Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article

Here's my problem. If a mutation is random then the mathmatics of random chance applies and probabilities (against) become significant quickly. It is only selection that gives any reason why a certain mutation should spread through a population (leading to speciation). Anything less than a dominance of the population will not account for the movement of a organism toward speciation rather than simple variation within limits.

Now on the macro scale we have 2 competing pressures. On the one hand if we do not have a large enough population we would not seem to get enough numbers of mutations for any of them to have a significant effect. On the other hand if the environment is friendly enough that an organism can fluorish then darwinian pressure is not sufficient to ensure the deviation of the group toward speciation. Hard times provide the mechanism by which a population would be separated and differentiated. Good times provide the opportunity for a population to gain in number so that a goodly number of mutations occur randomly.

Now, there may be different types of mutations and different types of environmental factors that would provide greater gains in shorter times but these by their more complex nature would be more rare and therefore less useful to a theory of small changes over long times.

So, in hard times a population is whittled down but consolidates its gains. If it takes 100 generations for that population to recover to the point where the population is large enough that significant numbers of random mutations are occuring you then have only 10^4 generation sets (out of 10^6 generations) to accumulate the x number of mutations to lead to speciation. I don't think 10^4 mutations is too high a number for the number of mutations required for speciation and so you see my difficulty.

If hard times don't apply then any mutation cannot get the traction it needs to out perform the competition and lack of the test of death keeps less mutated individuals in the gene pool and washes out the advances giving us variation rather than change toward speciation.

In addition, the larger the animal, the smaller the population, the less likely the significant mutation, the more likely that significant environmental pressure will cause extinction rather than speciation.

The smaller the animal the more likely that a greater number of creatures would be preserved in the gene pool preventing the isolation neede to solidify mutational gains.

And if the mutations are random and there is no advantage to their preservation than it is not evolution, I wouldn't think.

There are thousands or millions of random genetic mutations within any given population in each generation. That is an established fact. Some of these are neutral and don't affect the individual carrying them in any way whatsoever (blue eyes, red hair). Some are bad and may kill the carrier before he or she reaches sexual maturity (genetic diseases). Some are beneficial and give the individual a slight edge over the competition (stronger muscle attachments, better hearing). Some mutations are good when a single example exists within a genome, but deadly when the individual has two copies (sickle-cell anemia). Some muations are neutral until another mutation makes them either advantageous or disadvantageous.

It really is this simple.

Within what population? A million individuals? Conferring what advantage? I don't care about the neutral or even the deadly mutations. How many beneficial mutations per thousand individuals per generation? How many individual mutations to reach greater muscle strength or better night vision or superior intellect? (If that confers any advantage- sarcasm). Do they need to be reinforced by reproduction with a suitable mate?

How many generations until they spread sufficiently within a population? What if the ideal mutation occurs during a season of low competition? What if the population of the mutated is not isolated before the end of hard times and the "greater strength" returns to its earlier distribution in the population?

How many generations before a neutral mutation (preserved in a population by random chance) is reinforced by a second randomly produced mutation and confers some fractional advantage to an individual? And then again how many generations before this new population is immune to the sort of breeding out that occurs if the given species preserves too many unmutated (but still reproduction capable) individuals? Are all positive (darwinian) mutations dominant or are an equal number recessive?

I appreciate greatly your patient replies to my questions. I fear I have not been clear enough. The problem is not with the mutations that you see. Nor is it with the knife of natural selection. It is the fact that the math doesn't work out. As far as I can tell mutation is too random, selection is too slow and there isn't enough time in the universe for the speciation we see to be produced.

Your theory approaches (or perhaps surpasses) the point where in order to return the desired result all the constraints must operate near optimal conditions. The real world pressure on these constraints however, tends to push them further away from the ideal. The situation of the opposing constraints (micro scale mutation versus macro scale selection, small population versus large population, the age of the universe versus the speed of mutational propagation)also drives the available solutions away from one another in solution space.

This significantly (maybe even completely) diminishes the available window (intersection of the various sets) capable of producing the desired result (establishing evolution as the mechanism of speciation.)

If ,indeed,this evolution has occurred the narowness of the solution set speaks more to the fine tuning of the universe and less to the completely natural event driven, completely creator-less origin of the species.

Given all our vulnerabilities to disease and malfunction, I'd say the creator was a poor engineer. The evidence therefore points to
SD or Stupid Design>>
but of course, we have never heard of the quaint notion that the universe itself may have suffered a huge shock so that every area, from morals to academics is in cosmic revolt against the creator, and that this state of warfare has cosmological implications as well.....
and the REASON we have never heard of such ideas???, why we are SCIENTISTS and haven't time for such rubbish.......

If you want some close minded ignorant know nothings, go to a rural fundamentalist church......., or walk into a community of biologists. Same ignorant pretentions to knowledge, same utter ignorance of the weaknesses of their own positions and critiques of their positions by others, and the same close minded religious zealotry and commitment to casting out the "infidels" from among them.

There is NO scientific reason why science should hold a view of the cosmos as "mechanistic and deterministic until proven otherwise." NONE. It is a philosophical presupposition that scientists have NO valid scientific reason to cling to.

But tell them that it is a philosophical presupposition and not connected with "science" at all and they look at you like you have announced the earth is flat.

It is sheer metaphysical prejudice dressed up like science, nothing more.
Philip Johnson does a good job in "reason in the balance" in pointing this out.

The math hasn't changed since Wistar, either.

And the math simply does not support the notion of change from microbe to man, no mantter how generous the terms you offer.

Never will forget the dialogue with my Bio prof in Sophomore genetics in studying beneficial genetic adaptations. We looked at the chances of UV directed mutation, the chances of that mutation being positive (actually we have nothing close to reliable on this, it was sheer conjecture). I asked how many mutations would be necessary to support development of all the phyla and the diversity of life forms (animal and plant) on the planet. I still remember the comment "it boggles the mind." I responded, "screw all the life forms, then. just man..... amoeba to man...., how many adaptations would be necessary?" He became defensive, and I responded "I am just trying to get my head around a mathematical MODEL to see if this stuff is really supportable, or do you just want us to believe it because my genetics prof says it is so?" I will never forget his response... He said "It is mathematically a challenge, but it is the ONLY explanation for why we are here." I just said "thank you" but I wished I had asked him if we should close with a hymn, or recite the catechism or say a hail mary or something, since this had become a religion class.

what a load of horseshit, and it happens in dialogues with scientists every day.

And the math simply does not support the notion of change from microbe to man, no mantter how generous the terms you offer.

So long as the chances of beneficial mutation are non-zero, the probability will be non-zero. That's what the math says.

You also have to take into account the exponential growth of populations. The non-zero chance of a beneficial mutation is multiplied by the number of organisms available. This number grows rapidly.

So you have exponential growth combined with non-zero probabilities and over a billion years to work with.

The math may not "support" the notion of change from microbe to man, but it certailly doesn't refute it, either.

Try again "math whiz".

You also have to take into account the exponential growth of populations.>>

is there a prize for the most complete non-sequitur reasoning being offered on free republic or something? The exponential growth of populations is part of the mathematical PROBLEM, not the source of a solution.

You are correct in asserting that the odds are not zero. However, it might surprise you to learn that the numbers are beyond the ken of any puters we have. The odds are always mathematically calculable in a theoretical sense, of course. Just not in the world of science we now live in. They are, statistically speaking, zero. Don't let that upset your faith, though...., I am sure we will come up with something. Give them time. Shall we sing a hymn while we wait?

is there a prize for the most complete non-sequitur reasoning being offered on free republic or something? The exponential growth of populations is part of the mathematical PROBLEM, not the source of a solution.

You're such a jerk.

Exponential growth acts to create large populations over which beneficial mutuation might occur. So even if the probablility of beneficial mutuation in an individual is small, that probability might become large given a large population.

Consider the total number of prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea). According to William Whitman, a microbiologist at University of Georgia, the number is 5 x 10^30.

Now as improbable as beneficial mutation might be, can you really say that it's statistically zero when multipled by 5 x 10^30 ? Of course not.

So how can exponential growth be considered part of the mathematical problem?

Outlined in the third chapter of the old book, which gives a summary, but not a full blown treatise, of how the rebellion became a part of the warp and woof of humanity and the part of the cosmos with which we have familiarity. Simple test, simple rebellion (primarily that of unbelief) with the results being 1) a divided humanity, primarily between those who follow the Creator and those who rebel 2) a divided humanity, so that even the most basic structure in the nuclear family is screwed up with women seeking to usurp ("have" in the sense of dominate) the male, and the male consequently running roughshod over her 3) frustration and inability to get things to work properly (the cosmos itself is "broke"), and finally the cessation of meaning itself in dying and going "back to dust."

There is more explanation, in different locations, that flesh out alot more of it, but that is the core of it. No full detailed recount of this is extant, though.

You're such a jerk.>>
I love you too, honey, but if we keep meeting like this, people are going to talk....
Look, you start a thread by pissing in someone's soup and then whine about how they react? How quaint. Shall I remind you of your first post on the matter? Anyway

Exponential growth acts to create large populations over which beneficial mutuation might occur. So even if the probablility of beneficial mutuation in an individual is small, that probability might become large given a large population.>>

If we were dealing with only monoline "species" (hate that word, there is so little solid stuff in it, but we have to say SOMETHING), you might have a point. The fact is that we have an EXPLOSION of billions and billions of life forms, all diverse, all unique and all inexplicable in your world apart from numbers of mutations, the size of which cannot even be guestimated, much less calculated.
This is what has led non religious scientists like Hoyle (who coined the term "big bang") and Francis Crick to posit that life, or at least "seeds" of life, came from outside the cosmos. The statistical demands of naturalistic change over time simply cannot be supported by any known models.
As far as the number of prokaryotes and eukaryotes, I could give a shit how many there are, and the number is irrelevant unless you are positing how some type of proto nucleic strand might have come about. If so, I will gladly yeild that to you, and you STILL have nothing. You are still stuck in the same pit you were when you started, unless you are trying to posit the same types of numbers each step "up" (interesting word choice, there) the evolutionary ladder. Eventually you run out of a base, and the demands for positive mutations doesn't slack up at all. As a matter of fact, it INCREASES. Statistically, you are stuck.

Okay. Here is a non-zero probabi;ity and what it means in Real world terms.

If you were to attempt to assemble one short prtein of 100 amino acids by random chance (which controls in the case of neutral mutations) it goes like this:

1. all peptide bonds. 50-50 chance in nature. 1 chance in 2^100 or 1in 10^30.

2. All left handed amino acids. Again 50-50 so 1 chance in 10^30.

3. 50% of the amino acids mission critical. Out of 20 amino acids. 1 chance in 20^50 or 10^65.

4. 10^30 x 10^30 x 10^65 = 10^125 or 1 chance in 10^125 of randomly producing a short protein used by life.

5. This is a non-zero probability and seems reachable.

Let's try.

1. Suppose we assembled 1 protein per second since the beginning of time. 13.7 billion years = 4.3 x 10^16 seconds or let's just call it 10^17 seconds. We would need to compare 10^108 proteins per second to get ther.

2. Let's get Blue Gene, IBM's supercomputer to help. It operates at 70 teraflops or 7 x 10^13 floating point operations per second or we'll call it 10^14. So if we had Blue Gene woking since the beginning of time we would still fall a little short.

3. We need more computers. The number of photons in the Universe (per Penrose) is around 10^88. If every photon (10^88) was a blue Gene (x 10^14) operating since the beginning of time (x 10^17) you would still need a million universes fulll of computers to make it all work out.

So non-zeo probability ain't all its cracked up to be.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.