|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How long would it take for a novel alelle to be fixated in a population? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Actually I remember the original controversy on talk.origins...
But if you look at the webpage all it claims to refute is the application of Haldane's calculation to rule out human evolution from a common ancestor with chimpanzees. A claim that ReMine DOES make in the book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
Oh... But do you tink that rate, organisms will be able to change drastically? While some features may be due to neutral mutations how man of them may due to beneficial mutations?
So have you finished reading his paper? Edited by CoolBeans, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So have you finished reading his paper? Can I suggest that you provide a short quote with summary in your own words of some point you think is being missed? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
Its a pdf, so I cant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Its a pdf, so I cant. There are other ways of copying text other than ctrl+c. It is really hard for us to read your mind. If there is something in the text that you want us to focus on you need to quote a small section and discuss why you think it is important.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
Haldane's old model? — Haldane used a multiplicative-fitness model. (Moreover, for the parameters he used, it also approximates an additive-fitness model.) Both of those fitness models are still predominantly used today. Everything in "Haldane's model" is current with today's practice of evolutionary genetics (including Haldane's uses of fitness, fitness models, selection, alleles, genes, dominance, and Mendelian segregation). So if evolutionists throw-out "Haldane's model" they must also throw-out the modern textbooks on evolutionary genetics. Small selection coefficients? — Haldane assumed selection coefficients approaching zero. This gives the absolute minimum total-cost of substitution in each case. If you break Haldane's assumption, and invoke higher selection coefficients, then the cost increases, resulting in fewer substitutions, and Haldane's Dilemma worsens. The environmental-change scenario? — Haldane assumed substitutions begin in a peculiar way, via an environmental-change scenario. The scenario operates as follows. Neutral and slightly harmful mutations (though almost always eliminated outright) sometimes drift upwards in frequency, to arrive at moderate frequencies. Then, when the environment changes, one of these neutral or slightly harmful mutations is converted (it is alleged) into a beneficial mutation. This elevated starting frequency is where Haldane begins to tally the total-cost of the substitution. By giving the substitution a free head-start to an elevated frequency, it lowers the total cost of substitution. This cost-reduction is the only impact of the environmental-change scenario that Haldane allowed into his calculations. If you break Haldane's assumption, then it raises the total-cost of substitution, and worsens Haldane's Dilemma.1 Constant population size? — Haldane assumed the population size remains constant throughout a given substitution (though he allowed large varieties of population size, each for a different substitution). That was done partly for mathematical simplification (in the era before computers were readily available to readers). When evolutionists break this assumption, they do not "solve" Haldane's Dilemma. They merely obscure it further. There is always a cost of substitution; it is unavoidable. It is not enough to merely object to Haldane's simplification. Evolutionists must actually s-o-l-v-e Haldane's Dilemma. Infinite population size? — Evolutionists sometimes claim Haldane assumed an unrealistic "infinite population size." That is untrue. If Haldane had done that, then the total-cost of substitution would always be infinite — when Haldane calculated its average value is 30. So Haldane obviously did not use an infinite population size. Rather, Haldane used something at the other end of the spectrum. To see it, take a haploid species, and suppose there are two independent alleles, A and B (at independently segregating loci), each with a frequency of one per thousand. By random mating, the genotype AB (containing both alleles, A and B) would have a frequency of one per million. But if the population size is only one thousand individuals, then in a given generation, genotype AB cannot actually exist at a frequency of one in a million. Instead, either that genotype exists as a whole individual, or it does not exist — it either has a frequency of one per thousand, or zero. There is no 'in-between' when dealing with individuals that are quantized into whole-bodies. This difficulty is handled by Haldane, and by virtually all textbooks today, in the same way — by using non-quantized individuals. To greatly simplify the math, and to generalize the results, they allow a genotype to exist at its expected frequency (without having to quantize the genotype into, say, 1000 whole-bodies). Put simply, Haldane assumed non-quantized individuals, not infinite population size. If evolutionists want to throw-out that simplifying assumption, then they would have to throw-out virtually all of today's evolutionary genetics textbooks. And it still would not solve Haldane's Dilemma. This are some of his assumptions. That even if wrong wouldnt solve the problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
I don't think that ReMine's paper is worth reading. There are a whole lot of reasons why you can't use the actual differences between human and chimp DNA to get the number of alleles that have to be fixed by hard selection. (Another, which I haven't mentioned before, is that fixation of an allele will almost certainly fix multiple mutations - mostly neutral).
So, we don't have a good estimate of the number of alleles that have to be fixed by hard selection, and we don't even have that good an estimate of how many could be. So what's left of ReMine's argument?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
This are some of his assumptions. That even if wrong wouldnt solve the problem. If his assumptions are wrong then there isn't a problem to begin with. Of course, we can't blame Haldane for his mistakes because even he stated quite clearly that this was a working model that was surely wrong in some way. No one even knew how DNA worked back then being that DNA had only been discovered a few years before Haldane wrote that paper. Given what we know now, there isn't a dilemma. There never was.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
So what you are saying is that alot of the changes are due to neutral mutation. I would be happy if you read his paper. I've read the paper that you linked to, so you should be happy. What in particular in his paper would you like me to refute? It's the same old crap: he claims that the number of beneficial mutations separating humans from chimps must be fewer than 1,667. I myself would not be surprised if the actual number of beneficial mutations was fewer than 100. This is not even relevant to the total number of mutations, good, bad, or indifferent. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Infinite population size? — Evolutionists sometimes claim Haldane assumed an unrealistic "infinite population size." That is untrue. If Haldane had done that, then the total-cost of substitution would always be infinite — when Haldane calculated its average value is 30. So Haldane obviously did not use an infinite population size. Mad people are funny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
1667 base pair substitutions?
this what he is claiming. Edited by CoolBeans, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
1,667 substitutions = 10,000,000 / (20 * 300) Substitutions = (Years) / [(Years / Generation) * (Generations / Substitution)] One thing to note is that its based on one lineage. I dont feel this correct since. How would he know how much change in the genome is needed. Thgerefore the argument is based on believing that it would not be enough. Edited by CoolBeans, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
1667 base pair substitutions? this what he is claiming. Well, let's be clear about this. If he is claiming that Haldane's work proves that that is an upper limit on the number of base pair substitutions that can occur, then he is a filthy stupid drooling liar. Because Haldane's math only applies to beneficial mutations. If he is claiming that 1,667 is greater than the number of beneficial mutations that have actually occurred, then he is a filthy stupid drooling liar. Because no-one has counted them. If, as is usually the case with creationists, he is juggling with words and with figures while not committing himself to any actual claim, then he is a filthy stupid drooling liar. Because he is pretending to have a quantitative argument when he does not. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3645 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
I should have added beneficial in there.
You are right on both parts, though. I mean 1667 base pair mutations seems to be a little low. What mistakes could he have made on his paper?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You are right on both parts, though. I mean 1667 base pair mutations seems to be a little low. What mistakes could he have made on his paper? Well, if he would say 1667 beneficial base pair mutations, then he might be correct within an order of magnitude. And then it would be clear why the creationist attempt to make capital out of this is worthless garbage. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024