Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 84 (8942 total)
 32 online now: AnswersInGenitals, DrJones*, jar, PaulK, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 26 visitors) Newest Member: LaLa dawn Post Volume: Total: 863,804 Year: 18,840/19,786 Month: 1,260/1,705 Week: 66/446 Day: 66/64 Hour: 18/13

EvC Forum Science Forums Biological Evolution

# What mutations are needed for a particular trait (e.g. wings) to arise?

Author Topic:   What mutations are needed for a particular trait (e.g. wings) to arise?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3768
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7

 Message 106 of 111 (347474) 09-08-2006 1:32 AM Reply to: Message 100 by Someone who cares09-07-2006 11:38 PM

Re: Is it possible mathematically?
quote:
99.9% sounds like a good enough mathematical impossibility.
...
You know what I think personally? I think they only left that 0.1% or less to give evolutionists at least some little hope to cling to...

OK, let's take that 0.1% and do the math.

p = Probability of a beneficial mutation appearing in an individual
p = 0.1% = 0.001
q = probability it will not appear (includes harmful mutations)
q = 1 - p = 0.999

Now, for a beneficial mutation to not appear in a population of n individuals would require that it not happen n times in a row. For it to not happen over g generations would require that it not happen ng times in a row. That probability Q would be:
Q = q(ng)
And hence the probability P that a beneficial mutation would occur at least once over g generations of a population of n individuals would be:
P = 1 - Q = 1 - q(ng)

For n = 1000 and g = 100,
Q = 0.999(1000 * 100) = 3.53852*10-44
P = 1 - Q = very nearly 100% (calc rounded it off to 1; it can't handle subtracting such a small number from 1)

Now, I feel that those values of n and g are reasonable. Let's try a much smaller case and less reasonable case, such as n = 100 and g =10:

Q = 0.999(100 * 10) = 36.77%
P = 1 - Q = 63.23%
It's still twice as probable that a beneficial mutation would occur than not.

What? You make such a sweeping statement about something being "mathematically impossible", and you couldn't be bothered to do the basic math?

Well, you've let us know loud and clear how much weight your claims carry. None at all.

Consider this (as I hope your colleagues will): If the claims you make that we can check (eg, claims about science and the natural universe) all turn out to be rubbish, then how could you ever expect us to accept the claims you make that we cannot check (eg, claims about the supernatural, including claims about your God). When will you ever learn that making false claims can only work against your cause and against the Cause of Christ?

If you really did care, then you would be scrambling to clean up your act as quickly as possible. That you will undoubtedly not do that, is just more evil fruit for the Matt 7:20 test.

Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Edited by dwise1, : Finally cleaning up of the HTML

 This message is a reply to: Message 100 by Someone who cares, posted 09-07-2006 11:38 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4642 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004

 Message 107 of 111 (347490) 09-08-2006 2:52 AM Reply to: Message 100 by Someone who cares09-07-2006 11:38 PM

Re: Is it possible mathematically?
 AND, mutations can't add genetic information

Care to back that claim up?

 Evolution requires gain, mutations give loss!

I'm willing to be corrected by somebody who has a better grasp of biology than me but I would have said that evolution simply requires change which can subsequently be acted on by natural selection.

Oops! Wrong Planet

 This message is a reply to: Message 100 by Someone who cares, posted 09-07-2006 11:38 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 109 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2006 3:41 AM MangyTiger has responded

Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0

 Message 108 of 111 (347495) 09-08-2006 3:24 AM Reply to: Message 99 by Someone who cares09-07-2006 11:31 PM

Re: Is it possible mathematically?
 Please! Don't tell me that we wouldn't expect to see at least SOME evolution in 4,000 years!

Of course I did not tell you that. I told you that we would not see a flightles clade aquire wings in 4000 years.

Why are you begging me not to say something I didn't say and never will?

 Evolutionist, "Folks, we haven't seen evolution throughout our entire existence, but um, trust me on this one, it did happen, when no one was there to see it. Just trust me."

But no "evolutionist" has ever said that.

Which is why you had to make it up.

No-one has ever said that, have they? Ever.

 Woah! Stop right there. What was that! Tell me, in what part of that did the reptile aquire the neccessary info to start evolving wings! Remember, the reptile doesn't have genetic code for wings or evolving them, so a filter (natural selection) would be of no use!

As I have pointed out to you, if a species by its habits of life would be favored by being more aerodynamic, then natural selction will favor this.

 Reason with me, since when did air filters start adding nitrogen or something to our air? What you would need is not a filter, nor errors, nor isolation, you would need GENETIC CODE INFORMATION INCREASES, but there is NO process to describe how this is even possible!

I hope that your fellow creationists will tap you on the shoulder at this point. Uh, "air filters adding nitrogen or something to our air?"

 We can't move on to algebra if we don't even have our addition and multiplication learned. Sorry, I can't ask you something more difficult until you give me a plausible explanation for my simple questions. First simple, then difficult.

Right. Until you can learn the basics of the theory of evolution, you're never going to understand the hard questions. Start with the easy stuff, then see if you can catch up with scientists who've won the Nobel Prize.

 This message is a reply to: Message 99 by Someone who cares, posted 09-07-2006 11:31 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15446
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9

 Message 109 of 111 (347496) 09-08-2006 3:41 AM Reply to: Message 107 by MangyTiger09-08-2006 2:52 AM

Re: Is it possible mathematically?
I'd like to know how it is possible to tell that a bird's wing requires more "genetic information" than a feathered arm (including hand).

The information "argument" is almost always a dishonest dodge. There is no valid measure of information involved. There's no argument to explain why evolution needs this (usually undefined) sort of "information" or any argument to explain why it cannot increase. That isn't always true but the alternatives I've seen are easily shot down.

 This message is a reply to: Message 107 by MangyTiger, posted 09-08-2006 2:52 AM MangyTiger has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 110 by MangyTiger, posted 09-08-2006 2:38 PM PaulK has not yet responded

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4642 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004

 Message 110 of 111 (347575) 09-08-2006 2:38 PM Reply to: Message 109 by PaulK09-08-2006 3:41 AM

Re: Is it possible mathematically?
Yeah. I was trying to avoid asking Someone Who Cares to define genetic information and describe how it can be measured (on the grounds that everyone else had so it was probably off topic :)).

However your point about why does a wing require more "gentic information" than a feathered arm and hand is a good one.

Oops! Wrong Planet

 This message is a reply to: Message 109 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2006 3:41 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Codegate
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 84
From: The Great White North
Joined: 03-15-2006

 Message 111 of 111 (347576) 09-08-2006 2:38 PM Reply to: Message 100 by Someone who cares09-07-2006 11:38 PM

Re: Is it possible mathematically?
I really love arguments like this because they actually make it easier for evolution to occur. Unfortunately, the numbers are not correct.

 Someone who cares writes:99.9% of mutations are harmful!

You do realize that you have several mutations yourself, right? Based on some poking around I've done the actual number ranges somewhere between 3 and 500 depending on what you read. I'm pretty sure 99.9% or those are not harmful. In fact I'm betting that 99.9% of them are neutral.

I really wish I knew where you got that percentage from. I've heard numbers like it mentioned before by creationists and it has absolutely no basis in reality.

Regardless of that issue, lets move on. Let us assume that 99.9% of mutations in a given population are harmful. For simplicities sake, lets assume that every member of the population has 1 mutation. I'd like to show you how that would actually benefit the population.

In evolutionary terms, harmful equates to less likely to reproduce.

So, if 99.9% of a population are less likely to reproduce then the others in their population then that 1% will very quickly become the majority population.

Alternatively, if 99.9% of mutations are neutral (as they appear to be in reality) then it takes much longer for the beneficial mutations to express themselves in quantity because there are so many neutrals still in the population.

I hope that once you think about this, you'll see that this is how it would work. I can put together the actual math that proves this if you want. Post 35 in this thread goes over the basic math.

 This message is a reply to: Message 100 by Someone who cares, posted 09-07-2006 11:38 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)