Mutation

"Most mutations are harmful"DC85
"This is false every Creature has some kind of Mutation.. so most are Just not Visable and don't effect the creature either way..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------With all due respect DC85 but what you've said is not entirely true. Here's a Quote by Edward E.Max on the Talk.origins site, he clearly states that,"While it is true that most mutations are either harmful, as suggested by the creationists, or neutral, the creationists gloss over a crucial fact: beneficial mutations do occur, though they are very rare."Here's the site so you can confirm it yourself, I don't want to be accused of taking anyone's statement out of context. However I'm only providing this so you won't take "MY" word for it. The Evolution of Improved Fitness Specifically under the heading "1.2.1 Are all mutations harmful?"But notice he does say that MOST ARE "harmful" or "neutral". I'm not talking about any "beneficial" ones, I am ONLY addressing your response where you claim that "This is false...." to the statement made earlier that "Most mutations are harmful".

Also DC85 , what do you mean, "most are not Visable...?" Visible to the naked eye? Microscope? Electron Microscope? The reason that confuses me is because mutations "HAVE" to be, somehow, visible otherwise, how would we even know if one occurred? Right?[This message has been edited by Milagros, 04-07-2004]

Servus Dei
"What would you say is the difference between evolution and speciation? Can evolution occur without speciation? If so, what is the organism evolving into that is new? Can there be any significant evolution within a species? Finally, are evolutions and mutations somewhat synomous, or is there no direct relation?"Servus, just to be clear, I don't want to assume anything whether you understand this or not, but when you say "evolution" there is a distinction that is made between the "type" of evolution you are talking about."In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution of genes and microevolution is within-species evolution of genes."You will find this on: Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and HistorySo you see when you ask, "What would you say is the difference between evolution and speciation? Can evolution occur without speciation?" To your first question that would depend if you are referring to Macro or Micro-evolution. If you are referring to Macro, then as the paragraph above explains there really is no difference. If you mean Micro then yes there is. For your second question, again, if you mean Micro-evolution then yes micro can occur without speciation in contrast to Macro which couldn't.[This message has been edited by Milagros, 04-07-2004]

NosyNed
"But the statment:
"Most mutations are harmful or neutral" can be true AND at the same time "Most mutations are harmful" can be false."Um...okay. How about we say this instead. Most mutations are NOT
beneficial. This "little" fact is problematic for me.The mutations that are, supposedly, "beneficial" are first off, hard to tell IF they ARE "beneficial" AND they are a RARE occurrence AND even IF they are "beneficial" they can STILL disappear or not be passed on. And, Generally speaking, MOST new mutants are lost anyways, even beneficial ones.Think about that. I have and it's giving me dame bramage.
So you're talking about a "Rare" occurrence.
That's even "Hard" to detect if it even occurred to even know if it IS beneficial.
And even IF it is beneficial it can still be lost.How many times do these hard to know rare occurrences that can be lost have to happen to result in say a wingless creature to slowly evolve a wing nub (nub as in the very early stages of a "potential" wing evolving, NOT to say that a wing WILL evolve.) ? How many years would that take before something useful like a wing has evolved and has been selected for, (let alone the wing nub being selected for)? Even with 40 Billion years, the idea that these rare occurrences can evolve into what we know of the world today is still not plausible for me. ESPECIALLY when you are talking about mutations that occurs in a genetic code that is the building block of all creatures which must have also evolved (DNA) FIRST before we can even talk about any beneficial mutations. Sorry guys, but I have a tremendous problem with that, call me Krazy. Maybe someone can do the math of taking 40 billions years times all the known species we know of and multiply the figure by "x" (carry over the 1) and come out with some general idea of how many "beneficial" mutations must have occurred to result in the species of today. I'd be interested to see some formulation of that. (Math is not my strong point)"What is the net result," you may ask. Some mutations are fatal or very bad. These mutations get eliminated immediately. Some are silent and don't count. Sometimes a mutation is definitely advantageous; this is rare but it does happen. Almost all mutations which aren't silent and which aren't eliminated immediately are neither completely advantageous nor deleterious. The mutation produces a slightly different protein, and the cell and the living organism work slightly differently. Whether the mutation is helpful or harmful depends on the environment; it could be either.""Quite often a mutation occurs within a population and then disappears because the organism had no offspring or didn't happen to pass the mutation on to its offspring; this can happen even if the mutation is beneficial."Are Mutations Harmful?I'll reiterate that the "Relevant" statement in reference to the
evolutionary process would be that Mutations are mostly NOT beneficial. Right?

Moi
"And, Generally speaking, MOST new mutants are lost anyways, even beneficial ones."Crash
"Then they weren't, by definition, beneficial. I don't entirely understand how you came to the conclusion that most beneficial mutations are still fatal."Me again...
Crash, your confusion confused me
I never said that "beneficial" mutations were fatal. I said that they can still be lost. Whether they are beneficial, neutral or obviously detrimental. So says Talk Origins.Talkorigins (Richard Harter)
"Quite often a mutation occurs within a population and then disappears because the organism had no offspring or didn't happen to pass the mutation on to its offspring; this can happen even if the mutation is beneficial."Crash
"Call me strict but I think that's an erroneous use of "beneficial". If it didn't help the organism, then there's no way to say that the mutation was beneficial. Obviously, accidents happen. Not all death is selection - sometimes you get hit by a rock or something."You are one strict customer. You might want to take this up with Mr.Harter.

NosyNed
"You know, I can understand that it is hard to grasp what is possible. It is made harder when there are so many misconceptions."Er...what misconceptions might that be eh? I provided a nice link to the web page I got this info from so you can check it out for yourselves.As far as what is "possible" sheesh you can purty much cover a lot of subjects in that regard, don't you think? However from the scientific data about mutations, of which talkorigins addresses, it makes that "possibility" less "probable", to me at least.NosyNed
"Also the split between beneficial and neutral may be a bit too sharpe. It is clear that mutations are not, by themselves, either of those. It waits on the environment to sort out which are and are not beneficial."Hmmm...maybe, maybe not.
Ok, well you've just managed to stack the odds more against "beneficial" mutations being passed on when you include the environment factor. I'm not saying that it isn't a factor, I'm just saying it makes the "possibility" that much more difficult, shall we say.NosyNed
"Another problem is the idea that the mutation has to be somehow spectaculary beneficial. It doesn't. The whole process of selection is statistical. As you point out even beneficial mutations could, by pure bad luck, not make it. But the slightest extra edge could also make the difference between more and fewer offspring too. One could claim, without good evidence, that every surviving individual has shown their specific genome to be somehow beneficial. How can you discount that?"Sorry, I'm not too sure what you mean. I know, for me at least, I don't think that a "beneficial" mutation has to be somehow "spectacular". I'm fine with the "idea" that they might even happen. It's the "idea" that such a rare occurrence helps the argument that a bunch of them resulted in what we see today on earth, THAT'S the problem. Is it still "possible"? I guess anything's possible, is it "probable" doesn't look that way to me.NosyNed
"It may be difficult for you to accept what can arise out of this stew of every changing organisms but simple incredulity isn't enough to refute it. All the evidence we have says that it can and more, has happened."Incredulity? Dude if I may, what's the "possibility" that you'd win a million dollar lottery? 1 in something right? Now try winning it again. What's the "possibility" that you can accomplish this? I'm not saying that it "isn't" possible. But...would it be incredulous to say that I can't accept that you could win the lottery in a lifetime, say 3 times? Even though it's "possible"? I don't have any evidence that it's "impossible", however how "probable" is it that you can accomplish this 3 times in a lifetime? You're picking a random number between 40 or 50, with 40 or 50 balls that are randomly chosen among millions of people and you have to hit the right number 3 times. Try that as an experiment. However on one condition, that you give me the winnings for the 3rd ticket, since it was MY idea in the first place. You make incredulity sound as if it's something bad. I'm simply saying that the odds are strongly against "beneficial" mutations a) happening, b)difficult to confirm (if they are) c)can STILL be lost and d) or c1) the environment can be another cause for losing them. Can it "possibly" happen, perhaps, but can it account for all of what we see today, even in 45 billion years time, I don't know but I find that highly "improbable".Like I said, I'd be interested in seeing some calculations made that gives us an "average", doesn't have to be perfect, of how many of these "possibilities" must have occurred within 45 billion years time to result in what we see today. Is that even "possible"

Beneficial alleles (This is the heading the paragraph below is under)Most new mutants are lost, even beneficial ones. Wright calculated that the probability of fixation of a beneficial allele is 2s. (This assumes a large population size, a small fitness benefit, and that heterozygotes have an intermediate fitness. A benefit of 2s yields an overall rate of evolution: k=4Nvs where v is the mutation rate to beneficial alleles) An allele that conferred a one percent increase in fitness only has a two percent chance of fixing. The probability of fixation of beneficial type of mutant is boosted by recurrent mutation. The beneficial mutant may be lost several times, but eventually it will arise and stick in a population. (Recall that even deleterious mutants recur in a population.)http://www.talkorigins.org/...intro-to-biology.html#mutationNote where he says, "The beneficial mutant may be lost several times..." but more notably how he begins the paragraph.If the mutation "disappears because the organism had no offspring or didn't happen to pass the mutation on to its offspring"...means what? You lose it right? Or should I say it "disappears". They're synonymous in a sorta kinda way don't ya think?[This message has been edited by Milagros, 04-12-2004]

Whoa...hold it there pardner...
I wasn't necessarily using the lottery example as an analogy of mutations. It was a point about incredulity.Lest there be any more misunderstanding. I was using the example of what the odds or probability of someone winning the lottery more than once in a lifetime of say 100 years multiplied by 52 (the number of weeks in a year) would be. We have no evidence that winning it 3 times couldn't be accomplished within that time frame. BUT...wouldn't you agree that we'd both be incredulous to think that they could do this at least 3 times? It's incredulity based on probability when we consider the data. In that same way when I consider the data of what talkorigins is addressing concerning "beneficial" mutations, I conclude (based on that data) that these mutations resulting in all of what we see on earth today is highly improbable, even in 45 billions years time.

The only itty bitty teeny weenie itsy bitsy problem I see with the stone arch comparison is that it was built by conscience, living, breathing, thinking, humans. (Who so happen to also build the scaffolds) Of course any "conscience" person can build, as we've seen, pretty much anything. But we're talking about an "unconscious" process doing it. Are we not?

Me
"BUT...wouldn't you agree that we'd both be incredulous to think that they could do this at least 3 times? "Crashfrog
"I wouldn't be. In a random world I would expect it to happen once. After all one guy has already won the lottery twice, and that's within my lifetime."Me
Was it a million dollar lottery? I've heard of several people winning the 3 pick lottery a few times.Crashfrog
"The problem is that you're substituting your own incredulity for any kind of statistical guideline. "Me
Oh quite the contrary. I'm basing my incredulity on factual evidence. I'll elaborate below.Crash guy
"How low do the odds have to be before you won't believe it could happen?"Me again...
First of all, that question made me dizzy for a moment.
I never said that I "don't" believe that it could happen. (We're still talking lottery, Million dollar Lottery right?) However the odds ARE low enough to reasonably believe that it couldn't.I'm talking about the "odds" and/or "probability" of it actually happening. NOT the "possibility". The only reason we believe and actually "know" that anyone can win the lottery at least once in their lifetime is because...drum role please...we've "witnessed" it occurring. Ta-da! Shall we say, we've "observed" it happening. So...Based on THAT "fact" (as opposed to "possibility"). And Based on the fact (as opposed to "possibility")of how difficult it is for just one person to win it is. And Based on the fact (as opposed to "possibility") that the chance of them doing it again makes it even more difficult. Based on those "facts" I am incredulous to believe that anyone can win it 3 times in a life time. NOT because I think it's impossible but Because I think it's HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.Just because it's "possible" for someone to win 3 times in a lifetime doesn't change the "FACT" that it's not an easy thing to accomplish. And "WHY" is that? Because the "probability" of such an occurrence (based on "factual" observance, evidence) is very low. It's not unreasonable to be incredulous to the idea that anyone can win the lottery 3 times in a lifetime, based on those facts, that is, based on what we DO know.
Ya see what I'm saying?In the case of mutations, some claim that "beneficial" mutations occur. Fine, BUT...they admit that: it's very rare, hard to detect, may not be passed on (therefore gets lost) or the environment may not be conducive for their survivability, causing the mutation to get lost in that way as well. Those are the "facts". Based on those facts can we reasonably conclude in the context of said "facts" that the amount of varied species in the world today was the result of these rare occurrences? My question to you is, What are the "facts" about mutations that you see which shows that they (beneficial mutations) DID result in todays millions of varied species? If all you have is the "possibility" that they "could" have, but no "facts" about mutations to support that, then I'm sorry, but that's not good enough for me.However if the facts are that "beneficial" mutations DO occur then my next question is what is the average of 'beneficial" mutations that needed to occur to result in all we see in the world today? I'd be interested in that information, if it's even possible to calculate. I'll give it a go. Why do I feel that's important to know, because if we don't have any idea of what the average might be how can we even be sure that it could account for all species of today? In other words, say we did figure out that the average occurrence of "beneficial" mutations was 1 every 100 thousand years. What's 100 thousand into 45 Billion? Comes out to what, 450000 "beneficial" mutations? Does that sound like enough "beneficial" mutations to account for all the known species to you? How about 1 in 10 thousand years. That comes out to 4500000 million "beneficial" mutations? (Somebody correct my math if this is wrong). By this number we can conclude that on an "average" of 10 thousand years we can expect to find at least 1 "beneficial" mutation. Unfortunately even 1 in 10 thousand years, equalling 4500000 million "beneficial" mutations would make it practicaly impossible for these "beneficial" mutations to account for all the varied species we see today (Excluding species that are extinct). Don't you think? And let's not forget, not ALL "beneficial" mutations even make it. Also 45 Billions years would include the evolution of DNA even before we can start attributing the evolution of varied species to mutations that are "beneficial".Now don't you think in the context of those facts that it makes that "possibility" less likely and/or "Highly Improbable"? It would seem, to me at least, that the "odds" are stacked against the idea that the rare occurrence of "beneficial" mutations can account for all that we see today on earth.[This message has been edited by Milagros, 04-14-2004]

Crash
"What if he played the lottery twice a day? What if he played it a hundred times every second, for 3 billion years? What might happen then?"I never intended the lottery example to be a perfect example for "beneficial" mutations. I used it as an example to highlight the important differences between "possibility" and "probability". But since you're using it, let's illustrate why it's not a perfect example. If I win a million dollar lottery, of course I could spend every dollar won to increase my chances to win again. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way for "beneficial" mutations. You still only would have "ONE" more chance, NOT 100 or 1 million more chances. Comprende?Crash
"I submit that you just don't have the information, nor the statistical training, to make these kind of judgements about what could happen or what couldn't. Your off-the-cuff feelings about probablility just don't constitute any sort of proof, no matter how much you apply the term "reasonable" to them."Well you are certainly free to express your opinion. However I submit that you just don't have the information, nor the emotional training, to make these kind of judgments about what I do or don't feel. Your off-the-cuff feelings about "possibility" just don't constitute any sort of proof, no matter how much you apply the term "possibility" to them.Crash
"I'd say it's something like 1 every 50 individuals, based on that 2 percent fixation rate. One in every 50 individuals has a beneficial mutation that will fix in the population. Now, how many individuals have lived in the last 3 billion years?"I dunno, how many? Why don't you try figuring it out?Crash
"Now figure it out. I'm not inclined to accept statistical reasoning that starts with the baseless assumptions of somebody who so desperately doesn't want evolution to be true."If there are any baseless assumptions going on it's your baseless assumption that I so desperately don't want evolution to be true. I'm not inclined to accept comments of those that ignore the facts, of which talkorigins addresses, with the baseless assumptions of somebody who so desperately wants evolution to be true.I've provided links, and information about the factual evidence of which these links address. And (again) based on those facts I cannot reasonably conclude that the result can account for all the varied species we see today. If you have another conclusion based on those facts I'd be interested to hear what they are. Until such a time it would appear that it is you who are desperately trying not to address the issue. Or avoid it. Or ignore it. Or don't care. Why would that be? Could it "possibly" be because someone wants to "desperately" accept that evolution IS true? But I wont make that assumption. I'll assume that you, as do I, want to understand how this is "probable".Since we're talking about "probabilities" here is some "more" information about mutations for your musings.(Mutation)
The process of mutation is probabilistic. We describe the process in terms of the probability of a mutation occurring in an individual during its lifetime. Typical rates of mutation are between 1 in 10,000 (10-4) and 1 in 1,000,000 (10-6) for many organisms. Either this means that a long time must pass before a mutation occurs in a population, or the population must be very large. The population must number in excess of 106 or one million members in order to see an average of one mutation per generation for a gene with a mutation rate of 10-6. Most mutations are detrimental, and perhaps only 1 in 1,000 is beneficial. Thus, in this population of a million we might have to wait for one thousand years for a specific genetic locus to throw us a beneficial mutation (of course there are thousands of possible loci in an organism so the waiting time for any beneficial mutation is less).http://www.biology.ucsc.edu/...lasses/evolution/GENETICS.HTMDid he just say that the process of mutation is "probabilistic"?Here's another:Mutation
The frequency of gene B and its allele b will not remain in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium if the rate of mutation of B -> b (or vice versa) changes.By itself, mutation probably plays only a minor role in evolution; the rates are simply too low.
But evolution absolutely depends on mutations because this is the only way that new alleles are created. After being shuffled in various combinations with the rest of the gene pool, these provide the raw material on which natural selection can act.http://users.rcn.com/...t/BiologyPages/H/Hardy_Weinberg.htmlOf particular interest, at least to "me" is this statement: "By itself, mutation "probably" plays only a minor role in evolution; (Why do they think so? Answer is...drum role ) the rates are simply "too low."Again, I ask YOU. Based on all that information provided above and on talkorigins, what makes you think that these rare occurrences can account for all the varied species we see today on earth? Sorry, but "I" can't accept that they could, "BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, THE FACTS, PROVIDED". You get that?

That's some purty nice configuring there Crashfrog. I appreciate the time you took to do that.However, let's not forget something. Math is not the argument I'm trying to make here. I used math as an example of what I was "inquiring" about "myself". See? I made the argument that the probability is low based on observed evidence and wondered if anyone knew of the Math or amount of "beneficial" mutations it would require to "make it more probable" or even "possible". Don't confuse or blur the two. So it was quite astute of you to notice that I wasn't offering any math to support my position, since that was never my position. You have quite the knack for stating the obvious. Here's an example of what I'm trying to say, and what I have already been trying to say. Er...let's see. Ok, you and I both know that if someone jumped off, say a 10 story building, from the 10th floor, the "chances" or the "probability" of this person surviving the fall is high that they won't or low that they will survive. Follow? Now what are we basing this on? Math? Nope. Observance? Yep. See how simple that is? There's been, unfortunately, many times where people have made a jump as high or higher, even lower, and more often than not we read about them on the news or hear,see it on radio,television news that this fall caused their death. Yea I know, not the best example. I'm throwing in a little shock value. Ok, enough of that.I'm just trying to show you how it's not always math that is involved with issues of "probabilities". You see, if I came and told you that I read that a group of guys, about 100 of them, fell from 10 stories and survived would you believe me? Does math automatically enter your mind? You pull out the ole calculator and start figuring out how that's even "probable"? Sure, it may be "possible" that someone "may" survive BUT...the chances are very low that anyone would or could. Right? If the evidence was observed that "beneficial" mutations occur all of the time then there is no problem. If the evidence was observed that "beneficial" mutations were kept quite often and rarely lost then there is no problem. If the evidence showed that a large number of people survive 10 story falls then it's easier to accept it when someone tells you 100 of them did. Why is this concept so difficult to understand? Dis aint rocket science bud. You seem extremely reluctant to want to understand or accept this simple concept. What's the problem? If you won't believe it when someone tells you that 100 guys survived a 10 story fall based on the high improbability of anyone surviving then why is it soooo easy for you to accept that a rare occurrence that can still get lost result in 5 to 10 million species we see today?
However if you insist on accepting it, THEN, I'd be interested to know the math behind how many "beneficial" mutations had to have occurred to make this possible. See where I'm coming from?Now the math part I gave was an example of how someone "might" try and configure this number. The web page I cited was another example of how some scientist's have gone on to make some calculations themselves. However my focus has always been about the low "probability" of these rare mutations resulting in all we see on earth today, based on observed scientific data. If I had NO data to base my position THEN my incredulity may be a problem. But incredulity does not always equate a faulty or weak position especially if it's based on observed information.So...my argument is this: "it seems too unlikely (based on observed scientific evidence), so it's "probably" not "possible" that it could.
NOT "it seems too unlikely, so it must not be true."It seems too unlikely that a person can survive a 10 story fall, so it's "probably" not "possible" that 100 of them did. No math required.Sorry for the late response, I've been away on business.
If you've calculated that 3 billion "beneficial" mutations may have occurred, what's that make the average of "beneficial" mutations occurring per year, decade, century, etc.? Now take that number and see if there is any scientific data that confirms this average. So that if you say every 6 years one "beneficial" mutation occurs, we can test this by seeing if this has been observed anywhere at anytime.[This message has been edited by Milagros, 04-21-2004]

Alrighty CrashfrogIt seems quite apparent that you're agitated. I've tried to be patient myself in explaining my position. And as per usual SEMANTIC issue's rears its ugly ahead again. You like playing those games do you? I don't!Tell you what, why don't you do yourself a favor and look up the DEFINITION of probability, eh. Go ahead; I'm sure that won't be too hard for you. I didn't realize Crashfrog that this was so necessary for you to comprende?Here, never mind put the book down, I'll make this easy.1 : the quality or state of being probable
2 : something (as an event or circumstance) that is probable
3 a (1) : the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes (2) : the chance that a given event will occur b : a branch of mathematics concerned with the study of probabilities
4 : a logical relation between statements such that evidence confirming one confirms the other to some degreeAnother for you:1. The quality or condition of being probable; likelihood.
2. A probable situation, condition, or event: Her election is a clear probability.
3.
a. The likelihood that a given event will occur: little probability of rain tonight.
b. Statistics. A number expressing the likelihood that a specific event will occur, expressed as the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the number of possible occurrences.What was the LAST definition of Probability? STATISTICS! The first two mention things like "condition", "circumstance" or "events" etc. Hey look they even provide another example of probability requiring NO MATH and NO STATISTICS. The likelihood of RAIN. What do you do Crash, count the clouds in the sky? Does that help you figure if it might rain or not? (Oh I know, you use Doppler Radar)Probability is NOT A MATH TERM or should I say, not a math term EXCLUSIVELY!!! It's quite evident that you think it is. I thought I explained it quite clearly. The lottery example unfortunately may have confused some since it does involve "numbers" so I used an off the wall example of people jumping off of buildings to help explain my "meaning". But I actually think the Rain example is better. However notice one more thing, the definition is in ENGLISH! Voila. Just for you Crashfrog. I hope this shows how "sensical" I can be.I knew there was going to be some unnecessary quibble about my 10 story jumpers like "it depends if the ground is soft, or if its water that they fall on or if they have parachutes or if they have a pillow tied around there bottoms" etc. I thought though that you would understand the "essence" or my "meaning" of the point I was trying to make. Here, let's then use the Rain example for probability. Are the chances High or low that a very cloudy day may result in rain? (I know, it depends if it's winter, or in the dessert, in the tropics etc. yea I get that.) Ok, let's try another, what is the chance that a very pale person will get sunburn under the scorching sun? (I know, it depends if they're in the dessert, wearing clothes, do they have sunscreen on, etc.) However, even with some of those details answered, where is the math involved? Eh? You ever hear of a thing called "Deduce"? Let me provide you the definition to save on potential confusion:1. To reach (a conclusion) by reasoning.
2. To infer from a general principle; reason deductively: deduced from the laws of physics that the new airplane would fly.
3. To trace the origin or derivation ofSee, by deductive reasoning that heavy clouds during the summer usually make it very likely that it will rain, (all observed facts) I conclude that there is a high probability that it will rain today.When you finally accept the fact that probability doesn't JUST talk about mathematical equations or "statistics" then yes, we can move on. Purty nervy of you accusing me of redefining the definition. The explanations I gave were the examples I provided to show my meaning.This was purty funny too, you saying that:"unlike you, I guess, I recognize the difference between improbable events and impossible ones, and as a rule, I only immediately reject the latter. "THIS was EXACTLY the point "I", "ME" was trying to make before! That, there is a DIFFERENCE between the two terms. Here, let me quote myself:Just because it's "possible" for someone to win 3 times in a lifetime doesn't change the "FACT" that it's not an easy thing to accomplish. And "WHY" is that? Because the "probability" of such an occurrence (based on "factual" observance, evidence) is very low. Ya see what I'm saying? http://EvC Forum: MutationAnother:
I never intended the lottery example to be a perfect example for "beneficial" mutations. I used it as an example to highlight the important differences between "possibility" and "probability". http://EvC Forum: Mutation How'd you miss that? It's on the same page as this post.Furthermore the point I was making by citing those differences between "possibilities" and "probabilities" is That I, unlike YOU, reject the former because for "me" ANYTHING is possible. I can't just say, well since it's "possible" maybe it's true. Sorry, I reject the "if it's possible then it's probable" idea. I think you have that in reverse because, again, we can say that anything is possible. Santa Clause is possible. However not everything is "probable", since I'm incredulous that a fat person in a red suit can "probably" fit down a chimney. Perhaps if he squeezed for a looong time it may be "possible". But based on that, I guess you're right, Santa Clause must exist. You'll excuse me if I don't include any mathematical equations to prove that he doesn't.Sorry if I got you all in a tizzy but it's not my fault that the word "probability" confuses you. In the future you might want your dictionary handy. Or better yet, at least try to understand what the person "means" when they're using the word. I always like to say, "See what I mean" incase people don't.Anytime you are ready to admit that probability means more than just statistics with a mature attitude of wanting to understand the meaning of a persons posting (also called comprende skills) we can move on. Say hi to Santa for me. By the way, the repeat sentence was accidental. I cut and paste one too many sentences. Sorry about that. I've removed it.

This can't be THAT confusing.Let me try to be as clear as possible about where I am coming from. Even if you disagree at least try to understand where I'm coming from. If you still don't then I don't really know what else I can say.1) We don't have any average estimates of how many "beneficial" mutations MUST HAVE occurred to result in all the varied life we see on earth today. Right? Do we? (Correct me if I'm wrong and/or provide information to the contrary.) I've been looking, so far zilch.2) We don't have any evidence to show us an average of how many times we can expect to see a "beneficial" mutation. (Again, please correct me if I'm wrong and/or provide information to the contrary.) Of course without getting any information from question 1 we can't really answer question 2.So what evidence concerning "beneficial" mutations DO we have?
What we DO have is information about "beneficial" mutations which I provided with links to talk origins that talk about them.Based on the information that we DO have, I must conclude (deduce) that it is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE that these rare occurrences (That can still be lost, referred to as "beneficial" mutations) can result in all the varied life we see on earth today, even in 500 million years time.Let's try this example:
A carpenter is telling you it only took him/her a week to build a log cabin in the desert.
Which story is easier to accept? The story of how a carpenter took only a week to build a log cabin in the forest? OR! The story of how a carpenter took only a week to build a log cabin in the desert? What makes the forest story easier to accept? MATH? No! In this instance we don't need any arithmetic to make any conclusions or deduce which story is more likely true. We can easily "observe" the evidence and "deduce" that the desert story seems highly unlikely. We would make that "deduction" based on the "FACT" that it is very rare to find trees in the desert. As opposed to the "FACT" that in the forest trees are in abundance. You guys following me?
So...Is it "possible" that the desert story could happen? Sure it is, because we don't have any real hard cold evidence to show that it isn't. However, How "probable" is it that the desert story really happened? Well, based on the "FACTS" already discussed, it would make it HIGHLY IMPROBABLE. So if I were to ask, do you think the cabin story in the desert is true, you might respond, "probably" not. I know I would based on "deductive" reasoning from "observed" facts. I've been mentioning "deductive" reasoning because it seems evident that some are questioning my "reasoning".What is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD? Here (again) is a web site that talks about that:
Error PageNotice it talks about "OBSERVATION" and "INDUCTIVE" or "DEDUCTIVE" reasoning as part of that "SCIENTIFIC" method. This is what I am doing.
Based on what I observe or what talk origins has observed I "DEDUCE" that the "probability" of "beneficial" mutations to result in all the variety of life we see on earth today is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE. All I've done is take what we DO know and "Deduced" the "likelihood" of this causing or resulting in all the varied life on earth that we know of today.Even Mr. Edward E. Max admits this much about mutations:
"I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that "we have no way of observing a long series of mutations."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html
(I guess that just throws any chance for the math question I asked about out the window )He goes on to "reason" in the same fashion as some here in this forum do, that this doesn't mean that "...a series of mutations did NOT occur." Perhaps it's because he WANTS to believe that "beneficial" mutations did result in all the varied species we see today, DESPITE the "facts" to the contrary. This is were you and I disagree. This is where I say that based on the facts I've mentioned already from talk origins and now this admission from Mr. Max gives me cause to "deduce" based on all these facts that the chances for "beneficial" mutations to result in all the varied species we see today is "Highly Improbable". That's it!I cannot, like Mr. Max, just say, well despite all that, "beneficial" mutations MUST have occurred enough times. You guys can, I can't!

Fine, show me the "Math" that makes it a "certainty". Or show me the number that makes it probable. Until YOU do, all YOU are doing is...GUESSING! You may disagree at my conclusions but you provide no model to work from to support yours when it comes to calculating how many beneficial mutations must have occurred to result in all of the varied life we see on earth today. (And those that are extinct I might add) You base your conclusion on, well since there are SOooooo many species and Sooo many genes within each species then it MUST have occurred. If you cannot provide a model to base your conclusions on then all you are left with is deductive or inductive reasoning.Submit your hypothetical to Nature and see what they think. If they agree on it then we have something we can work with. Until then, guess away.