|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Are mutations enough to explain natural selection? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
peter borger Member (Idle past 7684 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
peter borger Member (Idle past 7684 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
derwood Member (Idle past 1895 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Good thing that sexual recombination works to counter that...quote: 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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
derwood Member (Idle past 1895 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4875 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: 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.
quote: Again, I implied no such thing. 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).
quote: 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. So, you use a mechanism you admit is bad for evolution as a solution for something that is bad for evolution! Man, it’s got to be real frustrating defending such a vacuous fairytale. No wonder you want to cut back your internet time.
quote: Yes, it sure does. No creationist disputes this. 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!). 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. 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. I am glad you dropped the Wu paper, 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). Why don’t you tell us what evidence Rice has uncovered that shows recombination is an advantage for evolution? 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: I made no such claim. Being wrong on something does not make one inferior.
quote: I’ve never known you to go without giving the last word. What if I keep responding? 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
peter borger Member (Idle past 7684 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Peter Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4875 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
peter borger Member (Idle past 7684 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
derwood Member (Idle past 1895 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: 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 chance And 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:True — you more or less said it outright. quote: 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: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 impossible Anyway, 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:I see you have been honing your misrepresentation skills. Good work. quote: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:Odd then that you accused Rice of being misleading. Two blatant contradictions in one post. quote: 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:It appears that hurling disparaging accusations is the best you can do. I am not the least bit surprized.quote: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: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: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: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 selection from 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: You can run around claiming that you won.Wait — you do that regardless. quote: Even more odd, then, that this master mathematician could be so right on everything anti-Darwinian, but all wrong on Haldane’s model And his claim that one of the 8 intact Archaeopteryx fossils was a fake
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
derwood Member (Idle past 1895 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
derwood Member (Idle past 1895 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Satcomm Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Peter Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
derwood Member (Idle past 1895 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
