Mutation

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. 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]

Milagros,Quite a lot of your argument seems to be a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it. You want your position to be taken seriously as one taken by rational consideration and with the use of scientific method, and yet you refuse to submit any type of kind of data to back yourself up. When talking about probability from a scientific perspective you have to present real figures, there's no way of escaping doing the maths I’m afraid.You say: And yet: Try using that kind of reasoning in a letter to Nature and see how fast it gets laughed out of the editor’s inbox!At the very least could you provide observational evidence for this statement: What data? Let’s see your reasoning, complete with the facts that you claim to have observed. Don’t just partially quote from talkorigins, give us the bare FACTS that you keep on shouting about. So far the scientific facts you have provided to justify how improbable evolution is amount to this ‘1 in 1000’ beneficial mutation figure and a rather irrelevant use of the Hardy-Weinburg equation. Surely you have more than that if you are so sure, or is simply that you cannot bring yourself to believe it out of personal incredulity?Secondly, you keep on challenging people to provide accurate facts and figures to prove statistically that evolution is possible. As I pointed out before, this is not only a bit cheeky (due to your inability to provide the same kind of information) but is getting the wrong end of the stick. No evolutionist has provided a set of equations that prove that evolution happened because the amount of usable mathematical information is very small, so any result would be meaningless. The only people who claim that they can apply probability to evolution to any success are creationists, and they fail for exactly the same reason — we don’t know enough cast iron figures.The best we can do is provide a series of educated guesses (like Crashfrog did in the shower), and show that it is distinctly possible. How about taking a trip to the bathroom yourself and thinkin up some estimates along the same lines and present us with what you come up with?

Milagros,I'll say this again: to be scientific about probability you have to provide the maths. 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: 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?

Milagros, 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: 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

You were singing, right?