evolution calculations

I'm not sure what you or your friend think such a calculation would provide in the way of support for the theory of evolution.As schraf stated, there are fields of study relying on such calculations. But the calculations don't "show that evolution is possible", the calculations/models take evidence we already have and put it into mathematical form. I think this statement shows a simplistic view of the concepts of mutation and evolution (at least the way it is worded). To start, perhaps you could explain specifically what you mean by "evolution happens".Mutation rates are different for different organisms under different conditions. Whether the mutations are neutral, beneficial, or detrimental depends on the specific environment the organism is in at the time. Additionally, different mutations have different degrees of impact on a trait or traits. Thus, it is not so easy to say (mutation rate) x (time) = (morphological change).Fossil findings and DNA evidence of evolution would be used to set up the calculations, so the calculations would necessarily be consistent with fossil findings, because that is what they are based upon. I don't know that anything needs to be "settled" by a calculation. A single mutation can have a drastic effect on morphology, while in other cases dozens of mutations might be necessary to accomplish a similar change. Again, it is not a simple case of (1 mutation) = (1 morphological change).I guess my question to your friend would be, "What would a mathematical model based on evidence show that the evidence itself would not?"

You gave your answer in your question: It give us the mutation rate as determined by comparing human and chimp DNA. It doesn't necessarily "promote" the TOE, it is based upon the TOE, since it assumes common ancestry for human and chimp. Importantly, nothing in the study falsifies the TOE.Most evolutionary genetics research does not "promote" the TOE in the sense that it states "our data alone shows the TOE to be correct". Generally such research is gathering and analyzing data, adding detail to an already enormous amount of data that collectively supports the TOE.

Exactly, and I haven't quite wrapped my mind around the math used to estimate what portion of mutations are deleterious. Part of it involves labeling non-coding sequence differences as neutral, and the majority of coding sequence differences deleterious.I have a problem with using this sort of logic when comparing the sequence of two different species, since we would expect to see coding sequence differences, many of them selected for or establishing species-based difference. In other words, why is it estimated that ~90% of coding sequence differences between human and chimp are harmful in humans (doesn't that make the assumption that chimp sequence is "better" than human?)In any case, these studies don't utilize functional studies to determine if sequence differences are beneficial or deleterious (or neutral).

Of course, and no one here is arguing that analyzing sequence differences between chimps and humans stands alone as evidence for evolution. You are very off-topic for this thread, which is why you seem to think "the cart is before the horse". This thread isn't about setting the order of the cart and the horse.I and others will be happy to discuss the information issues you bring up, but in other more appropriate threads (and perhaps you could propose one yourself).Welcome to the forum - hopefully you'll stick around a while...

Hey Dan,First let me congratulate you on the tone of your well-written post - unfortunately the majority of creationists/IDers that come to the forum are not so thoughtful, so I genuinely hope you stick around a while. Hopefully you realize we're suggesting you move your off-topic comments/questions to another thread in this forum, not another site. You can propose a new topic by going to the "proposed new topic" forum (accessible using the pull down menu at the bottom of the page), hitting the "new reply" button, and making your post - admins will then approve or make suggestions. The system helps things stay organized and focused.I would love to respond to many of your statements, since you seem to have misinformation/misconceptions about some rather clear-cut issues. Instead I'll try to stick to what I see as on-topic: I'll have to disagree with you here, at least for the vast majority of creationists - who I guess would be completely unimpressed by a theoretical model. Keep in mind these are the same people who dismiss enormous amounts of real evidence; also the model would have to conform to a literal Biblical timeline for many of them (6000 or perhaps 4000 years). Unfortunately, such nebulous ideas as "new information" and "complexity" are of little use to science. Again, defining these terms would likely drive the thread off-topic, but think about how "information" or "new information" can be defined genetically, or about how "complexity" can be quantified...Thus there is a reason that only the intelligent design folks deal with these issues - they are the stuff of philosophy and theoretical models, and not hard science. (Hopefully you realize that "intelligent design" studies have not been accepted into peer-reviewed scientific literature.) Mutation rates differ based on organism and environment. The outcome of a mutation, be it neutral, deleterious, or beneficial, depends on the organism and the environment. Thus I don't think it is as easy to model a few billion years of evolution as you suggest.Beneficial mutations do occur in humans and other species, by the way, and there is currently an active thread discussing that topic. Evolution is not directional - that is, it does not proceed from less to more complex; rather it proceeds from less to more fit.Also, complexity is difficult if not impossible to quantify. As an example, can you demonstrate to me that humans are more complex than chimpanzees? or dolphins? or redwoods? What material? Perhaps you could provide a link or primary reference to the calculations you think scientists should consider. It may be that scientists are uninterested in the ID camp because they haven't produced anything valid, rather than not having ever considered their models. In my experience the majority of ID calculations/models fail immediately because they are based on erroneous starting assumptions, usually biased to produce amazingly low probabilities.For example, we could discuss in detail: Though, it seems that you are talking about "abiogenesis" here, the origin of life, rather than evolution, which only deals with preexisting life. If this is the calculation I think it is, it may demonstrate how IDers tend to manipulate math to create propaganda - in this case I believe Dembski bases this probability on the assumption that an intact modern cell forms at random. No one in the legitimate abiogenesis field has suggested this to be the case, and models of abiogenesis usually begin with simple replicating chemical reactions. Dembski's argument is the same as suggesting a probability for an elephant to spring fully into form at random - abiogenesis models don't start with an intact cell (or an elephant), but Dembski does to inflate his improbability to impossibility. See, here is a contradiction, and a problem. You seem to praise the ID camp for theoretically modeling "actual rates", while population genetic studies are apparently less reliable even though they are based on actual physical data."Actual rates" need to based on actual data, not theory. What IDers produce are "theoretical rates".Mathemathical models can be produced that demonstrate that the impossible is possible. Again, I don't see why we need to produce purely "philosophical" calculations when we have real evidence to work from - and I especially don't see why a philosophical calculation should be given more weight than ones based in reality.Again, welcome to the discussion...

Hopefully you'll realize that the majority of Christian organizations support the Theory of Evolution. It seems you are claiming that the majority of Christians are insane.I suggest you check out the other threads in the forum - there are plenty discussing if Scripture should be taken literally, or how Scripture can or cannot fit a naturalistic view of the universe. If they do so in their roles as scientists, they are no longer practicing science, which is based upon the natural, not supernatural, world. Many, if not most, scientists look beyond the natural world all the time, they just cannot do so on-the-job, by definition. Why so, false? Which contains more information?:ATGGCTGTCGTAAorATGGCTGACGTAA Perhaps, but intelligent design is not, which is what we have been discussing. When information theory is incorrectly applied, it is, well, incorrect.If you feel that intelligent design is valid science, please reference one piece of genuine intelligent design "science", preferably in peer-reviewed literature. Once you come up with definitions of biological information, we can discuss mechanisms that do (or can) explain its origin. It is not directional in the sense of "complexity" - why do you think it is? Historically we can put a "directional" viewpoint on a lineage, but the only "direction" of evolution is from less fit to more fit. Since the most fit species on this planet are unicellular, they make up the overwhelming majority of species on the planet.As has been said before, evolution is a bush, not a straight line.Regarding the ability to quantify information, perhaps you should start a new thread to explain how it can be done in a biological context, since you seem to have strong (though currently nebulous) views on the subject. The average lay person also thinks that evolution states we evolved from chimps, so we shouldn't put too much stock in the average lay person's understanding of science.The Origin of Species explains the origin of the diversity of life as it currently exists. Whether one puts an human-centric "complexity" viewpoint upon it is their own issue.Can you address quantifying complexity? You've been asked a couple of times here and I didn't see your response. What is a unit of complexity? How many more units of complexity do humans have than dolphins?And perhaps to try to get back on thread topic:You really should provide Dembski's calculations and/or a more detailed defense of them; without such it really is the argument from authority that you suggested it would be called. Perhaps start with listing the underlying assumptions for his calculations, and we can discuss if they are appropriate.Looking forward to further discussion with you.
_______________________________________
edited to add:Before you continue to defend Dembski's calculations, you may want to look over the article Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations at the TalkOrigins site. It covers many of the misconceptions and poor assumptions made during "improbability of abiogenesis" calculations by creationists. I'll be interested to see what you think.This message has been edited by pink sasquatch, 02-10-2005 01:28 AM

Evolution theory is constantly "mathematically scrutinized", and I'm not sure why you think it isn't. Most evolutionary genetics studies include a mathematical component.My negative comments towards mathematical models regard the idea of creating a single mathematical model to "prove" evolution possible. Please, specifically state the "serious flaw" of evolution. State what specific evidence you've considered that lead you to the conclusion that it "cannot produce the complexity and vast amounts of information on our planet."Your arguments have been nebulous, and often rely on you feeling that something is implausible. If evolution was so essentially flawed, I would think you could come up with a single piece of solid evidence. Very poor example, since defining "genetic information" should use the language of genetics. Again, your example partially fails because of the false analogy. The other reason it fails is because you haven't given the alternate, just as likely outcome of your duplication/mutation event - that is, what if IWILLCREATEAHAIRFOLLICLE duplicates and rearranges to IWILLCREATEAHAIRCELL? (Hair cells detect vibration in your ear.)Has any new "information" been created? You cannot simply ignore positive outcomes and state that they are impossible. Yes. What organism would you like an example from? Sure. How does this impact evolution theory exactly? It doesn't. The example allows for a variety of mutation, but for only one form of selection - in the experiment the selection is driving the "evolution" of the DNA to smaller strands. This is also seen in the genomes of viruses, where speed of replication (slowed by extraneous DNA) is selected for, and thus smaller genomes.Add some low-DNA-length affinity beads (commonly used in molecular biology research) to the test tube, so that strands below a certain length are removed from the reaction. Now a different selective force is present, and a different result will be obtained.You cannot ignore the selective aspect of evolution; thus your simplistic experiment does not support your case.Did you realize that you included in the quote a pro-evolution-to-complexity line?: So am I supposed to just ignore this line? Please give me a single example of real science from the IDers, otherwise cease insulting the scientific community.I've checked out the on-line ID journal PCID, published by the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design. Wouldn't you think if IDers were struggling to publish their real science they would do so in their own journal? Feel free to go to the journal and find some work that is non-philosophical or non-theoretical, and I'll be happy to discuss it.In fact, what is a single testable hypothesis that the IDers have come up with? Again, this happens constantly with the evolutionary biology field. Do you think that everyone in biology simply sits around agreeing with each other and patting each other on the back? A finding refuting evolution would be the biggest biological finding since the elucidation of DNA. Every time an evolution experiment is done, the theory of evolution is tested. Do you understand how science works?More importantly, do you understand that evolutionary theory has undergone reworking and revision since Darwin proposed it? It is not a 150-year-old stagnant theory, and it has been critiqued by the leading minds in the evolution field. Check out the links above provided by JonF, or check out the thread Beneficial Mutations, which I have been participating in. I have little interest in reading Dembski's propaganda. If you think he has produced any piece of evidence that either refutes evolution or confirm ID, please relay that piece of evidence (weren't you supposed to produce some calculations of Dembski's?). I don't see anything other than commentary in the list you gave me. I believe it is quite possible that life formed from non-life. Do you seriously believe the opposite, that life simply always existed? Probabilities are relative to the conditions, which we do not know. Under the right conditions it would be very likely. Panspermia is just pushing things back a step. Sort of like stating, life couldn't have formed on its own, so an intelligent designer made it. Well, where did the intelligent designer come from?The sorts of abiogenesis hypotheses currently being proposed often involve solid substrates for reaction catalysis, and/or a temperature convection reaction. Clay and vents can fit the bill, but again, we don't know the conditions.Abiogenesis studies demonstrate ways that abiogenesis could have occurred, and they are quite plausible - plausible enough that we don't need to make the least plausible assumption to explain it, which is the eternal existence of an omnipotent, undetectable, deceptive being. Then what is your explanation for the existence of information - where did it come from? A designer/creator is not a valid reply, since a designer/creator necessarily is/has information. You've just described evolution. If you believe this statement, you support the theory of evolution. Absolutely false.It doesn't happen often relative to neutral or detrimental DNA changes, but it happens, and it is selected for.A real example: Do you know what happens if a few million short (~30 bases), random RNA strands are produced in the lab by purely chemical synthesis, and no input from the scientists as to the nature of the sequence? The result is that many of the strands will have enzymatic activity, and be able to do things like accurately catalyze the polymerization of other RNA strands. (If you are interested I can spend time digging up a reference or two).Do you understand? Random sequence results in specific activity, in a form that is heritable. Is this not information? Is this not a foundation for evolution?Perhaps creation of genetic information is far less complex than you think.