Rebutting Darwinists: (Survey shows 2/3 of Scientists Believe in God)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 04/15/2006 | Ted Byfield

[stands2reason]

Yeah, ID is a belief, and a possibly valid one, but it's still not science. My belief in God and my immortal soul is not science either. I'm fine with that, because science doesn't determine my religion.

[balrog666]

By the logic you have posited above, all species should appeared simultaneously. It that your contention?

So now you don't understand logic or biology?

Then why are you even posting on this thread?

[Lucky Dog]

I wish you luck if you choose to examine it in detail.

Thank you.

[bobdsmith]

You are correct in that multiple mutations can occur simultaneously. However, you must assume that the environmental natural selection pressures are simultaneously favorable to every mutation so produced and remain so long enough for propagation.

One, two, or even more beneficial mutations can be independantly spreading through the population at the same time as they aren't cancelling each other out.

Additionally, assuming that such does occur

The more beneficial a mutation is, the more chance it has of fixing throughout the entire population. As the mutation spreads to more individuals in the population, the chance of it spreading further increases. Exponential increase like how a virus spreads, except even better as it is beneficial rather than detrimental.

you must then include the probability that organisms, each possessing different favorable mutations, can combine to produce offspring having both favorable mutations and no detrimental mutations.

If two favorable mutations are spreading throughout the population independantly then they will both eventually become present in every individual in that population. They don't cancel each other out so they will seamlessly cross. In this way multiple changes can be occuring simultaneously.

"one mutation per locus per 10^5 to 10^6 gametes" means one mutation per gene per 10^6 reproductions. We have tens of thousands of genes meaning that this calculation gives a value of about one mutation per 100 reproductions. Given a population in which just a thousand reproductions occur in a year that means about 10 gene mutations.

Over 1,000,000 years that's 10,000,000 mutations. If only 1% of those are beneficial and manage to spread that is plenty. All the math concerning time available and mutation rates have been done long ago. If there was any problem with mutation rates and the time available it would have been apparent long ago.

[Lucky Dog]

So now you don't understand logic or biology?

Quite the contrary, I think I have a reasonable grasp of logic, having taught it.

Then why are you even posting on this thread?

I joined this thread on the assumption that polite and reasoned debate with other participants was possible and preferrable to insults.

[Coyoteman]

In my original post I cited the need for environmental natural selection pressures to remain favorable to the mutation (or at least benign) for “evolution” to “pressure” the mutation to be passed on to the next generation(s). Logically, if there is no natural selection pressure, the theory of evolution fails miserably because then the entire inheritance of “beneficial” characteristics to survival becomes purely random. If the arising of a trait is purely random, then the appearance of different species is likewise purely random and there is no explanation beyond chance.

Sorry, this does not pass the "real world" test.

The range of variation includes selection pressure at both ends FOR EACH TRAIT. An individual in the center of the bell curve for one trait may be near one end of the curve and just getting by for another, and off the scale for a third: result, extinct. Game over, maybe your brother or cousin or the guys on the other side of the mountain will do better.

Further, mutations will be passed on no matter what, favorable, benign or detrimental. That brings selection pressure to bear again.

I think you have been studying too much mathematics and have had too few courses in the various biological-related sciences. My own coursework which is relevant here is in human races, and just in this one field I see real-world results differing from what you are postulating; that makes me distrust your model.

[balrog666]

Quite the contrary, I think I have a reasonable grasp of logic, having taught it.

Oooh, too bad for your students. I too had teachers who thought they understood a subject in spite of the obvious.

I joined this thread on the assumption that polite and reasoned debate with other participants was possible and preferable to insults.

Polite, okay, even encouraged. Reasoned? You have yet to demonstrate that you are capable of that ...

[Tribune7]

Because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from according to those ignoramuses.

[ahayes]

Eh, give him a chance. He's not a jerk, seemingly.

[Lucky Dog]

Thank you for well constructed reply. Perhaps you could reference where those calculations can be found in a succinct format. Nonetheless, please permit me to pose some questions for your consideration.

I must point out that your process has neglected to consider the negative probabilities of a changing natural selection pressures. As this is a well known phenomenon, it must be accounted for.

Additionally, I must also ask how many mutations are required for one species to “evolve” into another completely different species. While you generously (for my benefit) postulate a 1% beneficial rate, from a mathematical perspective, I must also inquire as to how many of these mutations must be sequential for a new species to appear.

[balrog666]

Eh, give him a chance. He's not a jerk, seemingly.

That's definitely questionable at this point. And it's not like he's new either ...

[CowboyJay]

"God does not play dice with the Universe"

--A. Einstein

[PatrickHenry]

Additionally, I must also ask how many mutations are required for one species to “evolve” into another completely different species. While you generously (for my benefit) postulate a 1% beneficial rate, from a mathematical perspective, I must also inquire as to how many of these mutations must be sequential for a new species to appear.

That depends on the mutations, doesn't it? The key point is that after thousands of generations, numerous mutations have been favorably selected, and have spread through the population. Others have been de-selected (by early death or reproductive failure) and have been removed from the population. The gene pool (that's the ball to keep your eye on) is then different from what it once had been. It changes every generation, somewhat, but over a great many generations the changes are cumulative. The creatures in the breeding population never notice this, because from one generation to the next, the effect is minimal. It's mostly apparent only when an ancestral fossil is found and compared to the current version.

It can also become apparent if the population is divided, perhaps by a river or something, and each takes it's genetic material and goes a separate way. In time (again, we're talking about thousands of generations) the two populations -- if they were reunited -- probably won't be one breeding population any more.

[Lucky Dog]

Further, mutations will be passed on no matter what, favorable, benign or detrimental. That brings selection pressure to bear again.

This was my original point.

I think you have been studying too much mathematics and have had too few courses in the various biological-related sciences. My own coursework which is relevant here is in human races, and just in this one field I see real-world results differing from what you are postulating; that makes me distrust your model.

As I understand the basic premise of evolution, it is mutations that are favored by natural selection pressures will be passed on to succeeding generations (and the corollary that those detrimental will cause the demise of the individual and not be passed). The accumulation of enough of these “favorable” mutations leads to the emergences of a new species. On the other hand, the accumulation of enough “detrimental” mutations leads to the extinction of a species. Is this an incorrect statement of the basic premise of evolution?

[PatrickHenry]

On the other hand, the accumulation of enough “detrimental” mutations leads to the extinction of a species. Is this an incorrect statement of the basic premise of evolution?

This part isn't quite right. I don't think any species gradually mutates itself into extinction. Rather, due to environmental changes (climate, predators, whatever), it's unable to survive.

[balrog666]

As I understand the basic premise of evolution, it is mutations that are favored by natural selection pressures will be passed on to succeeding generations (and the corollary that those detrimental will cause the demise of the individual and not be passed). The accumulation of enough of these “favorable” mutations leads to the emergences of a new species. On the other hand, the accumulation of enough “detrimental” mutations leads to the extinction of a species. Is this an incorrect statement of the basic premise of evolution?

Yes, it is an incorrect statement of the basic premise of evolution. Perhaps it would be easier for you to actually study the theory of evolution rather than trying to shoehorn it into your desired strawman?

[Lucky Dog]

That depends on the mutations, doesn't it?

Presumably, your postulate stands. However, for the sake of calculations, one must have some dividing line. Without such, there is no way to evaluate the probabilities.

The key point is that after thousands of generations, numerous mutations have been favorably selected, and have spread through the population. Others have been de-selected (by early death or reproductive failure) and have been removed from the population.

By observation, there are species currently in existence that are nominally evolutionary “precursors” of those that came at later times ostensibly as a result of the accumulation of enough mutations in the “gene pool” to have created these new species. By these observations, on can conclude that one of the “gene pools” did not accumulate mutations and another did. Therefore, to calculate the likelihood of enough favorable mutations having occurred in an alternate “gene pool” to qualify as a new species, there must be a definition of the number of mutations

[Coyoteman]

As I understand the basic premise of evolution, it is mutations that are favored by natural selection pressures will be passed on to succeeding generations (and the corollary that those detrimental will cause the demise of the individual and not be passed). The accumulation of enough of these “favorable” mutations leads to the emergences of a new species. On the other hand, the accumulation of enough “detrimental” mutations leads to the extinction of a species. Is this an incorrect statement of the basic premise of evolution?

Yes, this is an oversimplification on the order of "See Spot run!"

There is no one "favorable" or "detrimental" in most individuals. There are thousands of benign (here and now), slightly detrimental (here and now), slightly beneficial (here and now), etc. The range is huge. That seems to be the point you are missing.

Try a close look at sickle-cell anemia. One single trait. Bad news, right? Right, except that it provides some resistance to malaria. So, the efficacy of this particular trait (out of millions) depends on--is there malaria here? If there is malaria here, then you have a slight advantage in that one area, while still maintaining the disadvantage of the anemia. If there is no malaria, the slight advantage of malaria resistance does no good, and the anemia is still detrimental.

Multiply this by thousands of traits. The folks with the best overall adaptations for here and now (and here and now is always changing) survive and reproduce a little better than those who do not. Toss in a few million years and stir well.

But forget the mathematical models until you have a handle on the variables. If you can't figure out all the variables, and correctly model them, your mathematical models don't mean much in the real world.

[Fielding]

I am not proposing any limits on scientific inquiry. I suggesting that popular opinion on scientific theories is a matter of politics, and religion. IMHO, subjects the origin of life, Global Warming, and quantum physics are encrusted with so much "junk science" that scientific inquiry is hampered.

[Lucky Dog]

This part isn't quite right. I don't think any species gradually mutates itself into extinction. Rather, due to environmental changes (climate, predators, whatever), it's unable to survive.

Thank you for the clarification. The first part, then, is correctly summarized?

Let me restate: Perhaps, then, it is the failure of a species to accumulate the requisite number of favorable mutations to resist the negative changes in natural selection pressure that leads to extinction.