Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Mutation
Milagros
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 171 (100323)
04-16-2004 1:57 AM


Crash
"What if he played the lottery twice a day? What if he played it a hundred times every second, for 3 billion years? What might happen then?"
I never intended the lottery example to be a perfect example for "beneficial" mutations. I used it as an example to highlight the important differences between "possibility" and "probability". But since you're using it, let's illustrate why it's not a perfect example. If I win a million dollar lottery, of course I could spend every dollar won to increase my chances to win again. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way for "beneficial" mutations. You still only would have "ONE" more chance, NOT 100 or 1 million more chances. Comprende?
Crash
"I submit that you just don't have the information, nor the statistical training, to make these kind of judgements about what could happen or what couldn't. Your off-the-cuff feelings about probablility just don't constitute any sort of proof, no matter how much you apply the term "reasonable" to them."
Well you are certainly free to express your opinion. However I submit that you just don't have the information, nor the emotional training, to make these kind of judgments about what I do or don't feel. Your off-the-cuff feelings about "possibility" just don't constitute any sort of proof, no matter how much you apply the term "possibility" to them.
Crash
"I'd say it's something like 1 every 50 individuals, based on that 2 percent fixation rate. One in every 50 individuals has a beneficial mutation that will fix in the population. Now, how many individuals have lived in the last 3 billion years?"
I dunno, how many? Why don't you try figuring it out?
Crash
"Now figure it out. I'm not inclined to accept statistical reasoning that starts with the baseless assumptions of somebody who so desperately doesn't want evolution to be true."
If there are any baseless assumptions going on it's your baseless assumption that I so desperately don't want evolution to be true. I'm not inclined to accept comments of those that ignore the facts, of which talkorigins addresses, with the baseless assumptions of somebody who so desperately wants evolution to be true.
I've provided links, and information about the factual evidence of which these links address. And (again) based on those facts I cannot reasonably conclude that the result can account for all the varied species we see today. If you have another conclusion based on those facts I'd be interested to hear what they are. Until such a time it would appear that it is you who are desperately trying not to address the issue. Or avoid it. Or ignore it. Or don't care. Why would that be? Could it "possibly" be because someone wants to "desperately" accept that evolution IS true? But I wont make that assumption. I'll assume that you, as do I, want to understand how this is "probable".
Since we're talking about "probabilities" here is some "more" information about mutations for your musings.
(Mutation)
The process of mutation is probabilistic. We describe the process in terms of the probability of a mutation occurring in an individual during its lifetime. Typical rates of mutation are between 1 in 10,000 (10-4) and 1 in 1,000,000 (10-6) for many organisms. Either this means that a long time must pass before a mutation occurs in a population, or the population must be very large. The population must number in excess of 106 or one million members in order to see an average of one mutation per generation for a gene with a mutation rate of 10-6. Most mutations are detrimental, and perhaps only 1 in 1,000 is beneficial. Thus, in this population of a million we might have to wait for one thousand years for a specific genetic locus to throw us a beneficial mutation (of course there are thousands of possible loci in an organism so the waiting time for any beneficial mutation is less).
http://www.biology.ucsc.edu/...lasses/evolution/GENETICS.HTM
Did he just say that the process of mutation is "probabilistic"?
Here's another:
Mutation
The frequency of gene B and its allele b will not remain in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium if the rate of mutation of B -> b (or vice versa) changes.
By itself, mutation probably plays only a minor role in evolution; the rates are simply too low.
But evolution absolutely depends on mutations because this is the only way that new alleles are created. After being shuffled in various combinations with the rest of the gene pool, these provide the raw material on which natural selection can act.
http://users.rcn.com/...t/BiologyPages/H/Hardy_Weinberg.html
Of particular interest, at least to "me" is this statement: "By itself, mutation "probably" plays only a minor role in evolution; (Why do they think so? Answer is...drum role ) the rates are simply "too low."
Again, I ask YOU. Based on all that information provided above and on talkorigins, what makes you think that these rare occurrences can account for all the varied species we see today on earth? Sorry, but "I" can't accept that they could, "BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, THE FACTS, PROVIDED". You get that?

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2004 2:13 AM Milagros has not replied
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2004 2:43 AM Milagros has replied
 Message 109 by Ooook!, posted 04-17-2004 9:08 AM Milagros has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 107 of 171 (100326)
04-16-2004 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Milagros
04-16-2004 1:57 AM


You still only would have "ONE" more chance, NOT 100 or 1 million more chances. Comprende?
Yes, but I don't think you do.
Every mutation is a chance, right? And every organism has about 50-500 chances, right? And there's been how many individuals born - of any and all species, including bacteria - in 500 million years?
And you"re seriously suggesting to me that that's not enough time? That those odds are too low? Just how many chances per second do you think there are for beneficial mutations, even if you assume a 2 percent fixation rate for one out of a thousand mutations? I'm not even sure we have a number that large.
Every single individual is a chance for several beneficial mutations. I don't think you even come close to realizing how many times per second that lottery is being played.
Why don't you try figuring it out?
Because I don't think we have the numbers to go that large. I'm talking about individuals of every single species, including bacteria and virii.
If just thinking about how many individuals that would be over 500 million years doesn't knock you out of your seat, then you're not trying hard enough.
If you have another conclusion based on those facts I'd be interested to hear what they are.
Sure. There's a vast, uncountable legacy of individuals on this planet. Every one of them represents the chance for some 50-500 mutations to be beneficial and to fix in the poulation. My off-the-cuff, made up numbers suggest to me that every organism has something like a one in a thousand chance of donating a beneficial mutation that fixes into it's population.
What's one-thousandth of every individual that has ever lived? I can't tell you, but it's a lot. That's a lot of beneficial mutations. That's a lot of beneficial mutations every single second.
You get that?
How many individuals have ever lived? Do you get that yet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Milagros, posted 04-16-2004 1:57 AM Milagros has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 108 of 171 (100333)
04-16-2004 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Milagros
04-16-2004 1:57 AM


Ok, so I got in the shower, where my best thinking happens, and I think I can come up with the example math you're looking for, kind of.
Let's say I'm Joe Q. Organism. In my genome there's about 20,000 active gene sites, but since I have 2 copies of each chromosome, I actually have 40,000 mutatable genes.
Adding up my conspecifics and me comes to one million organisms in my generation. That's 40,000,000,000 mutatable gene copies total in the gene pool.
Now according to your citation, every one of those genes has about a one in 10,000 to one in 100,000 chance of mutating. Let's go halvsies so we'll estimate that each gene has a one in 45,000 (that's half of the difference between 10,000 and 100,000) chance of mutating.
So far we have, on average, 888,888 mutations in the entire gene pool. Your source says that one in 1000 of those is benefical, so we have almost 900 beneficial mutations. Two percent of those will fix, so 18 beneficial mutations from that population will become permanent.
18 mutations out of one generation of one million conspecifics. Sure, that's not a lot. But in three years (for example), when this generation has hit sexual maturity, that million will have dwindled to maybe a tenth of that. Then they'll have another million children, or ten per organism. 180 of those individuals have the beneficial mutations from the last batch, and there's another 18 mutations this time.
Over 500 million years, it adds up. For our hypothetical population of organisms that's 3 billion benefical mutations. And you're telling me you don't think 3 billion benefical, permanent mutations are going to constitute significant evolutionary change to a population of organisms?
I'm sure my math is simplistic in the extreme, but I hardly think I'm being that generous. You may disagree but I've used the numbers you dug up. And remember that we haven't even taken into account that sometimes just shuffling existing genes is enough to effect considerable adaptation and change to a population.
Like I said, when you've done some of the math, I'll be a little more willing to lend credence to your off-the-cuff dismissals of the probabilities. But your argument is simply "it seems too unlikely, so it must not be true." But you refuse, for some reason, to spell out the specific mathematical reasoning that leads you to that conclusion.
Well, I've tried to give you the steps of my reasoning. I'd like to see your math, now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Milagros, posted 04-16-2004 1:57 AM Milagros has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Milagros, posted 04-21-2004 12:48 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 109 of 171 (100566)
04-17-2004 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Milagros
04-16-2004 1:57 AM


Hi Milagros,
Mind if I make a few comments?
First, I think your logic is back-to-front when you are confronting Crash to provide you with precise facts. All he has to show you is that it is possible that life arose by a process of mutation and natural selection, as is suggested by all of the available evidence. You are the one saying that it is very improbable, and so you don't believe it.
Once you start talking about probabities then it is you that has to provide the correct numbers. You've bandied this '1 in 1000 mutations' statistic all over the place but you need much more than this to calculate the probability of evolution.
What size are the populations that are producing the mutations?
What advantage do the mutations confer? 1%? 5%? 25%? 50%
What was the mutation rate of the first unicellular organisms? How often did they replicate?
Before you know these answers (and quite a few others) you cannot come close to calculating the probability - so your claim that it is just too improbable to happen is the baseless assumption in this argument.
My second point is that have not read the second website that you cite properly, and your big knock-out punch is nothing of the sort.
By itself, mutation "probably" plays only a minor role in evolution
Why is that? Because natural selection must play a large role! Mutation provides the raw material on which natural selection works.
My third point is this -
How many 'potentially' beneficial mutations do you think exist in the human population at the moment and what would happen if heavy natural selection caused larger muscles, more hair, short legs or long fingers to become very positive?
Hope this hasn't been too rambling (my typing speed is horrendously slow and I should go get something to eat).
edit:to remove rogue 'a'
[This message has been edited by Ooook!, 04-20-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Milagros, posted 04-16-2004 1:57 AM Milagros has not replied

  
Milagros
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 171 (101413)
04-21-2004 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
04-16-2004 2:43 AM


That's some purty nice configuring there Crashfrog. I appreciate the time you took to do that.
However, let's not forget something. Math is not the argument I'm trying to make here. I used math as an example of what I was "inquiring" about "myself". See? I made the argument that the probability is low based on observed evidence and wondered if anyone knew of the Math or amount of "beneficial" mutations it would require to "make it more probable" or even "possible". Don't confuse or blur the two. So it was quite astute of you to notice that I wasn't offering any math to support my position, since that was never my position. You have quite the knack for stating the obvious.
Here's an example of what I'm trying to say, and what I have already been trying to say. Er...let's see. Ok, you and I both know that if someone jumped off, say a 10 story building, from the 10th floor, the "chances" or the "probability" of this person surviving the fall is high that they won't or low that they will survive. Follow? Now what are we basing this on? Math? Nope. Observance? Yep. See how simple that is? There's been, unfortunately, many times where people have made a jump as high or higher, even lower, and more often than not we read about them on the news or hear,see it on radio,television news that this fall caused their death. Yea I know, not the best example. I'm throwing in a little shock value. Ok, enough of that.
I'm just trying to show you how it's not always math that is involved with issues of "probabilities". You see, if I came and told you that I read that a group of guys, about 100 of them, fell from 10 stories and survived would you believe me? Does math automatically enter your mind? You pull out the ole calculator and start figuring out how that's even "probable"? Sure, it may be "possible" that someone "may" survive BUT...the chances are very low that anyone would or could. Right? If the evidence was observed that "beneficial" mutations occur all of the time then there is no problem. If the evidence was observed that "beneficial" mutations were kept quite often and rarely lost then there is no problem. If the evidence showed that a large number of people survive 10 story falls then it's easier to accept it when someone tells you 100 of them did. Why is this concept so difficult to understand? Dis aint rocket science bud. You seem extremely reluctant to want to understand or accept this simple concept. What's the problem? If you won't believe it when someone tells you that 100 guys survived a 10 story fall based on the high improbability of anyone surviving then why is it soooo easy for you to accept that a rare occurrence that can still get lost result in 5 to 10 million species we see today?
However if you insist on accepting it, THEN, I'd be interested to know the math behind how many "beneficial" mutations had to have occurred to make this possible. See where I'm coming from?
Now the math part I gave was an example of how someone "might" try and configure this number. The web page I cited was another example of how some scientist's have gone on to make some calculations themselves. However my focus has always been about the low "probability" of these rare mutations resulting in all we see on earth today, based on observed scientific data. If I had NO data to base my position THEN my incredulity may be a problem. But incredulity does not always equate a faulty or weak position especially if it's based on observed information.
So...my argument is this: "it seems too unlikely (based on observed scientific evidence), so it's "probably" not "possible" that it could.
NOT "it seems too unlikely, so it must not be true."
It seems too unlikely that a person can survive a 10 story fall, so it's "probably" not "possible" that 100 of them did. No math required.
Sorry for the late response, I've been away on business.
If you've calculated that 3 billion "beneficial" mutations may have occurred, what's that make the average of "beneficial" mutations occurring per year, decade, century, etc.? Now take that number and see if there is any scientific data that confirms this average. So that if you say every 6 years one "beneficial" mutation occurs, we can test this by seeing if this has been observed anywhere at anytime.
[This message has been edited by Milagros, 04-21-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2004 2:43 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by crashfrog, posted 04-21-2004 2:27 AM Milagros has not replied
 Message 114 by Loudmouth, posted 04-22-2004 2:14 PM Milagros has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 111 of 171 (101433)
04-21-2004 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Milagros
04-21-2004 12:48 AM


Math is not the argument I'm trying to make here.
Yet, you use math terms like "probability". I guess that's what had me confused. I hadn't quite realized I was talking to someone who feels totally free to redefine words without explanation.
Now what are we basing this on? Math? Nope. Observance? Yep.
Nope. Math and observation both.
We observe that, say, only one out of 1,000 100-ft fall victims survive. Therefore (here comes the math) we assign the probability of survival of a 100-ft fall to be 1/1,000. We don't just make numbers up to get probabilities. We construct a ratio (there's that math again) of the number of successes (the number of people who survive) out of the total number of trials (the number of people who have ever had a 100-ft fall onto a certain surface.)
Math is used to make sense of the observations, and that's how we get probability. How do you think bookies do it? They don't just guess, they analyze the win/loss records and make statistical judgements.
There's been, unfortunately, many times where people have made a jump as high or higher, even lower, and more often than not we read about them on the news or hear,see it on radio,television news that this fall caused their death.
On the other hand it depends what they land on or in. Landing in water or deep snow can improve your chances (again, based on mathematical compilation of observation) dramatically. But that's just a quibble.
I'm just trying to show you how it's not always math that is involved with issues of "probabilities".
This is simply non-sensical, I'm sorry. If you want to communicate with me, you have to do so in English. Defining words anyway you see fit means we're speaking two different languages.
You see, if I came and told you that I read that a group of guys, about 100 of them, fell from 10 stories and survived would you believe me?
Sure, I'd believe you. I'd ask for more details, of course, because my first immediate thought would be "there's obviously something that is unique about this group of 100 people, because their survival is exceptional, though not impossible." My first question would be "what did they land in?" My second would probably be "how did you come to meet them?"
But unlike you, I guess, I recognize the difference between improbable events and impossible ones, and as a rule, I only immediately reject the latter. 100 survivors isn't that improbable compared to the number of people who have ever fallen that far.
Why is this concept so difficult to understand?
You misapprehend me. I understand all too well your position, because it's an all-too-common mental error that people make. "Improbable" isn't the same as "impossible." You may consider 1/1000 odds a certainty that anybody who makes the jump is going to die. I certainly wouldn't trust my life to 1/1000 odds.
But that's not evidence that no one survives. In fact if 1000 people jump off a ten-story building, all things being equal, we would expect one of them to survive. Now I imagine that, in a space of 30 years or so, one hundred thousand individuals might have had that fall. So it wouldn't surprise me that you could find the 100 who probably survived if you looked hard enough.
Repeated trials make low probabilities certainties. All it takes is time and repetitions. No matter how low the likelyhood of a fixed, beneficial mutation occuring is, it's a guaranteed certainty that it will happen (and happen often) to a population of sufficient size because every individual represents a separate trial.
But incredulity does not always equate a faulty or weak position especially if it's based on observed information.
Incredulity can't take the place of reason, as it seems to with you. Some things about the world are simply incredible - incredible but true.
It seems too unlikely that a person can survive a 10 story fall, so it's "probably" not "possible" that 100 of them did. No math required.
I appreciate you repeating that like I'm an idiot so I'm going to afford you the same courtesy. I'd like to know if this sinks in:
Repeated trials make low probabilities certainties.
Repeated trials make low probabilities certainties.
Repeated trials make low probabilities certainties.
Any time you're ready to take a mature attitude and subsititute sound mathematical reasoning for simpleminded incredulity, we'll be able to move on. But as long as you continue to take the ludicrous position that you can talk about probabilities without using math, you'll be impermeable to reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Milagros, posted 04-21-2004 12:48 AM Milagros has not replied

  
Milagros
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 171 (101739)
04-22-2004 12:53 AM


Alrighty Crashfrog
It seems quite apparent that you're agitated. I've tried to be patient myself in explaining my position. And as per usual SEMANTIC issue's rears its ugly ahead again. You like playing those games do you? I don't!
Tell you what, why don't you do yourself a favor and look up the DEFINITION of probability, eh. Go ahead; I'm sure that won't be too hard for you. I didn't realize Crashfrog that this was so necessary for you to comprende?
Here, never mind put the book down, I'll make this easy.
1 : the quality or state of being probable
2 : something (as an event or circumstance) that is probable
3 a (1) : the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes (2) : the chance that a given event will occur b : a branch of mathematics concerned with the study of probabilities
4 : a logical relation between statements such that evidence confirming one confirms the other to some degree
Another for you:
1. The quality or condition of being probable; likelihood.
2. A probable situation, condition, or event: Her election is a clear probability.
3.
a. The likelihood that a given event will occur: little probability of rain tonight.
b. Statistics. A number expressing the likelihood that a specific event will occur, expressed as the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the number of possible occurrences.
What was the LAST definition of Probability? STATISTICS! The first two mention things like "condition", "circumstance" or "events" etc. Hey look they even provide another example of probability requiring NO MATH and NO STATISTICS. The likelihood of RAIN. What do you do Crash, count the clouds in the sky? Does that help you figure if it might rain or not? (Oh I know, you use Doppler Radar)
Probability is NOT A MATH TERM or should I say, not a math term EXCLUSIVELY!!! It's quite evident that you think it is. I thought I explained it quite clearly. The lottery example unfortunately may have confused some since it does involve "numbers" so I used an off the wall example of people jumping off of buildings to help explain my "meaning". But I actually think the Rain example is better. However notice one more thing, the definition is in ENGLISH! Voila. Just for you Crashfrog. I hope this shows how "sensical" I can be.
I knew there was going to be some unnecessary quibble about my 10 story jumpers like "it depends if the ground is soft, or if its water that they fall on or if they have parachutes or if they have a pillow tied around there bottoms" etc. I thought though that you would understand the "essence" or my "meaning" of the point I was trying to make. Here, let's then use the Rain example for probability. Are the chances High or low that a very cloudy day may result in rain? (I know, it depends if it's winter, or in the dessert, in the tropics etc. yea I get that.) Ok, let's try another, what is the chance that a very pale person will get sunburn under the scorching sun? (I know, it depends if they're in the dessert, wearing clothes, do they have sunscreen on, etc.) However, even with some of those details answered, where is the math involved? Eh? You ever hear of a thing called "Deduce"? Let me provide you the definition to save on potential confusion:
1. To reach (a conclusion) by reasoning.
2. To infer from a general principle; reason deductively: deduced from the laws of physics that the new airplane would fly.
3. To trace the origin or derivation of
See, by deductive reasoning that heavy clouds during the summer usually make it very likely that it will rain, (all observed facts) I conclude that there is a high probability that it will rain today.
When you finally accept the fact that probability doesn't JUST talk about mathematical equations or "statistics" then yes, we can move on. Purty nervy of you accusing me of redefining the definition. The explanations I gave were the examples I provided to show my meaning.
This was purty funny too, you saying that:
"unlike you, I guess, I recognize the difference between improbable events and impossible ones, and as a rule, I only immediately reject the latter. "
THIS was EXACTLY the point "I", "ME" was trying to make before! That, there is a DIFFERENCE between the two terms. Here, let me quote myself:
Just because it's "possible" for someone to win 3 times in a lifetime doesn't change the "FACT" that it's not an easy thing to accomplish. And "WHY" is that? Because the "probability" of such an occurrence (based on "factual" observance, evidence) is very low. Ya see what I'm saying? http://EvC Forum: Mutation
Another:
I never intended the lottery example to be a perfect example for "beneficial" mutations. I used it as an example to highlight the important differences between "possibility" and "probability". http://EvC Forum: Mutation How'd you miss that? It's on the same page as this post.
Furthermore the point I was making by citing those differences between "possibilities" and "probabilities" is That I, unlike YOU, reject the former because for "me" ANYTHING is possible. I can't just say, well since it's "possible" maybe it's true. Sorry, I reject the "if it's possible then it's probable" idea. I think you have that in reverse because, again, we can say that anything is possible. Santa Clause is possible. However not everything is "probable", since I'm incredulous that a fat person in a red suit can "probably" fit down a chimney. Perhaps if he squeezed for a looong time it may be "possible". But based on that, I guess you're right, Santa Clause must exist. You'll excuse me if I don't include any mathematical equations to prove that he doesn't.
Sorry if I got you all in a tizzy but it's not my fault that the word "probability" confuses you. In the future you might want your dictionary handy. Or better yet, at least try to understand what the person "means" when they're using the word. I always like to say, "See what I mean" incase people don't.
Anytime you are ready to admit that probability means more than just statistics with a mature attitude of wanting to understand the meaning of a persons posting (also called comprende skills) we can move on. Say hi to Santa for me.
By the way, the repeat sentence was accidental. I cut and paste one too many sentences. Sorry about that. I've removed it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2004 1:30 AM Milagros has not replied
 Message 115 by coffee_addict, posted 04-22-2004 2:42 PM Milagros has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 113 of 171 (101744)
04-22-2004 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Milagros
04-22-2004 12:53 AM


And as per usual SEMANTIC issue's rears its ugly ahead again. You like playing those games do you? I don't!
I beg to differ. What else is redefining "probability" if not a semantic game?
What was the LAST definition of Probability?
What was the first one? Well, the other forms of the root. What was the first definition that wasn't just another form of the root word? This one, which you seem to have ignored:
[quote]3 a (1) : the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes (2) : the chance that a given event will occur b : a branch of mathematics concerned with the study of probabilities[/qs]
"Ratio" "Number" "Set" "Total" - how can you escape that the dictionary is telling you that probability is established by math, not by guessing? Can you show me which of your definitions defines the word as "guessing"? Because I didn't see it.
Hey look they even provide another example of probability requiring NO MATH and NO STATISTICS. The likelihood of RAIN. What do you do Crash, count the clouds in the sky? Does that help you figure if it might rain or not?
You're staggeringly ignorant of meteorology. The likelyhood of rain is calculated by comparing the total number of days recorded with similar conditions with the total number of those days where it rained. That's how they give you the chance of rain. They don't just make up the numbers. There's that math again!
You can't escape math if you want to talk about the chance of something happening. Your attempts to disinclude math - presumably because you have no math to refute evolution's - are at best nonsensical and at worst a cynical, disingenuous ploy.
It's quite evident that you think it is.
That's because it is. When you ask "what's 2+2?" that's a math question. When you ask "what's the probability?" that's a math question, because finding the answer involves math - comparing two numbers - not guessing.
Are the chances High or low that a very cloudy day may result in rain?
Like a meteorologist, if you wanted to figure that out, you'd look back through the records, find every day with the same or similar conditions, and see how many of them rained. You then express that as a percentage, aka "60% chance of rain." How did you think they got that number in the paper today? Made it up?
I conclude that there is a high probability that it will rain today.
How high is high? How low is low? You make a mockery of probability and statistics - through your ignorance of them, I presume - by trying to pretend your subjective, off-the-cuff guessing represents any kind of equivalent process.
When you finally accept the fact that probability doesn't JUST talk about mathematical equations or "statistics" then yes, we can move on.
How can I, when the only examples you ever try to give are of people using statistics to figure out probability?
I notice too that "repetition makes low probabilities certainties" didn't sink in. I could easily prove it with math but ludicrously, you don't believe math and probability are related.
Look, your subjective guesses about probability aren't scientific, and therefore don't form any sort of basis for rejecting the claims of science. You don't reject evolution because it's "improbable", because you don't know how to figure out how probable it is or not.
You reject it for exactly the reason I suspected the minute you started posting - you just don't want it to be true.
I'm done talking to you. You won't listen to me, so why should I?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Milagros, posted 04-22-2004 12:53 AM Milagros has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 171 (101862)
04-22-2004 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Milagros
04-21-2004 12:48 AM


Milagros,
The problem that I see is that you are making subjective judgements from your own personal data set. That is, you are making off the cuff decisions from what you know. You like to call this probability, but in fact it is a personal estimation.
To use your example of a person jumping off of a 10 story building, it is a good estimation that most people will die on or directly after impact. However, there are examples of skydivers surviving a fall from an airplane at 10,000 feet. So how do we get the actual probability of survivors from a fall of 100 feet (10 feet/floor)? As ghastly as it sounds, the best way is to push 10,000 people from a 10 story building and see how many survive. After you collect this data, then you move from an estimate to a probability.
Drug companies follow the same technique when testing new drugs. Their study groups can differ between a few thousand to a few hundred thousand. They measure the number of people who recieve a benefit, no benefit, or side effects from the drug in question. This is then compared to the number of people in the placebo group reporting the same effects. These probabilities are then compared to one another to see if the drug is more effective than placebo without a high occurence of side effects. This same study can't be done by observing a few people, or by anecdotal evidence. You seem to be relying on just this sort of data, a few personal observations and anecdotal evidence.
Thirdly, beneficial mutations have been observed. Perhaps you can show us how beneficial mutations can occur but not enough of them do? Remember that we have only known about DNA for about 50 years, much less genes.
quote:
If you've calculated that 3 billion "beneficial" mutations may have occurred, what's that make the average of "beneficial" mutations occurring per year, decade, century, etc.? Now take that number and see if there is any scientific data that confirms this average. So that if you say every 6 years one "beneficial" mutation occurs, we can test this by seeing if this has been observed anywhere at anytime.
Molecular clocks are still a hot topic within evolutionary biology. The theory is that by taking the average mutation rate of a species you can back calculate to find common ancestory between two species. This has been done with fruit flies with decent success. By using the average mutation rate they were able to corroborate speciation with what fossil evidence there is for fruit fly evolution and speciation. From http://www.pubmed.com:
Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Jan;21(1):36-44. Epub 2003 Aug 29.
Temporal patterns of fruit fly (Drosophila) evolution revealed by mutation clocks.
Tamura K, Subramanian S, Kumar S.
Center for Evolutionary Functional Genomics, Arizona Biodesign Institute, and School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, USA.
Drosophila melanogaster has been a canonical model organism to study genetics, development, behavior, physiology, evolution, and population genetics for nearly a century. Despite this emphasis and the completion of its nuclear genome sequence, the timing of major speciation events leading to the origin of this fruit fly remain elusive because of the paucity of extensive fossil records and biogeographic data. Use of molecular clocks as an alternative has been fraught with non-clock-like accumulation of nucleotide and amino-acid substitutions. Here we present a novel methodology in which genomic mutation distances are used to overcome these limitations and to make use of all available gene sequence data for constructing a fruit fly molecular time scale. Our analysis of 2977 pairwise sequence comparisons from 176 nuclear genes reveals a long-term fruit fly mutation clock ticking at a rate of 11.1 mutations per kilobase pair per Myr. Genomic mutation clock-based timings of the landmark speciation events leading to the evolution of D. melanogaster show that it shared most recent common ancestry 5.4 MYA with D. simulans, 12.6 MYA with D. erecta+D. orena, 12.8 MYA with D. yakuba+D. teisseri, 35.6 MYA with the takahashii subgroup, 41.3 MYA with the montium subgroup, 44.2 MYA with the ananassae subgroup, 54.9 MYA with the obscura group, 62.2 MYA with the willistoni group, and 62.9 MYA with the subgenus Drosophila. These and other estimates are compatible with those known from limited biogeographic and fossil records. The inferred temporal pattern of fruit fly evolution shows correspondence with the cooling patterns of paleoclimate changes and habitat fragmentation in the Cenozoic.
(emphasis mine).
The important bits are highlighted. By using the measured mutation rate it is possible to corroborate what evidence is in the fossil record. This seems to go against what you are saying, that there is not sufficient mutation to account for what we see in the fossil record. It seems that what you find improbable from a subjective point of view collapses when compared to objective, repeatable observations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Milagros, posted 04-21-2004 12:48 AM Milagros has not replied

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


Message 115 of 171 (101869)
04-22-2004 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Milagros
04-22-2004 12:53 AM


Edited by The Laminator- message will not change Milangros' mind one bit.
[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-22-2004]

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Milagros, posted 04-22-2004 12:53 AM Milagros has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 116 of 171 (102328)
04-23-2004 10:46 PM


Bump
I assume you're busy, M, and that's ok, take whatever time you need. Just didn't want this very interesting and lively thread to get lost in the shuffle.

  
laserlover
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 171 (103962)
04-29-2004 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Muhd
04-05-2004 1:16 AM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Muhd, posted 04-05-2004 1:16 AM Muhd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by AdminNosy, posted 04-29-2004 9:04 PM laserlover has replied
 Message 119 by jar, posted 04-29-2004 9:06 PM laserlover has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 118 of 171 (103963)
04-29-2004 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by laserlover
04-29-2004 9:02 PM


Topic
This is utterly off topic. You will have to try to cooperate in keeping the forum a bit tidy.
There is, somewhere, a thread on this. You may try you luck there. I'm not feeling inclinded to find it for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by laserlover, posted 04-29-2004 9:02 PM laserlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by laserlover, posted 04-29-2004 9:10 PM AdminNosy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 119 of 171 (103965)
04-29-2004 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by laserlover
04-29-2004 9:02 PM



Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by laserlover, posted 04-29-2004 9:02 PM laserlover has not replied

  
laserlover
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 171 (103968)
04-29-2004 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by AdminNosy
04-29-2004 9:04 PM


Re: Topic
I say its on topic so get a nose job

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by AdminNosy, posted 04-29-2004 9:04 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by AdminNosy, posted 04-29-2004 9:48 PM laserlover 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