Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fred Williams' Mutation Rate Article Obsolete
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 31 of 45 (63027)
10-27-2003 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Fred Williams
10-24-2003 1:04 PM


On the Air with Fred
Here's a transcription of a small part of a recent appearance by Fred Williams at radio station WGOD in Hallelujah, CO.
Host: So you're saying you've proven that evolution is impossible.
Fred: That's right. I've written a detailed evolution simulation program that includes all the important parameters.
Host: What do you mean?
Fred: Well, evolutionists claim that evolution happens through random chance mutations, and that organisms are selected based upon the favorability of their traits. My program includes random mutation of traits so as to modify their degree of favorability or unfavorability, and then select them for reproduction on that basis.
Host: And what did you discover?
Fred: The program wouldn't even compile!
Host: You don't say!
Fred: That's right. The concept of evolution is so false and baseless that programs simulating it can't even compile.
Host: So this is a pretty severe blow for advocates of evolution.
Fred: Absolutely! Evolution is a fairytale.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Fred Williams, posted 10-24-2003 1:04 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Rei, posted 10-27-2003 12:49 PM Percy has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 32 of 45 (63029)
10-27-2003 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
10-27-2003 12:25 PM


Re: On the Air with Fred
That's hilarious
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 10-27-2003 12:25 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Mammuthus, posted 10-28-2003 2:44 AM Rei has not replied

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


Message 33 of 45 (63094)
10-28-2003 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Rei
10-27-2003 12:49 PM


Re: On the Air with Fred
I would find it more amusing if it did not so perfectly capture the essence of what poor old Fred considers logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Rei, posted 10-27-2003 12:49 PM Rei has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 34 of 45 (63509)
10-30-2003 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
10-26-2003 10:43 AM


Re: Would you hire Percy to run your linter?
Hey Percy, uh, methinks you jumped the gun. In a prior post in this thread I wrote:
Against my better judgment, I am going to post a partial piece of a program endeavor I began that will be a much more rigorous and accurate simulation of population genetics. I have deleted some of the routines, and some of it I haven’t written yet. (msg 15)
The purpose of posting the program was to give an idea of a more rigorous approach to population genetics. It proposes actual recombination, impact of genetic deaths on reproduction costs, etc. It will be some time before I find available time to finish the program. If someone here has the time to complete it, go for it! (note however that I have joint ownership rights since I laid out the design and completed many of the initial tasks; I would also want to review the work).
Anyway, I'm glad you got to run with this nugget for a while at my expense. If it makes you happy to keep linting a program I said was not yet complete, feel free!
(PS. My responses will continue to be delayed by as much as a week due to time constraints at work)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 10-26-2003 10:43 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 10-30-2003 8:23 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 35 of 45 (63517)
10-30-2003 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Fred Williams
10-30-2003 6:55 PM


Re: Would you hire Percy to run your linter?
Fred Williams writes:
Anyway, I'm glad you got to run with this nugget for a while at my expense. If it makes you happy to keep linting a program I said was not yet complete, feel free!
Gee, thanks! In these down economic times, offers like this are really appreciated.
The purpose of posting the program was to give an idea of a more rigorous approach to population genetics.
That's nice, Fred, but the programs by me and Rei were just fine for the intended purpose. Because we completed and ran our programs, we have actual results that demonstrate the claims we've been making. So far all you've got is incomplete software and a lot of hot air about the wonderful rigour of your approach.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 10-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Fred Williams, posted 10-30-2003 6:55 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 36 of 45 (63731)
10-31-2003 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Fred Williams
10-24-2003 12:56 PM


Re: Sfs still trying to sell bogus program
quote:
I thought I already did, but as is typically the case with evolutionists I guess you didn’t like the answer.
No, Fred, I didn't like the argument because it didn't address the issue at hand.
quote:
Only half the offspring will receive the beneficial allele. Out of this immediate 50% barrier, only a percentage of them will reproduce to the next generation. Such a barrier doesn’t exist in clonal lineages.
You have confused two different things. Females in sexually reproducing species have to produce twice as many offspring to replace themselves as they would if they were reproducing asexually. The represents a large cost in resources, and is the "cost of sex" that needs explaining. The same cost does not apply to chromosomes, however. Each offspring has only a 50% chance of carrying a particular allele, but there are twice as many offspring per female in sexually reproducing species. As a result, in a constant-sized asexual population, the mean number of descendents that each chromosome leaves is 1.0; in a constant-sized sexually reproducing population, the mean number of descendents that each chromosome leaves is also 1.0. In an asexual population, the number of descendent chromosomes is Poisson distributed; in a sexually reproducing population, the number of descendents is also Poisson distributed. In both cases, positive selection changes the mean number of descendents from 1.0 to 1+s, where s is the selection coefficient.
In other words, your argument is wrong. Sexual reproduction does not impose a 50% barrier to the spread of beneficial alleles. Care to try again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Fred Williams, posted 10-24-2003 12:56 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 37 of 45 (63732)
10-31-2003 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Fred Williams
10-24-2003 12:56 PM


Re: Sfs still trying to sell bogus program
quote:
Baloney. Why don’t you get the paper instead of just recalling stuff you probably read second-hand on the internet.
Please be clear here: are you saying that Haldane did not use a model based on beneficial mutations compensating for a degrading environment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Fred Williams, posted 10-24-2003 12:56 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 38 of 45 (63735)
10-31-2003 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Fred Williams
10-24-2003 12:56 PM


quote:
I don’t have time to correct your newly-modified program again. You used severe truncation selection and now you are trying to deny it with excuses.
Snort. Left your argument in your other suit, I guess, huh? I posted an explanation of my algorithm, and a pointer to the code. The algorithm uses pure multiplicative selection, with no truncation anywhere (as long as the truncation flag is turned off, of course).
(There is actually a small bug in the code I posted, by the way. Since the bug acts to increase the number of deleterious mutations at equilibrium, it's not likely to make you happy. Points to anyone who can find it.)
quote:
To expose the complete folly of your program, why don’t you post a chart with 100 mutations/organism/generation for everyone to see. This would require 2e^-100 offspring to maintain equilibrium, which is a number that is larger than half of the estimated atoms in the universe! Yet your program will show a nice little smoothing out at the top, just in time to save humanity! Oh my!
Earth to Fred: your premise is wrong. You do not have to have 2e-N offspring to maintain equilibrium. That's why I'm going through this exercise, remember? To demonstrate that your calculation is incorrect. I did the simulation, posted the algorithm and the results, and successfully demonstrated that you're wrong. At this point arguing that the simulation must be wrong because it disagrees with your conclusion is pretty sad.
Since you asked so politely, I'll post the plot for 100 deleterious mutations:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Fred Williams, posted 10-24-2003 12:56 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 39 of 45 (64202)
11-03-2003 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Fred Williams
10-24-2003 12:56 PM


Re: Engineering special: take whatever it has at that point.
I wrote about Haldane's model:
quote:
For mutations that compensate for a steadily degrading environment, as I recall.
Fred's response:
quote:
Baloney. Why don’t you get the paper instead of just recalling stuff you probably read second-hand on the internet.
So I got Haldane's paper. It turns out his model is for mutations that compensate for a degraded environment, where the degradation can be either sudden or gradual. I.e. my recollection was pretty much accurate, and Fred's response was irrelevant. So he still has to demonstrate that Haldane's model bears any resemblence to the actual (or supposed) history of human evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Fred Williams, posted 10-24-2003 12:56 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 45 (65655)
11-10-2003 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fedmahn Kassad
09-29-2003 9:35 PM


And another thing...
I've asked Fred this question many times over on the old CreationWeb, without any answers:
Why does this...
quote:
This article is the source of Fred’s claims of 40 offspring or 60 offspring, or even more required per breeding couple in order maintain equilibrium (i.e., to avoid genetic deterioration). So many offspring for a hominid are clearly impossible
... use the words "clearly impossible"???
In the context of analysing the effect of deleterious mutations, the word "offspring" doesn't have to mean a full-term, live birth after nine months. If a major, fatal mutation happens in the genome of a newly fertilized egg, that egg is most likely to die immediately, stop dividing, or otherwise fail to develop. A miscarriage or non-implantation results. The mother's ovaries spit out another egg next month, and we try again.
How many times could this happen in the lifetime of a reproducing female?
If an average female has 10 years of fecundity, with 13 menstrual cycles per year, that's 130 potential embryos per female. If half of the 10 years is taken up by carrying babies to full term, that's 65 embryos and a maximum of about 6 babies per female. That's plenty more than Fred says we need.
Remember, we just need these "offspring" to express their fatal mutations and get out of the way. No need to carry an embryo for nine months if a mutation has wrecked something vital like its cellular respiration pathways.
Why is this a problem at all, even assuming a very high value for U?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 09-29-2003 9:35 PM Fedmahn Kassad has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 41 of 45 (109272)
05-19-2004 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Fred Williams
10-24-2003 12:56 PM


Fred still peddling his errors - and lying about it!
Fred:
quote:
To make matters worse, most traits are polygenic, or quantitative traits. So beneficial mutations can get buried further into the probability pile. For example, given a 5-gene trait where one of the genes is mutated that caused the increase in fitness, only 1 out of every 2^5 = 32 offspring would receive the same combination that produced the fitness increase.
Some things never change...
I was recently emailed about a new exchange on Fred's guestbook [ 404 Not Found ] in which an old post of mine was brought up. Fred makes some, shall we say, interesting claims in his response:
quote:
Regarding "even chance", I found the guestbook entry you were referring to and now understand the confusion and will give you the benefit of doubt. I thought you were prolonging Dr Page's error and misrepresentation where he claims I said 32 offspring were needed to simply have a "chance". He wrote: "That is, each conception would therefore have a 1 in 32 chance of getting the combination you used in your worst case scenario. As such, that means that, in fact, it could very well be the first born." This is nonsensical, I never said that. You also are unaware that this was from an exchange at EVCForum, where I mentioned to Page that not only did he misquote me, he missed the fact that my parenthetical did indeed have an error that I immediately corrected. The proper number of offspring is 22 to have an even chance, not 16 as you claimed in your email to me. BTW, those mathematician friends you mentioned in the email, I suggest finding a new set.
I argued against Fred's '1 in 32' gibberish on different grounds, but 'dude' brings up something else - Fred was actually wrong on the basic math. Yup - the guy who boasts of his superior math skills got a basic probability estimate wrong. THEN tries to lie about it!
[The thread in question:
http://EvC Forum: Are mutations enough to explain natural selection?]
Not only did he NOT correct it "immediately", he NEVER corrected it!
Not to mention that he seems to be considering only a single organism producing a single offspring.
Interesting how one that is so 'right' about everything has to resort to this sort of distortion to 'prove' his points...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Fred Williams, posted 10-24-2003 12:56 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 42 of 45 (109287)
05-19-2004 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Fred Williams
10-24-2003 1:04 PM


Re: Welcome to Rei's Fantasyland
Fred writes:
see my program for a more realistic approach: 404 Not Found ).
What program?

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Fred Williams, posted 10-24-2003 1:04 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 05-19-2004 3:23 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 43 of 45 (109294)
05-19-2004 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by coffee_addict
05-19-2004 2:39 PM


Fred's Evolution Program
Fred may have deleted it from his website, but naturally we here at EvC Forum did not want to rely on Fred to maintain this link, so there is a copy here at EvC Forum. Before examining it, read Message 30. His program consisted of a main module and a header file. Here are links to the EvC Forum archive copies:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by coffee_addict, posted 05-19-2004 2:39 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by coffee_addict, posted 05-20-2004 2:56 AM Percy has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 44 of 45 (109384)
05-20-2004 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
05-19-2004 3:23 PM


Re: Fred's Evolution Program
Couldn't compile it.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 05-19-2004 3:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 05-20-2004 8:06 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 45 of 45 (109410)
05-20-2004 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by coffee_addict
05-20-2004 2:56 AM


Re: Fred's Evolution Program
Lam writes:
Couldn't compile it.
As I said, before examining it, read Message 30.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by coffee_addict, posted 05-20-2004 2:56 AM coffee_addict 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