|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Explaining the pro-Evolution position | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: So consider the simpler case when HIV evolves very rapidly to single drug therapy. How do compute this probability? The probability would be 1 in 1, because HIV evolved rapidly to single drug therapy. When something happens the odds of it happening are 1 in 1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Kleinman writes: The answer to the question I ask you contains the reason why the theory of evolution is not true. I'm trying to get you to figure this out yourself. Sorry, if you want to challenge 150 years of scientific effort and concensus YOU have to do the heavy lifting. Persuade us. And, by the way, put away the patronising bollox, it's not helping you.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:Let's try to be a little more precise on the problem. Let's assume that it takes 3 mutations to give resistance to a single drug. How does a lineage of the virus achieve that 1 in 1 probability for all 3 mutations?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:I've already done the heavy lifting, I'm trying to teach you how to do some heavy mathematical scientific lifting. Taq is trying to do it. If you have trouble doing it, that's ok, I'll do it for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Kleinman writes: Let's try to be a little more precise on the problem. Let's assume that it takes 3 mutations to give resistance to a single drug. Let's not assume that, since it is rarely true. Even in Behe's famous example of drug resistance in falciparum it turned out to be false. Behe tried to claim that there were only two mutations that could confer resistance, and that they had to happen at the same time. He was wrong on both counts. Your first job is to show that there are only 3 mutations that can produce HIV resistance to a given drug.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:I'm going to disagree with you that single mutations commonly give resistance to antimicrobial agents. So if you don't want to do this with HIV, let's do this with a real, measured and repeatable example of rmns. icommons.harvard.edu In this example, it takes 5 mutations for the e coli to achieve resistance to this antibiotic. How do you compute the probability for those 5 mutations to occur, that is the probability is 1?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Kleinman writes: I've already done the heavy lifting Fantastic so why not just explain it all to us, then collect your Nobel prize?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:Don't be impatient, perhaps Taq will figure it out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
In this example, it takes 5 mutations for the e coli to achieve resistance to this antibiotic. How do you compute the probability for those 5 mutations to occur, that is the probability is 1? Ah, I get it. You don't understand what it means for a mutation to be random. In Message 15 you wrote:
rmns is governed by the theorems of probability theory. So really, it isn't. Mutations aren't necessarily purely random like Brownian Motion. And the link you provided confirms that: "Darwinian Evolution Can Follow Only Very Few Mutational Paths to Fitter Proteins" The randomness of mutations is with respect to fitness, not randomness like Brownian Motion. There can be predictable causes of mutations, its just that you can't predict them from the perspective of the phenotype. But down at the genotypic level, you very well may be able to. So this game you're trying to play is to get to: "See, the probability is so low that those mutations couldn't have been random, so therefore the Theory of Evolution is wrong because it requires mutations to be random." The fact that we'd all see through that baloney is why you have to take this convoluted route of asking questions that you already know the answers to and trying to "help" us figure out what you're getting at.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:Mutations are random events and rare events as well. So how can natural selection change the probabilities so that the probability that 5 rare mutations can occur on a lineage, that is the probability is 1 to give drug resistance to an antibiotic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Mutations are random events and rare events as well. I don't believe you.
So how can natural selection change the probabilities so that the probability that 5 rare mutations can occur on a lineage, that is the probability is 1 to give drug resistance to an antibiotic? Natural selection (NS) does not change the probabilities. (well, I mean it can, but that's irrelevant to this) With respect to fitness (i.e. where NS operates), the mutations are random. With respect to the genome, the mutations may not be truly random like Brownian Motion is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:Do you think that mutations are not random events? Can you predict when a mutation will occur? So what is the frequency of a mutation occurring at a particular site in a genome? quote:Natural selection is totally relevant. Natural selection must do something very specific in order to improve the probability that a beneficial mutation will occur. There are factors which can alter mutation rates but these factors do not alter whether mutations are random or not. Mutations are always random.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Natural selection does not improve the probability of beneficial mutations occurring. If you think that evolutionary theory claims otherwise you really need to take a step back and apologise for running through this silly routine of yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
quote:Do you think that mutations are not random events? I think that they are not rare events. I think that they are random with respect to fitness. I think they may or may not be truly random like Brownian Motion, depending on the mutation.
Can you predict when a mutation will occur? Me personally? No. Scientists? Maybe.
So what is the frequency of a mutation occurring at a particular site in a genome? Which mutation and which site?
Natural selection is totally relevant. Natural selection must do something very specific in order to improve the probability that a beneficial mutation will occur. No, that's complete nonsense. Natural selection doesn't do stuff.
There are factors which can alter mutation rates but these factors do not alter whether mutations are random or not. I bet if I subjected my balls to some particular radiation that we could cause particular mutations that I could pass on to my offspring, but that's the kind of stuff that I'm calling irrelevant.
Mutations are always random. No, not necessarily. And it depends what you mean by "random". Like, there is a series of events that causes a particular mutation to happen. It may be that once that process is kicked off, that it is inevitable that the particular mutation will occur. That would not be random. That would be repeatable and testable. And like the paper that you linked to said, for some mutations there are particular pathways that are more probable to occur than others.
quote: Does that sound random to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kleinman Member (Idle past 363 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: |
quote:If natural selection is not altering the probabilities that a particular mutation will occur at a particular site in a genome, then what do you think that natural selection does? I have nothing to apologise for here. You have something to apologise for by not correctly describing how rmns works.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024