Need answers on this math...

I have been trying to work out the math involved into evolution to get down the some stone facts and drop out the fiction. Read this:~
Since almost all mutations are harmful to a creature, a very high number would be necessary to increase the chances of positive mutation taking place. This is an obvious point out. These hypothetical "beneficial" mutations are supposed to alter the plant or animal, increasing it ability to survive and/or reproduce. Evolutionists, with very few exceptions, believe that these proposed favorable mutations must result in only MINOR changes. This is a given as well as a mutation that would occur in anything more than a slight change would be too disruptive for the mutated plant or animal. Certainly a harmful or even lethal mutation. Most Evolutionists therefore concede that mutations must be minor ones. Save those who talk of punctuated equilibrium which is another unproven or untested hypothesis.Evolution proposes that after thousands of generations, the "superior mutant" that developed would eventually replace the original variety of the creature as it is more adapted than its predecessor. A process called Natural Selection, another one of the keys of evolution.For the sake of debate, let us consider that 1 out of every 10,000 mutations leads to a better plant or animal. If the 1 in 10,000 were a correct ratio, beneficial mutations would still remain a very extraordinarily rare indeed. What's more, in order for the mutation to be passed on to future generations, it cannot occur just anywhere in the creature but in the specific reproductive cells, and these make up only a minute fraction of most creatures cells.Scientific research has revealed that cells have many special safeguards to protect against genetic errors ever even occurring. DNA information cannot be copied except with many different enzymes, which "check" one another for errors. These include double-sieve enzymes to make sure the right amino acid is linked to the right tRNA. One sieve rejects amino acids too large, while the other rejects those too small. (Taken from: Decoding and Editing Design: Double Sieve Enzymes article by J.D. Sarfati.)Evolution, despite all the safeguards against DNA mutation, obviously would require a VAST amount of time to take place. Evolution claims that these hypothetical favorable mutations (only minor ones of course) are required to come by the hundreds of thousands if not millions. When we start to consider great changes in a creature, say from a reptile to a bird, we are beginning to step into a time frame growing very large. Keeping in mind that mutations are often small enough that even our modern technology can not find them, mutations have to occur in the correct places as well, mutations have to work around the safeguards of the body, only 1 in every 10,000 of these rare mutations are even beneficial, thousands of these beneficial mutations would be needed just to cause a visible change. Which jumps the rare mutations needed into the hundreds of thousands simply for visible changes to begin to occur in the more adapted creature. Huge changes as stated earlier such as reptile to bird could easily take into the trillions of years for the evolution of a reptile into a bird.One limited technique suggests that man and ape have a 96% DNA similarity. A fact that most people who do not know much about DNA jump upon. A closer look however reveals that the cells of every creature contain enormous amounts of information content, so even a small percentage (say 4%) difference means that tremendous quantities of information would be required to turn one kind into another.Since humans have an amount of information equivalent to one thousand 500 page book of code, a 4 percent difference means that forty large books of information content will be needed.Now evolution says that random mutation plus natural selection generated these 40 large books, or 12 million words arranged in intelligible sentences. Creating this amount of genetic code is impossible, even in the 10 million allotted years that evolution suggests. "How so?"Population genetics shows that animals with 20 year between generations (say Homo Sapiens) could pass on no more than 1,700 mutations in the ten million years allotted by evolution. (Taken from: The Biotic Message by W.J. ReMine)Now- shall we go back to the previous statements by evolutionists that 1 in every 10,000 mutations is considered a beneficial mutation. There is no way possible that evolution and natural selection could account for a transformation between ape to man. We are looking at over 50 million years to pass off just one single beneficial mutation based off of those population genetics. I think it is safe to say, that numbers would be needed into the billions and trillions of years. Just to make up a 4% DNA difference."Perhaps the ratio 1/10,000 is actually much worse than the actual turnover ration is." You may say.I will let Dr. H.J. Mueller, a radiation and mutation expert answer the question. Quoted from Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
"It is entirely in line with accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed to the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominately harmful to its useful operations... good ones are so rare WE CAN CONSIDER THEM ALL BAD."~Now- I have been told that ReMine made some errors in his research for population genetics. I am seeking answers as to what the correct estimate would be for mutations that "animals" would pass with 20 years between generations.As you can see- the answer to this math question changes alot. And small errors can throw it way off.So I need input from anyone and everyone.Thanks!{Added blank lines between some of the paragraphs - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-19-2002]

I think all of this "talk" of the CODE is worthless unless one has at least some equation (tabla rasa) from which to read it such that some interpretation is possible. The size of the library needed to hold the volume of an organism is not the proper analogy. I am guessing however that toxin-antibody scoped may. But I prefer not to enter speculation for which other criticism already exists (Lewontin).I do think however that we have created enough science to do a better job such that "cracking" this biologically is not a figurative word with respect to the military orgination of some of the lab associations doing the work of the early phase of molecular biology. Indeed I think a process patnent could be writ to "Crack" quite literally this 'code'. The patterns that remain however if afforded would show that quantitative measures are by no means the goal as had been expressed in the nature of the gene in this thread-head. Science could take a lesson from religion such as the Dead Sea Scrools for this point. (I will not start to tell of this process but to mention a broader categorization of all the constiutive patterns could be denoted (by me) with steps 1)break 2)fract 3)crack. I have left enough clues for someone else to pick up where I am leaving off for need to have some income in addition to disemmination. (Guess what Faraday's critcism of the voltaic pile could mean for the chemical isolation of acridines). It appears that talking of "words" in the gene decoder as implied in this thread is NOT ACCURATE for the simple understanding that the size of Einstein's orignial intution on the "tract" of space-time is LARGER than a point mutation such that geometry appropos Einstein occurs for the mapping of genes but not necessarily for any smaller potentially existing Wolfrom nodes. Muller can be re-interpreted on this basis if one chooses. Let's get on with it.

Hi MicahHymerShort answer:look at The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: September 1999.Long answer:OK, this is my first post, so I am highly likely to have borgered up the layout in the following. I am also not an expert in any area of evolution, so I encourage you to check/dispute my claims. However, afaik you have made a few errors in your assumptions regarding evolution.

quote:

---

Save those who talk of punctuated equilibrium which is another unproven or untested hypothesis.

---

Punctuated equilibrium also relies on small changes, but in circumstances which give the *appearance* of a sudden jump. I will explain further if you request, but it will be long-winded and not directly relevant to your calculation.

quote:

---

the "superior mutant" that developed would eventually replace the original variety of the creature as it is more adapted than its predecessor.

---

No - the original need not die out. If it did, there would be no increase in total number of species. The two can both survive provided that they fill different ecological niches (or are otherwise separated e.g. geographically).

quote:

---

What's more, in order for the mutation to be passed on to future generations, it cannot occur just anywhere in the creature but in the specific reproductive cells, and these make up only a minute fraction of most creatures cells.

---

Mutations are copying errors - they occur during the process of reproduction. The only way that they can spread throughout an organism is when they are created during the creation of that individual. There are other mutations that occur to individual cells (e.g. cancer) in adult individuals, but they are not inherited and are not usually considered part of evolution since they cannot be selected for or against. Therefore this point is already included in your estimate of 1 in 10,000.

quote:

---

Scientific research has revealed that cells have many special safeguards to protect against genetic errors ever even occurring.

---

True - but, as above, you have already accounted for this in your estimate of the frequency of mutations. This is included in, not in addition to, your estimate of 1 in 10,000 and you should make this clear in your thesis.

quote:

---

thousands of these beneficial mutations would be needed just to cause a visible change.

---

A bit beyond my expertise (such as it is) but my understanding is that visible features (e.g. third nipple in humans, and yes, I did learn all my genetics from Bond movies ) can be caused by a single mutation, and certainly within one generation.

quote:

---

A closer look however reveals that the cells of every creature contain enormous amounts of information content, so even a small percentage (say 4%) difference means that tremendous quantities of information would be required to turn one kind into another.

---

(You continue with an analogy regarding how many books-worth of info this equates to). Again, true - but the more info there is, the greater the chance of mutation, since each 'bit' of data has a certain percentage chance of mutation during transcription. Remember also that a mutation need not be the alteration of a singe 'letter' - whole pages (or even books) could be duplicated, deleted or moved in a single mutation.

quote:

---

12 million words arranged in intelligible sentences.

---

Only a small fraction of this information is used - the remainder is 'nonsense' - random letters in your analogy, or even intelligible sentences that are never 'read' but can be 'inserted into the story' as a block by a single mutation.

quote:

---

Population genetics shows that animals with 20 year between generations (say Homo Sapiens) could pass on no more than 1,700 mutations in the ten million years allotted by evolution. (Taken from: The Biotic Message by W.J. ReMine)

---

ReMine's calculation is highly disputed. At the very least you should quote his assumptions. See the link above for one set of objections. I found it with a Google search of ReMine and Talk Origins, and I am sure you can find plenty more with a similar search.

quote:

---

We are looking at over 50 million years to pass off just one single beneficial mutation based off of those population genetics.

---

You have not established any limit for the number of mutations that can be occuring at one time. They need not by one-by-one, they could come in 'parallel'. In other words, any number of beneficial mutations could become established in 50 million years by your calculation.I suspect Dr. H.J. Mueller is considering only organisms already very well adapted to their environment. A change in environment can make a previously detrimental attribute beneficial or vice versa. For example, a drop in temperatures can make a layer of fat beneficial for insulation, whereas before it simply increased the risk of cardiac illness and reduced mobility. Mind you, I haven't read his work, so that's a guess.Hope that's of some help.Gif

Well to me genes are something that look nice on my butt and are comfortable to wear.One thing though is that what I remember reading is that there's much of our genetic code that is non-coding. This non-coding genetic material could have been useful at one point but had been superceded later on. It is in these non-coding strands that would likely be the areas that we get the errors that may lead to something useful.Also, many mutations are neither good nor bad. They may introduce a feature that is good in some instances but a poor adaptation for others.------------------
When all else fails, check the manual

quote:

---

.... I will let Dr. H.J. Mueller, a radiation and mutation expert answer the question. Quoted from Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
"It is entirely in line with accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed to the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominately harmful to its useful operations... good ones are so rare WE CAN CONSIDER THEM ALL BAD

​

....

---

FYI, I know for a fact that the portion of the quote above that I have "bolded" has been fabricated. The rest was lifted (out of context, mind you) from a 1955 issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.This is typical of creationist "scholarship". Trawl through literature that's nearly half a century old, find a juicy passage to lift out of context, and then add a bit of pure fabrication to spice things up.For more information about this bit of creationist dishonesty, go to Sign in - Google Accounts and fish up the talk.origins post with message-id Dew3a.1381$bK4.219464@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca (use the "Advanced Groups Search" feature to search by message-id. The URL to that google-archived post is too long to reproduce here without wrapping/mangling it).And here's an interesting exercise. Go to Google and search for the phrase "GOOD ONES ARE SO RARE WE CAN CONSIDER THEM ALL BAD" (include the quotation marks) to see how widely creationists have propagated this fabricated quotation over the web.

Thread moved here from the The Great Debate forum.