|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: natural selection is wrong | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Yes B is more likely to reproduce, but my point was that since there are so few of them at the start, they have a high chance of getting wiped out, becoming extinct. B has an uh.. about 79 percent chance of getting *wiped out* in the first generation.
You are merely demonstrating once again how deceptive it is to look comparitively to variants, which was my point all along. B has a 79 percent chance of *decreasing* it's populationshare to 0. Your wording like "The "B" is 10% more likely to reproduce, thus increases its precence roughly by 10% in each generation" is entirely deceptive of the fact that it will most likely be wiped out. And 10 percent is generally said to be an enormous difference in natural selection theory. Even enormous advantages are likely wiped out, as in general the share between organisms that reproduce and organisms that don't produce in a population is quite small. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Steen Inactive Member |
Utter nonsense. Given that B is more competitive, it is harder to wipe out any B than any A. B is MORE likely to procreate than is A. You DO know that the same mutations are likely to occur time after time again, don't you? Even if B is once wiped out, because it is competitive, it is a given that it WILL dominate the population. Here is a site with examples you should take a look at:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I was talking about extinction. It is obviously easier to make B go extinct, if there is only 1 B in the population, then to make A go extinct, when there are 999 A's.
If the mutation get's wiped out 4 times, and sweeps to fixation one time, it is still true that beneficial mutations get wiped out most times, like I said. But true enough if you have the beneficial mutation occurring repeatedly, then eventually one would sweep to fixation. The likelyhood of reoccurrence of the mutation just depends on the nature of the mutation. This reoccurrence is only a given when there is an infinity of chances for mutation, which infinity doesn't exist. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Steen Inactive Member |
You didn't take a look at that example I linked to, did you? That showed the same mutations happen in repeated experiements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
It showed it yes, what is your point? Would you like to deny that the repeatability of mutations differs much, or to argue that most types of mutations are repeated? Good luck with that.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Steen Inactive Member |
Eh? You claim to have read it but still post nonsense? Please go back and actually READ it to the point where you understand what happened in their experiment. Because you sure still seem to be off.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
You seem to have great difficulty in talking about this in general terms. You gave some references to some papers about repetitive mutations, now go and make general statements about the nature of mutations, or whatever your point is.
It is not nonsense to say that advantageous mutations get wiped out most times, when, well they do, where you in stead make highly deceptive statements that it is a given that the advantaged will dominate, and whatnot, which is untrue most times. So do advantageous mutations get wiped out most times? Do mutations repeat themselves normally within an appreciable timeframe? regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Dear Syamsu,
For someone who doesn't intend to continue with this thread you still seem to be posting a lot. Any objections if I contributed to the debate? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Steen Inactive Member |
quote:Frankly, this leads me to feel that your comprehension of mutations is quite limited; certainly more limited than what is needed to have a discussion about it. quote:Because YOU say so, apparently. You have said enough nonsense that I really don't take your word for anything anymore. quote:And your evidence is? quote:No, they are just not that rare. quote:Yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
They get wiped out most times, because advantageous mutations usually start out with small numbers.
You obviously have to reference some papers that make general statements about mutations to support your dubious argument, not reference papers about particular cases of mutations, which may not be representative of mutations in general. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
You're welcome to contribute. Of course the rule is that you should have something new argument, or at least a new way of expressing the arguments.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6501 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: Funny that you exclude yourself from this "rule"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Dear Syamsu,
This is of course true for all mutations, not just beneficial ones and in the case of deleterious mutations many are embryonic lethals and therefore never even truly become members of the population. The loss of under-represented alleles due to genetic drift is exactly the sort of statistical noise that the paper was focusing on. The fact is that the noises affects all mutations equally regardless of fitness, so therefore trends due to selection for fitness may be attenuated based on the exact constitution of the population, but not neccessarily removed entirely. The problem with trying to define absoloute levels for frequency of beneficial mutations is that the benfit of any mutation is hugely dependent on its specific context. The only meaningful way it can be studied is in the sort of limited repeatable studies which have been performed in short generation organisms like flies and bacteria or through genealogical genetic studies of large samples of a population compared to some outgroup population. As has been noted fitness/ beneficial status is normally only detectable a post-hoc measurement, not something we can predict solely based on our own assumptions. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Steen Inactive Member |
quote:True for ALL mutations, which by your logic should mean that NO mutations ever come to light. That kind of nonsense have been disproved long ago, so once again, you are encouraged to actually learn something about the field you are trying to study. quote:Are you deliberately LYING about me, or just trying for the Ad Hominem because you are losing out on real arguments for your already-disproven claims? I have made several references to specifics during my postings here, as well as having dealt with very basic principles of genetics. That you have decided to show that you never actually looked at any of the references NOR the basic texts in genetics, that merely demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty. This message has been edited by Steen, 07-07-2004 08:44 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Most my arguments about natural selection are about the structure of the theory. My arguments mostly have nothing whatsoever to do with whether evolution happened or not. You seem to misconstrue my argument.
Yes thanks for acknowledging, most mutations get wiped out, most advantageous mutations get wiped out. You really seem to have denied this previously. Why didn't you say "it is a given that" blabla..., where now you acknowledge that advantageous mutations get wiped out most times. You were simply wrong, and I was right. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024