Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 391 of 830 (870457)
01-20-2020 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by PaulK
01-20-2020 11:31 AM


Re: Number of trials
Thank you for your argument based only on bias against the researcher.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by PaulK, posted 01-20-2020 11:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by PaulK, posted 01-20-2020 11:39 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 392 of 830 (870458)
01-20-2020 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 391 by Faith
01-20-2020 11:34 AM


Re: Number of trials
quote:
Thank you for your argument based only on bias against the researcher
It isn’t an argument. It’s a caution against trusting biased and likely poorly-informed sources. Which should be obvious. But I guess you just have to be nasty about it.
But anyway see my edit. The article is worthless nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by Faith, posted 01-20-2020 11:34 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 393 of 830 (870485)
01-20-2020 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Faith
01-20-2020 10:54 AM


Wrong Question (I think)
Your answer (and maybe the article) seems to be focused on what would be needed. That is the question I explicitly said we weren't looking at right now.
The question was the number of "trials". That is how many different mutations would there be in the human population in 10 years. Or if you want a generation (take it as 20 years if you want).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Faith, posted 01-20-2020 10:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Faith, posted 01-21-2020 9:25 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 394 of 830 (870502)
01-21-2020 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by NosyNed
01-20-2020 6:12 PM


Re: Wrong Question (I think)
How many trials is hard to estimate because the whole shebang is random. Just to get one beneficial mutation at any given locus could involve hundreds of trials as it were, and meanwhile the same hit-or-miss process would be going on all over the genome, hundreds per locus perhaps. And the changes have to be coordinated with each other to produce a coherent phenotype. Above all, to get an actually new species you have to have changes in the structural parts of the genome, otherwise all you'll get is variations on the species itself rather than any kind of changes that could lead to something completely different.
I guess I could try to describe all the misses I expect would have to happen, the mutations that would have to be weeded out by selection because they are deleterious in some way. Some mutations would have to be like those that put the fruit fly parts in the wrong positions.
Think it through yourself. The whole thing is simply impossible. We keep getting these flat statements about how evolution is just the continuation of normal microevolution. It can't be. You run out of genetic variability at the point you get a "pure" breed or subspecies. There is no way to get from there to something the genome does not have instructions for. That would require all this trial and error because it isn't built in, and that is simply impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by NosyNed, posted 01-20-2020 6:12 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2020 1:18 PM Faith has replied
 Message 397 by PaulK, posted 01-21-2020 3:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 403 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2020 10:30 AM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 395 of 830 (870521)
01-21-2020 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by Faith
01-21-2020 9:25 AM


My 2 sense worth
My 2 sense worth ...
How many trials is hard to estimate because the whole shebang is random. Just to get one beneficial mutation at any given locus could involve hundreds of trials as it were, ...
Each of us carries hundreds of mutations our parents did not have. They are either beneficial, neutral, or mildly harmful (such as a predisposition for cancer). One generation, one "trial" ...
... and meanwhile the same hit-or-miss process would be going on all over the genome, hundreds per locus perhaps. ...
Yep, going on now in every individual in the (very large) breeding population. We are also seeing large changes in our ecology due to our habit of cutting down trees and digging up ores, burning fossil fuels that alter the atmosphere, etc. so mutations that may have been neutral or mildly harmful may be more beneficial than previously.
Remember, the "trial" is to survive and breed. Any existing mutations that are passed to the next generation have done that and passed the trial.
... And the changes have to be coordinated with each other to produce a coherent phenotype. ...
Nope. This is where you go wrong. There is no goal other than survival and breeding, that is all that is required. The conditions for this change with the ecological changes, but the goal to survive and breed remains the only goal necessary for evolution. Any individual that survives and breeds obviously has a "coherent phenotype" so that is irrelevant.
Above all, to get an actually new species you have to have changes in the structural parts of the genome, ...
Nope. All you need is divergent evolution between two breeding populations such that they don't interbreed. That of course uses the scientific definition of speciation, not the Monty Python "and now for something completely different" definition.
... otherwise all you'll get is variations on the species itself rather than any kind of changes that could lead to something completely different.
According to your erroneous definition/s of species, but not according to science.
I guess I could try to describe all the misses I expect would have to happen, the mutations that would have to be weeded out by selection because they are deleterious in some way. Some mutations would have to be like those that put the fruit fly parts in the wrong positions.
You could, but it would be pointless, being based on a false precept, that there is more than survival and breeding involved.
Think it through yourself. The whole thing is simply impossible. We keep getting these flat statements about how evolution is just the continuation of normal microevolution. It can't be. ...
Except that it is observed, a fact you try to get around by saying that it is "normal variation in a species" while ignoring the science.
Nor have you in any way demonstrated that "It can't be."
... You run out of genetic variability at the point you get a "pure" breed or subspecies. ...
Except those hundred of new mutations in each individual resupplies genetic variability, as you have been told hundreds of times.
... There is no way to get from there to something the genome does not have instructions for. ...
The genome "has instructions" for new individuals to survive and breed, mutations alter some of these "instructions" and they are tested by survival to breed. Those that pass become part of the genome for the next generation, which is slightly different from the one before. This process is repeated every generation.
... That would require all this trial and error because it isn't built in, and that is simply impossible.
Except you have not demonstrated it is impossible, rather you have demonstrated denial and denial generated ignorance of how evolution actually works, and how it succeeds every generation.
Speciation is something that happens, not because there is a goal, but because the population genome is constantly changing with every generation and the ecology that "tests" the population for survival and breeding is constantly changing, especially when populations divide into two or more different ecologies.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : st

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Faith, posted 01-21-2020 9:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Faith, posted 01-21-2020 3:06 PM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 396 of 830 (870522)
01-21-2020 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by RAZD
01-21-2020 1:18 PM


Re: My 2 sense worth
OK, to you it's all about microevolution and I can't get across what I'm talking about. Way it goes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2020 1:18 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by dwise1, posted 01-21-2020 4:39 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 400 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2020 7:45 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 402 by Tangle, posted 01-22-2020 3:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 397 of 830 (870524)
01-21-2020 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by Faith
01-21-2020 9:25 AM


Re: Wrong Question (I think)
quote:
How many trials is hard to estimate because the whole shebang is random
It helps to work out what you’re counting as trials. And you really haven’t even been clear about that,
quote:
Just to get one beneficial mutation at any given locus could involve hundreds of trials as it were, and meanwhile the same hit-or-miss process would be going on all over the genome, hundreds per locus perhaps
It sounds like you are counting any mutation as a trial - and there are a LOT of those.
quote:
And the changes have to be coordinated with each other to produce a coherent phenotype.
No, there is no need of any coordination. And what would an incoherent phenotype be, anyway?
quote:
Above all, to get an actually new species you have to have changes in the structural parts of the genome, otherwise all you'll get is variations on the species itself rather than any kind of changes that could lead to something completely different.
What do you mean by the structural parts of the genome? What do they do?
quote:
I guess I could try to describe all the misses I expect would have to happen, the mutations that would have to be weeded out by selection because they are deleterious in some way. Some mutations would have to be like those that put the fruit fly parts in the wrong positions.
Why would you need to? That they are misses is enough. And changes that big will be rare and aren’t likely to leave traces.
quote:
Think it through yourself.
If you had actually thought it through you could do better than this vague rambling.
quote:
The whole thing is simply impossible.
So you say, but you haven’t offered any real support - or any reason to think that you’ve really thought it through.
quote:
We keep getting these flat statements about how evolution is just the continuation of normal microevolution. It can't be
So you say again, and again the reasoning is lacking.
quote:
You run out of genetic variability at the point you get a "pure" breed or subspecies.
Which never happens, excluding species reduced to a single individual.
quote:
There is no way to get from there to something the genome does not have instructions for. That would require all this trial and error because it isn't built in, and that is simply impossible.
Sure, the Scottish fold cat must be an individual creation by God himself. Or you’re talking nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Faith, posted 01-21-2020 9:25 AM Faith has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 398 of 830 (870528)
01-21-2020 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Faith
01-20-2020 10:54 AM


Re: Number of trials
And of course I don't know but what I think would have to occur to get any kind of evolutionary change is thousands per gene at least
There are no human genes that differ from the equivalent gene in the chimp by thousands of changes. Human genes differ from their mouse equivalents by a little more than a thousand changes on average.
I don't understand why you think just randomly guessing at numbers is the way to figure these things out. Why not investigate the findings of all the people who've spent careers getting the real answers by actually looking at real genomes and seeing how they work? It's all really quite fascinating (although very confusing), and more educational than pulling ideas out of thin air.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Faith, posted 01-20-2020 10:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 399 of 830 (870529)
01-21-2020 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Faith
01-21-2020 3:06 PM


Re: My 2 sense worth
OK, to you it's all about microevolution and I can't get across what I'm talking about. Way it goes.
Except that you are not even trying to "get across what [you're] talking about."
Instead, you are actively preventing "[getting] across what [you're] talking about."
In Message 385 I laid out a series of simple questions that you need to answer so that you can finally get across what you're talking about. Your "response" was the ultimate creationist non-response of vaguely suggesting that you're get to it later -- in over three decades of dealing with creationists, I have seen that promise many times and have never ever seen any creationist honor that promise. It's a damned dishonest trick almost known as "smiling you out the door".
As I concluded:
DWise1 writes:
That is a list of the best guesses I can make of what the hell you are talking about. It details many of the questions that you must answer in order for us to figure out just what the hell you are talking about.
If any of my guesses are incorrect (which is likely, since you are forcing us into a guessing game), then you must provide us with corrections. Not just a say-nothing "nope, not what I said", but rather an actual explanation of what you are actually saying.
Obviously, if any of my guesses are correct, then you must acknowledge that fact.
And if you refuse to do either and just remain silent, then I will have to assume that I was correct on every count and that your entire "model" has nothing to do with evolution.
Why are you fighting so hard to avoid telling us what you are talking about?
  • Are you trying to hide the fact that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about?
  • Are you trying to bluff, to hide the fact that you have nothing to support your position so you instead are trying to deceive us? (BTW, doing that knowingly is also known as lying)
Those few questions I raised are what you must answer at a bare minimum. By refusing to do so, you are refusing to allow anybody to understand "what [you're] talking about."
 
I'm reminded of a scene in Chasing Amy, which I've tailored for our situation here:
quote:
There's a four-way road, okay? And dead in the center is a crisp, new, hundred dollar bill. Now, at the end of each of these streets are four people, okay? You following?
Over here, we have an honest truthful creationist, one who will engage in honest discussion and present researched evidence and sound reasoning to support his position. Down here, we have a dishonest, lying, deceitful creationist who will avoid any and all honest discussion by using every and any dirty dishonest trick in the book, plus some he just makes up as he goes along. Over here, we got Santa Claus, and up here the Easter Bunny. Which one is going to get to the hundred dollar bill first? The honest creationist, the dishonest creationist, Santa Claus, or the Easter bunny?
The dishonest creationist. Why? Because the other three are figments of your imagination!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Faith, posted 01-21-2020 3:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 400 of 830 (870546)
01-21-2020 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Faith
01-21-2020 3:06 PM


Re: My 2 sense worth
OK, to you it's all about microevolution and I can't get across what I'm talking about. Way it goes
All evolution is done by microevolution because it occurs in breeding population. It is not possible to happen in dead populations, or ones that have not yet been conceived. each generation is composed of individuals being tested for survival and reproduction.
Whatever you are talking about, or trying to get across is bogus scientifically.
You want something completely different? Wait. It takes generations of accumulated small non-lethal changes that generation by generation pass the survival/reproduction test.
The question for you: how do you define completely different in a way that can be scientifically determined.
You’ve never done this, and I doubt you know how.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Faith, posted 01-21-2020 3:06 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by dwise1, posted 01-22-2020 3:04 AM RAZD has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 401 of 830 (870549)
01-22-2020 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by RAZD
01-21-2020 7:45 PM


Re: My 2 sense worth
RAZD replying to Faith:
Whatever you are talking about, or trying to get across is bogus scientifically.
As I pointed out to Faith with my modest list in Message 385 of very simple direct questions that she must answer, while she is not almost completely unclear about what she is talking about she has also been dropping clues about her misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation) of evolution that she is using.
  • While she has given occasional lip service to mutations being genetic (in our usage, we are only talking about genetic mutations which are heritable), I strongly suspect that by "mutation" she primarily means only physical changes, which would include physical changes caused by genetic mutation.
    We need to nail down just what she means by "mutation".
  • Her view of the appearance of a new trait (eg, chimp foot to human foot) appears to be that it must happen abruptly as within a single generation or within a few generations at most. This is coupled with her assertion that all these physical changes must all suddenly arise and come together randomly "at the same time".
    That is of course saltationism:
    quote:
    In biology, saltation (from Latin, saltus, "leap") is a sudden and large mutational change from one generation to the next, potentially causing single-step speciation. This was historically offered as an alternative to Darwinism. Some forms of mutationism were effectively saltationist, implying large discontinuous jumps.
    That is popularly known as geneticist Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster". Not only does that appear to be what Faith is thinking of, but over the decades I have also observed many creationists using the same kind of arguments which would lead them to the same false conclusions (though none of them were ever willing to discuss it).
    Of course, that is almost the exact opposite of current ideas of evolution.
    We must get Faith to clarify what her ideas are of how evolution would work. Of course she will refuse to do so.
  • Since Faith's ideas appear to be saltationist, that would mean that in her "trial and error" claims each "trial" would be a saltation event, such as a chimp foot becoming a human foot (along with all the other body changes needed for walking upright) all in one generation.
    The probability of all that happening by chance is so small as to be virtually impossible. And that appears to be the basis of all creationist probability arguments, which Faith is echoing. The big problem with that probability argument is that it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
    What Faith is pushing with her "trial and error" nonsense is single-step selection which is notorious for its extremely low chances for success. Life does not use single-step selection, but rather cumulative selection in which a population accumulates small changes for generation to generation. In the third chapter, "Accumulating Small Changes", of The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins compared single-step and cumulative selection and created the first WEASEL program to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection. I couldn't believe it, so I wrote my own program which I called MONKEY, basing its specification on Dawkins' description of his program. It succeeded so incredibly fast and without fail that I still couldn't believe it, so I performed an analysis of the probabilities involved: MONKEY PROBABILITIES (MPROBS). Even though the probability of any one step succeeding is low, the probability of every single step of every single generation of the population failing is vanishingly small (ie, virtually impossible). Another strength of cumulative selection is that it is what life uses, whereas life does not use single-step selection.
    At the very least, Faith must describe just exactly what one of her "trials" would be, as well as to described exactly how her "trial and error" is supposed to apply to how life works.
I think that's a good point being raised that in life, every individual who has survived long enough to reproduce and pass its genes on to the next generation can be counted as having succeeded that "trial".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2020 7:45 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2020 10:58 AM dwise1 has replied
 Message 406 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2020 10:59 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 407 by Faith, posted 01-22-2020 11:09 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 402 of 830 (870550)
01-22-2020 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by Faith
01-21-2020 3:06 PM


Re: My 2 sense worth
Faith writes:
OK, to you it's all about microevolution and I can't get across what I'm talking about.
There's no such process as macroevolution, that's just a term used to describe the point (which in reality doesn't exist, or at least can't be found in real life) where the evolution of a population of organisms can no longer interbreed with its parent population.
The two terms micro and macroevelotion didn't exist when I studied the subject - there was and is just evolution. The process of evolution. It never stops and it never changes one species into another in a single leap. It adds variation, it doesn't reduce it. You're just factually, proveably wrong about these things.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Faith, posted 01-21-2020 3:06 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 403 of 830 (870565)
01-22-2020 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 394 by Faith
01-21-2020 9:25 AM


Numbers of "trails"
There are 131 million humans born a year. According to Wikipedia each has 60 mutations. So in a generation (20 years) we have:
131 million times 60 x 20 is 157 billion mutations.
But that is a severe underestimate since about half of all conceptions spontaniously abort. Some for mechanical reasons and some, I am guessing, do to failed mutations. That is another 157 billion mutations but presumably a large fraction of those are all harmful.
So in the human population an estimate of the trails you go on about is about 15 billion per year.
The article you linked to seems to make a very basic mistake of not considering whole populations.
Let's go back a couple of billion years. There would have been trillions of unicellular things multiplying every day. So those would have 100 trillion "trails" per year for 2 billion years. That's around 200 million million billion trails. Very unlikely things can occur if you just keep rolling the dice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Faith, posted 01-21-2020 9:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Faith, posted 01-22-2020 10:42 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 404 of 830 (870567)
01-22-2020 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by NosyNed
01-22-2020 10:30 AM


Re: Numbers of "trails"
Interesting, Nosy, an enormous number of mutations in the human population, no doubt similar in other species.
And not a single hint of any partcularly special new phenotype that could build to a new species. Bazillions of failed trials in other words.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2020 10:30 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 405 of 830 (870568)
01-22-2020 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by dwise1
01-22-2020 3:04 AM


Re: My 2 sense worth
As I pointed out to Faith with my modest list in Message 385 of very simple direct questions that she must answer, while she is not almost completely unclear about what she is talking about she has also been dropping clues about her misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation) of evolution that she is using.
Well I've been trying to understand for a couple years now, and I have a feeling that if one logged all the claims and sorted them, one would find inconsistencies and contradictions, as each argument she makes addresses only part of the issues at a time.
Her view of the appearance of a new trait (eg, chimp foot to human foot) appears to be that it must happen abruptly as within a single generation or within a few generations at most. This is coupled with her assertion that all these physical changes must all suddenly arise and come together randomly "at the same time".
That is of course saltationism:
Or what I call a "Monty 'and now for something completely different' Python's change. (you had to watch the show).
That is popularly known as geneticist Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster". Not only does that appear to be what Faith is thinking of, but over the decades I have also observed many creationists using the same kind of arguments which would lead them to the same false conclusions (though none of them were ever willing to discuss it).
Yes, the only thing that comes close is polyploidy sudden speciation, more common in plants, but known in mammals.
But even here the creationist complaint, as we get for all observed speciation events, is that it still isn't enough change to be macroevolution. I tried to address this on EvC Forum: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?. Faith made 219 posts on that thread that you can review here: Faith's Posts
enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by dwise1, posted 01-22-2020 3:04 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by dwise1, posted 01-22-2020 1:59 PM RAZD has seen this message but 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