|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: evolution calculations | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
On a side note, could a mathematical model, not based on evidence, but on the premises of the theory - random mutation and selective pressure - show us that, given those premises, evolution has to happen? Doesn't the Hardy-Weinburg model do that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Hardy-Weinberg certainly models evolution, albeit in a simple way, in terms of changes in allele frequency. It doesn't suggest that any evolution other than allelic frequency changes should occur. That's certainly what I thought it did, but what other evolution were you thinking of? Doesn't "allelic frequency changes" pretty much cover it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Mathematician William Dembski calculated that if the probability of something occurring is less than one in 10 to the 150th power, it has no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. How can that bound possibly make any sense? Lets say that I'm rolling a die with 10^150 sides. You're saing that I'll never, ever roll "42" because the probability is that low? Not even if I roll the die, say, 10^150 times per second? I would certainly expect to get "42" very often, rolling that fast.
It would need to identify what constitutes new information by mutation. New information is simply novel genetic sequences. New alleles, etc.
It would need to calculate the rate at which such "informational" and "beneficial" mutation occur. "Beneficial" is meaningless outside of the context of environment. At the DNA level all sequences are equivalent - benefical or detrimental.
It would need calculate how often such mutations create advantage in the species. Again, a meaningless question outside of the context of environment. How do you propose to model environment in an equation? The mathematical model you're searching for can't possibly be less simple than the universe.
It would need to show the number of generations necessary to accumulate the information necessary to produce a human (the most complex creature on the planet.) Most complex? How do you figure? What's your measurement of "complexity"? (What's the unit for "complexity"? "Complexions?")
Finally, it would need to be defensible within approximatley a 4.6 billion year timeframe assuming a propsed evolutionary timeframe. The timeframe is proposed by geology, not evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
However, mutations do not necessarily form information. Well, yeah, they have to. Every mutation forms new information - novel genetic sequences that the organism did not have before. Every single one. It's not possible to have a mutation that does not bestow new genetic information for that organism.
Rather, please point to research that would show meaningful information developed by mutation in a creature that is "evolving." Creatures don't evolve. Only populations evolve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Please enjoy the aforemtioned "information". What does it code for?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Evolution will fall not because of creationism's triumph, but simply because the mechanism is seriously flawed and cannot produce the complexity and vast amounts of information on our planet. That's a really funny thing to say. You do know that engineers and programmers are employing that exact mechanism - actually, those exact two mechanisms, random mutation and natural selection - to create circuits and designs vastly more complicated than intelligence is able to do on its own, right? They're not "seriously flawed", they're more than sufficient to create complexity; we use them to do specifically that for our own ends.
Suppose a DNA sequence which specified some trait were laid out as follows. IWILLCREATEAHAIRFOLLICLE. That's not how DNA sequences are laid out, however. They're laid out like this: 5' ACGTATATGCAT 3' Now suppose that mutates, so that you have 5' CCGTATATGCAT 3' Is that new genetic information? Obviously, it is. That's a novel sequence that the organism did not possess, so naturally, it must be new information.
Please point me to one of those "beneficial" mutations. J Clin Invest. 1980 Nov;66(5):892-900. A-IMilano apoprotein. Decreased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with significant lipoprotein modifications and without clinical atherosclerosis in an Italian family. Franceschini G, Sirtori CR, Capurso A 2nd, Weisgraber KH, Mahley RW.
quote: Evolution is directional. Yes, it is. And that direction is "outward" - that is, increasing diversity. It's not a surprise that we see more complex organisms; when you're at the bottom of the simplicity scale, but diversity is increasing, there's only one direction to go. But it remains the case that no matter how you measure them, the vast, vast majority of life on Earth is extraordinarily simple; the complex stuff is so rare it barely rates mention. Except, of course, for the anthrocentric fact that we belong to that extremely small group.
You don't just reconstitute new DNA structures by random processes and create meaningful information. Actually, you can. It's really not all that hard to generate a sequence of DNA that can be transcribed into a protein; about one-half of all random amino polypeptides exhibit ATP-binding activity. The rate at which random mutation generates new, useful genetic information is drastically improved, of course, when you add selection into the mix.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I've never seen a creature or a population evolve. Here's a population that evolved multicellularity over two decades ago:
quote: But new DNA sequences are nearly impossible for man to maniuplate and create using all his intelligence and tools into something useful. Undergraduates do it in the lab regularly. Don't get out much, do ya?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024