Interesting quotes about the probability of macro evolution...
"More muscle is added to the argument by the fact that the vast majority of mutations observed in the laboratory have deleterious effects. This is not at all surprising in view of the digital nature of the genetic code that we shall have occasion to explore in some detail later. After all, one would hardly expect a computer programme to be improved by random changes in its code! Even the tiniest of changes is usually disastrous. But for the moment we simply record that cell biologist E.J. Ambrose of the University of London argued that it is unlikely that fewer than five genes could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown in the organism. He then points out that only one in 1,000 mutations is non-deleterious, so that the chance of five non-deleterious mutations occurring is 1 in a million billion (1 in 10 to the power of 15) replications. After showing that this is only the beginning of the problems, in having such beneficial mutations integrated into the development of the entire organism and passed on in the gene pool, he concludes 'that recent hypotheses about the origin of species falls to the ground, unless it is accepted that an intensive input of new information is introduced at the time of isolation of the new breeding pair.'" - John Lennox
"As it came clear that the Darwinian theory could not be broadly correct a question still remained, however, for I found it difficult to accept that the theory would be wholly incorrect. When ideas are based on observations, as the Darwinian theory certainly was, it is usual for them to be valid at least within the range of the observations. It is when extrapolations are made outside the range of observations that troubles may arise. So the issue that presented itself was to determine just how far the theory was valid and exactly why beyond a certain point it became invalid." - Fred Hoyle.
I echo these men's questions and struggles with the theory of evolution...(that is, evolution without input from God)
It sure is a good thing that random probabilities are quite meaningless in Evolution.
ReplyDeletehere is another video for you to perhaps watch one day. This is by one of the YouTube legends (imho) cdk007. he is actually running simulations of good vs bad muations and their effects on populations and genome decay.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26dwfZIqfco
And you understand that Fred Hoyle was an Astronomer? And he gave us the name 'The Big Bang' which was meant to be a derogatory title for Father Georges Lameitres Primeval Atom theory? Hoyle was a Steady Stater 'The big bang' was the opposition.
Hey again BT,
ReplyDeleteIt sure is a good thing that random probabilities are quite meaningless in Evolution.
Meaningless?
So anything is possible no matter how improbable it is? True...but the question is, what is most likely?
Why believe the improbable?
If calculations are made on correct science then why are they meaningless?
And you understand that Fred Hoyle was an Astronomer?
Yep I did.
And he gave us the name 'The Big Bang' which was meant to be a derogatory title for Father Georges Lameitres Primeval Atom theory? Hoyle was a Steady Stater 'The big bang' was the opposition.
I'll do a dimensio :)
Are you trying to poison his well?
Even though I/we disagree with him about the Big Bang, it does not mean that he is wrong about everything else that he says.
cheers,
DB
"So anything is possible no matter how improbable it is?"
ReplyDeleteNo the point is the numbers are meaningless.
Because no one is saying that it's a numbers/probabilities game.
People say stuff like 'it's a one in a kajillion chance that these protiens came together to form a cell' or some such. These numbers come from calculating RANDOM arrangements with a certain one just occuring. The point is no one is saying they are random.
Chemistry isn't random. Probabilities don't mean anything to the chemicals just doing their thing.
Yeah I guess I was poisoning Dead Fred's well. But also I find it kind of funny that he named the Big Bang something he thought was meant to be a joke.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteE.J. Ambrose is a theistic evolutionist who wrote The Mirror of Creation, you know?
He's trying to argue, I guess, what you would like to be true; that evolution is impossible without some guiding hand nudging it along.
Now, we don't really see any evidence of this, but that's not to say that it doesn't happen. It's entirely possible that evolution is guided by an outside intelligence that is undetectable by human investigation.
Fred Hoyle is the guy that came up with the 'tornado in a junkyard' argument, so his views on evolution can largely be discarded as ill-informed and irrelevant.
Da Bomb, could you define 'macro-evolution' for us, please?
Thanks,
Again and again, Christians who evangelize seem to think that the theory of evolution rules out God as being a creative force.
ReplyDeleteIt does not. It can not.
It does happen to refute the biblical account of creation, and maybe that's what gets 'em all riled up and self-righteous. However, if you stop and honestly try to understand the ToE (and by that I don't necessarily mean "agree with"), you'll see that there's room for an intelligent, guiding force, as ExPatMatt wrote.
Only the fundamentalists maintain otherwise. For if they concede that any minuscule part of their faith is untrue, they feel it destroys everything they believe in.
This, also, is untrue. However, fundamentalists are pretty much defined as being an "all or nothing" group of people. It's unwise to expect pragmatism to be in their domain of expertise...
I'll keep conversation in one thread.
ReplyDeleteEPM said...from another thread:
The question is; why are we finding these 'potential' transitional forms in the exact places where evolutionary science predicts they will be? If life is the result of special creation, we shouldn't be able to use evolutionary science to find these individual species, should we?
True,
But it still does not mean that life evolved from one ancestor or similar.
It could mean what some proclaim as progressive creation... which is more of a middle road between young earth creation views and full-out and out evolution views. Progressive creation (with some evolution) matches the fossil record more accurately from what I have read. I assume you know exactly what it is.
Now, we don't really see any evidence of this, but that's not to say that it doesn't happen. It's entirely possible that evolution is guided by an outside intelligence that is undetectable by human investigation.
True. Although there is evidence of this possibly happening...some of which is in the quotes above.
One good analogy I like...(I'll use it again because I think it is quite thought provoking).
To illustrate the scientific evidence in the quotes above...
Would you call ten leaves in a line under a tree "evidence" of someone guiding them there like that?
Just as when it is improbable for something to "improve" evolve, this gives evidence of a guider?
Fred Hoyle is the guy that came up with the 'tornado in a junkyard' argument, so his views on evolution can largely be discarded as ill-informed and irrelevant.
Richard Dawkins likened believing in a God-Designer to believing in fairys at the bottom of a garden, so his views on a Creator can largely be discarded as ill-informed and irrelevant.
Da Bomb, could you define 'macro-evolution' for us, please?
Hmmm. I'll try.
"Macro-evolution refers to large-scale innovative, the coming into existence of new organs, structures, body-plans, of qualitatively new genetic material"- John Lennox
From what I understand I think this definition is about right.
cheers,
DB
Hello Whateverman,
ReplyDeleteAgain and again, Christians who evangelize seem to think that the theory of evolution rules out God as being a creative force.
True, although I am not one of them.
But, if the theory of evolution were shown to be false then what belief is left regarding the beliefs of origins? Aliens?
It does happen to refute the biblical account of creation
Not necessarily.
Only the fundamentalists maintain otherwise.
All a fundamentalist (From my understanding) is (although there are different claimed types) is a person that believes the Bible is the Word of God and that it says what it means. It is a matter of which interpretation is correct of some of what God has said.
God wrote through people from ancient times and often with there view of some things (like Joshua and the sun stopping in the sky)...God did not use them as type-writers but rather guided them with His Holy Spirit to tell us His message about Him.
2Pe 1:21 "for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
cheers
DB
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteYou do understand what the problem with 'progressive creation (PC)' is, don't you?
It's totally arbitrary and it makes no predictions that are useful to us.
How do you determine what has been created as part of PC and what has (micro)evolved from a previous PC? What are the limits beyond which you need another PC event?
It offers no explanatory framework at all - it's just an ad hoc excuse for not accepting evolution.
"Just as when it is improbable for something to "improve" evolve, this gives evidence of a guider? ".
What do you mean by improve? Evolution is driven by natural selection - those with beneficial traits are more likely to survive (and reproduce) than those without. This is self-evident. By definition, those individuals that survive are an improvement on those that did not. Right?
I agree that Dawkins' views on theology can be ignored as being irrelevant. Did you think I thought otherwise?
"Macro-evolution refers to large-scale innovative, the coming into existence of new organs, structures, body-plans, of qualitatively new genetic material"- John Lennox
All 'new' organs are modifications of previously existing ones.
All 'new' structures are modifications of previously existing ones.
All 'new' body plans are modifications of previously existing ones.
If he's implying that macro-evolution is some huge innovative jump that occurs 'just-like-that' then he's simply wrong. Evolution works gradually, as you well know.
From what he's saying here - if a species of, say, lizard evolved an innovative new organ that no other member of its family had, then you would say that that species had 'macro-evolved' from the rest of it's family? I seriously doubt that you would concede that to be the case, would you?
"qualitatively new genetic material".
What does that even mean? The 4 basic elements of DNA are - and have been - the same in almost every living thing since the dawn of life. What would count as being 'qualitatively' new genetic material?
I think that definition needs some work!
Cheers,
Hey ya,
ReplyDeleteIt's totally arbitrary and it makes no predictions that are useful to us.
It is an answer that fits the evidence...and could fit the Genesis model about the different periods of creation...but of course that is probably not very interesting for you.
Your blogging on Monday? Usually your away. Though might be Sunday for you.
I agree that Dawkins' views on theology can be ignored as being irrelevant. Did you think I thought otherwise?
I did not know what your views on Dawkins were. Some uplift him and his book. I was pointing out a possible oversight or harsh criticism on your part, but obviously not. My point may apply to some.
All 'new' organs are modifications of previously existing ones.
All 'new' structures are modifications of previously existing ones.
All 'new' body plans are modifications of previously existing ones.
Are they? I mean, I know you believe that but not all living things have hearts, not all living things have lungs, not all living things have gills, not all living things have legs, not all living things have flippers, not all living things have ears to capture sound, not all living things have eyes, not all living things have noses, not all living things have that echo sound thing that dolphins have LOL.
Well, Some of them I am probably more or less guessing but you get my point :)
If he's implying that macro-evolution is some huge innovative jump that occurs 'just-like-that' then he's simply wrong.
I somehow doubt that he would say that.
I think that definition needs some work!
Fuller definition carried on:
"...for example, the evolution of multicellular from single-celled structures. Macro-evolution thus involves a marked increase in complexity. This distinction between micro and macroevolution is the subject of considerable dispute since the gradualist thesis is that macroevolution is to be accounted for simply by extrapolating the processes that drive microevolution over time...".
DB
All 'new' organs are modifications of previously existing ones.
ReplyDeleteAll 'new' structures are modifications of previously existing ones.
All 'new' body plans are modifications of previously existing ones.
Hmmm,
I have a friend who is in medical-school, I am sure he would know a bit about this subject.
Howdy Pilgrim,
ReplyDeleteRegarding progressive creation (PC):
In order for htis to be a workable theory, you'd have to give a series of examples of organisms that you consider to have been created (progressively). Does any such list exist?
Yep, I was at the computer yesterday (Sunday) when I should have been taking an afternoon nap or walking the dog - I make no apologies!!
It seems like you didn't understand my 'All 'new' .... are modifications of previously existing ones' bit.
You commented that not all living things have hearts, lungs, gills, legss etc, to which I reply; So?
Why do they need to, following from what I said?
Could you please explain your objection here?
"...the evolution of multicellular from single-celled structures".
Now that's more like it! So, what would happen to this objection if we could show how multicellular organisms arose from single-celled onoes?
Regards,
Hey there,
ReplyDeleteNow that's more like it! So, what would happen to this objection if we could show how multicellular organisms arose from single-celled onoes?
Well, I suppose that example given regarding unexplained evolutionary phenomena would become invalid.
I'll answer with more questions :D
-What if we couldn't?...
-What if we could and it was shown to be improbable?...
-Do we see it happening today? If not then why not? Because it is improbable?...
I found this interesting from a random site taken from:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html.
"5. What do humans have in common with single-celled organisms?
Evolution describes the change over time of all living things from a single common ancestor. The "tree of life" illustrates this concept. Every branch represents a species, each connected to other such branches and the rest of tree as a whole. The forks separating one species from another represent the common ancestors shared by these species. In the case of the relatedness of humans and single-celled organisms, a journey along two different paths -- one starting at the tip of the human branch, the other starting at the tip of a single-celled organism's branch -- would ultimately lead to a fork near the base of the tree: the common ancestor shared by these two very different types of organisms. This journey would cross countless other forks and branches along the way and span perhaps more than a billion years of evolution, but it demonstrates that even the most disparate creatures are related to one another -- that all life is interconnected."
Do you have a demonstrated explanation as to how/why single-celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms?
"6. What happened in the Cambrian explosion?
Life began more than 3 billion years before the Cambrian, and gradually diversified into a wide variety of single-celled organisms. Toward the end of the Precambrian, about 570 million years ago, a number of multicelled forms began to appear in the fossil record, including invertebrates resembling sponges and jellyfish, and some as-yet-unknown burrowing forms of life. As the Cambrian began, most of the basic body plans of invertebrates emerged from these Precambrian forms. They emerged relatively rapidly, in the geological sense -- over 10 million to 25 million years. These Cambrian forms were not identical to modern invertebrates, but were their early ancestors. Major groups of living organisms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, did not appear until millions of years after the end of the Cambrian Period."
In order for htis to be a workable theory, you'd have to give a series of examples of organisms that you consider to have been created (progressively). Does any such list exist?
I don't know. I don't know enough about the subject, but I know for sure that evolutionary explanations have not explained many phenomenons as you well know.
Because they have not yet discovered answers to a problem does not mean they will.
It seems like you didn't understand my 'All 'new' .... are modifications of previously existing ones' bit.
You commented that not all living things have hearts, lungs, gills, legss etc, to which I reply; So?
No, I think I understood you. You asked for different organs that are unique so I gave them. You claimed they all link back to a previous structure, when I am not so sure they do.
A thought:
If a creature has an ear designed to capture sound, if the earless hole in the ancestor long ago was useful then why would it improve?
Like a fish with fins and gills, why would it develop legs and lungs unless it had a mind to (Or Someone else who had a mind for it to :))? It seems so fit to survive in its little world, why change?
I hope my point is made and understood.
I suppose I am asking a big WHY? question.
DP
Da Pilgrim,
ReplyDeleteWith regards to single-celled --> multicellular, you asked;
"-What if we couldn't?...
-What if we could and it was shown to be improbable?...
-Do we see it happening today? If not then why not? Because it is improbable?...".
From Wiki: "Dictyostelium discoideum is a species of soil-living amoeba belonging to the phylum Mycetozoa. D. discoideum, commonly referred to as slime mold, is a primitive eukaryote that transitions from a collection of unicellular amoebae into a multicellular slug and then into a fruiting body within its life time".
Any questions?
"Do you have a demonstrated explanation as to how/why single-celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms?".
The typical answer is that single-celled organisms bond together in colonies due to their similar chemistry. A colony is more likely to be able to collect and ingest food and extract solar energy. There is therefore a survival advantage to those single-celled organisms that form multi-celled colonies.
"No, I think I understood you. You asked for different organs that are unique so I gave them. You claimed they all link back to a previous structure, when I am not so sure they do".
No, you definitely didn't, because that's not what I asked.
When I say that all new organs are modifications of previously existing ones, that's what I mean. When you say that not all organisms have (for example) legs, I agree. But the ones that do have legs have ancestors that also had legs....their ancestors had leg-like appendages...their ancestors had leg-like buds...their ancestors had small fins that could be used for balance and grip... their ancestors had fins for swimming... their ancestors had small flaps....their ancestors had the side of their body....back and back and back, always using what was already there.
That's what I meant.
The fact that not all organisms have legs is totally irrelevant, the ones that do, got them from ancestors who had almost-legs.
"A thought:
If a creature has an ear designed to capture sound, if the earless hole in the ancestor long ago was useful then why would it improve?".
Because having a fold in the skin around an ear helps you hear just a little bit better...perhaps just better enough that you hear danger before your fold-less rivals - you survive and reproduce, they don't. The gene for folding ear skin is then retained and passed on and further mutations are able to act upon it.
"Like a fish with fins and gills, why would it develop legs and lungs unless it had a mind to (Or Someone else who had a mind for it to :))? It seems so fit to survive in its little world, why change?".
Lungfish have both lungs and gills. Their gills are next to useless but their lungs work very well. They survive droughts when other fish/salamanders do not - there is a survival benefit to having a swim bladder that can collect oxygen.
Fins are okay for dragging yourself across the river bed. However, when you're dragging yourself across mud, more rigid fins are a survival advantage. Once you have a population with rigid fins, you're halfway to a rudimentary leg already.
I've got to run and catch a flight, but I'll be in touch.
Regards,
Matt
I just want to clarify two things about DNA and mutations.
ReplyDeleteFirst, DNA is not digital code, and it doesn't work like a computer at all. It codes for proteins, so it's a bit like cook book. Let me explain.
When you change a byte in a computer program, there's a good chance that the program will stop working or stop working correctly. If you deviate from a recipe in a cook book, such as adding more sugar to your cookies, you still get cookies.
Everything that goes on in your cell is some kind of chemical process without any kind of turning machine mechanism. If you change a base pair, you may get a slightly different protein as the result. Sometimes this is good, sometimes this is bad, and most of the time, it's neither.
Secondly. there are about 150 mutations passed down for each new baby born. Mutations are a normal part of how our reproductive system works. If mutations were inherently deleterious, we'd all be dead by now - but they aren't.
Hey EPM,
ReplyDeleteFrom Wiki: "Dictyostelium discoideum is a species of soil-living amoeba belonging to the phylum Mycetozoa. D. discoideum, commonly referred to as slime mold, is a primitive eukaryote that transitions from a collection of unicellular amoebae into a multicellular slug and then into a fruiting body within its life time".
Any questions?
This is cool man, though, I am wondering whether it applies to our discussion which is about the evolution of single cells into multicelled beings.
I'll use an illustration of Ray's to your delight ;D
http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/09/proof-of-evolution.html
Of course Ray is jesting and he is wrong, but do we have a similar situation here?...I might be wrong.
It seemed to be a life cycle of a creature when I read some of it rather than "evolution".
Interesting anyhow, thanks.
When I say that all new organs are modifications of previously existing ones, that's what I mean.
I know what you mean, I am just struggling to get my point across I guess.
perhaps just better enough that you hear danger before your fold-less rivals - you survive and reproduce, they don't. The gene for folding ear skin is then retained and passed on and further mutations are able to act upon it.
I suppose the point I am trying to make is simply that I struggle to accept that natural selection (survival of the fittest) is enough to sought out the best from the rest.
Why don't we have mutations hanging off of us that don't necessarily affect our survival but are not useful but one day might be?
Such as the evolution of fins from broad sides as you mentioned, why don't we have something LIKE a third arm starting to grow from our shoulder (a lump) but is not yet useful? When I look at people and animals, they are suited for their environment and I don't think natural selection has the entire say for sorting out what is deemed for survival, I don't think it is powerful enough.
Can you even slightly understand what I am trying to say?
Lungfish have both lungs and gills.
Cool creatures. Either this is evidence of evolution from gills or it is evidence of a dualed creature made to be capable of using gills and lungs but has lost information as YEC often talk about :)
DM
Sometimes this is good, sometimes this is bad, and most of the time, it's neither.
But it is more often bad than good.
Secondly. there are about 150 mutations passed down for each new baby born. Mutations are a normal part of how our reproductive system works. If mutations were inherently deleterious, we'd all be dead by now - but they aren't.
Hmmm, Someone is very wrong...your word against his.
"one in 1,000 mutations is non-deleterious"
No disrespect to you but I think I would go with E.J. Ambrose because he is a cell biologist.
Doesn't a lot of what we talk about come down to trusting what we are told? funny that. We can be such knowledgeable people but with only second hand knowledge.
Eh, just a thought.
DP
I wouldn't go with Ambrose on that since it's outdated. Seriously you can look it up, everyone has on average 150 random mutatations from the dna they are given by their parents.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8227442.stm
Frankly the 1 in 1,000 makes no sense at all. Haven't I already mentioned the japanese researchers who scrambled DNA and watched a useful new gene form on a specimen in 7 generations? From random DNA.
But it is more often bad than good.
ReplyDeleteThat's a bit irrelevant. As long as you admit there are beneficial mutations, you have validated the theory of evolution.
Here's a good FAQ with peer-reviewed sources on the topic of mutation, if you're interested. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
Secondly. there are about 150 mutations passed down for each new baby born. Mutations are a normal part of how our reproductive system works. If mutations were inherently deleterious, we'd all be dead by now - but they aren't.
Hmmm, Someone is very wrong...your word against his
The mutation rate in humans is ~2.5x10^-8 per base pair.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate
There are 6 billion base pairs in the human genome.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome
That averages out to 150 mutations per generation.
"one in 1,000 mutations is non-deleterious"
No disrespect to you but I think I would go with E.J. Ambrose because he is a cell biologist.
See the above FAQ for more information regarding beneficial mutations and deleterious mutations, and the problem of identifying beneficial mutations.
Doesn't a lot of what we talk about come down to trusting what we are told? funny that. We can be such knowledgeable people but with only second hand knowledge.
No. Only for you. What I do trust is the overwhelming scientific consensus consensus on the issue along with repeatable observations and peer-reviewed materials. No one person's source or argument has ever persuaded me on this issue.
Seriously watch the video I linked, it's relevant.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't go with Ambrose on that since it's outdated. Seriously you can look it up, everyone has on average 150 random mutatations from the dna they are given by their parents.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that link BT, I found it really interesting. Though I think Ambrose is not talking about mutations happening but the difference between deleterious mutations and beneficial ones.
Mutations seem to vary in their number which is also interesting.
That link provided by DM seems to talk about that. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate
I could only find the following which talked about deletions. I think maybe DM and Ambrose are talking about different types or areas of mutation.
"Additions and deletions
During copying a segment of DNA may be deleted or a new segment may be inserted. Typically this happens as a result of chromosome breakage or realignment. (See below.) Additions and deletions can also be produced by certain types of horizontal transfer.
Effects of additions and deletions: If the length of the new or deleted segment is not a multiple of three the translation will be garbled after the point at which the insertion/deletion occurred because the frame reading is now misaligned. This is known as a frameshift mutation. In some genes there are segments that may be duplicated as a block. This is known as tandem duplication."
BT, How is what he said old? The link you gave was cool but Ambrose seems to be talking about something more specific. Forgive my ignorance.
Care to clarify?
DP
BT,
ReplyDeleteSeriously watch the video I linked, it's relevant.
I don't think it was a video? It was a write up.
DM,
That's a bit irrelevant. As long as you admit there are beneficial mutations, you have validated the theory of evolution.
??Are you really that desperate to grasp at straws? It is very relevant. Good mutations are rare so we can see that evolution is not a walk in the park as far as explaining or believing goes.
Rare good mutations may have validated the remote possibility of the TOE.
Studies on fruit flies show that 70% of mutations on coding genes are harmful. The other 30% are either neutral or slightly beneficial.
ReplyDeleteSource: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1871816/?tool=pmcentrez
As long as you have a slight chance that a mutation is beneficial, and you stretch that over large populations and large periods of time, evolution is bound to occur.
For example, let's say you have a stable population of 30 million producing a new generation once every 6 years over a million years. That's 500,000,000,000 chances a beneficial mutation will emerge.
And a million years is a short period of time in geological terms.
So think about it. Even if your creationist friend was right and ""one in 1,000 mutations is non-deleterious," which I highly doubt given that I have peer reviewed articles that show otherwise, given 500 billion specimens, you're bound to get more than a handful of beneficial mutations.
ReplyDeleteIf you have a very low one in a million chance of inheriting a mutated coding gene in total population over time of 500 billion, you would have 500,000 chances to inherit a beneficial genes.
Of course, one in a million is a very low estimate given that kids are born (or in many cases stillborn) with genetic mutation based diseases or deformities all the time. I don't know the exact numbers though. Before you jump on this, you should note that beneficial and neutral mutations will probably not get reported.
"BT,
ReplyDeleteSeriously watch the video I linked, it's relevant.
I don't think it was a video? It was a write up."
He's talking about this video which was posted as the first comment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26dwfZIqfco
It shows how statistics and probability work in regards to natural selection. It also ties into my previous statement about how if you accept that beneficial mutations occur (even if extremely rare), you have validated the theory of evolution.
It's an interesting video. He does a lot of his work in Matlab, so you know it's going to be exciting! OK, it's kind of a snooze fest, but do watch it.
Even if your creationist friend was right
ReplyDeleteHe was actually a christian evolutionist apparently.
If you have a very low one in a million chance of inheriting a mutated coding gene in total population over time of 500 billion, you would have 500,000 chances to inherit a beneficial genes.
Depends how you look at it. 500,000 chances at rolling a dice each time an infant is born with a million sides to the dice hoping to get 1 number each time?
I think you would need more than 500,000 rolls.
He's talking about this video which was posted as the first comment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26dwfZIqfco
Thanks for pointing that out.
Depends how you look at it. 500,000 chances at rolling a dice each time an infant is born with a million sides to the dice hoping to get 1 number each time?
ReplyDeleteI think you would need more than 500,000 rolls.
There are 3 problems here.
A) I used a a VERY low estimate for 1 million years; it's probably much higher like 1 in 10 thousand or less per coding gene mutation. I am being exceedingly gracious for the sake of the argument. However, if you extend the original number for 500 million years (about the time from now to the cambrian explosion), that's 250,000,000 chances. And if you extend that to 4 billion years, that's 2,000,000,000 chances. 30% of these would be neutral or beneficial. Keep in mind, in reality there's probably a few more zeros for each of these numbers.
B) Evolution is a non-random process.
C) The dice analogy fails not only because evolution is non-random. For examples, I'm going to roll 6 d10s.
I got 1, 9, 5, 9, 2, 4.
The chances of me rolling that number was about 1 in 1,000,000; so it couldn't have happened, right?
Just to put things in perspective, in reality, over a million years, if there's a more realistic 1 in 10 thousand chance of a coding gene mutation, the numbers would look like this.
ReplyDelete1 Million Years: 50,000,000,000 (50 billion) chances per million years.
500 million years: 25,000,000,000,000 (25 trillion)
Over a billion years: 5,0000,000,000,000 (5 quadrillion)
Over 4 billion years: 20,000,000,000,000 (20 quadrillion)
Oops, it's actually
ReplyDelete1 million years: 50,000,000 (50 million)
500 million years: 25,000,000,000 (25 billion)
1 billion years: 50,000,000,000 (50 billion)
4 billion years: 200,000,000,000 (200 billion)
Sorry. I added a few too many zeros.
yeah that was the video I was referring too. It shows how the whole negative positive thing works.
ReplyDeleteBT,
ReplyDeleteI still need to check out the video yet.
C) The dice analogy fails not only because evolution is non-random. For examples, I'm going to roll 6 d10s.
I got 1, 9, 5, 9, 2, 4.
The chances of me rolling that number was about 1 in 1,000,000; so it couldn't have happened, right?
It probably would not have happened if you predicted that you would roll that. Roll it again and see if you can get the same number :) to represent all the new born mutations.
Evolution is non-random?
Is there really such thing as random?
Is a dice random?
I say no, why? because it is circumstances outside the "happening" that determine the outcome. Same with evolution, same with the dice.
When I talk about "random" in regards to evolution, I mean "without premeditated thought of creation"...
It probably would not have happened if you predicted that you would roll that. Roll it again and see if you can get the same number :) to represent all the new born mutations.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that you think humans were destined to evolve this way. It doesn't work that way. Evolution is a mechanism that builds better organisms over time without an end goal in mind. So maybe the first technologically advanced species on Earth could have been a reptile with 6 arms and 3 eyes.
So you are going to get a result no matter what happens, it's exactly what you get that's the mystery. So in that sense, it's exactly like throwing dice on the table. You may have a 1 in a million chance of landing on a single number, but you have a 100% chance of landing on a number.
Evolution is non-random?
Yep, natural selection will statistically always favor beneficial mutations.
Is there really such thing as random?
Yep, I'll refer you to the double slit experiment in which photons will go through both slits, interfere with itself, and land in a random location on the back board creating an interference pattern. Likewise, you could measure which slit the light goes through, and there will be a 50/50 chance it'll go through one or the other.
Radioactive decay is another example of a random process since you don't know when an atom will decay since it's a causeless effect.
Is a dice random?
It generates statistically random numbers. But if you could examine all the physics involved in throwing a dice, you would know what number it would land on.
When I talk about "random" in regards to evolution, I mean "without premeditated thought of creation"...
Then the word you want to use is "blind process" not "random process."
--------------------------
Oh, I finally found out how often coding genes in the human genome mutate. It's not 1 in 10,000 children, it's about 3 mutations per child.
Source: http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297
I wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that you think humans were destined to evolve this way. It doesn't work that way. Evolution is a mechanism that builds better organisms over time without an end goal in mind. So maybe the first technologically advanced species on Earth could have been a reptile with 6 arms and 3 eyes.
So you are going to get a result no matter what happens, it's exactly what you get that's the mystery. So in that sense, it's exactly like throwing dice on the table. You may have a 1 in a million chance of landing on a single number, but you have a 100% chance of landing on a number.
For example, the eye has evolved independently 40 times on Earth. Most of these eyes closely resemble our own with a few differences. So eventually producing an eye is inevitable; it's going to happen. What that eye specifically looks like is a roll of the dice to be sure, but there's a 100% chance those dice will roll.
BT,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26dwfZIqfco
Thanks for the video,
I found it interesting although I hated the mockery in it.
As for the simulations they were quite cool....although I didn't follow some of the calculations and their relations to each other. But it was quite fascinating if true.
I'll think I will finish making note of the quote from Hoyle.
Even if what this video showed was true, it does not show or mean that everything came through evolution. We can observe populations now but not the ones millions of years ago.
eg.
Why do we still have simple creatures if mutations and evolution is bound to happen over millions of years?It has been known that creatures millions of years ago are the same or similar as the ones today.