Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution and Probability
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 16 of 104 (52580)
08-27-2003 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by dillan
08-27-2003 10:45 PM


Re: Some thoughts...
quote:
This is an irrelevant analogy. Spetner shows that unless a number of mutations occur, then speciation is virtually impossible.
You are aware that speciation is an observed fact? That it has taken place in our lifetimes?
Excuse me if I'm off topic, but it seemed worthwhile to point out something so obvious and commonly accepted....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by dillan, posted 08-27-2003 10:45 PM dillan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 08-28-2003 12:07 AM zephyr has not replied

  
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 104 (52583)
08-28-2003 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by zephyr
08-27-2003 11:56 PM


Re: Some thoughts...
This was pointed out to him at NAIG. He replied with something along the lines of "Spetner's calculation disproved either speciation or convergent evolution. Since speciation has been observed, that means convergent evolution is disproven". I can honestly say that this didn't make a lick of sense to me.
The funny thing is, though, if you follow Spetner's calculation, he does mathematically "disprove" the possibility of speciation. Since speciation has been observed, that pretty much nullifies Spetner's approach, which was a multi-level straw man anyway.
FK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by zephyr, posted 08-27-2003 11:56 PM zephyr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by derwood, posted 08-30-2003 10:21 AM Fedmahn Kassad has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 18 of 104 (52601)
08-28-2003 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by dillan
08-27-2003 10:45 PM


Re: Some thoughts...
So if I apply Spetner's techniques to a simpler situation and show that they produce a result that is obviously wrong is is an "irrelevant analogy".
No it is neither. It is proof that Spetner's calculation makes assumptions that need to be SHOWN to be valid. You cannot - as Spetner does refuse to count any steps after the first if they occur within the blocks Spetner has artificially created. As I have pointed out elsewhere this manouevre artificially assumes that maximum rate of evolution to that required to account for the observed speciations - can't you actually see that by applying Spetner's technique you can never produce more than the number of steps you are supposedly trying to account for ? No matter HOW many births you allow per step, or whaat probabilities you use ?
And of course I am not looking at different changes - neither was Spetner for the purposes of the calculation being discussed at this point. Therefore it is your objection that is irrelevant.
I also note that you have not explained why your calculation of the probability of the langur convergence relies on assumptions you insist are not included in your model. As I have stated you need to allow for variations in the order of the sequence and for the sequence being interrupted by other beneficial mutations arrving and eaching fixation (strictly speaking you would need to show that the horse and langur would have the same number of possible beneficial mutations - I have skipped that because your number is relatively low, but it is certainly necessary for Spetner's numbers).
While such errors persist your calculations reflect only on your ability to apply probability theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by dillan, posted 08-27-2003 10:45 PM dillan has not replied

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3814 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 19 of 104 (52610)
08-28-2003 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Fred Williams
08-27-2003 6:15 PM


Re: No, we know what your point is...
quote:
quote:
To restate, if events in a probabalistic chain are linked - as are evolutionary eevents since every change in an organism allows certain others not previously allowable and prohibits certain other changes previously allowable - theoretical probabalistic calculations regardless of the sophistication of your mathematics and assumptions are simply not possible.
Translation: The mathematical evidence is devastating for my position, so I’ll pretend the assumptions are too vague to produce reliable results.
I'm not querying the assumptions made. My objection is more fundamental.
It is a fundamental axiom of probabalistic maths that it only applies if the individual events are separate and distinct. If there is any connection, the probabilities are incalculable without full knowledge of all the events and their individual probabilities, something which is impossible in this case. I suggest that you read a good beginners book on statistics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Fred Williams, posted 08-27-2003 6:15 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 20 of 104 (52616)
08-28-2003 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
08-27-2003 6:18 PM


... but for the creationist the probability of an infintely
powerful god existing are about 12.9

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2003 6:18 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 21 of 104 (52617)
08-28-2003 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dillan
08-23-2003 12:25 AM


Spetner appears to look at gene survival as a random
process ... that neglects natural selection, which is a
prime component of ToE.
He's looking at the genetics only and not the whole 'system'.
We don't even know how much genetic difference is required
for speciation -- do we?
Humans and chimps have been said to have anywhere between
5% and 1% difference in DNA ... and that's not even the
whole story when you consider that gene expression is just
as import as gene existence.
You cannot calculate a probability of speciation without knowing
how much difference is required before speciation can be
said to have occurred.
Analogy alert:
What is the probability of getting a six?
Q: Is there enough information in the question to produce
a meaningful result?
A: No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dillan, posted 08-23-2003 12:25 AM dillan has not replied

  
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 104 (52687)
08-28-2003 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dillan
08-23-2003 12:25 AM


Dillan: According to Are Mutations Harmful?, "The average human being has about 50-100 mutations". I am not for sure about the langur, and I could not find the average number of mutations. However let us assume a number in range of humans-about 75. If I am not mistaking, there were 15 million yrs. for the convergent evolution of this lysozyme (I got this figure from a fellow named Thomas who posts on this board, and who I have discussed this issue with to before). If we assume a generation time of 7 years, that is 2,143,000 generations. If there are 10,000 in a population then there would be 750,000 total mutations. For the whole of langur evolution, it would be 750,000 x 2,143,000 = 1,607,250,000,000. This could overturn a genome of 3 billion nucleotides 535 times. However, we must divide this number by three to get the correct nucleotide, which would be about 179. Therefore the chance of fixation is 179/500^9, or 0.000096 (0.0096%). Even considering 5 yrs/generation and 100 mutations per individual this equals a 2% chance (0.026).
There are two significant problems here, and this does not speak well toward your motives. I saw the exchange at NAIG. When Thomas did the calculation, he assumed a generation time of 5 years. In fact, langurs are sexually mature at the age of 3 or 4. Yet you have increased it to 7 years for a generation. I think the reason is quite obvious.
2nd, you were shown recent estimates of mutation rates in humans. They range from 100 to about 175. Thomas used a recent estimate of 128. Yet you went with 75, from an outdated Talk.origins FAQ. Again, I think we can all see why.
It appears to me you are less interested in performing a defensible calculation than you are in pushing an agenda. Otherwise you would not use outdated or flat out false numbers to push your case. You can't plead ignorance, because I know you were given references at NAIG. I don't even know why you want to persist with the lysozyme example. You got waxed on that one at NAIG. Perhaps another example might be better?
FK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dillan, posted 08-23-2003 12:25 AM dillan has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 23 of 104 (52725)
08-28-2003 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dillan
08-23-2003 12:25 AM


Let's take a slightly different look at the langur example using your figures.
Accordign to Spetner a species tends to last about a million years. So given 15 million years there should be 15 speciations. This figure seems to work for the horse evolution, and you implicitly assume that langurs are evolving at the same rate.
According to your figures each speciation involves 50 steps so there are 15*50 = 750 steps within the relevant time period.
Making the conservative assumption that only one of the convergent mutations is available at each step and assuming that all the beneficial mutations available are equiprobable (both assumptions work agaisnt evolution) we need on average 9 * 22 = 198 steps to get all 9 convergent mutations. Since 198 is significantly less than 750, based on your own figures and assumptions it is very likely that the convergence would occur within the time available - indeed more likely than not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dillan, posted 08-23-2003 12:25 AM dillan has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 24 of 104 (52729)
08-28-2003 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
08-27-2003 9:09 PM


quote:
I don't need evidence to back up the claim that those with higher probability are more likely to appear. By definition they will appear proporitonately more frequently.
LOL! You don’t need evidence? In a way I don’t blame you for taking this position. Meanwhile, I will stick to hard evidence instead of tautologies to defend my position!
quote:
Insertions, deletions and transpositions contitute a large proportion of the mutations in vertebrates.
Not according to geneticists I’ve talked to.
quote:
"...most organisms tolerate only relatively low levels of point mutation in a generation [1]. Instead, they have evolved mechanisms that generate multiple sequence changes in a single step
No circular reasoning involved.
You avoided circular reasoning by re-defining your position. Let’s find out where the goal posts are. Are you claiming that most evolutionary changes are due to insertions/deletions/transpositions, or are you claiming that the mechanism that produces these multiple sequence changes has evolved?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 08-27-2003 9:09 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2003 6:55 PM Fred Williams has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 25 of 104 (52732)
08-28-2003 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Fedmahn Kassad
08-27-2003 11:39 PM


Re: Some thoughts...
quote:
So when Fred writes Widely recognized geneticist James Crow in an article in the same Nature issue agrees that the deleterious rate is more likely twice the rate cited by Eyre-Walker and Keightley, then this is just flat wrong since the number of genes is estimated to be 30,000 or so.
This had a minimal impact on the problem. I deal with more recent data in the addendum at the bottom of the article. Clearly the situation has not improved for the evolutionists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 08-27-2003 11:39 PM Fedmahn Kassad has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 26 of 104 (52735)
08-28-2003 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Fred Williams
08-28-2003 6:37 PM


Apparently you don't know that tautologies are necessarily true. In that respect appealing to a tautology is BETTER than evidence - evidence can never provide absolute logical certainty. I will stick to my position of accepting necessary truths rather than join you in denying them.
I note that you have had the wisdom to drop any further comment on probability theory.
And no, I am not redefining my position in any way. I did not make either of the assertions "most evolutionary changes are due to insertions/deletions/transpositions" or "that the mechanism that produces these multiple sequence changes has evolved".
So let us not shift the goal posts as you attempt to do. Spetner assumes that evolution relies almost entirely on point mutations for some reason. Authorities working in the field say that other mutations producing larger changes at the molecular level play a significant role in evolution.
To quote from the extract a t Amazon again:
'As emphasized by Jim Shapiro (this volume), " the conventionalexplanations, that randomly-generated... changes accumulate one locus at a time, are unconvincing on both functional and probabilistic grounds...."' (ellipses in original)
"Ed Trifonov observes, "evolution is translocation and transposition, rather than point mutation". Nina Fedoroff (this volume) and Jim Shapiro (this volume) emphasize that transposable elements and other genetic repeats "modularize" the genome, by creating segments that are likely to rearrange, and thus play active roles in genome reorganization and evolution. "

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Fred Williams, posted 08-28-2003 6:37 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Fred Williams, posted 08-29-2003 2:25 PM PaulK has replied

  
dillan
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 104 (52739)
08-28-2003 7:07 PM


I thank everyone for the replies. I would like to address some of them.
"Dillan: So therefore, how do we know that the other two nucleotides at each stage couldn't be beneficial as well? That would lower the probability to 1/3 x the original probability at each stage. At any rate, evolution is still improbable.
FK: Most Creationists (and evolutionists, for that matter) say that beneficial mutations are extremely rare events. Yet you are proposing that 2 out of 3 possible point mutations at a specific site may have been beneficial. You seem to enjoy calculating probabilities. Set up that probability calculation, assuming that a beneficial mutation occurs once in every million or more mutations. I think you will see that what you are proposing is highly unlikely."
Okay here is the deal. I do not assume that 2 out of there point mutations at a specific site are beneficial, just like I don't assume that 1/3 mutations at a specific site are beneficial (as someone may have inferred from my calculations). I just said that there is no way of knowing that the other two couldn't have been beneficial. This is why on the NAiG website I used Haldane's number to set an upper limit on the number of beneficial mutations. I could see where Thomas was coming from when he accused me of double-dipping in the probabilities. However I also saw my point of view.
"Dillan: I know that parts of hemoglobin converged, because hemoglobin cannot be explained by common descent.
FK: You are definitely going to have to explain that one."
Hemoglobin is supposed to have converged in several species, such as earthworms, mollusks, echinoderms, etc.. Dickerson says, "It is hard to see a common line of descent snaking in so unststematic a way through so many different phyla..."
Richard Dawkins seems to agree. In an internet article Dawkins said, "The dozen or so different globins inside you are descended from an ancient globin gene which, in a remote ancestor who lived about half a billion years ago, duplicated, after which both copies stayed in the genome.
‘There were then two copies of it, in different parts of the genome of all descendant animals. One copy was destined to give rise to the alpha cluster (on what would eventually become Chromosome 11 in our genome), the other to the beta cluster (on Chromosome 16)...
‘We should see the same within-genome split if we look at any other mammals, at birds, reptiles, amphibians and bony fish, for our common ancestor with all of them lived less than 500 million years ago. Wherever it has been investigated, this expectation has proved correct."
"You are easily impressed by Creationists arguments it seems. Maybe you should apply the same type of skepticism you seem to apply toward evolutionist’s arguments.
FK"
So you can read minds, eh? Must be a neat party trick. No, actually I know that there is a lot of creationist garbage out there. However, I do think that creationists devastate evolution at some points.
"
"This was pointed out to him at NAIG. He replied with something along the lines of "Spetner's calculation disproved either speciation or convergent evolution. Since speciation has been observed, that means convergent evolution is disproven". I can honestly say that this didn't make a lick of sense to me.
The funny thing is, though, if you follow Spetner's calculation, he does mathematically "disprove" the possibility of speciation. Since speciation has been observed, that pretty much nullifies Spetner's approach, which was a multi-level straw man anyway.
FK"
Apparently you haven't read Spetner's book, or you wouldn't have made such an elementary error. First Spetner uses a calculation to arrive at the probability of 1 nucleotide appearing and taking over the population. We see from this that speciation is impossible. However speciation has been observed. What is the answer? To assume (well it is not really an assumption, since we know it happens) that many mutations are acting together, thus increasing the probability. How many mutations are needed? My calculation said at least 22. However when this happens convergent evolution has a number of paths to take. This means that the probability that two species will take the same path is very slim.
"No it is neither. It is proof that Spetner's calculation makes assumptions that need to be SHOWN to be valid. You cannot - as Spetner does refuse to count any steps after the first if they occur within the blocks Spetner has artificially created. As I have pointed out elsewhere this manouevre artificially assumes that maximum rate of evolution to that required to account for the observed speciations - can't you actually see that by applying Spetner's technique you can never produce more than the number of steps you are supposedly trying to account for ? No matter HOW many births you allow per step, or whaat probabilities you use ?"
I am kind of confused here. Please elaborate.
"I also note that you have not explained why your calculation of the probability of the langur convergence relies on assumptions you insist are not included in your model. As I have stated you need to allow for variations in the order of the sequence and for the sequence being interrupted by other beneficial mutations arrving and eaching fixation (strictly speaking you would need to show that the horse and langur would have the same number of possible beneficial mutations - I have skipped that because your number is relatively low, but it is certainly necessary for Spetner's numbers)."
I am not sure that I understand you here. I am only calculating the odds of the langur convergence. I thus only need to know the # of mutations in the whole of langur evolution. All we really need to know is that 9 nucleotides converged. I used some numbers from horse evolution, but I assumed a mutation rate of 10^-7, not too far off. I also used 50 steps per speciation sequence. I freely admit that my probability analysis can be improved upon-because we do not know the exact numbers. I try to take a collective average, but that still does not yield completely accurate results.
"Spetner appears to look at gene survival as a random
process ... that neglects natural selection, which is a
prime component of ToE."
Nope-he includes a selection coefficient.
"There are two significant problems here, and this does not speak well toward your motives. I saw the exchange at NAIG. When Thomas did the calculation, he assumed a generation time of 5 years. In fact, langurs are sexually mature at the age of 3 or 4. Yet you have increased it to 7 years for a generation. I think the reason is quite obvious."
The reason I used 7 is because I searched for the relevant material on the internet but could not find any information on the generation time. I didn't know if Thomas had made an error or not. However, I used 5 yrs. below. If you want I can recalculate using 3 or 4.
"
2nd, you were shown recent estimates of mutation rates in humans. They range from 100 to about 175. Thomas used a recent estimate of 128. Yet you went with 75, from an outdated Talk.origins FAQ. Again, I think we can all see why."
Nope, actually I went with 100-(me) "Even considering 5 yrs/generation and 100 mutations per individual this equals a 2% chance (0.026)."
Check my original post. This is within range of the number you mentioned. I think that Thomas linked to several papers regarding mutation rates. If I am not mistaking they virtually all had numbers around 100. 128 was just a number from 1 paper. Also I used the talkorigins number because I thought that talkorigins was reliable. The paper says: "Copyright 1999-2003
[Text Last updated: May 23, 1999]
[Links edited: June 20, 2003]"
Well, if the links have been updated recently (this year), why did they not change the numbers in the article? Anyway, estimates can be near this:
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:FAZpZWD6CYQJlantsciences.montana.edu/Bergey/Biol301/Biol-301(2003)/Genetic%2520Roulette.pdf+mutations+per+individual+humans&hl=en&ie=UTF -8
(If this site doesn't link correctly go to google, type in mutations per individual human, and see the results. I think that this is the genetic roulette paper by Crow.)
Or higher:
Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans - PubMed
Interestingly enough, the above paper that agrees with a higher mutation rate also agree that U=3, which may have some very strong implications for evolutionary theory (as you seem to disagree with this number).
"It appears to me you are less interested in performing a defensible calculation than you are in pushing an agenda. Otherwise you would not use outdated or flat out false numbers to push your case. You can't plead ignorance, because I know you were given references at NAIG. I don't even know why you want to persist with the lysozyme example. You got waxed on that one at NAIG. Perhaps another example might be better?"
So now you can discern my intentions? Look, I am a pretty nice fellow, but I do not like it when I am accused of something that there is no substantiation for. In fact, if I was just looking to push a bad model, then I would have no reason to change Spetner's original model. But I did. As far as getting "waxed" on NAiG-I have participated in my fair share of debates. I can assure you that I hardly ever get completely waxed-just ask Asmodean, Butch, Prof Weird, Roland (rjw), skepticboy, etc.. In fact, I wanted to discuss the issue more but Thomas decided he did not want to. I am NOT saying that he ran away-I am merely saying that I did not get a chance to completely corroborate to develop my model. If you want, we can again set up the calculation:
100 mutations per individual (Crow's estimate)
1/500 selection coefficient
10000 members average in a population of langurs
15,000,000 yrs. of evolution
4 yrs. / generation
This yields a total of 1,000,000 mutations per generation (10K x 100) x 3750000 generations (15 million yrs. / 4 yrs. per generation) = 3750000000000. This could overturn a genome of 3 billion nucloetides 1250 times. This /3 (correct nucleotide) = 416. 416/500^9 = 0.19, or 19%. However even this favorable calculations has several flaws. First of all, just because an animal is able to reproduce at 4yrs. old doesn't mean that it is going to. A 14 yr. old human can reproduce, but the average generation time is around 20 years. So the number could be higher than 4 yrs. Secondly we do not know that any of the other 2 mutations at each site couldn't have been beneficial. Using Haldane's number, if 1 mutation can be fixed every 300 generations, this is 1 mutation per 1200 years. Over the course of the langur evolution a maximum of 12500 beneficial mutations could have been fixed. We know that the vast majority of mutations are neutral. Let's say only 3% of the mutations are in the coded region. This is 112500000000 mutations. Let's say that beneficial mutations occur in a ratio to harmful mutations of 50 to 1 (I do not know the actual number-however I assume that evolution would like the most beneficial mutations possible). So this is 2250000000 competing for fixation, and only 12500 at maximum can be fixed. (It is important that we use the maximum number for fixation because the more mutations that can be fixed, the less mutations have to compete, meaning a better chance of fixation.) We know that 9 nucleotides out of this 12500 were fixed, so the 9 nucleotides were competing against 2249987509 (2250000000-124991). For 1 specific nucleotide this is 2239987509/9 = 249998612. So the probability of getting all 9 nucleotides is 1/249998612^9.
fFinally once we calculate the probability for other convergences it becomes extremely improbable. For example, if rhodopsins of the eye converged in a similar manner (I don't have the actual figures), then the probability would be 0.19x0.19= 0.036, or about 3%. When other convergences are considered, the numbers drop.
I think that the best criticism of my work was by the fellow that wrote that the events in evolution are not isolated events.

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2003 7:49 PM dillan has not replied
 Message 29 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 08-28-2003 8:39 PM dillan has replied
 Message 33 by Peter, posted 08-29-2003 4:57 AM dillan has not replied
 Message 49 by derwood, posted 08-30-2003 10:25 AM dillan has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 28 of 104 (52752)
08-28-2003 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by dillan
08-28-2003 7:07 PM


To deal with the part replying to my post (buried very deeply) the calculation of 1/22^9 assumes that there are 9 attempts, each of which has a 1/22 probability of success, each of which must succeed.
This has the following problems:
Firstly we do not know that the probability is 1/22. As I have stated it is not the case that all the beneficial mutatione available will be equally likely, and those that are observed will tend to be those of a higher probability (just as when rolling two dice, we see a total of "7" more often than "12")
Secondly we do not know that it is the case that only one of these mutations is available at any one time. If two were available the probability at that step is 2/22. Having only one available at each time assumes that there s a single order that must be followed.
Most seriously we do not know that there are only 9 steps available. Indeed as I point out given your numbers we would expect there to be 750 steps in the available time.
Since you have explicitly denied that your model makes the assumptions required to support your calculation the question remains - why insist that the calculation is correct when it misrepresents your model ? And if you don't understand the meaning of the calculation why are you attempting a probabilistic argument at all ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by dillan, posted 08-28-2003 7:07 PM dillan has not replied

  
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 104 (52754)
08-28-2003 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by dillan
08-28-2003 7:07 PM


Dillan: I do not assume that 2 out of there point mutations at a specific site are beneficial, just like I don't assume that 1/3 mutations at a specific site are beneficial (as someone may have inferred from my calculations). I just said that there is no way of knowing that the other two couldn't have been beneficial.
FK: There is also no way of knowing whether Pluto is covered with a fine layer of cheddar cheese. But I think you would agree that it would be highly unlikely. Again, I asked you to make a probability calculation so we can have some idea of the odds. You seem reluctant to do so in this case. I do wonder why (not really).
I snipped the hemoglobin stuff, because there is really nothing there that we can apply any calculations to. It is not stated how many nucleotides are believed to have converged. Surely you don’t believe that evolutionists think the entire molecule converged? All you have done is show that evolutionists believe that hemoglobin is descended from an ancient ancestor of hemoglobin. You are going to have to do a lot better than that if you want to make the same type of argument that you did about lysozyme.
Dillan: I do think that creationists devastate evolution at some points.
FK: You will have to turn me on to some of these devastating arguments. I have been debating this for 10 years and have never seen one.
Dillan: However when this happens convergent evolution has a number of paths to take. This means that the probability that two species will take the same path is very slim.
FK: That all depends. If you mean that there are slim odds that two species’ genomes would converge to a large degree, then you are correct. No evolutionist, however, would suggest such a thing. To present this as a refutation of evolution is certainly attacking a straw man.
Dillan: The reason I used 7 is because I searched for the relevant material on the internet but could not find any information on the generation time. I didn't know if Thomas had made an error or not. However, I used 5 yrs. below. If you want I can recalculate using 3 or 4.
Yes, why don’t you recalculate it using 4 years per generation and 128 mutations per generation? I don’t think you will be pleased with the result.
Dillan: So now you can discern my intentions?
FK: Yes, I can. When Creationists ignore certain bodies of evidence that don’t support their preconceived notions, I question their motives. If you read Fred’s article, you will see that he is guilty of the same. Did you know that Eyre-Walker has updated their estimate of U, and that there are a number of estimates out there, lower than the ones Fred uses? Did you see how Fred ignored lower estimates and only did calculations with the higher estimates? Fred ignores all of that in favor of any estimates that tend to support his position. That’s why he is an engineer, and not a scientist. A scientist engaged in such behavior would have zero credibility. (Not that Fred has credibility anyway).
Dillan: As far as getting "waxed" on NAiG-I have participated in my fair share of debates. I can assure you that I hardly ever get completely waxed-just ask Asmodean, Butch, Prof Weird, Roland (rjw), skepticboy, etc.. In fact, I wanted to discuss the issue more but Thomas decided he did not want to. I am NOT saying that he ran away-I am merely saying that I did not get a chance to completely corroborate to develop my model.
FK: No, you were pretty well manhandled. It looked to me like Thomas just got bored.
Dillan: If you want, we can again set up the calculation: 100 mutations per individual (Crow's estimate)
FK: Or, you could use Nachman’s estimate that you linked to of 175. This completely changes the outcome. Now you are looking at about 100% probability of convergence. What you can conclude from this is that the probability of convergence in this case is somewhere between 2% and 100%. This is not exactly a damning argument against convergent evolution. Do you have a better example?
Dillan: First of all, just because an animal is able to reproduce at 4yrs. old doesn't mean that it is going to. A 14 yr. old human can reproduce, but the average generation time is around 20 years.
FK: But it wasn’t always. A couple of hundred years ago the generation time was about 14 years. As soon as women came of age, they married and began to reproduce. This is still the case in 3rd world countries. But nowadays in the U.S., we don’t have too many marriages before girls turn 18. In fact, the average age at marriage is 24. That’s why the average generation time is 20 years or so. But as late as 1950, the average marrying age for a girl in India was 13 years.
Dillan: Using Haldane's number, if 1 mutation can be fixed every 300 generations, this is 1 mutation per 1200 years.
FK: I am not really seeing how Haldane is relevant here. Are you sure you understand Haldane’s argument?
Dillan: For example, if rhodopsins of the eye converged in a similar manner (I don't have the actual figures), then the probability would be 0.19x0.19= 0.036, or about 3%. When other convergences are considered, the numbers drop.
FK: And by slightly changing the assumptions, the probability will again go to 100%. Perhaps you need some new material. I have yet to see one of these mathematical disproofs of evolution that stood up to scrutiny.
FK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by dillan, posted 08-28-2003 7:07 PM dillan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by dillan, posted 08-29-2003 12:41 AM Fedmahn Kassad has replied

  
dillan
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 104 (52794)
08-29-2003 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Fedmahn Kassad
08-28-2003 8:39 PM


Thank you all for the replies. I would like to address some of them.
"To deal with the part replying to my post (buried very deeply) the calculation of 1/22^9 assumes that there are 9 attempts, each of which has a 1/22 probability of success, each of which must succeed.
This has the following problems:
Firstly we do not know that the probability is 1/22. As I have stated it is not the case that all the beneficial mutatione available will be equally likely, and those that are observed will tend to be those of a higher probability (just as when rolling two dice, we see a total of "7" more often than "12")"
This is true. I took an around average value suggested by evolutionist G. G. Simpson, which was 0.1. He also suggested that a value of 0.01 could work in selection.
"Secondly we do not know that it is the case that only one of these mutations is available at any one time. If two were available the probability at that step is 2/22. Having only one available at each time assumes that there s a single order that must be followed."
Not necessarily. If there is 3 mutations, a, b, and c, the order can be cba, abc, bca, acb, etc.. The order is not really important, as long as they appear. My second calculation took care of a mutation appearing multiple times. Besides, my calculation means that the correct mutation occurred at a frequency of 1 per every 22 beneficial mutations. Likely the ratio in reality would not be favorable for evolution, since there is so many sites to mutate. This calculation implies that on average 22 beneficial (point) mutations are required to keep evolution moving.
"Most seriously we do not know that there are only 9 steps available. Indeed as I point out given your numbers we would expect there to be 750 steps in the available time."
The question is not how many steps occurred overall, but how many steps it took to converge on the nine nucleotides. Even if you didn't like my first calculation, what is wrong with my second or third? Besides, this number really doesn't deal with steps. For example, all 9 nucleotides could have been fixed in possibly less than 500 yrs. In fact, according to my calculation it wouldn't matter if all 9 were fixed in a day. It just means that evolution will have 22 different possibilities (mutations) to chose from here in order to keep evolution going. If on average there are 22 different possibilities to choose from, then the probability would be 1/22^9.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dillan: I do not assume that 2 out of there point mutations at a specific site are beneficial, just like I don't assume that 1/3 mutations at a specific site are beneficial (as someone may have inferred from my calculations). I just said that there is no way of knowing that the other two couldn't have been beneficial.
FK: There is also no way of knowing whether Pluto is covered with a fine layer of cheddar cheese. But I think you would agree that it would be highly unlikely. Again, I asked you to make a probability calculation so we can have some idea of the odds. You seem reluctant to do so in this case. I do wonder why (not really)"
Okay. I have tried to get a grasp of how many beneficial mutations may have occurred-which is why I included Haldane's number, which can be used to set the maximum number of beneficial mutations to be fixed in a certain time frame.
"I snipped the hemoglobin stuff, because there is really nothing there that we can apply any calculations to. It is not stated how many nucleotides are believed to have converged. Surely you don’t believe that evolutionists think the entire molecule converged?"
Your right, I do not believe that. However I am quite certain that some nucleotides have converged (likely more than 9-like the langur example).
"All you have done is show that evolutionists believe that hemoglobin is descended from an ancient ancestor of hemoglobin. You are going to have to do a lot better than that if you want to make the same type of argument that you did about lysozyme."
Well then let's have a look at the lysozyme example.
"Dillan: I do think that creationists devastate evolution at some points.
FK: You will have to turn me on to some of these devastating arguments. I have been debating this for 10 years and have never seen one."
My statement really did not pertain to the particular topic of this thread. However some great books to read include: Creation: Facts of Life, In the Beginning was Information, Refuting Evolution (1 + 2), Creationist Scientists Answer Their Critics, In Six Days, etc.
"Dillan: However when this happens convergent evolution has a number of paths to take. This means that the probability that two species will take the same path is very slim.
FK: That all depends. If you mean that there are slim odds that two species’ genomes would converge to a large degree, then you are correct. No evolutionist, however, would suggest such a thing. To present this as a refutation of evolution is certainly attacking a straw man."
Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said 'to a large degree'. I will attempt to show why that convergence is slim in a moment.
"Dillan: The reason I used 7 is because I searched for the relevant material on the internet but could not find any information on the generation time. I didn't know if Thomas had made an error or not. However, I used 5 yrs. below. If you want I can recalculate using 3 or 4.
Yes, why don’t you recalculate it using 4 years per generation and 128 mutations per generation? I don’t think you will be pleased with the result."
Nope, I think I will be just fine with it. You seem to only want to hear the model that goes in your favor. However I can do the same thing that you are doing, as we will see in a moment.
"Dillan: So now you can discern my intentions?
FK: Yes, I can. When Creationists ignore certain bodies of evidence that don’t support their preconceived notions, I question their motives. If you read Fred’s article, you will see that he is guilty of the same. Did you know that Eyre-Walker has updated their estimate of U, and that there are a number of estimates out there, lower than the ones Fred uses? Did you see how Fred ignored lower estimates and only did calculations with the higher estimates? Fred ignores all of that in favor of any estimates that tend to support his position. That’s why he is an engineer, and not a scientist. A scientist engaged in such behavior would have zero credibility. (Not that Fred has credibility anyway)."
First of all, I never claimed that the creationist position does not have holes. In fact, I thinkt that the weakest area is geology. But, there are other areas that are strong in my opinion. There are also weak points in an atheists position that accepts mainstream beliefs. There are several unanswered questions about the big bang (and I got this straight from a grad student studying astronomy at Cambridge-Butch. Very likeable fellow. Shot down most of my creationist arguments right out of the gate in our debate. However he did admit that there were some unanswered questions. Pleasure talking with him), many just so stories in evolution, no absolute concensus on the mechanism of evolution, plaguing problems with the origin of life, etc.
By the way, what is the new estimate for U?
"Dillan: As far as getting "waxed" on NAiG-I have participated in my fair share of debates. I can assure you that I hardly ever get completely waxed-just ask Asmodean, Butch, Prof Weird, Roland (rjw), skepticboy, etc.. In fact, I wanted to discuss the issue more but Thomas decided he did not want to. I am NOT saying that he ran away-I am merely saying that I did not get a chance to completely corroborate to develop my model.
FK: No, you were pretty well manhandled. It looked to me like Thomas just got bored."
I freely admit that many of my original calculations were worthless. However I am still trying to improve them.
"Dillan: If you want, we can again set up the calculation: 100 mutations per individual (Crow's estimate)
FK: Or, you could use Nachman’s estimate that you linked to of 175. This completely changes the outcome. Now you are looking at about 100% probability of convergence. What you can conclude from this is that the probability of convergence in this case is somewhere between 2% and 100%. This is not exactly a damning argument against convergent evolution. Do you have a better example?"
True, I could use Nachman's estimate. Then again instead of using 0.1% as a typical selective value I could use 0.01%. This does not require any leap out of logic-in fact G.G. Simpson said it could work for evolution. I quote Spetner, who refers to Simpson as saying: "He even noted that a value of 0.01% would surely be effective in natural seleciton, and even 'much weaker slection could well be effective.'" So instead of their being a 1/500 chance, there would be a 1 in 5000 chance. Even a mutation rate of 175 base pairs per individual wouldn't help you out here. Would this alter the probability? You bet. I merely took Crow's value and other values given to me to incorporate in a calculation. It is important to note that even though a percentage like 25% is possible, that doesn't make it likely. In fact, the chances are against it that it would occur. It all has to deal with the numbers that you originally incorporate into your calculation. I don't think that I have incorporated any outrageous numbers. However you have still not addressed two points I brought up. 1). If the webpage for talkorigins has been updated this year, why have they not changed their figure for mutations per individual. 2). The paper whose numbers you embrace also agrees with a higher mutation rate also agree that U=3, which may have some very strong implications for evolutionary theory (as you seem to disagree with this number). This would mean that Fred was right in his calculation of 60 births per individual.
"Dillan: First of all, just because an animal is able to reproduce at 4yrs. old doesn't mean that it is going to. A 14 yr. old human can reproduce, but the average generation time is around 20 years.
FK: But it wasn’t always. A couple of hundred years ago the generation time was about 14 years. As soon as women came of age, they married and began to reproduce. This is still the case in 3rd world countries. But nowadays in the U.S., we don’t have too many marriages before girls turn 18. In fact, the average age at marriage is 24. That’s why the average generation time is 20 years or so. But as late as 1950, the average marrying age for a girl in India was 13 years."
I was not aware of this. However, have you thought that this short generation time has anything to do with the length of their lives? Early American colonists died in their 30's and 40's. You could pick any isolated example to prove your point, as could I. The fact is that you do not have to reproduce once you attain the ability to. Some may be able to reproduce at 12. I have heard of several cases where girls around 12 have had kids. Does this negate your postulation that the generation time used to be 14? No, just as your postulation does not negate my original position.
"Dillan: Using Haldane's number, if 1 mutation can be fixed every 300 generations, this is 1 mutation per 1200 years.
FK: I am not really seeing how Haldane is relevant here. Are you sure you understand Haldane’s argument?"
I have the main idea of Haldane. He put a speed limit on evolution. You could use this information to determine how many mutations could be fixed in a certain period of time, or how fast each one was fixed. This is important, as explained earlier, because we need to know how many beneficial mutations occurred and were fixed. This could only improve my case, and at best would leave your probability calculation untouched (since you assume no other beneficial potential for mutations at the same site as the 9 that were fixed).
"Dillan: For example, if rhodopsins of the eye converged in a similar manner (I don't have the actual figures), then the probability would be 0.19x0.19= 0.036, or about 3%. When other convergences are considered, the numbers drop.
FK: And by slightly changing the assumptions, the probability will again go to 100%. Perhaps you need some new material. I have yet to see one of these mathematical disproofs of evolution that stood up to scrutiny.
FK"
Refer to my above comments on this. If I wanted, I could change the calculation around to where evolution is extremely improbable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 08-28-2003 8:39 PM Fedmahn Kassad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 08-29-2003 1:31 AM dillan has not replied
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2003 4:24 AM dillan 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