Are mutations enough to explain natural selection?

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

(And don't read to much of Dawkins. It can be demonstrated that he doesn't even know the most elementary stuff on DNA. Above all things I prefer truth)

---

​

Of course, one doesn't need any knowledge of DNA to understand that evolution occurs.

---

Indeed. Of course, we can use that type of argument against Borger and Williams, can't we?Or, one can go here:Account Suspended

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
We’ve debated here many times whether or not there are any mutations that add new, useful information to a population. Evolutionists struggle to provide examples, and of those provided I have yet to see a provocative one. Yet there should be a myriad of water-tight examples for evolution to be true.

---

We've asked here many times for creationists to explain to all us wrong-headed evos how, exactly, we should find these information-adding mutations, should they exist. And have received not a single answer.
A "counter" theory has been promoted - prosyletized, if you will - by a number of creationists, including Borger, Spetner, and even Williams - that of non-random mutation. Indeed - Williams claimed to be writing an article for his website over a year ago that would contain some of the evidence for this phenomenon.
As so many strongly advocate this notion, there must be a large and growing cache of evidence for it.
Yet none exists. Hence, no article.
Borger claims to see evidence for it all over, but his 'explanations are simply too zany to warrant attention ('so non-random they appear random...').

quote:

---

quote:

---

Gzus: Sure, the bird that caught 9 fish would survive just as the bird that caught 10, but that's a positive step. the important fact is that 'bird 10' survives, hence his mutated gene survives. he breeds with the other birds until the gene becomes common among the population.

---

​

This is simply nonsense. You start by agreeing with Eximius that there is no selective value, then you turn around and say there *is* selective value!

---

Williams' "interpretation" is what seems to be nonsense. Nowhere does Gzus say anything about selective value. Is this just a red herring?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Gzus: The important fact is that 'bird 10' survives, hence his mutated gene survives. he breeds with the other birds until the gene becomes common among the population.

---

​

Again, this is nonsense,

---

Not at all.

quote:

---

First, if the mutation is neutral (which part of Gzus agrees is ) then the odds it survives and fixates[sic] in a population is equal to its initial frequency, according to evolutionists. So in a population of 100,000, the odds are 1 in 100,000 it will survive and fix. You both act as if it’s unity.

---

That does not appear to be so obvious. They appear to be discussing hypotheticals, which is what one does on an internet discussion baord. I understand that many creationists actually think- or perhaps hope - that internet discussion boards are fora for the discussion of groundbreaking science, but that is not the case.
Look at Borger's posts, for example.
Lets not go and append intentions and implications without merit.

quote:

---

What if it does have a selective value? Evolutionists typically consider the odds of a beneficial mutation surviving to be 1 in 50. This is an underestimate because this assumes an atypically high selective value of .1 (Gaylord Simpson believes the average positive selection value is .01). Using the more reasonable selective value the odds are 1 in 500.

---

Please explain to us all how, exactly, this is an overestimate. Please provide the relevant and up to date documentation as well. Simple assertions do not suffice.
By the way - GG Simpson was a paleontologist who died in 1984.

quote:

---

But that is not the only problem. The rate at which a mutation can fix in a population is governed by its capacity for reproduction.

---

A mutation does not reproduce.

quote:

---

Using all kinds of favorable assumptions, the renowned evolutionist Haldane showed that in vertebrates, at most just 1 beneficial mutation could fixate in a population once every 300 generations!

---

Please explain - with supporting documentation, of course - that Haldane used "all kinds of favorable assumptions." Your mentor, ReMine, made the same claim (which you are obviously just parroting). He was repeatedly and directly asked to justify this claim. And he and did what any egomaniacal propagandist with no legitimate answer does - he simply ignored the questions. (see http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_top... for one example).Perhaps you can carry the torch for Walter and finally provide an explanation for this assertion.
Thanks.

quote:

---

Where does all this lead? To one inescapable conclusion: Evolution is one big fairytale.

---

In reality, this leads one to question why the creationist feels the need to use old sources and refuses to support their actual positive claims.**********************************
One falsification of the "favorable assumption" schtick is provided in the link above:==================================
Another interesting paper on "Haldane's Dilemma" is
Smith, J.M., 1968. "Haldane's Dilemma" and the Rate of Evolution. Nature 219:1114-1116.One of the points he makes is that Haldane's calculations assume the independent action of genes on the phenotype, i.e. he assumes that genes act independently on the fitness of the organism. Smith points out that this is generally not true, in fact it is rather exceptional that two character traits do act completely independently. In other words, the '1667 substitutions' case is a worst case scenario: 1667 is the number of substitutions that could occur in genes which, in their effect on the genotype, are independent (a condition which is not often met in nature).
I'll post more on this when I have more time...[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-02-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Of course, one doesn't need any knowledge of DNA to understand that evolution occurs.

---

​

LOL!

​

Translation: "Don't bother me with the facts, I've already made up my mind!"

​

---

Leave it up to the creationist to ignore context AND engage in projection at the same time.....[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-02-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
The rate at which the population can return to its initial size is primarily governed by the number of offspring the organisms can produce per generation.

---

Emphasis mine.I was not aware that a population's goal would be to return to its original size. Perhaps you can produce some documentation for this? or better yet, some observation of laboratory experimentation that demonstrates this?
Is this (a return to the original population size) a factor in the numbers you like to bandy about?

quote:

---

Thus, there are a certain number of deaths per generation that must occur to remove those organisms without the mutation. These deaths need to be replenished.

---

In order to mainatain/attain the original population size... which is required by nature...

quote:

---

How fast they can be replenished depends on the reproductive capacity of the organism. Much of that capacity has to pay for normal genetic deaths, while some excess is available to move the new positive mutation through the population over time. Even some receiving the advantageous mutation will die and need to be paid for (even though they are superior, they may still get hit by a rock, fall off a cliff, be a stuck up prude and not reproduce, get nailed with kryptonite, etc). ALL genetic deaths must be paid for and replinished by new offspring.

---

Nw "offspring"? Are you sure about that?
Or is this going to go into your whole equivocation of terminology schtick again?

quote:

---

Conceptually speaking I hope you can now see why increasing the intensity of selection directly impacts the reproductive capacity and its ability to replinish and pay for the deaths.

---

Actually, increasing the selective value would have no impact on the reproductive capacity of the organism at all.

quote:

---

Haldane showed that fitness is roughly e^(-30n^-1), where n is number of generations, and intensity of selection was roughly I = 30n^-1. As you can see, as intensity increases n decreases. This means fewer generations are available to pay the cost, putting a greater burden on reproductive capacity.

---

To get back to that original population size... which is required by nature...

quote:

---

If you are really interested in this, you should go to a university library and get Haldane’s paper. I would also recommend Walter Remine’s book the Biotic Message, as he dedicates two chapters to this, plus a detailed appendix.

---

Having read ReMine's condescending, self-aggrandizing, and substnatially vacuous book, I strongly recommend that you not waste your time with it.
It is a creationist propaganda book, nothing more.
ReMine ignores many relevant articles, all the while claiming that there has been a grand conspiracy to "brush aside" 'Haldane's dilemma'.
Most importantly, the creationists that advocate a direct application of Haldane's model provide not a single bit of evidence - other than their personal disbelief - that even if such an application were warranted (even most informed creationists do not believe that it is, hence ReMine's status as a fringe mouthpiece), that the limits its imposes 'falsify' evolution in any sense.
Without such evidence, the entire ReMine/Williams/etc. "Haldane's dilemma" mongering is an exercise in sophism, nothing more.As an aside -What happens if we start out with a population of 100,000, a neutral mutation occurs, spreads to, say, 5% of the population, and then an environmental shift occurs, making that previously neutral mutation selectively beneficial. After the elimination of those lacking the mutation, the resulting 5000 member population occupies a new niche.How does 'the dilemma' apply?It doesn't.
That is one of the problems with mathematical models. They seldom accurately portray natural environments and occurrances. Mathematical models rely on constancy, and nature is anything but.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-02-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]

quote:

---

We've asked here many times for creationists to explain to all us wrong-headed evos how, exactly, we should find these information-adding mutations, should they exist. And have received not a single answer.

---

​

I see your memory is failing you again. I did provide a criteria, you and several others submitted examples. The examples were either bogus or not provocative. I recall your example fell in the bogus category. [/quote]

​

Your dismissal of anything provided to you is a given, number one, and irrelevant, number two. You never provided any crieria for after-the-fact detection. At least kooky Borger tried to do that, his loony 'explanation' notwithstanding...
What "genetic analyses" did you have in mind? Perhaps the same ones that "informed evos" use to remove SNPs from single sequences prior to performing phylogenetic analyses?

​

quote:

---

quote:

---

Me: This is an underestimate because this assumes an atypically high selective value of .1 (Gaylord Simpson believes the average positive selection value is .01). Using the more reasonable selective value the odds are 1 in 500.

​

Page: Please explain to us all how, exactly, this is an overestimate. Please provide the relevant and up to date documentation as well. Simple assertions do not suffice. By the way - GG Simpson was a paleontologist who died in 1984.

---

I provided the opinion of an evolution in far greater standing than you (well, I guess he isn't "standing" anymore).

---

​

I am hurt. And arguing from authority, to boot. Again, I ask for substantiation for your claim.

quote:

---

You are the one who believes in the fairytale, so provide evidence that .1 is a typical selective value for new beneficial mutations. Good luck!

---

​

Burden shifting from Fred Williams - who would have thought?

​

Lesson for today in creationist debate techniques:
When asked to support a claim, give an evasive non-answer then shift the burden for the contrarian position upon your opponant. End such 'challenge' with an implicit claim of 'victory'.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Please explain - with supporting documentation, of course - that Haldane used "all kinds of favorable assumptions." Your mentor, ReMine, made the same claim (which you are obviously just parroting). He was repeatedly and directly asked to justify this claim.

---

​

I thought you said you finally read his book. I guess not.

---

​

No, I did read it. ReMine's unsupported ranting is not documentation.

quote:

---

Favorable assumptions include 1) assuming single gene traits (ie ignoring the impact of quantitative traits), 2) assuming beneficial mutation is always dominant

---

​

THAT is "all sorts of favorable assumptions"?

​

LOL!
If that was the best ReMine had to offer, no wonder he ignrores repeated requests to substantiate his claims!

quote:

---

quote:

---

Perhaps you can carry the torch for Walter and finally provide an explanation for this assertion.
Thanks.

---

​

Perhaps you should really read his book next time, instead of saying you did.

---

Imagine that - Fred Williams, 'Christian creationist', implying that some one is lying. If he isn't deleting guestbook posts, he is engaging in these false witness claims.
How do you suppose I documented ReMine's dishonest citation technique if I had not read his book?

​

It was painful, to be sure. I had not seen so many self-aggrandizing statements in my life. I cringed at the lack of humility. And worse, at the sheer absence of support for ReMine's fantastical claims.

​

I guess creationists need to be talked down to. Must impress them or something.
Oh - inability to support your claims noted, Moderator 3.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In other words, the '1667 substitutions' case is a worst case scenario: 1667 is the number of substitutions that could occur in genes which, in their effect on the genotype, are independent (a condition which is not often met in nature).
I'll post more on this when I have more time...

---

​

Interesting. I will be very curious to see this, since I know that multi-gene traits make the 1667 number worse.

---

You know this, do you?

​

Amazing. How about explaining it all to us?

​

And while you are at it, p

​

It is good you do occasionally provide something useful to this debate. Perhaps this will be another complete backfire like that Wu paper you cited!

---

Your fantasy world notwithstanding, it is a shame that you lack even the ability to understand your intellectual shortcomings.Your haphazard and uninformed use of terminology and selective knowledge typically comes back to haunt you.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I was not aware that a population's goal would be to return to its original size.

---

​

I never claimed it was a goal.

---

It is implicit in your claims.

quote:

---

It's a quite reasonable baseline when considering a population's fitness.

---

Sure, for mathematical model purposes. It makes the calculations easier. But is is required?

quote:

---

Also, as big a problem large populations pose for evolution, it's in an even worse conundrum in small populations because genetic drift will move the far more common deleterious mutations to fixation at a greater clip. Savvy?

---

Yes, I savvy that you are dramatically tunnel-visioned on these issues. Sexual recombination will, as documented in the Rice et al. paper - you remember, the one that you accused the authors of dishonesty - helps to remove deleterious mutations while hastening the fixation of beneficial ones. You might want to read Felsenstein's take on this.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Actually, increasing the selective value would have no impact on the reproductive capacity of the organism at all.

---

​

This shows what little you really know about Haldane's Dilemma. Where is Haldane, a pop geneticist in high regard, wrong, and you right? Like you love to often say, "simple assertions" don't mean dit.

---

Well, you are certainly not in high regard in any area of science, so your superiority\martyr complex explains your continual need to denigrate your intellectual betters, but I suggest your read - carefully - what I wrote and to what I was responding.
I notice that you still call it "Haldane's Dilemma." that shows how little you know about pop genetics and evolution. You really should not rely upon the bombastic tripe churned out by fellow non-expert creationists for your information.
Do you know what reproductive capacity is? It would appear not. I was pointing out the latest in a long line of illogical statements by you based on your dearth of backgroung knowledge in areas that you like to pontificate in.

quote:

---

quote:

---

What happens if we start out with a population of 100,000, a neutral mutation occurs, spreads to, say, 5% of the population, and then an environmental shift occurs, making that previously neutral mutation selectively beneficial. After the elimination of those lacking the mutation, the resulting 5000 member population occupies a new niche.

---

​

As mentioned earlier, the problem becomes even greater for the evolutionist fairytale lover, because small populations mean those new harmful mutations that enter the scene at a far greater clip than beneficial ones will now have an increased probability to fix in the population due to genetic drift.

---

You are a real broken record. Of course, you are dodging the issue.

quote:

---

For those siphoned by selection, new offspring are needed to replace them. Thus, an increased burden on reproductive capacity. That is why Haldane assumed a large population. Small ones don't work. You'll de-evolve from a snail to a pile of dirt real quick!

---

Yes, well, the Hebrew tribal deity can always make men out of the dirt of the ground using magic, right Fred? And He can also use oil of Hyssop with its "50% antibacterial" to make sure that Adam doesn't get sick when scrumping all the other animals trying to see with one he wants to use as an 'helpmeet'.Anyway, as is usually the case with you creationist one-trick-ponies, you dodged the issue.Apparently, the human population must have been int he 10-billion range in the past, because that is where we are headed and, after all, acording to you, populations will need to get back to their original size.guess Adam must have had a lot of brothers...Well, at least I see that you have conceded the point that mutations od not reproduce... [This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-03-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
5) He can also use oil of Hyssop with its "50% antibacterial" (I dunno, 5 months old?)

​

LOL!

---

I am not quite sure why YOU would think that is funny. You made the claim and were proved wrong. Nervous laughter, I suppose.

quote:

---

Speaking of the Rice paper, don’t you remember I already refuted their misleading claims?

---

How can one remember something that did not occur? You claiming to have done something is hardly evidence that it occurred.
But it is strange that the only person that seems to think that a demonstration of a principle of sexual recombination/evolution in a laboratory environment is "misleading" is a creationist electrical engineer.
Oh wait - no it isn't.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Me: I will be very curious to see this, since I know that multi-gene traits make the 1667 number worse.

​

Dr.Page: You know this, do you? Amazing. How about explaining it all to us?

---

​

Say a new beneficial mutation occurs that impacts a quantitative trait. Say this trait is controlled by 5 genes. In order for one offspring to inherit the precise combination of genes, 2^5 offspring would be needed. That’s 32, for my math-deficient young apprentice.

---

Yes, I guess I must be math deficient. However, world-renowned astronomer/mathematician Fred Hoyle is not, and he wrote in his last book that 'Haldane's dilemma' is "an illusion."
I will take his word - the word of an anti-darwinian with legitimate math credentials - over the rants of creationist electrical engineers any day. Even those proclaiming to be experts in information theory Anyway -
I have asked about this before and you fell silent.You say:"In order for one offspring to inherit the precise combination of genes, 2^5 offspring would be needed. That’s 32..."emphases mine.Please explain - dumb it down for us non-math folk - how it will take 31 other offspring to provide one with the 'right' combination.I heard on the news the other day that the odds of winning the powerball lottery here is something like 1 in 165 million (or something like that).
Yet somebody won.As Williams the elctrical engineer creationist 'explains' it, it sounds an awful lot like he thinks that 31 non-beneficient 'offspring' will have to be born for the 32nd to possess the desired mutant.That makes no sense whatsoever to me, and it should make no sense to anyone else.Each conception is an independant event. Therefore, assuming Williams numbers are correct (there is little reason to do so, based on his past performances) each conceptus has a 1 in 32 chance of possessing the mutant.
Now, that could very well be the first born, could it not?

quote:

---

But surely there are going to be combinations where the phenotypic expression is not going to be recognizable by natural selection. So the actual barrier falls somewhere between 50% and 97% in the example I gave above. Since Haldane is assuming sing-trait genes, he is assuming 50% all of the time. This is clearly a favorable assumption for his model.

---

And is offset by his ocnstant population size requirement, which you conveniently have decided not to duscuss anymore.Hmm - didn't Haldane offer several models for different types of alleles, such as recessives and such? Why, yes - yes he did!But surely, you remember the FGF-3 receptor gene?Surely you have heard of the HOX genes and other developmental regulatory genes?Genes whose expression during development influences and/or directs morphological development?How do they fit in?Surely you must know that many if not most evolutionary biologists now consider these genes to be much more important than genes that control or influence single traits?Oh, and while you are at it, perhaps you can produce one of your content-packed posts with an explanation for why the 1667 number (ala ReMine) has any relevance at all.BTW - your intellectual mentor ReMine has written that the fact that Pandas have to eat lots of bamboo to live is supportive of his "Message theory" (myth is a more applicable name) because the creator wouldn't design critters that would deforest the planet...If you can't see the idiocy of that position, I can explain it to you...[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-04-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
And read L. Spetner's Not by Chance: the complete refutation and overthrow of NDT. Also easy to read).

---

Yes, it is easy to read comics, isn't it?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]Dear dr Page,Page: Surely you have heard of the HOX genes and other developmental regulatory genes?PB: They are 99.3% identical in human and chimp. They probably vary on some neutral postions. So, that will not be the difference.[/quote]Did I say they were? I di dnot realize that I had limited my comments only to the chimp/human question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Re: Lynn Caporale.

​

Funny - this paper by her does not seem to indicate what you think her book 'proves':

​

http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/...caporale/Caporale_IJ2.htm

​

Looking at the description of the book and the reviews of it, I think what we have is just another example of Borger's shall we say, "unique" interpretations...

---

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

quote:

---

Page: But it is strange that the only person that seems to think that a demonstration of a principle of sexual recombination/evolution in a laboratory environment is "misleading" is a creationist electrical engineer.

---

Of course you know I did not say the above was misleading. What I said is misleading is their claim that recombination is an advantage to evolution:[/quote]Snip sophism.
Please explain how removing deleterious mutations while accelerating the fixation of beneficial ones is not an advantage to evolution.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Fred Hoyle wrote in his last book that 'Haldane's dilemma' is "an illusion."

---

​

What is it about Hoyle’s argument that convinces you it’s an illusion?

---

Haven't read it. Have you?
But like I said - I would take his word over yours any day.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You say:
"In order for one offspring to inherit the precise combination of genes, 2^5 offspring would be needed. That’s 32..."
emphases mine.
Please explain - dumb it down for us non-math folk - how it will take 31 other offspring to provide one with the 'right' combination.

---

​

To get 5 is 2^5 or 1 in 32. So on average one out of every 32 offspring will inherit the precise combination (thus 32 offspring are needed to have an even chance).

---

You said that before. However, I must now question whether or not you took even undergraduate statistics, as you clearly have no clue whatsoever what statisical inferences indicate.You do not seem to realize that conceptions are independant events. That is, each conception would therefore have a 1 in 32 chance of getting the combination you used in your worst case scenario.
As such, that means that, in fact, it could very well be the first born.
I am flabbergasted at this sophomoric gaffe on your part - you had me convinced at one point that you actually knew what you were talking about. This demonstrates the shortcomings of pontificating on subjects that one has o business doing so on.Unless you are just making one of your 'patented' "shortcomings of the medium" deals...

quote:

---

quote:

---

I heard on the news the other day that the odds of winning the powerball lottery here is something like 1 in 165 million (or something like that). Yet somebody won.

---

​

This is a meaningless statement. It appears you are headed directly toward a very common fallacy in statistics. See the Fallacies & Traps chapter in Forgotten Statistics (or any other stats book that covers the traps).

---

I suggest that you re-read the book. Or better yet learn some elementary statistics. When you do this, you should also read some elementary developmental biology books. Perhaps then you might - MIGHT - realize that each conception is an independant event.
If your "explanation" above had any basis in reality, then there would necessarily have to be 165 million lottery tickets sold in order for a winner to emerge, and, what is more, premised directly on your above claim, the winner would be the very last ticket purchaser.

quote:

---

quote:

---

As Williams the elctrical engineer creationist 'explains' it, it sounds an awful lot like he thinks that 31 non-beneficient 'offspring' will have to be born for the 32nd to possess the desired mutant.
That makes no sense whatsoever to me, and it should make no sense to anyone else.
Each conception is an independant event. Therefore, assuming Williams numbers are correct (there is little reason to do so, based on his past performances) each conceptus has a 1 in 32 chance of possessing the mutant.
Now, that could very well be the first born, could it not?

---

​

It could, but the average hurdle is nevertheless 1 in 32 (as opposed to 1 in 2 to inherit a trait controlled by a single mutated gene).

---

And you thus directly contreadict your claim above.Which is is Fred?The 32nd is the one, or each event a 1 in 32 chance?You cannot have it both ways.

quote:

---

Thus, for species that do not commonly produce 32+offspring, the already low frequency of beneficial mutations is reduced further since most new beneficial mutations will never even make it to the 2nd generation.

---

Please retrune to the board AFTER you educate yourself on elementary statistics and developmental biology.

quote:

---

Multigene families are common and probably average more than 5 genes. This would have a major impact on Haldane’s cost, and in turn makes the 1 in 300 substitution rate unrealistically too high.

---

Do you have any clue what a multi-gene family is?Really, Fred, you are showing your miserable knowledge of these topics here.
You do not, unfortunately for you, get to make your own terminology, nor do you get to apply real terms as you personally see fit.Find out what a gene family is.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And is offset by his ocnstant population size requirement, which you conveniently have decided not to duscuss anymore.

---

​

I’d love to duscuss (sic) it, I have stated that it is at worst a favorable assumption and at best a NULL assumption. If you think a shifting population size somehow lessens the substitution rate, I’d love to hear how.

---

100,000 starting pop.
5% have a beneficial mutant after origination and drift.
Environemtal shift occurs.
5,000 are left, all those with the beneficial allele.New population size of 5000.Cost already paid.
Savvy?

quote:

---

quote:

---

But surely, you remember the FGF-3 receptor gene?
Surely you have heard of the HOX genes and other developmental regulatory genes?
Genes whose expression during development influences and/or directs morphological development?
How do they fit in?

---

​

Very badly. My understanding is that copying errors to HOX genes are far more likely to cause harm than copy errors to non-HOX genes.

---

Your memory is pathetic. One of the citations I had offered demonstrating the futility of the "no new information" please dealt with duplication of a HOX gene that altered phenotype and corrected deleterious mutations in one copy.
Keep up your studies.

quote:

---

Thus, the cost required to pay for lethals increases (more offspring to account for these genetic deaths), increasing the overall substitution rate. Methinks you are attempting a red herring?

---

You can think whatever you want. I am pointing out that thngs are not the way you like to portray them.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Surely you must know that many if not most evolutionary biologists now consider these genes to be much more important than genes that control or influence single traits?

---

​

Exactly my point. And don’t call me Surely.

---

If that was your point, I have to wonder why you prattled on about single trait genes and all that.Apparently, you have not learned a thing in all these years.I am planning (again) to wind down my 'net activity.So, hit me with your next round of gaffes and illinformed nonsense and that will be it...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

Haven't read it. Have you?

---

​

Yep. But it is not an easy read. If you check it out you will see what I mean. It will take some digging to really begin to understand where he is going. I just haven't had the time because it would be a significant effort (ie dusting off Calc 3 and Diff Equation books). Maynard Smith is an evolutionist who has gone through it and admits it is not convincing. The one thing I recall is that Hoyle estimated the rate would be more like 10 generations instead of 300.

---

Interesting then that he could be so right on everything but so wrong on "Haldane's Dilemma."
Did Hoyle require that the population strive to return to its original size?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You do not seem to realize that conceptions are independant events.

---

​

Yes. I also realize you are equivocating/hairsplitting again. Your comment about the lottery already clued me in you were heading to a big, black, fallacy hole. To your defense it is an *extremely* common fallacy. My point remains that the reproductive hurdle goes from 50% to somewhere between 50 and 97% (using my example). Haldane assumes 50%. A very favorable assumption for his model, one that we have learned in the years since his model is grossly unrealistic.

---

Your "equivocating/hairsplitting" charge is a given. I am sorry, but I was responding directly to your own words and application of probability.You mentioned a "1 in 32" chance of getting the combination you required in your "worst case scenario". You imply that your "worst case scenario" is more realistic than Haldane's model - which makes it even more interesting that you keep referring to Haldane's model with the high regard that you do. Perhaps you should write up a manuscriprt and submit it to a real journal. I must warn you - scientific journal editors and reviewers do not look favorably at the overuse of italics and exclamation points, and unsupported assertions and personal opinions are right out.Anyway, you mentioned a "1 in 32" chance, and that it means that 32 "offspring" are required for there to be a chance.I looked up a lottery page (Powerball - Understanding the Odds [Fixed too long link. -Admin]) and it is explained that the odds of winning this paticular game are 1 in 120 million.The last I knew, there were something like 265 million people - which includes infantsand children - in the U.S.According to your implications (and claims) in previous posts, that should mean that nearly half of the people in the U.S. need to buy Missouri powerball tickets in order for there to be a winner. Or 1/4 of the people in the U.S. need to buy 2 tickets, etc.
That is clearly not the case, and it is no trap or fallacy.
Here in the NE, there is the tri-state megabucks. It covers VT, NH, and ME, with a combined population of about 3 million. The odds of winning are 1 in 5.2 million (Frequently Asked Questions | FAQ Section | Vermont Lottery). Yet someone won recently. I doubt that all persons living in VT, NH, and ME all purchased ~2 tickets each. Nobody I know purchased any. Not to mention that there are like 4 other lottery games to choose from.Perhaps you can find in one of your dusty math texts or perhaps in your Fallacies and Traps book - and cite and quote it for us - wherein it states that in order for one to win a lottery (or any similar example) all possible outcomes must be attempted in order for the winning combination to be realized.
This will have a direct impact on your claim that 32 "offspring" are required to get a chance of the 'right' combination (as per your worst case scenario) of alleles in one.
Remembering, of course, that those conceptus' with lethals are not 'offspring.'I think that perhaps THAt would be the fallacy or trap...

quote:

---

...you had me convinced at one point that you actually knew what you were talking about.

---

I did? When? I kept it a secret...
Actually, I was not required to take advanced math, so I never did. I took statistics (got an A - one of only 2 in the class of 55), but never had the need for anything else. So, when in depth math discussions take place, I assume (erroneously, it seems) that others know what they are talking about.I shouldn't be so generous.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you have any clue what a multi-gene family is?

---

​

Yes. I meant multi-gene (quantitative) traits, as I wrote several times earlier. I "miswrote" when I said "family" in my latest post. Perhaps you will save this "gaffe" in your "Williams" file?

---

Yes, I probably should. The important addition to my "Williams file" of course, would not be the gaffe (which most of make form time to time), but the fact that you for once admitted error - without prodding and repeated demonstration of your error. You are making progress.New Year's resoluton?

quote:

---

I suspect I have "multi-family" on the brain from reading all those posts between you and Peter, you know, the ones where you are taking one devastatingly severe whoopin'!

---

Yes, of course I am.
And how would it be that you have the ability to recognize this, if it were in fact occurring?
I don't recall discussing anything with nutty Borger involving the term "multi-family". Maybe you could point it out?
It appears that you favor nutty Pete's blabbering. Maybe you can support his claim of the existence of "creatons"?
Or help us all understand how something can be so non-random that it appears random - what with your superfluous mathematical expertise and all...
Thanks.

quote:

---

quote:

---

100,000 starting pop.
5% have a beneficial mutant after origination and drift.
Environemtal shift occurs.
5,000 are left, all those with the beneficial allele.
New population size of 5000.
Cost already paid.
Savvy?

---

​

I can't count the times this has been shown to be bogus. Small populations will invariably reduce the fitness of the species because genetic drift works against selection.

---

I can't count the number of times that you made such claims that either 1. you were unable to support or 2. made jsut for the sake of making.You are misrepresenting my scenario. It starts out as a large population. The selection has already taken place. That is why there are now only 5000 individuals instead of 100,000. Savvy?

quote:

---

That is, the spread of mutations is driven by randomness and not selection, and thus the far more prevalent deleterious mutations will spread more than they would in a much larger population where selection can work.

---

Good thing that sexual recombination works to counter that...

quote:

---

Do you seriously think reducing fitness is good for evolution. Don't feel bad, you are not alone. Many on this board and elsewhere have implied the same thing! Doesn't it get tiring defending the indefensible? "Alice really did see a rabbit, doggonit!"

---

No, but it does get tiring having to read the illinformed (and disinformed) pontificate on matters that they have no business doing so on, and all the while claiming that those that don't agree are inferior somehow.Like the whole "1 in 32" spiel. THAT is certainly going in my "Williams file". No wonder you deigned to ignore my previous requests for explanation - perhaps you actually realized how idiotic your continued insistence on X-number of 'offspring' required was and didn't want to let everyone else see the weakness of the claim.
You let your guard down one, and your gaffe is laid bare.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I am planning (again) to wind down my 'net activity.

---

​

Yea, right, when have I heard this before! Actually, I do say this in good humor. I don't know how many times I've told myself to "wind down my net activity", only to find myself back on the boards a couple weeks later. Good luck on your attempt, maybe you will be more successful than I.

---

I know what you mean.Less expensive than cigarrettes, less damaging than drugs, but an addiction nonetheless.Bye, Fred. Hopefully for a long time...[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-07-2003][This message has been edited by Admin, 01-08-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Re: Lynn Caporale.

​

SLPx:
Funny - this paper by her does not seem to indicate what you think her book 'proves':

​

http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/...caporale/Caporale_IJ2.htm

​

Looking at the description of the book and the reviews of it, I think what we have is just another example of Borger's shall we say, "unique" interpretations...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

PB: Oh, you read a paper? What paper? Newspaper? Better get the book!

---

No, the paper by Dr.Caporale at the link I provided. It appers to be a 'pre-cursor' of sorts of the material in her book.

quote:

---

It simply proofs what I claimed all the time and what you are denying/ignoring all the time: NRM + MPG. So, you can start backpeddeling now.

---

Here on a place we like to call 'earth', unless Dr.Caporale does a complete turn-around in her book (and she doesn't - indeed according to a source, she is somewhat upset that her book has been 'misused' this way), she doesn't seem to support what you claim she does.

quote:

---

That evolutionists will give it their own interpretation was to be expected.

---

The projection is palpable and predictable.Be sure to let us all know when your evolution-busting, fact-filled, logical scientific manuscript gets published.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

Your "equivocating/hairsplitting" charge is a given.

---

​

There is a reason it’s a given. 32 offspring are needed to have an even chance means precisely that. An even chance means 50%. Not 0, not 100%. It follows that 1 offspring yields a 1 in 32 chance, which means there is a chance, and it could be the first offspring. I never said otherwise. In fact, my context has always been that the hurdle worst case is 97%, not 100%. Normally, resorting to such trivial hairsplitting is a clear sign the person engaging in it cannot defend his position, so I am only too pleased to point it out when my opponent engages in it.

---

You can couch your ego-pumping anyway you want to. You can imply that you are ‘winning’ and that I am ‘hairsplitting’ all you want to. You can posture and spew bombast till the second coming. None of that will change the fact that you are either:
1. purposely throwing out red herrings in a pathetic attempt to convince people — probably even yourself — that your ‘analysis’ has some sort of merit or 2. You are so deluded that you actually cannot see the simplistic error in your claims.Lets try it again. You reiterate and stand by this claim of yours:32 offspring are needed to have an even chanceAnd yet in the very same paragraph, a mere three sentences later, you write:It follows that 1 offspring yields a 1 in 32 chance, which means there is a chance, and it could be the first offspring.These are mutually exclusive and contradictory statements. On the one hand, you are saying that 32 ‘offspring are needed for your worst case scenario to have a chance of success — that is, 32 offspring will need to be born and, it follows from that, that we would have to wait until the 32nd offspring is in fact born to see the combination (otherwise, 32 offspring would in fact NOT be needed).
Yet you also state that the first born could, in fact, BE the 1 in 32.I do not think that I have ever seen such an easily refuted set of ideas.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You imply that your "worst case scenario" is more realistic than Haldane's model

---

​

Again, I implied no such thing.

---

True — you more or less said it outright.

quote:

---

In fact I made it clear the multi-gene problem makes the reproduction hurdle lie somewhere between 50 & 97% (in the example I gave). If I had focused on the worst case scenario I would have stuck with 97%, instead of 50-97%. As a reminder, Haldane assumed a hard 50%. We now know that multi-gene traits makes this number higher (by how much we do not know).

---

And thus, you make the claim that your ‘model’ is more realistic than Haldane’s because, according, it seems only to your and probably ReMine from whom you doubtless ‘borrowed’ this amazing information, multi-gene traits raise the ‘barrier’ and this is supposedly a more common genomic reality.
Yet you also contradicted this notion when you admitted that genes influencing development are probably more important in evolution. Single genes can, in fact, have profound impacts on not only phenotype, but on physiology as well. I have provided citations supportive of this.
You have provided none for your claims in this matter.
You have also yet to provide a single verifiable, relevant citation supportive of the claim that a strict application of Haldane’s 1957 model proves that man-monkey(sic) ancestry is impossible.
Oh, wait — you have previously admitted that there is none.
So I have to wonder why you keep using that as an argument?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are misrepresenting my scenario. It starts out as a large population. The selection has already taken place. That is why there are now only 5000 individuals instead of 100,000. Savvy?

---

​

No I’m not. If the selection has already taken place, it means the selection was very intense. This means reduced fitness, which you later admit is not good for evolution.

---

In my scenario, the survivors would in fact BE the ‘fit’ ones. Should be obvious. I see that one of your biggest problems is that you put too much emphasis on and rely too much upon mathematical models. As early as the 1970’s, it had been observed that there are many instances in which Haldane’s model did not apply. You and your handlers seem to want to ignore observation in favor of the strict application of largely inapplicable mathematical models.
It is funny — I watched a PBS program on flight a while back, and it was mentioned that Lord Kelvin (you know who he is, right Fred?) declared heavier-than-air flight to be impossible and that another guy, whose name I forget, declared that mathematically, bumblebees should not be able to fly.Now, heavier than air flight happens daily, and bumblebees do fly.
Were you a contemporary of Kelvin, I dare say that you would look at the Wright brother’s plane and declare it to be a myth, an illusion, because after all, mathematical models declare it to be impossibleAnyway, the way you haphazardly throw scientific terminology around, I don’t know exactly what you mean half the time (nor does anyone else).
The individuals in the now reduced population — the ones in possession of the mutant which is now fixed — will only produce offspring with the beneficial mutant. If the environment is such that possession of this mutant is a key to survival, then clearly the population’s fitness is not reduced. Any offspring will be reproductive excess, as it were.

quote:

---

So, you use a mechanism you admit is bad for evolution as a solution for something that is bad for evolution!

---

I see you have been honing your misrepresentation skills. Good work.

quote:

---

Man, it’s got to be real frustrating defending such a vacuous fairytale. No wonder you want to cut back your internet time.

---

Yes, I suppose it would be more productive to keep a website on which I could publish essays purporting that the ancient Hebrews knew about microbes, that oil of hyssop contains 50% antibacterials, that fixed beneficial mutations are the same as the total number of mutations separating chimps and humans, etc.
No need to defend any of that — it MUST be true because, after all, it props up a religion! And all it takes to do that is repeated unsupported assertion.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Me: That is, the spread of mutations is driven by randomness and not selection, and thus the far more prevalent deleterious mutations will spread more than they would in a much larger population where selection can work.

​

Good thing that sexual recombination works to counter that...

---

​

Yes, it sure does. No creationist disputes this.

---

Odd then that you accused Rice of being misleading.
Two blatant contradictions in one post.

quote:

---

What we claim (and many evolutionists realize) is that recombination is an enigma for evolution. Recombination merely serves to retard de-evolution. Even Rice showed this, but he tried to pull a fast one by extrapolating this to mean that recombination is an advantage for evolution (even though he also admitted it was an enigma!).

---

So, if one does not fully understand how something operates, it cannot be used as support for something. Interesting.
So, I should have to ask if you fully understand and can explain — in scientific terms, of course — how the Hebrew tribal deity accomplished all this?
I should not have to provide the disclaimer that He willed it thus or some such gibberish will not suffice

quote:

---

He seemed to only fool evolutionists with that sleight-of-hand. If I were you I’d be mad that he snagged you hook, line, and sinker with that illusion.

---

It appears that hurling disparaging accusations is the best you can do.I am not the least bit surprized.

quote:

---

You write: it does get tiring having to read the illinformed (and disinformed) pontificate on matters that they have no business doing so on. I pontificate because it flabbergasts me that you refuse to see that the Rice paper, or specifically your continual reference to it as showing some positive force or advantage for evolution, is utterly bogus beyond words.

---

And you — a shining light of scientific integrity and expertise — are just trying to show us all the way!Oh, thank you thank you!

quote:

---

I am glad you dropped the Wu paper,

---

Your ignorance-based arrogance is shining brightly, I see. I dropped the Wu paper because it has no applicability in the context of this thread.

quote:

---

but as you continue to insist the Rice paper has something to offer evolution, I will continue to point out it has nothing to offer evolution (except for the reminder of the bad news, that recombination is an enigma that actually is counter-evolution).

---

Your continual misrepresentation of both the Rice paper and my use of it is duly noted.
The Rice paper demonstrates theoretical predictions. That you cannot/will not understand that is no enigma at all.

quote:

---

Why don’t you tell us what evidence Rice has uncovered that shows recombination is an advantage for evolution?

---

Apparently, you did not read the paper.As I pointed out in our debate, Rice merely showed recombination is an advantage only when contrasting sexual organisms to asexual organisms when harmful mutation rates are high (hardly an advantage to evolution).[/quote]Yes, I am well aware that you think you made some major ‘discovery.’ As I pointed out I what you call a debate, a comparison had to be made in order for any advantage to be gleaned.
As for this harmful mutation rates are high, how can you actually believe that a mechanism that reduces the genetic load while hastening the fixation of beneficial mutants is not an advantage? Words cannot express the sheer stupifaction I am feeling at this stubborn idiocy you are exhibiting. Indeed — such a mechanism in a high mutation rate environment is a major advantage in any worldview!
Of course, if what you say is true, then this claim:In our experiments, we emulated feasible natural conditions by using moderate levels of selection relative to population size and background selectionfrom the paper in question is an outright lie.
Is that true, Fred? Perhaps then you can explain — with supporting documentation, of course — that your accusations have merit.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Bye, Fred. Hopefully for a long time...

---

​

I’ve never known you to go without giving the last word. What if I keep responding?

---

You can run around claiming that you won.
Wait — you do that regardless.

quote:

---

PS. I'm not positive, but I recall Hoyle also assumed a large, cosntant population size. If I remember I'll check it tonight (the book is at home).

---

Even more odd, then, that this master mathematician could be so right on everything anti-Darwinian, but all wrong on Haldane’s modelAnd his claim that one of the 8 intact Archaeopteryx fossils was a fake

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: How do I have to read this mail? Backpeddeling already? Not up to date with your own disciplin?

---

Your posts get more bizarre with each passing moment. Let's see how much flailing you do in THIS one:

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Re: Lynn Caporale.
SLPx:
Funny - this paper by her does not seem to indicate what you think her book 'proves':

​

http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/...caporale/Caporale_IJ2.htm

​

Looking at the description of the book and the reviews of it, I think what we have is just another example of Borger's shall we say, "unique" interpretations...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

PB: Oh, you read a paper? What paper? Newspaper? Better get the book!

​

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

​

Page: No, the paper by Dr.Caporale at the link I provided. It appers to be a 'pre-cursor' of sorts of the material in her book.

​

PB: Still Dr Caporale proofs --as I did before-- the existence of these mutations. That was the issue here. Better admit --for once-- that you were wrong and I was right.

---

I do not recall you "proofing" anything. As per your descriptions in another thread, the real non-random mutations are nothing like the mythical 'directed' mutations (ala your hero Spetner and Williams).
You cannot seem to keep topics separate. Mutations caused by the physical or chemical properties of the sequence itself are not mysterious or even new. They are generally referred to as 'hot spots.' What that has to do with making "illusions" and 'disproofing' evolution is a complete mystery to me.

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

It simply proofs what I claimed all the time and what you are denying/ignoring all the time: NRM + MPG. So, you can start backpeddeling now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Page: Here on a place we like to call 'earth', unless Dr.Caporale does a complete turn-around in her book (and she doesn't - indeed according to a source, she is somewhat upset that her book has been 'misused' this way), she doesn't seem to support what you claim she does.

​

PB: Caporale is not at all upset. In a personal communication with her she said that... "I believe that many people use the word "random" without carefully thinking through their definition. Generally when people use "random", they think they are saying that an organism doesn't know that if it changes a particular A to a C it will grow a longer neck and reach those leaves and not be hungry-- but then when molecular mechanisms are discussed they pull in the general meaning of the word "random" without thinking through the implications of doing that-- and I certainly have been confronted with such dogmatic arguments."

---

You are a perfect example. You throw around random and non-random haphazardly and with no clear meaning in mind. Non-random as per Dr.Caporale is hardly non-random as Spetner implies, or as you seem to want (at least sometimes).

quote:

---

PB: Yes, Dr Page YOU are such a dogmatic. To all kosts you try to keep up the appearance of random mutation (even by fooling yourself, why I wonder?).

---

You admit that random mutations occur, do you not? I am sorry that I do not accept your laughable 'explanations' (for example for my large alignment - oh wait - you haven't explained anything yet) - that everything is the result of non-random mutations and if something appears random, well it is because it is so non-random that it appears random.

quote:

---

But even WORSE, now you misrepresent Dr Caporale's stance (From some source? What kind of scientist are you?).

---

She is the source:"I am sorry if this book is being misunderstood-- the suggestion that through natural selection mutations inevitably will become nonrandom is very different from throwing aside Darwin's framework, as I tried to make clear in the book."Apparently, I am the kind of scientist that you can only dream of becoming.

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That evolutionists will give it their own interpretation was to be expected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Page: The projection is palpable and predictable.

​

PB: It is predictable since it is true!! How do you call it? "Evolution of evolution". Let's have a look at this sentence. The latter 'evolution' (= variation induction) has been observed and is the MPG in action.

---

Repeated unsupported assertion noted.

quote:

---

The first 'evolution' is the -never observed- extrapolation from the latter evolution (=MPG in action). Let's keep it scientific, Dr Page, empirical for that matter.

---

Yes, lets.Like I said to Fred the wonder boy, I am hoping to decrease my internet activity, so after you provide the analysis for your conclusion that humans and chimps diverged 150 kya from that mtDNA paper you cited, I will probably not address your posts anymore.

delete duplicate post[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-10-2003]