which is untrue most times.
And your evidence is?
quote:
So do advantageous mutations get wiped out most times?
No, they are just not that rare.
quote:
Do mutations repeat themselves normally within an appreciable timeframe?
Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Syamsu, posted 07-06-2004 1:58 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Syamsu, posted 07-07-2004 3:58 AM Steen has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 235 of 276 (122577)
07-07-2004 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Steen
07-06-2004 7:44 PM


They get wiped out most times, because advantageous mutations usually start out with small numbers.
You obviously have to reference some papers that make general statements about mutations to support your dubious argument, not reference papers about particular cases of mutations, which may not be representative of mutations in general.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Steen, posted 07-06-2004 7:44 PM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Wounded King, posted 07-07-2004 6:18 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 239 by Steen, posted 07-07-2004 9:43 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 236 of 276 (122578)
07-07-2004 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Wounded King
07-06-2004 5:16 PM


You're welcome to contribute. Of course the rule is that you should have something new argument, or at least a new way of expressing the arguments.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Wounded King, posted 07-06-2004 5:16 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Mammuthus, posted 07-07-2004 6:00 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 237 of 276 (122581)
07-07-2004 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Syamsu
07-07-2004 4:01 AM


quote:
You're welcome to contribute. Of course the rule is that you should have something new argument, or at least a new way of expressing the arguments.
Funny that you exclude yourself from this "rule"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Syamsu, posted 07-07-2004 4:01 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 238 of 276 (122582)
07-07-2004 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Syamsu
07-07-2004 3:58 AM


Dear Syamsu,
This is of course true for all mutations, not just beneficial ones and in the case of deleterious mutations many are embryonic lethals and therefore never even truly become members of the population. The loss of under-represented alleles due to genetic drift is exactly the sort of statistical noise that the paper was focusing on. The fact is that the noises affects all mutations equally regardless of fitness, so therefore trends due to selection for fitness may be attenuated based on the exact constitution of the population, but not neccessarily removed entirely.
The problem with trying to define absoloute levels for frequency of beneficial mutations is that the benfit of any mutation is hugely dependent on its specific context. The only meaningful way it can be studied is in the sort of limited repeatable studies which have been performed in short generation organisms like flies and bacteria or through genealogical genetic studies of large samples of a population compared to some outgroup population. As has been noted fitness/ beneficial status is normally only detectable a post-hoc measurement, not something we can predict solely based on our own assumptions.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Syamsu, posted 07-07-2004 3:58 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 276 (122659)
07-07-2004 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Syamsu
07-07-2004 3:58 AM


quote:
They get wiped out most times, because advantageous mutations usually start out with small numbers.
True for ALL mutations, which by your logic should mean that NO mutations ever come to light. That kind of nonsense have been disproved long ago, so once again, you are encouraged to actually learn something about the field you are trying to study.
quote:
You obviously have to reference some papers that make general statements about mutations to support your dubious argument, not reference papers about particular cases of mutations, which may not be representative of mutations in general.
Are you deliberately LYING about me, or just trying for the Ad Hominem because you are losing out on real arguments for your already-disproven claims? I have made several references to specifics during my postings here, as well as having dealt with very basic principles of genetics. That you have decided to show that you never actually looked at any of the references NOR the basic texts in genetics, that merely demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty.
This message has been edited by Steen, 07-07-2004 08:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Syamsu, posted 07-07-2004 3:58 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Syamsu, posted 07-07-2004 10:54 AM Steen has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 240 of 276 (122680)
07-07-2004 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Steen
07-07-2004 9:43 AM


Most my arguments about natural selection are about the structure of the theory. My arguments mostly have nothing whatsoever to do with whether evolution happened or not. You seem to misconstrue my argument.
Yes thanks for acknowledging, most mutations get wiped out, most advantageous mutations get wiped out. You really seem to have denied this previously. Why didn't you say "it is a given that" blabla..., where now you acknowledge that advantageous mutations get wiped out most times. You were simply wrong, and I was right.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Steen, posted 07-07-2004 9:43 AM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Wounded King, posted 07-07-2004 2:24 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 243 by Steen, posted 07-08-2004 12:23 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024