Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 691 of 851 (558184)
04-30-2010 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 682 by Faith
04-29-2010 11:05 PM


Re: hypothetical beneficial mutations
Hi Faith,
I'm just going to answer this reply for now, and when we reach agreement on this issue I'll get back to your other replies.
Faith writes:
OK, I'll concede this point. In other words the chemical coding system can produce disease, deleterious effects, no apparent effect, or something viable, just in the nature of random chemical changes. OK.
Then the only question is whether or to what extent this actually occurs in reality.
You're asking the wrong question. It isn't a matter of whether it "occurs in reality." It's a matter of what could ever stop it from occurring.
The Law of Probability.
This exchange was prompted by my explanation in Message 309 of how beneficial mutations are possible. You accepted that they were possible but expressed doubt that beneficial mutations could ever actually happen, and now you've clarified by explaining that you believe the Law of Probability prevents this from happening.
We can use probability to examine the likelihood of a beneficial mutation in bacteria. Let us consider a bacteria population whose genome consists of one million base pairs, and that in one of its genes if an A nucleotide could just change to a G nucleotide then the gene would produce a protein slightly more effective than the current protein. Let's say that the bacteria experience a mutation on average once every 1000 cell divisions, so the probability of a mutation is .001 in every cell division, or, switching to exponential notation which will be more convenient for the numbers we'll be dealing with, 10-3.
With a genome of one million nucleotides the odds of a change in that one particular nucleotide of interest is one in a million or 10-6, and to get a specific change from A to G would be .333×10-6. And multiplying this by the 10-3 likelihood of a mutation we get a final probability of the mutation being A to G in precisely the right place in that gene of .333×10-9 (that's a probability of less than one out of a billion).
The bacteria divide once per hour on average, and there are one billion bacteria in the population. The odds that this mutation will emerge in just one hour, or in other words, after every bacteria has divided just once, are:
1 - (1 - .333×10-9)109
Which after doing the math turns out to be .283 or 28.3%. There's a 28.3% chance that this beneficial mutation could occur in just a single generation. We can use that figure to calculate the probability that the mutation would occur in just one day:
1- (1 - .283)24
Which comes out to 99.97%. As more time passes the probability becomes higher and higher. These probabilities are so high that you can now see why beneficial mutations are not only possible, they're inevitable.
We're only talking about bacteria for now, but let's reach agreement on bacteria before moving on. So let me know if you have any problems or questions about this before we move on.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix grammar and typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Faith, posted 04-29-2010 11:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 700 by Faith, posted 04-30-2010 12:39 PM Percy has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 692 of 851 (558190)
04-30-2010 7:41 AM


A Word about Message Ratings
I've noticed some odd message ratings recently, so before a message rating war breaks out I thought I'd reexplain a couple things about the message rating system that I've explained before in other threads.
First, the rating system is a temporary experiment and will change. It will be changed so as to automate our post-of-the-month system.
But second, for those using the current system, if your goal is to raise or lower a member's overall rating you need only rate a single message. Rating multiple messages at the highest or lowest levels isn't necessary. Rating a single message a 5 or a 1 will have the exact same impact as rating all of a member's messages a 5 or a 1. This is because your opinion of a member's messages (as indicated by the average rating you've given their messages) only gets counted once, no matter how many of their messages you've rated.
So for those of you trying to influence the member ratings your job is easy: vote once.
And for everyone: Don't take the ratings seriously. It's an experiment. I wish I could make the improvements I want to make right now, but I only have so much time.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 693 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-30-2010 8:20 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 693 of 851 (558193)
04-30-2010 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 692 by Admin
04-30-2010 7:41 AM


Re: A Word about Message Ratings
I rated this message a 5

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 692 by Admin, posted 04-30-2010 7:41 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 694 of 851 (558216)
04-30-2010 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 688 by Faith
04-30-2010 12:04 AM


Re: hypothetical beneficial mutations
You have misunderstood my point. Your, personal existence is the result of about a 1 in 70 trillion odds. My point is that if say chromosome 19 that you received from your father was reversed, (his chromosome 19 is diploid and when the sperm is formed it is haploid, so that chromosome has a 1 in 2 chance of being the chromosome he received from his mother or the one from his father. there are 8, 388, 608 arrangements of the chromosomes in sperm and a equal number of chormosomal arrangements in the egg. since any one can sperm can impregnate the egg then there are over 70 trillion possibilities. thus if one chromosome was different ie number 19 that I said earlier you , would not be you. I was not implying that you can't exist, thus that your existence and the existence of all humans as their particular self is the result of 1 in 70 trillion odds.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 688 by Faith, posted 04-30-2010 12:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 697 by Faith, posted 04-30-2010 12:16 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 695 of 851 (558228)
04-30-2010 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 650 by Faith
04-27-2010 3:53 PM


Re: What do mutations really do anyway?
quote:
Bacteria are a cop-out and a mystification in a discussion with a nonscientist.
Faith,
why do you say this?
Many of our metabolic systems and capabilities are similar to bacteria - in fact the more we understand about them the more we find that systems in animals and plants are similar to bacterial ones.
We share the same basic genetic code and translation mechanisms with them.
Lenski's experiments, and many others, show that benefical mutations have occurred in bacteria.
Why are these beneficial mutations invalid in your eyes?
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 650 by Faith, posted 04-27-2010 3:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 696 of 851 (558237)
04-30-2010 12:16 PM


All,
this article seems to relate very well to the theme of this thread....
Evidence for Pervasive Adaptive Protein Evolution in Wild Mice
quote:
We estimate that 57% of amino acid substitutions in murids have been driven by positive selection. Hominids, therefore, are exceptional in having low apparent levels of adaptive protein evolution. The high frequency of adaptive amino acid substitutions in wild mice is consistent with their large effective population size, leading to effective natural selection at the molecular level. Effective natural selection also manifests itself as a paucity of effectively neutral nonsynonymous mutations in M. m. castaneus compared to humans.
at Evidence for Pervasive Adaptive Protein Evolution in Wild Mice - PMC
In other words, the majority of amino acid changes that have occurred are adaptive.
However, I can't understand this paper! Can anyone explain in simple terms what their methodology was and why it is valid?
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

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


Message 697 of 851 (558238)
04-30-2010 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 694 by bluescat48
04-30-2010 11:18 AM


Re: hypothetical beneficial mutations
I understood you just fine. You misunderstood me. Your comparison doesn't work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by bluescat48, posted 04-30-2010 11:18 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 709 by bluescat48, posted 04-30-2010 11:54 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 698 of 851 (558244)
04-30-2010 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 689 by PaulK
04-30-2010 2:25 AM


Paul's self-serving side trip
In fact many YECs DO accept that speciation occurs and if they use their own definition of macroevolution it still doesn't change the fact that the scientific definition of macroevolution includes speciation by definition.
The lack of intellectual honesty in this is on the evolutionist's side, simply definitionally making a new frog variety into a new species by terminological sleight of hand.
What I expect from anyone in a debate is intellectual honesty and a recognition that they do not get to dictate what is and is not true. I don't have to believe something just because you say it.
Exactly my position. You don't get to dictate what is and is not true, and in the case of the term speciation it's just a definitional ploy.
Of course, if you were being intellectually honest there is no reason why you could not accept the scientific definitions. There is no good reason to secretly use private definitions at all - it can only mislead and deceive. And that's all there is here.
That is a lie, just a self-serving lie.
According to the scientific definitions speciation happens and therefore macroevolution happens. And you admit that.
I admit that the event called speciation happens. It is not macroevolution and it is nothing but lying word magic to call it macroevolution.
Just introducing your own definitions - which are not even adequately defined - does nothing to deny these facts. It just makes you look like someone who absolutely refuses to accept the truth.
What I look like among lying delusional evolutionists can hardly matter.
And now you want to tell me that you really accept that speciation happens and macroevolution happens - by the scientific definitions of these words - but that you secretly switched to using private definitions you hadn't even shared with us ? That would be a very silly - and dishonest - thing to do.
That is a self-serving lie.
So there is a real event that you all call speciation and I really don't have a problem with that term as such UNTIL you try to force me to accept the evolutionist interpretation of it, which is what you are doing now.
But I'm not trying to force an interpretation of speciation on you. Speciation is by definition the formation of a new species, and the inability to interbreed in the wild is accepted as a valid criterion for speciation. That's it.
It's accepted by self-serving delusional evolutionists and I have a right to disagree with you all.
There's no special interpretation here, just definitions and scientifically accepted criteria.
When science is simply what evolutionists call it, science is a sham.
If you want to argue honestly the best thing you can do is accept the scientific definitions and criteria. Not refuse to accept them because you have an irrational objection to accepting that macroevolution occurs.
Macroevolution does not occur and evolutionist insistence that what is really still the same species is a new species in the sense of macroevolution is a dishonest trick.
And my argument itself is intended to show that macroevolution is impossible, so to try to force that term on me is pretty underhanded.
Of course I'm not doing anything underhanded. If you misunderstand the meaning of the word macroevolution and if in fact your argument does not show that macroevolution as scientifically defined is impossible that is your problem - I'm not doing anything "underhanded" in pointing it out. You never intended your argument to rule out speciation - as scientifically defined - nor even macroevolution - as scientifically defined. This point doesn't affect your arguments or your intent at all. You simply misunderstood what macroevolution is.
I know what it implies and the use of the term is underhanded, tendentious and dishonest.
The only problem here is the one that you create for yourself. If you make a mistake - and it is your responsibility to try to avoid making mistakes - accept it and move on. Don't issue angry and incoherent denials or accuse others of dishonesty simply for pointing out a truth that you don't like. Are you really so ruled by pride and anger that you can't handle honest debate ?
The dishonesty here is yours. Probably also the pride and anger.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 689 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2010 2:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 703 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2010 1:15 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 699 of 851 (558245)
04-30-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 690 by Straggler
04-30-2010 6:19 AM


Re: hypothetical beneficial mutations
Gene replication that produces mutations is a mistake. Mistakes breed mistakes. That's what's probable. Getting something functional out of a mistake is what's improbable.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 690 by Straggler, posted 04-30-2010 6:19 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 702 by Straggler, posted 04-30-2010 12:58 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 700 of 851 (558247)
04-30-2010 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 691 by Percy
04-30-2010 6:52 AM


Re: hypothetical beneficial mutations
I will not discuss bacteria. If that's your only evidence, you are out of luck.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 691 by Percy, posted 04-30-2010 6:52 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 705 by Percy, posted 04-30-2010 2:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 701 of 851 (558248)
04-30-2010 12:40 PM


Moderator Advisory
We will not be engaging in verbal fisticuffs in this or any other thread. Please, everyone, keep your posts focused on the topic of discussion. Provide both evidence and argument in support of your position. Clarify your points when requested or when it seems necessary.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 702 of 851 (558256)
04-30-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 699 by Faith
04-30-2010 12:35 PM


Re: hypothetical beneficial mutations
Gene replication that produces mutations is a mistake.
I think I get what you mean but the wording is a bit all over the place.
Mistakes breed mistakes.
Surely mistakes in copying simply produce imperfect copies. I.e. change. No? Whether or not that change is beneficial or harmful will depend on what the change is and what environment it is operating in. No?
That's what's probable. Getting something functional out of a mistake is what's improbable.
Do you accept that it is possible? I think we can (in fact I think Percy has already) calculated a probability example.
You seem wedded to the notion that any imperfection in copying must result in a harmful end result to the organism in question. But I am not sure why you think this must be the case.
Can you clarify?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 699 by Faith, posted 04-30-2010 12:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 704 by Faith, posted 04-30-2010 1:58 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 703 of 851 (558262)
04-30-2010 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 698 by Faith
04-30-2010 12:33 PM


Re: Can't get to species from my model?
quote:
The lack of intellectual honesty in this is on the evolutionist's side, simply definitionally making a new frog variety into a new species by terminological sleight of hand.
There is no terminological dishonesty here. The definitions and criteria for identifying species were not constructed to "prove" evolution. And you don't even have a competing definition to offer, let alone one that is somehow "true".
quote:
Exactly my position. You don't get to dictate what is and is not true, and in the case of the term speciation it's just a definitional ploy.
If that were true you would have to have a competing definition of species and criteria for identifying them. Ones that were somehow correct where those used by science are wrong. But you don't. All you are doing is throwing false accusations.
quote:
That is a lie, just a self-serving lie.
You are the one who claims to be using other definitions. And you haven't offered any or explained where they are to be found. How can they not be private definitions ? And you have offered no good reasons for not using the scientific definitions. No lie, but a simple truth here.
quote:
I admit that the event called speciation happens. It is not macroevolution and it is nothing but lying word magic to call it macroevolution.
There is no lying, no word magic here, just simple fact. Macroevolution is defined in science as evolution at the species level or above. Thus speciation is macroevolution according to the standard definition. If by "macroevolution" you simply mean some private definition then you are the one engaging in word-trickery. If you mean the standard definition then you are the one attempting word-magic. I am simply following the standard usage of science, no tricks, no magic, just honest fact.
quote:
What I look like among lying delusional evolutionists can hardly matter.
Yet there are no lies here, simply facts that you refuse to accept.
quote:
That is a self-serving lie.
No lie, just simple facts. You clearly reject the standard definitions. There is no such thing as objective right and wrong in definitions. So if you accept that speciation occurs according to the scientific definitions and criteria you do accept that macroevolution by the scientific definition occurs. If you do not accept that then arguing abut definitions is pointless, but it is all that you offer.
quote:
It's accepted by self-serving delusional evolutionists and I have a right to disagree with you all.
I suppose that you have the "right" to reject the truth and to falsely accuse those who disagree with you. And that is what you are doing.
As I said you don't get to dictate the truth. You do not get to dictate that your private definitions are objectively right and the standard scientific usage is wrong. And telling the truth is not lying.
quote:
When science is simply what evolutionists call it, science is a sham.
And yet you offer no better science. No objective reasons to reject my points. You simply throw false accusation after false accusation.
quote:
Macroevolution does not occur and evolutionist insistence that what is really still the same species is a new species in the sense of macroevolution is a dishonest trick.
By what criteria do you decree that science is wrong and what science identifies as a new species is not a new species ? And there is no special definition of species for macroevolution as you claim - not in the standard scientific definition. There is no trick here.
quote:
I know what it implies and the use of the term is underhanded, tendentious and dishonest.
And yet you offer no reason to say that it is any of those things. Apart from the implication that everybody ought to accept your definitions as somehow objectively true - definitions you haven't even bothered to share with us. As I have said I am not using a private definition - just the standard definition used by science. I am not attempting to trick you into accepting anything beyond that. So how can it be dishonest ? I don't even know what your definitions are, I didn't even know that you were using private definitions until you said so and I was clear that I was using the scientific definitions so I don't see how your accusation can possibly stand.
quote:
The dishonesty here is yours. Probably also the pride and anger.
Your post proves otherwise.
Edited by PaulK, : Fixed close quote tag

This message is a reply to:
 Message 698 by Faith, posted 04-30-2010 12:33 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 704 of 851 (558271)
04-30-2010 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 702 by Straggler
04-30-2010 12:58 PM


Re: hypothetical beneficial mutations
Mistakes breed mistakes.
Surely mistakes in copying simply produce imperfect copies. I.e. change. No?
It's illogical. To call an error a mere neutral "change" is some kind of deception.
Whether or not that change is beneficial or harmful will depend on what the change is and what environment it is operating in. No?
Yeah, right, so goes the theory. The theory is a deception. Start with the fact that the actual empirical evidence you have is that mutations produce diseases or do nothing much at all (except in the ever-handy bacteria of course), and that the claim that nevertheless they produce something beneficial is only because the theory says they do, and you've got major deception going on.
That's what's probable. Getting something functional out of a mistake is what's improbable.
Do you accept that it is possible? I think we can (in fact I think Percy has already) calculated a probability example.
He has the definition of mistake = neutral change. With that definition you can do anything you want. Calculate a mistake as a mistake in the replication of billions of nucleotides and if you EVER get a beneficial result it would be a fluke. Sure, flukes are possible. Every few bazillion chances or something like that.
You seem wedded to the notion that any imperfection in copying must result in a harmful end result to the organism in question. But I am not sure why you think this must be the case.
Because the actual evidence says so and the contrary idea is dictated purely by assumption based on theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by Straggler, posted 04-30-2010 12:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 706 by Percy, posted 04-30-2010 2:09 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 707 by Straggler, posted 04-30-2010 2:14 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 708 by misha, posted 04-30-2010 2:56 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 705 of 851 (558272)
04-30-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 700 by Faith
04-30-2010 12:39 PM


Re: hypothetical beneficial mutations
Faith writes:
I will not discuss bacteria. If that's your only evidence, you are out of luck.
I think what you mean to say is that you don't see how bacteria are relevant to your argument. As others have pointed out, many of the processes we see occurring in bacteria are the same ones we see in all life. Just as physicists work at understanding the complex by first understanding the simple, like Galileo dropping balls of different mass from the tower in Pisa, biologists do the same with bacteria. Much of what we learn about microbiological processes in bacteria apply equally well to all other life.
In the case of beneficial mutations, a mutation can result in an improved protein in both bacteria and higher organisms like mammals. The principles are precisely the same, but mammals are much more complicated because all the different mammalian systems like circulation, nervous, digestive, etc, have to continue to play well together. Mammals are also much more difficult to study in real time in evolutionary terms because of generation times that are at least a couple of orders of magnitude longer than bacteria.
So if you can let me know if you have any issues or questions about my Message 691 we can continue the discussion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 700 by Faith, posted 04-30-2010 12:39 PM Faith 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