Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
24 online now:
DrJones*, jar, JonF, PaulK (4 members, 20 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,353 Year: 20,389/19,786 Month: 786/2,023 Week: 294/392 Day: 25/129 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are evolution simulations accurate?
mrjeremy
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 22 (263115)
11-25-2005 5:45 PM


Is looking at inbred groups and things that are mutated by radiation a good way of simulating the way evolution would work or not? In other words, does creating a large build up of mutations suddenly yield the same result that a slow build up over time would? Why or why not?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 11-25-2005 6:42 PM mrjeremy has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Gospel Preacher, posted 11-26-2005 10:24 AM mrjeremy has responded
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 11-26-2005 10:30 AM mrjeremy has responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 22 (263121)
11-25-2005 6:12 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 22 (263131)
11-25-2005 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mrjeremy
11-25-2005 5:45 PM


In other words, does creating a large build up of mutations suddenly yield the same result that a slow build up over time would? Why or why not?

Is the 10 you get from adding 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 different from the 10 you get from adding 5 + 5? If so, how?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mrjeremy, posted 11-25-2005 5:45 PM mrjeremy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by U can call me Cookie, posted 11-26-2005 5:05 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 3266 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 4 of 22 (263193)
11-26-2005 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
11-25-2005 6:42 PM


thinking about it, there could be a strong possibility that a large number of mutations at one time could affect the rate of evolution, and not necessarily increase it.

the higher the number of mutations in an individual, the more likely it is for a lethal mutation to occur. and even if an advantageous mutation did occur as well, it could very well be masked by the death of the individual due to the lethal mutation.


So intimate that your hand upon my chest is my hand,
so intimate that when I fall asleep it is your eyes that close.
- Pablo Neruda

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 11-25-2005 6:42 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mrjeremy, posted 11-26-2005 12:42 PM U can call me Cookie has not yet responded

  
Gospel Preacher
Member
Posts: 549
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 5 of 22 (263238)
11-26-2005 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mrjeremy
11-25-2005 5:45 PM


Evolution does not work on a big scale, it only functions on a small scale. You cannot go from an ape to a human. You can go from one breed of dog to another. Adaption is possible, but on the big scale evolution will always fail. Man will never evolve into a higher being without man doing it to himself through technologoy.

You evolutionists are all wasting time. Trying to explain how the first cell came into being is like explaining how the steam engine assembled itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mrjeremy, posted 11-25-2005 5:45 PM mrjeremy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mrjeremy, posted 11-26-2005 1:05 PM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 11-26-2005 3:27 PM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Nuggin, posted 11-26-2005 7:14 PM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded
 Message 16 by mick, posted 11-26-2005 8:24 PM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 6 of 22 (263245)
11-26-2005 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mrjeremy
11-25-2005 5:45 PM


Not realistic, but that's okay
No, in my opinion (as a non-biologist) the simulations are not realistic.

I don't see this as a problem. Lab experiments are typically done to isolate a few variables and test just those. Non-realistic experiments are common throughout science. A cosmologist might do some experiments using an earth-bound particle accelerator to test theories about the nuclear synthesis that occurs in stars.

We learn more, not less, from unrealistic lab simulations that are designed to test just a few variables.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mrjeremy, posted 11-25-2005 5:45 PM mrjeremy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mrjeremy, posted 11-26-2005 12:10 PM nwr has responded

  
mrjeremy
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 22 (263291)
11-26-2005 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by nwr
11-26-2005 10:30 AM


Re: Not realistic, but that's okay
Could you please explain why you think simulations are not realistic? For example, are there specific things that would occure in nature that cannot be reproduced in lab experiments. Thats what I am trying to uncover.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 11-26-2005 10:30 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 11-26-2005 12:34 PM mrjeremy has responded
 Message 15 by Nuggin, posted 11-26-2005 7:21 PM mrjeremy has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 8 of 22 (263306)
11-26-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by mrjeremy
11-26-2005 12:10 PM


Re: Not realistic, but that's okay
Could you please explain why you think simulations are not realistic?

The most obvious problem is that radiation results in an unnaturally high mutation rate.

are there specific things that would occure in nature that cannot be reproduced in lab experiments.

In nature, mutations can form that are relatively neutral, and these can be passed from generation to generation. A particular mutation might be advantages in the presence of some genes, while disadvantageous in the presence of others. The presence of that mutated gene in multiple generations allows a thorough testing of its viability in various combinations. In a lab experiment with a forced high mutation rate, there is little opportunity for this kind of thoroughness in testing.

That my opinion, but please keep in mind that I am not a biologist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mrjeremy, posted 11-26-2005 12:10 PM mrjeremy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mrjeremy, posted 11-26-2005 2:17 PM nwr has responded

  
mrjeremy
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 22 (263314)
11-26-2005 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by U can call me Cookie
11-26-2005 5:05 AM


hmm, yeah, that seems to make sense...but at the same time we have to take note that many of the mutants do not have a leathal mutation. I don't really see a point in looking at "what might have been lost due to a leathal mutation" when there are so many other mutants to study that did not have a leathal mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by U can call me Cookie, posted 11-26-2005 5:05 AM U can call me Cookie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Wounded King, posted 11-28-2005 10:04 AM mrjeremy has not yet responded

  
mrjeremy
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 22 (263321)
11-26-2005 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Gospel Preacher
11-26-2005 10:24 AM


I fail to see how this addresses my question...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Gospel Preacher, posted 11-26-2005 10:24 AM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded

  
mrjeremy
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 22 (263348)
11-26-2005 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by nwr
11-26-2005 12:34 PM


Re: Not realistic, but that's okay
Good point, but here is a possible rebuttal. Let me know what you think.

It is unlikely that this neutral gene when coupled with another mutation would create such a big difference as to overcome genetic drift. Unless the change causes such a big survival advantage that it survives while the rest of the community dies, both of the mutations in the combination will be subject to genetic drift (which usually maintains the status quo pretty well from what I understand).
If somewhere along the line the neutral mutation hooks up with a second mutation that it combines well with, then that second mutation still has the drift problem to deal with. In other words, assuming this "neutral" mutation is lucky enough to surive the drift, what it ends up being coupled with will also be whatever mutation happened to be lucky enough to survive the drift.

This implies that lab experiments would be accurate in simulations since in both the lab and in nature the combinations in the end result are basically random. The rate of mutaiton may be unusually high in the lab, but that just means we have more possible end combinations to look at.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 11-26-2005 12:34 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 11-26-2005 2:44 PM mrjeremy has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 12 of 22 (263354)
11-26-2005 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mrjeremy
11-26-2005 2:17 PM


Re: Not realistic, but that's okay
It is unlikely that this neutral gene when coupled with another mutation would create such a big difference as to overcome genetic drift.

I tend to agree. But apparently I did not explain myself clearly enough.

In the real environment, mutations can occur which are relatively neutral. The mutated genes can become part of the gene pool, where they are subject to thorough testing in combination with various other genes (at different loci). Thus a species can build up variability that has been well tested in the original environment.

At some later time, there might be a change in environment. What resulted from neutral mutations in the original environment might now become beneficial in the altered environment. Moreover, the gene pool might contain several well tested variants that were all near neutral in the original environment. It is possible that these, in combination, could result in a so-called IC change within the altered environment.

If we look at lab tests under radiation, at least as I understand those experiments, the resulting mutation occurs at the same time as the changed environment (i.e. the artificially applied selection), so there is no time for the thorough testing that would occur in real life situations. I would expect the lab conditions to produce evolutionary changes that are less robust than occurs in real life. And I would expect there to be less creativity (less opportunity for so-called IC changes).

Again, I'll remind you that I am not a biologist. I suppose I am a bit of a theoretician, and I am giving my theoretical analysis. But it is not informed by any detailed knowledge of the lab experiments with drosophila. I had hoped that somebody familiar with that lab work would comment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mrjeremy, posted 11-26-2005 2:17 PM mrjeremy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mrjeremy, posted 11-26-2005 11:58 PM nwr has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 22 (263361)
11-26-2005 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Gospel Preacher
11-26-2005 10:24 AM


You can go from one breed of dog to another.

How do you know when you've gone from one breed of dog to another?

You evolutionists are all wasting time.

Is that so? I guess I'd better pass the word around, here in the lab. "Hey, everybody! Pack it up! I know you were getting some great results but we're done; some 14-year-old kid on the internet has informed us that we're all wasting our time."

Might I suggest, oh, I don't know, an actual education before you attempt to assess what fields of scientific inquiry are liable to be fruitful? Just a thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Gospel Preacher, posted 11-26-2005 10:24 AM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 805 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 14 of 22 (263407)
11-26-2005 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Gospel Preacher
11-26-2005 10:24 AM


Wild steam engines
You evolutionists are all wasting time. Trying to explain how the first cell came into being is like explaining how the steam engine assembled itself.

Nice analogy, but let's take it to it's conclusion.

We're not trying to explain how the steam engine assembled itself. We're trying to explain where the steal came from, where the water came from, where the wood came from, where the fire came from, how the wood and fire end up in the stove, how the water turns to steam, how the steam drives the wheels.

We can find answers to all these things.

What's the other solution?

"Steam engines are magic."

Bad news for you, steam engines aren't mentioned in the Bible. Therefore, they simple don't exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Gospel Preacher, posted 11-26-2005 10:24 AM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 805 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 15 of 22 (263408)
11-26-2005 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by mrjeremy
11-26-2005 12:10 PM


Re: Not realistic, but that's okay
I think the problem here is the term "realistic".

I take that to mean, "happening normally" outside of the lab.

Forget biology for a second, let's talk about something very observable, like simple physics.

Is it realistic that two perfectly shaped spheres of differing sizes and masses would fall from the same height at the same time?

Is it realistic that a perfect lever would exist balancing a heavy object near to the fulcrum and a lighter object further away?

No, but these experiments are done to demonstrate the principles or to better understand that mechanics of simple physics.

Would a single colony of fruit flies, all decended from the same parents, be seperated into two groups of equal number, then one of those groups would be blasted with radiation?

Unlikely. Does it help us to better understand mutation? Certainly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mrjeremy, posted 11-26-2005 12:10 PM mrjeremy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by mrjeremy, posted 11-27-2005 12:18 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019