Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,828 Year: 3,085/9,624 Month: 930/1,588 Week: 113/223 Day: 11/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Electric Eel - more evidence against evolution
onifre
Member (Idle past 2952 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 91 of 101 (704429)
08-09-2013 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Genomicus
08-09-2013 3:05 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
You may not be understanding me...
Of course just saying "it's improbable" doesn't suffice; one must detail reasons to support that thesis.
Even if you detail why something is improbable, you may simply lack all the information and are drawing the wrong conclusion.
Because, ya know, improbability isn't relevant.
You've missed the point.
How improbable something may seem is not relevant. However, of course I recognize that certain aspects of science use statitics and probability to determine certain factors.
But that has nothing to do with the points being made to you.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Genomicus, posted 08-09-2013 3:05 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Genomicus, posted 08-09-2013 6:11 PM onifre has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 92 of 101 (704430)
08-09-2013 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by onifre
08-09-2013 6:07 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
Even if you detail why something is improbable, you may simply lack all the information and are drawing the wrong conclusion.
Then what is your view on all those disciplines of science that base conclusions on the basis of improbability, when obviously we still don't have all the possible information? How do you determine when (a) we lack all information, and (b) we don't?
How improbable something may seem is not relevant.
I'm just a bit confused on this, since you immediately follow up with:
However, of course I recognize that certain aspects of science use statitics and probability to determine certain factors.
Those "certain aspects of science" use speak of include population genetics and evolutionary biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by onifre, posted 08-09-2013 6:07 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by onifre, posted 08-09-2013 6:22 PM Genomicus has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 93 of 101 (704431)
08-09-2013 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Genomicus
08-09-2013 12:51 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
We have enough factors to make equations to estimate, e.g., the amount of time it will take for a particular complex adaptation to arise.
Do you?? Care to back this up with a source? Let's see the calculations and the claim. Let's see who is making that claim, and their qualifications.
It's easy to make claims.. it often is harder to back them up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Genomicus, posted 08-09-2013 12:51 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Genomicus, posted 08-09-2013 6:39 PM ramoss has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2952 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 94 of 101 (704432)
08-09-2013 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Genomicus
08-09-2013 6:11 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
How do you determine when (a) we lack all information, and (b) we don't?
When we don't yet have a theroy and are meerly trying to compose different hypothesis.
Those "certain aspects of science" use speak of include population genetics and evolutionary biology.
Maybe I'm not being clear enough.
Let's look at CS's example of solar fusion leading to calcium in his bones. Before a workable theory of solar fusion, gravity, planet formation, and knowledge of chemistry this would have seemed highly improbable.
But that improbability was irrelevant. The fact is, solar fusion and the cosmic explosions of one specific star lead to the calcium found in one persons (CS's) right arm (for example).
And that improbability would have lead to hypothesis of intelligent design and gods and all sorts of nonsense.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Genomicus, posted 08-09-2013 6:11 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Genomicus, posted 08-09-2013 6:47 PM onifre has not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 95 of 101 (704433)
08-09-2013 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by ramoss
08-09-2013 6:13 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
We have enough factors to make equations to estimate, e.g., the amount of time it will take for a particular complex adaptation to arise.
Do you?? Care to back this up with a source? Let's see the calculations and the claim.
Surely. For starters (references not in journal format since it's easy enough just to google the titles):
Lynch, M., Abegg, A."The Rate of Establishment of Complex Adaptations," 2010.
This is just from the abstract -- I encourage you to read the whole paper to get an idea of what's going on:
"A central problem in evolutionary theory concerns the mechanisms by which adaptations requiring multiple mutations emerge in natural populations. We develop a series of expressions that clarify the scaling of the time to establishment of complex adaptations with population size, mutation rate, magnitude of the selective disadvantage of intermediate-state alleles, and the complexity of the adaptation. In general, even in the face of deleterious intermediate steps, the time to establishment is minimized in populations with very large size."
Also from Michael Lynch:
"Scaling expectations for the time to establishment of complex adaptations," 2010.
The abstract:
"Although the vast majority of research in evolutionary biology is focused on adaption, a general theory for the population-genetic mechanisms by which complex adaptations are acquired remains to be developed. The issue explored here is the procurement of novel traits that specifically require multiple mutations to achieve a fitness advantage. By highlighting the roles played by the forces of mutation, recombination, and random genetic drift, and drawing from observations on the joint constraints on these factors, the ways in which rates of acquisition of specific types of adaptations scale with population size are explored. These general results provide insight into a number of ongoing controversies regarding the molecular basis of adaptation, including the adaptive utility of recombination and the role of drift in the passage through adaptive valleys."
See also:
Durrett, R., Schmidt, D. "Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution," 2008.
"...we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take >100 million years."
So as not to be accused of quote-mining:
"In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution."
There are other papers on the subject, as well. The point is this: we do indeed have tools to make estimates of the amount of time it would take for a particular complex adaptation to evolve. The next challenge, then, would be to find ways to determine the categories of complex adaptations current molecular systems fall into.
Let's see who is making that claim...
It does not matter who is making the claim so long as the claim is supported by evidence.
...and their qualifications...
When did qualifications become a part of this? As long as the claim is supported by evidence, qualifications do not matter.
It's easy to make claims.. it often is harder to back them up.
It's easier to back up claims when one is familiar with the pertinent literature and does not make a claim unless it can be supported.
Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ramoss, posted 08-09-2013 6:13 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 96 of 101 (704434)
08-09-2013 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by onifre
08-09-2013 6:22 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
When we don't yet have a theroy and are meerly trying to compose different hypothesis.
That doesn't work because theories aren't complete explanations. Even theories lack all information.
Let's look at CS's example of solar fusion leading to calcium in his bones. Before a workable theory of solar fusion, gravity, planet formation, and knowledge of chemistry this would have seemed highly improbable.
But that improbability was irrelevant. The fact is, solar fusion and the cosmic explosions of one specific star lead to the calcium found in one persons (CS's) right arm (for example).
Sure. But we now have a workable theory of molecular evolution, population genetics, and related disciplines. We have tools and techniques in population genetics and evolutionary biology to allow us to make rough estimates of the plausibility of evolutionary pathways. To be sure, such techniques cannot be applied to all systems. However, the point stands: we're not in a phase where we're "in the dark." Evolutionary biology and related disciplines have developed past that point.
Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by onifre, posted 08-09-2013 6:22 PM onifre has not replied

  
Haldir
Junior Member (Idle past 3874 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 08-07-2013


Message 97 of 101 (704437)
08-09-2013 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Genomicus
08-08-2013 7:02 PM


I think we should expect to find some other marine organisms with only some of them.
I think so, too. One could probably begin by looking at all the known marine organisms that have electricity-producing organs, and look at their general anatomy.
Yes, though I wonder if other marine organisms with electric organs still have fully-formed interlocking steps, differing from the electric eel only in degree or in fewer steps - maybe these are some of the other "remarkable" parallel examples the earlier source was talking about. What I really would expect is to see *some* of the steps in animals with no electric organs whatsoever; given enough players and iterations, five can win the lottery on the same numbers, but you are almost guaranteed to have dozens more who only missed it by one number and hundreds who missed it by two, etc. So we should see animals who can fire all their muscles at once, but they're not lined up in a way that it increases their voltage and creates a shock, or vice versa, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 7:02 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
Message 98 of 101 (704450)
08-10-2013 12:55 PM


Improbablities
It seems we've moved on and, perhaps, glossed over the "improbablity issue". I'm refering back the discussion (by CS I think) about the extreme improbability of a calcium atom from a star ending up in a bone in his arm.
But this was never connected to the whole topic.
It is, indeed, extremely improbable that a specific calcium atom would end up in that particular place. In fact, it's so improbable that one might suggest that it can never, ever occur.
However, that's the mistake of looking at how totally unlikely it is that a specific person (namely me) will win a specific drawing of a lottery. Never, seems to be the answer.
But some lucky, annoying bastard will win my money. That has a very, very high probability.
Likewise some calcium atom out of untold trillions will end up somewhere in someone's arm and that seems to have a pretty high probability under the conditions that are extant.
In the same way, the chain of events that leads to the chemistry we call "living" arising from chemistry we'd agree is not living maybe very improbable, unless there are either very, very many different chains that work or many, many different attempts are made to arrive at the end of the chain. (If I live long enough the chances of my winning the lottery get much better.)
Since we don't know the number of different paths to a win (life) calculating the odds can be off by 10's of orders of magnitude. We can make guesstimates of the number of trails and those can easily produce results with 20 or 30 figures.
What should be concluded from this?
Any discussion based on improbability is dumb and fruitless. Life arose, maybe it was a very, very lucky fluke and maybe it is an inevitable consequence of the initial conditions on earth (or some where in between). If it was very, very, very unlikely then one is entitled to ask if someone was loading the dice. But there is no hint that it is unlikely yet.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 101 (704451)
08-10-2013 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Genomicus
08-08-2013 5:30 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
And they use that to question the plausibility of evolution?
No, that is not the point here.
Then you're missing the point.
From upthread:
you writes:
jar writes:
you writes:
Well, if the evolution of a given trait is too unlikely, then you'll have to look for another explanation for the origin of that trait.
Uh, no. Why would I have to look for some other explanation?
Because the evolution of the trait is too unlikely, meaning that it is implausible to have originated through evolutionary processes.
That's not really the right approach. You don't raise doubt in a working theory by saying its explanation looks too improbable. What you do is provide your evidence for the alternative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 5:30 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 100 of 101 (704452)
08-10-2013 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Haldir
08-08-2013 6:24 PM


Yes, I guess what I would need to figure out is how many steps still separate those "electric fields" from the actual electrocution ability of the electric eel.
Why?
which part of my quoted paragraph did you mean by "its the former"?
"we expect to see some of these changes individually existent in other creatures"
There's all kinds of different ways that fish use electricity for a variety of reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Haldir, posted 08-08-2013 6:24 PM Haldir has not replied

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 3688 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 101 of 101 (713396)
12-12-2013 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by fred2353
06-14-2012 10:37 PM


Not neccesarily. Resistance to electrice shock can have all kinds of benefits. I'm no expert on electric eel lifestyle, though. There, was however, an experiment done which showed that this isn't valid. Two mutations are needed for a certain bacteria to use citrus as a food source. Each mutation is useless alone. However, there is documented proof of bacteria evolving the ability to use citrus in a lab setting, as well as in nature (although it was not observed there directly, as you probably guessed)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by fred2353, posted 06-14-2012 10:37 PM fred2353 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024