[Junior]

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.

[Aloysius88]

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.

[chronic_loser]

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.