Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mutation
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 136 of 171 (104704)
05-02-2004 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Milagros
05-02-2004 4:02 AM


It just means that when it comes to things "probable" or "probability" it isn't JUST referring to math "exclusively".
Yet, it is referring to math when you use it to make scientific statements.
And moreover, even though your definitions don't say "math", every one of them implies math, through words like "evidence", "probability", and "likely".
It's like you're telling me something is the tallest thing on Earth, but you refuse to use numbers. "How tall is it, exactly?" we ask, but you refuse to answer. "It's just tall - I don't have to give a number," says you, but you're wrong. In order to asses your claim we do have to compare height, and that requires math.
You say that it's improbable, too improbable to occur, but how improbable is that? What are the odds, exactly? How can we assess your claim without the ability to compare?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Milagros, posted 05-02-2004 4:02 AM Milagros has not replied

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


Message 137 of 171 (104708)
05-02-2004 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Milagros
05-02-2004 4:03 AM


Well, since talkorigins mentions that it's hard to even detect "beneficial" mutations we'll make all the numbers on each side of the million sided die blurry, or scratched up, that way it makes it "hard to detect".
That doesn't really matter. The die lands one side up when you roll it, regardless of our ability to read it.
Based on this KNOWN information we can then calculate the probability of rolling a 66 on a 1 million sided die 1 million times. Right?
Right, because you've given an example with a closed sample space. We know exactly how many sides are on the die, so we have a closed set of possibilities to calculate.
Can you tell me how many possible mutations there are? Of course you can't - it's that missing variable that makes the whole thing incalculable.
Since we DON'T have a model to work from we are then left with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD of "Observation" and "deductive" and "inductive" reasoning.
And I've shown you how your conclusion is not a proper deduction from a premise that one organisms stands a very low chance of benefiting from a mutation. Yet, you continue to repeat your erroneous argument without elaboration. That's against the forum guidelines, and moreover, rather annoying.
You continue to ignore that repetition makes improbabilities certainties. Why is that?
However if YOU insist there must be, then YOU must provide the math, NOT ME.
I did, remember?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Milagros, posted 05-02-2004 4:03 AM Milagros has not replied

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


Message 138 of 171 (104709)
05-02-2004 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Milagros
05-02-2004 4:06 AM


Yes, bingo, "observation" and "deductive" or "inductive" reasoning, which so happen to be SCIENTIFIC METHODS.
Ok, so then you won't have any problems answering the following questions about your reasoning:
Which observations have you made, and when and where did you make them?
You've mentioned both deduction and induction, which of these are you using to arrive at your conclusion? They aren't the same thing, you know.
If you're deducing, what were your inital axioms? What logical transformations did you use to derive conclusions from them?
If you're inducting, outline your exact inducive step, including the base case and terminal condition.
C'mon, M. You've made no observations, and you certainly haven't deduced or inducted anything - you don't even know what those terms mean, or how to do them. The process you followed was "quote from a webpage" and "make a wild guess."
You'll pardon us if we think the guess of someone already committed to the outcome - that is, evolution being wrong - isn't worth a damn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Milagros, posted 05-02-2004 4:06 AM Milagros has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 139 of 171 (104719)
05-02-2004 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Milagros
05-02-2004 4:06 AM


Milagros is a dwarf
Here is the proof. We do not know how tall Milagros is. Therefore he must be too short to be a normal human being therefore he is a dwarf.
Or could it be that if we do not know what a number is we cannot claim that it is too small ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Milagros, posted 05-02-2004 4:06 AM Milagros has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 140 of 171 (104721)
05-02-2004 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Milagros
05-02-2004 4:03 AM


Hi Milagros.
It wasn't my intention to get involved in this thread, as I figured you had enough people arguing with you. However, as I read through it, I was continually bothered by something that I couldn't quite put my finger on. It wasn't until your succinct restatement of the points you were arguing in this post that I was able to see what the problem was. We have a significant and fundamental conceptual error that has slipped through. Although I suspect you initiated it, your opponents have perpetuated it, at least by letting it slide. Let me see if I can clarify:
Milagros writes:
1) We DON'T know HOW MANY "beneficial" mutations, average, must occur to result in a new species.
Nowhere in any literature or textbook I have ever read are beneficial mutations required or even necessary for speciation. This is a key point: speciation doesn't occur due to beneficial mutations. Speciation (in sexually reproducing organisms, anyway) occurs when a population of a given species develops some type of reproductive barrier that prevents hybridization with the other members of the species. It can be a gradual thing such as an increase in hybrid incompatibility between populations over many generations. It can be a relatively rapid thing, where a sudden geographical separation and differential environmental pressures cause a barrier to gene flow so that after only a few generations even if the populations were reunited they are incompatible. It can be sympatric based on changing host specificity (such as occurred with Rigoletta, or some behavioral change necessitated by occupation of a novel or marginal niche, etc etc etc. Speciation has nothing at all to do with beneficial mutations per se, although those can "speed up the process" by natural selection culling the members of a new or marginalized population that don't have it.
2) We CAN'T always DETECT a "beneficial" mutation
"Beneficial mutation" is a descriptive term that only applies to a genetic change which provides a net marginal fitness advantage in a given environment. IOW, by definition, it can only be detected after the fact. Whether a given mutation is beneficial, neutral or deleterious is a determination that can only be made in relation to the environment - which IIRC somebody already mentioned.
3) We CAN'T tell HOW LONG it takes for "beneficial" mutations to develop into a new species.
Since as I noted above beneficial mutations do NOT have any direct relationship with the development of new species, your point here is moot.
Hopefully this will get the discussion back on track. We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 05-02-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Milagros, posted 05-02-2004 4:03 AM Milagros has not replied

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


Message 141 of 171 (104735)
05-02-2004 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Milagros
04-30-2004 9:44 AM


quote:
Fine, show me the "Math" that makes it a "certainty". Or show me the number that makes it probable. Until YOU do, all YOU are doing is...GUESSING! You may disagree at my conclusions but you provide no model to work from to support yours when it comes to calculating how many beneficial mutations must have occurred to result in all of the varied life we see on earth today.
Hi Milagros,
I have not read all 10 pages of this thread, and don't really plan to. But I have a couple of questions/comments.
How many "beneficial mutations" do YOU think speciation requires, and how did you derive that number?
Why do you think that speciation requires beneficial mutations and more importantly, what is the definition of beneficial you are using?
quote:
You base your conclusion on, well since there are SOooooo many species and Sooo many genes within each species then it MUST have occurred. If you cannot provide a model to base your conclusions on then all you are left with is deductive or inductive reasoning.
I predict that any attempt to make such a model would be greeted with extreme skepticism if not scorn from the creationist community as they would find some reason to declare that the numbers favor 'Darwinism' or some such thing, as Walter ReMine has done with regard to Haldane's calculations (though ReMine has not been able to explain in any way how the numbers he used were unrealistic or overly favorable).
So, when you find out how many such mutations are required, you let us know. I am sure that Nature or Science would publish your manuscript in a heartbeat.
Personally, I am comfortable in not knowing. Not knowing in part because it is pretty obvious that if such a number even exists, it is highly variable. Highly variable variables don't tend to make nice, clean math.

(2) "A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia," which manifests itself in several ways:
...(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against...(4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. ..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Milagros, posted 04-30-2004 9:44 AM Milagros has not replied

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


Message 142 of 171 (105031)
05-03-2004 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Milagros
05-02-2004 4:06 AM


Milagros,
I'll say this again: to be scientific about probability you have to provide the maths.
Again the term "probability" does not ALWAYS mean Math.
In this case it does. If you want to comment about something being probable/improbable in any branch of science it requires you to do statistics, to provide the calculations. Anything else is pure gut feeling. That's why scientists don't use probability to prove evolution, they rely on other methods.
And seeing as you've stated:
In this case it CAN'T since, again, there is NO MODEL to formulate a statistical probability
Your statement is therefore not scientific. Your statement is effectively "I've had a look at the data, and I don't believe it!"
The reason I asked for the data you claim to have based your position on, and not the webpages that you have provided is that I have read them and can find no damning evidence against evolution. The reason I said you were partially quoting from the pages was that you were finding quotes and posting them up as if to say "there, even your own people admit it!", and when I went and read more of the material on the website, it was nothing of the sort. You did this with the Hardy-Weinburg page that I keep on banging on about (incidentally, isn't that maths?), and I wanted you to put your argument in your own words.
Can you spell out, in simple short sentences these facts that we have interpreted so differently? Saying that something is rare is not enough really is it? Why can't mutation account for the differences in species?
P.S. can you not shout out so much in the middle of sentences, as it's a little hard to read?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Milagros, posted 05-02-2004 4:06 AM Milagros has not replied

  
Milagros
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 171 (105106)
05-03-2004 11:31 PM


Crash
"C'mon, M. You've made no observations, and you certainly haven't deduced or inducted anything - you don't even know what those terms mean, or how to do them. The process you followed was "quote from a webpage" and "make a wild guess." You'll pardon us if we think the guess of someone already committed to the outcome - that is, evolution being wrong - isn't worth a damn."
Me
Are all these conclusions about me made via the "Scientific Method"? Show me the mathematical calculations that support your thesis about Moi?
Hey, let me express a thought. I'm thinkin that you already have committed yourself to an outcome - that is, evolution being right. However since you are "probably" a separate thinking human being I think it IS worth a damn. I think YOU'RE worth a damn. I think your opinions are worth a damn. I think your thoughts are worth a damn. I think your ideas are worth a damn. Whether I agree with them or not or argue about them or not, it doesn't change the fact that everything about YOU is worth a damn. Perhaps you shouldn't talk for others they may not agree with you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2004 11:46 PM Milagros has not replied

  
Milagros
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 171 (105107)
05-03-2004 11:32 PM


One at a time, take a number.
The "observation" I have shown comes from talkorigins. Are THEIR observations not good enough for yall? Based on what "THEY" have written of what, I'm assuming, are THEIR observations of "beneficial" mutations. I have made my "deduction" based on that. Yes I know "deductive" and "inductive" are two different things, I so happen to provide a nice little link that explained that. What a guy I am eh?
SLPx
"So, when you find out how many such mutations are required, you let us know. I am sure that Nature or Science would publish your manuscript in a heartbeat."
Me
Did you hear that Crash? You should talk to Crash, he might have some idea, in fact you can find his calculations on this posting somewhere. Apparently it appears that he thinks he might have actually figured it out. I made the suggestion myself to submit it to Nature (cheeky of me).
Ooook
"In this case it does. If you want to comment about something being probable/improbable in any branch of science it requires you to do statistics, to provide the calculations. Anything else is pure gut feeling. That's why scientists don't use probability to prove evolution, they rely on other methods."
Me
Ooook, perhaps you meant to say something else because you say on the one hand, "to comment about something being probable/improbable in any branch of science it requires you to do statistics,..." Then on the other you say, "That's why scientists don't use probability to prove evolution, they rely on other methods." It just so happens that I'm using the method of "observation" and "deductive" reasoning, Precisely because I have no math or statistics about "beneficial" mutations that I have found or read about to be able to supply it as evidence to support my position. See? If scientists don't use probability to prove evolution then why am I asked to do so with calculations about "beneficial" mutations that I initially asked about myself? Because I used the word "probable"?
Here's the other use of probability.
1) If someone swallows cyanide, they'll "probably" die. (Observation has shown this)
2) If I do a lot of physical activity I'll "probably" get tired. (Observations has shown this)
3 If I kick a ball it'll "probably" be moved, unless I miss. (Observation has shown this)
4) If I put paper near fire, it'll "probably" burn. (Observation has shown this)
5) If I mess around with new born cubs the mother bear will "probably" kill me. (Observation has shown this)
6) If I run through a glass window, I'll "probably" get cut. (Observation has shown this)
I'd call all of the above "scientific statements" since they all involve "observation".
I'm quite comfortable with the usage of the word which fits within the definition and follows the scientific method. What is your problem? However I did "inquire" as to whether anyone knows of any info as to whether any calculations have been made about "beneficial" mutations. SLPx is inquiring as well, although he admits he doesn't really care. He might contact Crash about those numbers. Why did I ask? Because if we had that information this may show that it's not as improbable as it appears, at least to me. Or vice versa, it can "confirm" how improbable it is. Since we don't have that information or can't find it, I reserve the right to conclude then, that it's highly improbable that "beneficial" mutations were the cause for all the varied life we see on earth, based on the information about "beneficial" mutations that we DO have, from talkorigins. If you don't like my conclusion, tuff frijoles. You guys want to argue with my "use" of "probably" even though I have shown that I'm quite justified in using it.
Here's an example of what's been going on:
a) We have evidence that paper is flammable. b) We have evidence that fire burns and is hot. Based on that, I conclude that a stack of books (paper backs) "probably" won't survive a fire, therefore the stack of books I see in the fireplace "probably" couldn't be there unless the fire was put out.
Respondents:
What do you mean they "probably" won't survive? Show us the math that confirms that. You don't know enough about "probability" to say. You're using your own personal views to conclude that. You don't want to see those stacks of books in the fire place so your conclusions are based on your own personal philosophy. If you are going to tell me that it's highly improbable that a stack of books could survive a fire I want to see the math to support that. How big was the fire? What kind of paper is it? How many books were in the fire? etc. etc. etc. yada yada yada.
None of those questions changes the "facts" in any way that a) and b) are true. And that based on those two known facts we can "deduce" that a stack of paperback books "probably" won't survive a fire. End of story!
Since this is the discourse we find ourselves in, perhaps it would be best to let you have your way. And I'll move on with mine. Aight? Besides, I'm annoying some of you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Ooook!, posted 05-05-2004 4:59 AM Milagros has not replied

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


Message 145 of 171 (105109)
05-03-2004 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Milagros
05-03-2004 11:31 PM


Repetitions make ignoring you a certainty
M, if you refuse to address the single largest flaw in your argument - that repetition makes low probabilities certainties - what's the point in talking to you?
I know I've told you that at least six times, and proven it with simple examples, but each time you ignore it. Why is that?
You have to address that fact, because it disproves your argument. No matter how improbable one fixed, beneficial mutation might be, you're guaranteed to get enough of them in a large enough population over enough time. Why do you refuse to address that? Ignoring me won't make it go away, but it will make me not want to talk to you anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Milagros, posted 05-03-2004 11:31 PM Milagros has not replied

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


Message 146 of 171 (105163)
05-04-2004 9:04 AM


So you don't know how many mutations are required, and thus, claims that there is not enough time for them to accumulate and such are just hot air.
Thanks.

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


Message 147 of 171 (105469)
05-05-2004 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Milagros
05-03-2004 11:32 PM


Milagros,
Since this is the discourse we find ourselves in, perhaps it would be best to let you have your way. And I'll move on with mine. Aight? Besides, I'm annoying some of you
Don't be put off so easily , I'm sure this discussion still has a few more yards in it yet. But first, can I just clarify something in your last post:
Ooook, perhaps you meant to say something else because you say on the one hand, "to comment about something being probable/improbable in any branch of science it requires you to do statistics,..." Then on the other you say, "That's why scientists don't use probability to prove evolution, they rely on other methods."
Nope, that's exactly what I meant to say. You will never catch me saying that this or that event is "too improbable" without specifying just how improbable it is. Statements about probabilities (like yours) in science are a very specific thing which is why you will never see a statistical proof of evolution, and why so many people have picked on that aspect of your posts. Besides, I think (but may be wrong) that it was you who brought up the mathmatical concepts of '1 in 1000' and '2% fixation rate' which are meaningless without further qualification.
But I agree, going over and over this point will not progress the discussion in a positive way. Let's look at the 'other methods': your "observation" and "deduction".
To a degree all of your examples of deductions are scientific. We've all seen sharp glass cut someone, or we've all seen paper burn. But these are all very simple concepts and do not extend to your position on evolution.
You've agreed (I think) that:
1) We don't know exact figures regarding 'beneficial' mutations.
2) We can't even tightly define what a beneficial mutation is.
3) We don't have enough meaningful information about past mutation rates and size of poulations.
And yet you still claim that there are enough observations kicking around to back up the statement that mutation and natural selection are highly unlikely to account for the evolution of species. You say that the evidence is on Talkorigins website but I (and others) have not spotted it so you will have to spell it out to us in our own words, in a nice concise format. Saying (or quoting others saying) that mutation is a rare event is insufficient because then you have to say how rare. Pointing to gaps in our scientific knowledge is not enough either.
To get things rolling I'll set out my position:
- Mutation and natural selection (the driving forces behind evolution) have both been observed and are accepted by all but the most loopy creationists.
- There seems to be enough variation within populations (undoubtabley caused by mutation) to be sufficient to explain the emergence of new species once natural/sexual selection are brought to bear on them.
- Small mutations have been shown to produce relatively large changes in morphology/function

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Milagros, posted 05-03-2004 11:32 PM Milagros has not replied

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


Message 148 of 171 (105470)
05-05-2004 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by crashfrog
05-01-2004 2:42 PM


That's not all I did in the shower.
You were singing, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2004 2:42 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Enchanted
Inactive Junior Member


Message 149 of 171 (107139)
05-10-2004 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Muhd
04-05-2004 1:16 AM


I agree with the origional post. a gene mutation involves a random change in the information within a single gene offspring usually caused by some form of copying error. these mutatoins are rare and only happen once in every thousand cell divisions. Mutation, the theory of evolution states is effectivly saying that the evolution of evrything was a genetic "mistake". How can this be?

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 150 by NosyNed, posted 05-10-2004 3:10 PM Enchanted has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 150 of 171 (107145)
05-10-2004 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Enchanted
05-10-2004 2:55 PM


Mistakes are common
I agree with the origional post. a gene mutation involves a random change in the information within a single gene offspring usually caused by some form of copying error. these mutatoins are rare and only happen once in every thousand cell divisions. Mutation, the theory of evolution states is effectivly saying that the evolution of evrything was a genetic "mistake". How can this be?
You understand that there are other ways of introducing variety of course.
Secondly why do you think that once in a thousand cell divisions is an "only"? That means that mutations are happening at an enormous rate. (I think you're number might actually be over estimating the rate of occurance but I'm too lazy to try to find that out).
Let's go with your number. And let's restrict this to only in the sex cells (not somatic where it doesn't get passed on). Let's be even more restritive and say is it only 1 in a 1,000 individuals that has a mutation (this is hugely wrong since you and I probably have several each as do all of us). How many mutated individuals are being born every single second? Can you guess? To stop this from being in the trillions let's only pick multicellular organisms. Now how many? My wild assed guess is that it will come out to some millions a second. Mutations are common. How many are harmful (I'd guess half based on humans). How many are waiting in the wings for the right selective pressue -- the other half.
How can it not be?
In some research work it is a problem to stop the subjects from evolving under inadvertant selective pressures.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-10-2004 02:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Enchanted, posted 05-10-2004 2:55 PM Enchanted has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Enchanted, posted 05-10-2004 3:19 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 152 by JonF, posted 05-10-2004 3:23 PM NosyNed 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