Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Natural Selection
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2 of 50 (13427)
07-12-2002 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by William E. Harris
07-12-2002 2:15 PM


Your argument has an obvious logical error. You argue that there has been roughly one new gene added every 10,000 years on the evolutionary path from bacteria to humans:
William E. Harris writes:

If we determine the number of genes that have been added to the mammalian phylogenetic branch since then, 62,000, and then calculate the rate at which they must have been added over 600 million years to arrive at the number of genes in a mammal today, we find that one gene is added every 10,000 years.
This is fine so far, but then you completely bollix it up by dividing the new genes among multiple lineages unrelated to the evolutionary path leading to humans:

If we consider 1000 mammals from aardvarks to zebras, we should have observed at least one gene added to a member of this group of mammals every ten years as well as a number of different additional genes in some lines of Homo sapiens.
You'll have to reassess all conclusions deriving from this false logic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by William E. Harris, posted 07-12-2002 2:15 PM William E. Harris has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 4 of 50 (13430)
07-12-2002 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by William E. Harris
07-12-2002 2:15 PM


Whoops, should have kept reading. I see that your next point doesn't depend upon the point in error:
William E. Harris writes:

If we assume the Homo sapiens branch occurred 100,000 years ago, there should be as many as 10 different genes in each of the human races, yet Homo sapiens is a single species!
Whether your calculated figure is valid or not, the "one gene added every 10,000 years" is an average, not a requirement. Large populations tend to evolve very slowly. The variety of hominid finds prior to the emergence of Homo sapiens may be an indicator of faster evolution in the past.
But I wouldn't get too attached to your average one new gene/10,000-years figure. Small changes to this rate applied over the billions of years since bacteria mean you can get about any result you want.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by William E. Harris, posted 07-12-2002 2:15 PM William E. Harris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by William E. Harris, posted 07-13-2002 3:05 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 8 of 50 (13469)
07-13-2002 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by William E. Harris
07-13-2002 3:05 AM


You're actually asking whether there is enough information to conclude that Homo sapiens could not have evolved using evolutionary processes as we currently understand them. I share anyone's amazement that such could have come about. As I stated recently in Message 35 of the thread Page's misuse of Haldane's Dilemma, "How did the angle of the hip joint change? What about the orientation and shape of the pelvis? How about the angle of the skull on the backbone. What about skull and brain changes? How much, when, how fast, sequentially or all at the same time? We don't know."
William E. Harris writes:

Question: When a new batch of genes is developed in an organism, such as the insulin genes (regulation, cleaving enzymes, etc.), what results when the organism mates with an existing organism without such genes? How much of a gene difference prevents fertilization?
This is a mystery to me, perhaps someone here can explain it: how does a new gene come about? A new allele (a new possibility for an existing gene) is easily understood, but a new gene, now that's feels difficult. An offspring somehow has a new gene (mutation, copying error, etc.), so what will happen when it mates? Assuming it's still reproductively compatible with others of its species, what will happen to this new gene when the haploid sperm and egg combine?
You have some good questions!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by William E. Harris, posted 07-13-2002 3:05 AM William E. Harris has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by gene90, posted 07-13-2002 3:55 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 23 by axial soliton, posted 07-28-2002 9:50 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 14 of 50 (13509)
07-14-2002 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by William E. Harris
07-13-2002 10:52 PM


William E. Harris writes:

In an article called, Beyond Physics (Scientific American, Aug. 1998, page 20), renowned scientists contemplated the evidence for God.
I've uploaded a copy of the article.
As the caption beneath the unfortunately missing picture asks, was our universe custom made, or were we just lucky?
The odds of winning the lottery are very small. The winner considers himself extraordinarily lucky. He thinks it almost miraculous that he should have won. Yet the odds of someone somewhere winning are very high. While it *does* occasionally happen that no one wins, it doesn't happen often.
Or consider the likelihood that you'll have a son, that your son will have a son, that that son will have a son, and so forth forward for a thousand generations. What are the odds? Pretty tiny, right?
But guess what? You yourself are the product of thousands and thousands of generations of sons begetting sons. You yourself are the winner in a lottery of unimaginably tiny odds. And guess what's even more amazing. There are around 3 billion other similar winners on the planet with you!!!
So don't read too much into the anthropic principle. At heart it's an argument from lack of knowledge of both the universe and statistics.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 07-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by William E. Harris, posted 07-13-2002 10:52 PM William E. Harris has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by axial soliton, posted 07-28-2002 10:16 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 20 of 50 (13587)
07-15-2002 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by William E. Harris
07-15-2002 2:20 AM


You addressed this to me, but I think the intended addressee was wehappyfew.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by William E. Harris, posted 07-15-2002 2:20 AM William E. Harris has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 29 of 50 (14392)
07-29-2002 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tranquility Base
07-28-2002 10:54 PM


Since Moose brought it up first, I may as well mention that when I run spellcheck in replies to you, your quoted portions light up like a Christmas tree. When searching through a thread to find a specific part from you I have to remember your favorite misspellings. An incomplete list:
advantagesou
aninimal
appearences
arguement
baises
becasue
beleive
carful
cetain
creaitonist
definietely
defintion
defomed
differnet
eletrons
empericism
euibvalent
evoltuion
experince
fustration
imposible
microevoltuion
moelcualr
mutaion
mutaitonl
nucelotide
obvioulsy
poulation
porblem
priviso
protien
recenly
seqeunce
suppoose
wierd
worng
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-28-2002 10:54 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024