Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 8:19 PM
24 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, JonF, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,001 Year: 5,038/19,786 Month: 1,160/873 Week: 56/460 Day: 56/91 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Author Topic:   scientific end of evolution theory (2)
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 2963 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 197 of 214 (17391)
09-13-2002 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by derwood
09-13-2002 2:52 PM


quote:

Nobody 'requires' it. Kimura formulated it and tested his hypotheses regarding it due to his observations of amino acid substituion.

This isn’t entirely accurate, or at least is not telling the whole story. Kimura formulated the neutral theory because the mathematics did not support NeoDarwinian evolution, not because of direct observation of amino acid substitution. I’m sure you’ve seen this important snippet before:

“Under the assumption that the majority of mutant substitutions at the molecular level are carried out by positive natural selection, I found that the substitutional load in each generation is so large that no mammalian species could tolerate it. … This was the main argument used when I presented the neutral mutation-drift hypothesis of molecular evolution” – The Neutral theory of Molecular Evolution, Kimura 1983, p 26 [via W. Remine, p 239]

The neutral theory was formulated to combat Haldane’s Dilemma, plain and simple. Haldane (1957, p 520-521) illustrates clearly the problem. He gives an example showing how increasing selection has a negative proportional impact on fitness. He had to slow evolution to a crawl (n = 300 generations per substitution under positive selection) to keep fitness at reasonable levels. He plugged in 7.5 generations and showed that fitness was reduced to e^-4, which he correctly called “hardly compatible with survival (it means 109 offspring required per breeding couple just to maintain constant population size!).

Of course recent data has exacerbated the problem, with unwitting support from Scott. See http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm and note the last addendum item at the bottom. Thanks Scott!

[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 09-13-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by derwood, posted 09-13-2002 2:52 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by peter borger, posted 09-15-2002 9:38 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 204 by derwood, posted 09-17-2002 11:00 AM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5772 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 198 of 214 (17480)
09-15-2002 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Fred Williams
09-13-2002 7:56 PM


dear Fred,
I've read your reference and the references therein. Quite compelling I must say, and in conclusion: the ToE is in a deep crisis thanks to molecular biology. That's for sure!
best wishes,
Peter
This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Fred Williams, posted 09-13-2002 7:56 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by derwood, posted 09-17-2002 11:01 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5772 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 199 of 214 (17484)
09-15-2002 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by derwood
09-13-2002 2:53 PM


Dear SLPx,

You and Mammuthus really like to label people, isn't it? As soon as I start to ask some critical questions about the alleged randomness of NDT I am labeled. Well if it makes you both happy, why not. I like happy people!
Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by derwood, posted 09-13-2002 2:53 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Mammuthus, posted 09-16-2002 4:42 AM peter borger has responded
 Message 208 by derwood, posted 09-17-2002 12:47 PM peter borger has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4582 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 200 of 214 (17509)
09-16-2002 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by peter borger
09-15-2002 9:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

You and Mammuthus really like to label people, isn't it? As soon as I start to ask some critical questions about the alleged randomness of NDT I am labeled. Well if it makes you both happy, why not. I like happy people!
Best wishes,
Peter


No, I criticize other evolutionary biologists all the time to just not on this board
However, I keep asking you to present your hypothesis and you refuse so it is hard to really believe that you have anything substantial to say. If you read the Free for All response I gave, I am not asking you for a hypothesis on abiogenesis. Only your speciation hypothesis and the evidence. Also how it is a testable hypothesis.

Oh yeah, I am a happy person to

cheers,
Mammuthus

Adminnemooseus edit: Touched up UBB code

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-16-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by peter borger, posted 09-15-2002 9:48 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by peter borger, posted 09-16-2002 11:59 PM Mammuthus has responded

peter borger
Member (Idle past 5772 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 201 of 214 (17564)
09-16-2002 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Mammuthus
09-16-2002 4:42 AM


dear mammuthus,

As mentioned before, I will present a hypothesis that is able to explain the things we observe in the genome. What do we need a theory for that tries to explain things that have never been observed (such as the evolution of bats from some kind of rodent, or abiogenesis).

But anyway, in the meantime you could give some comments on my initial thoughts (#97 this thread).

best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Mammuthus, posted 09-16-2002 4:42 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Mammuthus, posted 09-17-2002 5:01 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5772 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 202 of 214 (17567)
09-17-2002 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by derwood
09-12-2002 10:24 AM


dear SLPx,

You write:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,
You ask:

"Did you have anything substantive?"

I say:

Ever contemplated trisomy 21? The only difference between diploid 21 and triploid 21 is that the approx 150 genes of chrom 21 are present 3-fold instead of 2-fold. So the phenotypic changes observed in trisomy 21 are NOT due to mutations in proteins or mutations in regulatory sequences. They reside in the amount of gene expression. This completely deregulates phenotypic development.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I reiterate my request. SO?

Your claim does not follow from the actual contents of the paper. You write as if you are the first person to think that amounts of expression are important; that is clearly not the case.

I say:
I am not the first one to claim this and therefore you should know that the size of genetic changes is unrelated to the size of phenotypic changes, and thus much gentic change may be irrelevant to evolutionary change.
McDonald et al demonstrated the lack of correlation between sizes of phenotypic change and DNA change. differences in DNA between species seem to be unrelated to their supposed evolutionary divergence (Bioscience 1990, vol 40, p183). For instance there are two frogspecies that are very much alike but significantly differ in their genomes. On the other hand, mammals are very much alike with respect to genome and very dissimilar with respect to appearance. Similarly, trisomy 21 demonstrates that mutation in genes or regulatory sequences do not have to be per se the cause of phenotypic change. Maybe the role of such mutations is overestimated. Maybe all characteristics is already present in the genome and only need to be activated by shuffling, deletions and/or insertions.

Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by derwood, posted 09-12-2002 10:24 AM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by derwood, posted 09-17-2002 12:44 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4582 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 203 of 214 (17574)
09-17-2002 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by peter borger
09-16-2002 11:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear mammuthus,

As mentioned before, I will present a hypothesis that is able to explain the things we observe in the genome. What do we need a theory for that tries to explain things that have never been observed (such as the evolution of bats from some kind of rodent, or abiogenesis).

But anyway, in the meantime you could give some comments on my initial thoughts (#97 this thread).

best wishes,
Peter


Hi Peter,
I look forward to the hypothesis. Post 97 does not present a hypothesis. It is mostly you saying that Futuyma is wrong without backing up the statement with data. Nothing that you wrote is new. And bacteria obtain antibiotic resistance from one another via conjugation by the way.

But aside from that I rather you post the hypothesis itself and then we can argue it and the data that supports it that I also ask you to present. Otherwise this thread is merely becoming the Peter Borger does not beleive in evolution thread which is boring.

Cheers,
Mammuthus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by peter borger, posted 09-16-2002 11:59 PM peter borger has not yet responded

derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 204 of 214 (17593)
09-17-2002 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Fred Williams
09-13-2002 7:56 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]
quote:

Nobody 'requires' it. Kimura formulated it and tested his hypotheses regarding it due to his observations of amino acid substituion.

This isn’t entirely accurate, or at least is not telling the whole story. Kimura formulated the neutral theory because the mathematics did not support NeoDarwinian evolution, not because of direct observation of amino acid substitution. [/quote]

More mnisrepresentation from engineer creationist Williams. Hey Fred - hadn't you heard? Saying something over and over again does not make it true.

quote:

I’m sure you’ve seen this important snippet before:

“Under the assumption that the majority of mutant substitutions at the molecular level are carried out by positive natural selection, I found that the substitutional load in each generation is so large that no mammalian species could tolerate it. … This was the main argument used when I presented the neutral mutation-drift hypothesis of molecular evolution” – The Neutral theory of Molecular Evolution, Kimura 1983, p 26 [via W. Remine, p 239]


Yes, I have read your repeated use of this cribbed ReMine quote. Have you read the original source, I wonder? If so, you might have noticed that the NT was FORMULATED via observation of evidence.

quote:

The neutral theory was formulated to combat Haldane’s Dilemma, plain and simple.

If you say so. Hey - I was wondering - how does one go about making evidence fit a theory? You must know, as it is your position that Kimura formulated the NT for the purpose of 'combatting' Haldane's dilemma. I mean if Haldane's model was completekly accurate, as you imply, then there must have been lots of evidence for it. If this is so, how did Kimura find evidence to support the NT?

quote:

Haldane (1957, p 520-521) illustrates clearly the problem. He gives an example showing how increasing selection has a negative proportional impact on fitness. He had to slow evolution to a crawl (n = 300 generations per substitution under positive selection) to keep fitness at reasonable levels. He plugged in 7.5 generations and showed that fitness was reduced to e^-4, which he correctly called “hardly compatible with survival (it means 109 offspring required per breeding couple just to maintain constant population size!).

Ahh - here we go with the large number of births argument. I have asked - what, about 8 times now? - for you to tell us all what your "40 births per breeding couple just to maintain equilibrium" really means, as you must know. As of yet, no reply.
But why would the population need to be maintained?

Oh - because Haldane's model required it. Thats right. Say - have you evidence that the population of all extinct primates remained ocnstant throughout their existence such that Haldanbe's model applied to them at all times?

quote:

Of course recent data has exacerbated the problem, with unwitting support from Scott. See http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm and note the last addendum item at the bottom. Thanks Scott!

[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 09-13-2002]


Yeah - it is cute how the lay creationist twists reality to prop up their poor grasp of the science.

Williams does that quite a bit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Fred Williams, posted 09-13-2002 7:56 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 205 of 214 (17594)
09-17-2002 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by peter borger
09-15-2002 9:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Fred,
I've read your reference and the references therein. Quite compelling I must say, and in conclusion: the ToE is in a deep crisis thanks to molecular biology. That's for sure!
best wishes,
Peter

Wow - tweedles dum and dummer, together at last!

Funny thing though - it is only internet creationists that seem to think this... Wonder why that is....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by peter borger, posted 09-15-2002 9:38 PM peter borger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Mammuthus, posted 09-17-2002 11:16 AM derwood has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4582 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 206 of 214 (17596)
09-17-2002 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by derwood
09-17-2002 11:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Fred,
I've read your reference and the references therein. Quite compelling I must say, and in conclusion: the ToE is in a deep crisis thanks to molecular biology. That's for sure!
best wishes,
Peter

Wow - tweedles dum and dummer, together at last!

Funny thing though - it is only internet creationists that seem to think this... Wonder why that is....


***************************************************+

Why limit it to internet creationists? If you could convince them that the bible tells them to paint their butts red and swing from a tree at noon every day you can guess what they would all be doing on their lunch hour...and it should not be hard to convince them to do this since they require no evidence to backup their claims or beliefs...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by derwood, posted 09-17-2002 11:01 AM derwood has not yet responded

derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 207 of 214 (17608)
09-17-2002 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by peter borger
09-17-2002 2:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear SLPx,

You write:


Snore.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by peter borger, posted 09-17-2002 2:06 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 208 of 214 (17609)
09-17-2002 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by peter borger
09-15-2002 9:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

You and Mammuthus really like to label people, isn't it? As soon as I start to ask some critical questions about the alleged randomness of NDT I am labeled. Well if it makes you both happy, why not. I like happy people!
Best wishes,
Peter


Well, humans do like to classify things.

Once enough criteria have been met, it is difficult not to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by peter borger, posted 09-15-2002 9:48 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by peter borger, posted 09-20-2002 1:42 AM derwood has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 209 of 214 (17611)
09-17-2002 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by peter borger
09-12-2002 8:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

You say:

"So your 'conclusion' seems unwarranted."

Do you wanna discuss unwarranted conclusions? For instance with respect to the hypothesis of evolution?

Please let me know.

Best wishes
Peter


Please, start a new thread.
-----

Note from Adminnemooseus - The new thread, "Unwarranted conclusions in Evolution Theory", is at:
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=99&p=3 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=99&p=3">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=99&p=3

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-20-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by peter borger, posted 09-12-2002 8:38 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5772 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 210 of 214 (17821)
09-20-2002 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by derwood
09-17-2002 12:47 PM


Dear SLPx,

You say:
Well, humans do like to classify things.

I say:
Reference: Genesis 2, 19-20?

And you say:
Once enough criteria have been met, it is difficult not to.

I say:
Please name the criteria, and show me how you draw this (unwarranted) conclusion.

BW
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by derwood, posted 09-17-2002 12:47 PM derwood has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Mammuthus, posted 09-20-2002 4:12 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4582 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 211 of 214 (17833)
09-20-2002 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by peter borger
09-20-2002 1:42 AM


Well Peter, another new thread of yours and yet still no proposal of a testable hypothesis, supporting data, or a theory....what a surprise.

I'm off line for the next week because of travelling and I can make a non-random assumption that you will spend the next week posting your misunderstandings of evolution but not propose your alternative theory...and that is a warranted conclusion based on weeks of your posts.

Cheers,
M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by peter borger, posted 09-20-2002 1:42 AM peter borger has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019