Skip to comments.
Rebutting Darwinists: (Survey shows 2/3 of Scientists Believe in God)
Worldnetdaily.com ^
| 04/15/2006
| Ted Byfield
Posted on 04/15/2006 11:44:16 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 721-727 next last
To: Lucky Dog
Perhaps you could reference where those calculations can be found in a succinct format The mutation rate I used was from the figure you quoted of "one mutation per locus per 10^5 to 10^6 gametes". The figure for the number of genes in a typical mammal I used the number of genes in humans. I believe it is somewhere in the tens of thousands.
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.
A changing environment does not affect the number of mutations that occur over time. All I have estimated is the number of mutations within genes that would be expected to occur over 1,000,000 years in a population of 1,000 mammals with a generation time of one year. The value is about 10 million. I do not have the expertise to go further and apply population genetics equations to figure out the proportion of those mutations that would fix. Neither do I know good estimate figures of the proportion of mutation that are harmful, or the proportion that are neutral or beneficial.
Additionally, I must also ask how many mutations are required for one species to evolve into another completely different species.
I have no idea how many specific mutations it would take. It would likely be different depending on the species involved. But I do not think the question should be how many mutations leads to speciation. Whether or not a change represents speciation is irrelevant to the probability of it occuring in a given time.
To: Coyoteman
My apologies. I do not make personal attacks. My remarks are about popular opinion. Popular opinion and science have little in common.
262
posted on
04/15/2006 6:41:39 PM PDT
by
Fielding
(Sans Dieu Rien)
To: Lucky Dog
Since you seem to want to try to construct a mathematical model of evolution to 'test' it....I was wondering what you think of the mathematical models that are being used to support the hypothesis that humans are responsible for global warming....and whether you think the earth's meteorological system (global temperature system?) is a more or less complex system than the earth's biological system.
263
posted on
04/15/2006 6:44:58 PM PDT
by
ml1954
(NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
To: Lucky Dog
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 You're trying to invent your own definition of a new species, based on mutation count. All that's really necessary is that the two populations don't breed together. It could be something as simple as females of each group going into heat at different times. Or the populations may have developed slightly different coloration that causes each group to select for that, and to ignore the others. Or a slightly different scent. Speciation can result from trivial changes. At first. Over time, the separate populations will increasingly diverge. One group may remain relatively stable, as you remarked earlier. That can happen in a stable environment where there's little selection pressure.
264
posted on
04/15/2006 6:45:35 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
To: Fielding
My apologies. I do not make personal attacks. My remarks are about popular opinion. Popular opinion and science have little in common. Fair enough!
265
posted on
04/15/2006 6:45:39 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
To: Lucky Dog
Others are supplying you useful information about why your mental model of evolution is wrong but here's another: a species designation is not absolute, uniform, or subject to mathematical exactitude. In fact, most closely related, and soemtimes even far-removed, species can crossbreed at the gamete level and only after some significant embryonic growth is the developing organism subject to a life-threatening error, usually leading to miscarriage.
266
posted on
04/15/2006 6:51:15 PM PDT
by
balrog666
(There is no freedom like knowledge, no slavery like ignorance. - Ali ibn Ali-Talib)
To: Coyoteman
Yes, this is an oversimplification on the order of "See Spot run!"
Granted it is a simplification. However, such simplifications are sometimes very useful for clarification.
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.
Thank you for the expansion. However, I wish to understand the process at its basics. To do so, Gaussian distributions can be modeled at their means. For the sake of clarity, those mutations that are only slightly detrimental or slightly beneficial can be regarded as benign.
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.
It is this phenomenon that is at the core of the issue. Exactly how much better (quantitatively) is required for the mutations to be accumulated to the point where a new species will emerge?
To: Lucky Dog
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. I think you're starting from an incorrect premise. It's simpler than you've stated it. A creature either survives long enough to breed successfully, or it doesn't. If it's well-suited for the environment in which it lives, it's likely to make it. If the pond suddenly dries up, tough luck.
But if the environmental challenge isn't quite so severe, some of that population might be able to survive. They'll pass on their genetic material to the next generation. That's the deal. If the environment changes very gradually, some version of the population might just make it, although each new generation is going to go through the filter of a changing environment.
268
posted on
04/15/2006 6:55:01 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
To: Fielding
subjects the origin of life, Global Warming, and quantum physics are encrusted with so much "junk science" that scientific inquiry is hampered. Quantum physics is considered junk science now? This is just getting ridiculous.
To: Lucky Dog
Exactly how much better (quantitatively) is required for the mutations to be accumulated to the point where a new species will emerge? Theoretical models are nice (I did some for my dissertation), but real-world is the test--does it match the model or not?
Here are a bunch of species (below); these are data points which can't be ignored. Your model must take these into account or it is useless.
You ask how many mutations it takes? As many as it takes. Make your model fit the real world and it has a better chance of being taken seriously.
A model which says "it can't happen" is useless in the face of empirical data that shows that "it did happen."
Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
270
posted on
04/15/2006 7:01:03 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
To: ml1954
Why not read them and find out for yourself?
To: balrog666
Your absurdity is equalled only by your ignorance.
To: Kenny Bunkport
273
posted on
04/15/2006 7:07:38 PM PDT
by
ml1954
(NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
To: SirLinksalot
I got it from a National Post (newspaper) article published two years ago, which said that 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science "consider themselves atheists." Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.This could have been much briefer if he'd said "I am a bald faced liar and I made it up."
To: Lucky Dog
Your biology and your math are both bogus. Just for instance, supposing one mutation per 10^6 loci as you suggest, suppose a population of 10^5 individuals and a genome of 10^5 loci. That gives a total of 10^10 loci for the population. On average then there will be 10^4 mutations introduced into the population every generation.
That's quite a bit of novelty every generation for evolution to work on.
To: PatrickHenry
But if the environmental challenge isn't quite so severe, some of that population might be able to survive. They'll pass on their genetic material to the next generation. That's the deal. If the environment changes very gradually, some version of the population might just make it, although each new generation is going to go through the filter of a changing environment. But seasonal differences constitute significant environmental changes in a relatively short period of time. If evolution is true, then our earliest ancestors must have been subjected to such a rapidly changing environment, inferring that such adaptation has been present from the very beginning, and passed on to the subsequent diversity of species. This seems to conflict, or at the very least, fails to support, your proposal above.
What do you think about that?
276
posted on
04/15/2006 7:13:02 PM PDT
by
csense
To: ml1954
was wondering what you think of the mathematical models that are being used to support the hypothesis that humans are responsible for global warming....
These models are generally based upon unproven assumptions.
and whether you think the earth's meteorological system (global temperature system?) is a more or less complex system than the earth's biological system.
The earth's climatological system like the the earth's biological system can be discussed and mathematically modeled in broad terms. Where the current climatological models generally fail is in their predictive capability (both postscriptively and prescriptively).
As an example, proponents of the current climatological models claim to be able to predict a coming catastrophe. However, their models can not even be used to postcriptively predict major, historical, climatological events.
As to modeling the earth's biological system, it can be done in broad terms. If one tries to use such a model to predict exactly when a new species will emerge, it is going to have to incorporate a number of unproven assumptions just like the climatological models currently do.
However, in terms of climatological models one can examine ice cores (from very deep cores) to determine the frequency of past ice ages and determine the statistical likelihood of a correlation with geologic evidence of volcanic activity within certain confidence intervals. Similarly, one can examine the statistical occurrence rate of genetic mutations and the past frequency of occurrence of the emergence of new species and determine the statistical likelihood of a correlation with the mutation rate.
To: csense
seasonal differences What population you can imagine that is unable to cope with its own area's seasonal differences?
278
posted on
04/15/2006 7:16:01 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
To: Coyoteman
A model which says "it can't happen" is useless in the face of empirical data that shows that "it did happen."
There is no quarrel with evidence. It is the explanation for the evidence that is the subject of the model.
To: Lucky Dog
Similarly, one can examine the statistical occurrence rate of genetic mutations and the past frequency of occurrence of the emergence of new species and determine the statistical likelihood of a correlation with the mutation rate. I don't think such a model could cope with the potential for variation that may already exist within a population. For example, some herd may have a recessive gene for really shaggy hair, but in a mild climate those few who pop up shaggy may not make it. Yet the recessive gene persists. If the climate grows colder, some of the shaggy ones will survive. If the cooling continues, eventually the whole herd will be shaggy. Tough to predict that.
Also, most species go extinct. At least 90%. They just couldn't cope. How do you model to take that into account? Survival is a dicey thing. All we see is the survivors. But most didn't make it.
280
posted on
04/15/2006 7:23:48 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 721-727 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson