Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 436 of 530 (531112)
10-16-2009 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 433 by Kaichos Man
10-16-2009 7:20 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
But I don't agree -particularly if we are calculating the probability of a past event- that it is invalid to use a target. The fruitfly got his antenna. The gene does exist. There is a calculable probability to that. It remains unaffected by the idea that the fruitfly may have got something else.
The probability of all past events is 1. They have happened. The a priori possibility of their happening is completely meaningless.
See my previous post on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-16-2009 7:20 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 437 of 530 (531113)
10-16-2009 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by Kaichos Man
10-16-2009 7:35 AM


Re: Creationists Are Frightened By Biology
The fact remains that Kimura showed from observed data that natural selection plays only a minor role in molecular evolution.
And the fact remains that nothing he said supports your inane babble about "genomes being inexorably strafed into nonsense by mutations", nor your apparent pretense in post #123 that Kimura's findings are opposed to the proposition that natural selection removes deleterious mutations from the gene pool.
As to your latest blather, "only a minor role" are weasel words, which are untrue without extensive qualification.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-16-2009 7:35 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-17-2009 9:15 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 438 of 530 (531115)
10-16-2009 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 431 by Kaichos Man
10-16-2009 6:55 AM


Re: Creationists Are Frightened By Biology
Kaichos Man writes:
I have no doubt that you've read it. But you obviously didn't understand it:
"The Neutral theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of Protein and DNA sequences, are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutants."
Motoo Kimura, The Neutral Theory of Evolution
You're misinterpreting what he's saying. Rather than me explaining it, I think if you just read the rest of the paragraph that you'll see he's not saying anything like you think he is. Here's the rest of it:
Motoo Kimura writes:
The theory does not deny the role of natural selection in determining the course of adaptive evolution, but it assumes that only a minute fraction of DNA changes in evolution are adaptive in nature, while the great majority of phenotypically silent molecular substitutions exert no significant influence on survival and reproduction and drift randomly through the species.
All he's saying is that in recognition of the fact that the greater portion of DNA is non-coding, therefore the greater portion of random mutations will occur in non-coding regions and so will have no effect on the phenotype. It's in the next paragraph ("The neutral theory also asserts...") that he gets to the interesting stuff.
AbE: Mr Jack in Message 440 correctly points out that there are other types of changes at the DNA level that do not result in any change in the organism itself.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add AbE sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-16-2009 6:55 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Dr Jack, posted 10-16-2009 9:05 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 439 of 530 (531121)
10-16-2009 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 433 by Kaichos Man
10-16-2009 7:20 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
Kaichos Man writes:
I feel very, very dubious about this answer, Percey. If you can say "the principle of successive selection is best illustrated with a single specific target", why can't I say "the problem of specificity from randomness is best illustrated with a single specific target"?
I wasn't objecting to anything you said about your example. I was objecting to your accusation that Dawkins misrepresented his weasel program as a model of biological evolution.
I understand that you think Dawkins' simple weasel program and your fruit fly example are somehow commenting on the same or similar points, but they do not. Dawkins' program is an illustration of how successive selection upon random change can arrive at a desired result far, far more quickly than mere successive random change alone. The program attempts to address the common misunderstanding that evolution is purely random, hopefully making clear the error in drawing the associated conclusion that it would take literally forever to arrive at even a simple cell, let alone an eye or a kidney.
But your fruit fly antennae example is making a different point. It attempts to make the case that the fruit fly antennae's evolution is very unlikely even when the relevant genes are already very close to the necessary state. Since you're drawing your example from the real world (as opposed to typing monkeys) you can't ignore that evolution has no target. You can't talk about improvement by 0.5% or whatever, because that assumes direction. You can't talk about NS kicking in or being enabled, because NS applies 24x7. If you're going to falsify evolution you have to falsify it based upon principles it actually holds, not upon ones you misunderstand it as holding.
I haven't gone back and reread the responses to your Message 140, but I assume others have already pointed out the problems with your example. But even if it's redundant, just let me point out a couple things.
First, 25 random mutations in a single gene is devastating. The number of mutations in your average reproduction is probably more on the order of 10 across the *entire* genome. You need to reconstruct your example using a reasonable number of mutations in the gene, like one, or perhaps two.
Second, you failed to consider that nature is conducting a genetic experiment with every reproductive event, and in the case of fruit flies that has got to be billions and billions and billions of experiments per year. Since evolution keeps the good mutations and discards the bad ones, populations are able to maintain adaptation to their environment, as long as the environment doesn't change too fast.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Minor clarification made to last para.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-16-2009 7:20 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 440 of 530 (531129)
10-16-2009 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 438 by Percy
10-16-2009 8:20 AM


Re: Creationists Are Frightened By Biology
All he's saying is that in recognition of the fact that the greater portion of DNA is non-coding, therefore the greater portion of random mutations will occur in non-coding regions and so will have no effect on the phenotype. It's in the next paragraph ("The neutral theory also asserts...") that he gets to the interesting stuff.
I don't believe he's only talking about non-coding changes. There are two other classes of silent (or almost silent) change: firstly, most amino acids are coded for by multiple codons - these changes have a minimal effect* on the organism - and, secondly, many amino acid substitutions don't have much effect at all. In many parts of a protein substituting luecine for isoleucine will make no measurably difference to the function, similarly glutamate for aspartate, etc

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Percy, posted 10-16-2009 8:20 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 441 of 530 (531151)
10-16-2009 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 435 by Kaichos Man
10-16-2009 7:56 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure which example you gave that you're talking about now.
Evolution itself doesn't have a "there", but Dawkin's program is a toy and doesn't simulate biological evolution.
It simulates and displays the power of random selection.
If you try to say evolution wants to create a crocoduck, or a teenage mutant ninja turtle, or that you should see pokemons in the real world, you are mistaken and you will get called on it.
If you try to say evolution can't get from a fly to a bat, you'll be told that no - it can't, and it doesn't need to.
Frankly, you appear to misunderstand the weasel program and what it means, still.
Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-16-2009 7:56 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 442 of 530 (531358)
10-17-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by Dr Adequate
10-16-2009 8:15 AM


Re: Creationists Are Frightened By Biology
As to your latest blather, "only a minor role" are weasel words, which are untrue without extensive qualification
"The Neutral theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of Protein and DNA sequences, are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutants." Motoo Kimura
If, according to Kimura, the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused by drift, what kind of role does that leave Darwinian selection?
Minor, perhaps?

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-16-2009 8:15 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by Percy, posted 10-17-2009 1:06 PM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 444 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2009 3:29 PM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 443 of 530 (531379)
10-17-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Kaichos Man
10-17-2009 9:15 AM


Re: Creationists Are Frightened By Biology
Kaichos Man writes:
"The Neutral theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of Protein and DNA sequences, are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutants." Motoo Kimura
If, according to Kimura, the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused by drift, what kind of role does that leave Darwinian selection?
Minor, perhaps?
You're apparently certain that Kimura doesn't accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, and for some reason you've latched onto this sentence as the place where Kimura says this.
But you couldn't be more wrong. All Kimura is saying here is that the vast majority of change at the molecular level has no effect at the phenotypic level. You want to look to Kimura's next paragraph to find something more easily misinterpreted to say what you mistakenly think he believes. That's the paragraph that begins, "The neutral theory also asserts..." Check it out:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-17-2009 9:15 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 444 of 530 (531406)
10-17-2009 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Kaichos Man
10-17-2009 9:15 AM


Re: Creationists Are Frightened By Biology
"The Neutral theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of Protein and DNA sequences, are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutants." Motoo Kimura
Yes, we all agree with what he said. Where you pass into gibbering lunacy is where you pretend that you know what he means. For example, when you pretended that his meaning was that of "genomes being inexorably strafed into nonsense by mutations". I mean, that was just so much bullshit, wasn't it?
If, according to Kimura, the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused by drift, what kind of role does that leave Darwinian selection?
Minor, perhaps?
No.
For as he wrote:
The theory does not deny the role of natural selection in determining the course of adaptive evolution, but it assumes that only a minute fraction of DNA changes in evolution are adaptive in nature, while the great majority of phenotypically silent molecular substitutions exert no significant influence on survival and reproduction and drift randomly through the species.
Got that? He says that natural selection determines the course of adaptive evolution, whereas genetic drift exerts no significant influence.
So does that leave Darwinian selection as a "minor" influence, according to Kimura?
Got that?
If you'd actually bothered to read Kimura, you'd know how very different his ideas are from yours. But you haven't, have you?
If you'd read what he had to say, you would doubtless be frothing and foaming about how he's one of those evil Darwinists. If you understood the full meaning of what he said you'd be apoleptic. It is his work that allows evolutionists like me to say that genetics proves that Darwin was right. It ought to drive you into screaming fits. But you haven't read it, have you?
You don't know how his ideas stand as the basis of every time every evolutionist says "molecular phylogeny proves that we're right".
You have no idea, do you?
You poor creationists ought to be denouncing all his works like billy-oh --- if only you'd read them. But instead of reading what he said, all you know about him is what you tell one another you think that he meant, so you proclaim him as your savior.
I would find this sad except that I have a dark sense of humor, so instead I find it very, very funny.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-17-2009 9:15 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
traste
Member (Idle past 5143 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 445 of 530 (536962)
11-26-2009 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Huntard
09-26-2009 2:12 AM


Re: Creation website much?
Huntard wrote:
Creation website much?
Peg, tell me honestly please (not that you wouldn't, but meh), you got this from creationist websites, yes? Even after you were told in the Why are there no human apes alive today? thread that some of those quotes are false (by Percy, in Message 102), you still bring them out here. Why do that, Peg?
First of all you cannot prove that you are correct by your arrogant mode, as I notice you keep on assuming that you are very knowledgeable, but the fact is you are an ignorant and it shows. What if peq will say yes, what if he will say that he got it from people who believe in creation. Does it prove that he is wrong? If your answer is yes it only shows that you are an arrogant closed minded individual.
Edited by traste, : add punctation
Edited by traste, : add punctuation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 09-26-2009 2:12 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2009 3:19 AM traste has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 446 of 530 (536963)
11-26-2009 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 445 by traste
11-26-2009 2:57 AM


Re: Creation website much?
traste writes:
First of all you cannot prove that you are correct by your arrogant mode, as I notice you keep on assuming that you are very knowledgeable, but the fact is you are an ignorant and it shows. What if peq will say yes, what if he will say that he got it from people who believe in creation. Does it prove that he is wrong? If your answer is yes it only shows that you are an arrogant closed minded individual.
Heh. No, it wouldn't prove she was wrong. It would be a very very very strong indication they are quotemines though. Since I haven't really seen a creationist quote anything from an evolutionary scientist honestly, ever.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by traste, posted 11-26-2009 2:57 AM traste has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by Peg, posted 11-26-2009 7:02 AM Huntard has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 447 of 530 (536978)
11-26-2009 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 446 by Huntard
11-26-2009 3:19 AM


Re: Creation website much?
are they called quote mines because they are explosive to the TOE?
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, page154.
I wonder what darwin would think today

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2009 3:19 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2009 7:08 AM Peg has replied
 Message 451 by Parasomnium, posted 11-26-2009 7:52 AM Peg has replied
 Message 470 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 5:18 AM Peg has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 448 of 530 (536979)
11-26-2009 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by Peg
11-26-2009 7:02 AM


Re: Creation website much?
Peg writes:
are they called quote mines because they are explosive to the TOE?
No, they are called quotemines because they are used to distort the words of someone, who is not in any way supporting the view the person who is quoteminng him is trying to put forward.
I wonder what darwin would think today
That he was absolutely right, and that no such example has ever been found.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Peg, posted 11-26-2009 7:02 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by Peg, posted 11-26-2009 7:31 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 450 by Percy, posted 11-26-2009 7:37 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 449 of 530 (536980)
11-26-2009 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 448 by Huntard
11-26-2009 7:08 AM


Re: Creation website much?
That he was absolutely right, and that no such example has ever been found.
can the living cell survive without all its parts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2009 7:08 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by NosyNed, posted 11-26-2009 10:45 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 457 by Huntard, posted 11-27-2009 3:21 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 460 by Wounded King, posted 11-27-2009 10:41 AM Peg has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 450 of 530 (536984)
11-26-2009 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 448 by Huntard
11-26-2009 7:08 AM


Re: Creation website much?
Just for clarification, the Darwin quote belongs in a different category from purposeful distortion by taking out of context. Darwin believed it, he would still believe it today, and all other biologists believe it, too, as do we.
The creationist fallacy in this case is that they misinterpret the quote as indicating that Darwin doubted his own theory, rather than just being an example of the standard scientific practice of seeking possible falsifications of one's theory.
--Percy
AbE: I urge resisting temptation before embarking upon the same explanation already offered many times to no avail. There's apparently no light bulb to go on.
Edited by Percy, : AbE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2009 7:08 AM Huntard 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