Chance and evolution

Originally Posted by Michali

Would every evolutionist here agree that the number of generations we are made of should greatly outnumber the total number of mutations that we are made of?

No, because you have a mutation rate of about 1 per individual. That means today there are 6 billion mutations in the human population. There hasn't been 6 billion generations of humans.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Originally Posted by Vance

Now, as Christians, we can believe that God had particular organisms as His goal, and structured the evolutionary process to reach those goals (which *would* be bucking the odds, but He is God, after all), OR we can believe that God simply let the process go forward according to its own rules (albeit *knowing* what would happen) until He chose to deal with Man.

It's not quite the either/or choice you make it.

1. If God's goal was simply a sentient species who could use tools and communicate with Him, then God could confidently let evolution run knowing that Darwinism, as it explored the Library of Mendel, that of the Vast (huge but finite) would find one of number of genomes that would give such a creature. It would not look human, but hey, God doesn't have a physical form anyway, so what would He care?

2. God could direct evolution to particular forms without getting "caught" by either making some particular mutations or conducting artificial selection.

The one thing that could not happen was set evolution in place knowing it would give humans. You see, evolution by natural selection is a perfect way to bring the indeterminism of the quantum world to the macro world. So by its very nature evolution is indeterminant.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

I agree with every one of these sentences, but I don't understand the relevance in the last sentence. Could you clarify?

Also, I was just wondering, if it is one unique mutation per individual (lets just say it is exactly that) then there has to be atleast (lets say I have 14 billion sets of "grand parents") 28 billion "mutations" that I contain. Now, each individual ancestor is also made of a tree mutations. That is added to me. The numbers are vast. Am I wrong in saying this? (I have already been corrected by Milk Man Dan earlier in the thread.)

__________________

I still think you're just having some basic misconceptions of how genetics and evolution in general works-- just go find a relatively non-technical text that explains these fields. It is very difficult to respond adequately to you, because I'm not really sure what all of your assumptions are and which (no offense) are wrong.

Genes code for proteins, they do not directly 'give' you black hair, brown eyes, or predisposition to post on message boards. (Again, substitutions, that is, a mutation that is preserved in the genotype, are all that matter. Not mutations themselves.) These proteins, en masse, help to create the various aspects of our body. It is somewhat silly to say "one unique mutation per individual," if by that you're implying this mutation is what makes the individual unique in a phenotypic (physical makeup) sense. Individuals are 'unique' because they possess a wide range of different alleles (different forms of a gene, genes, or set of genes)-- they do not carry some 'unique mutation' that makes them different. You should also keep in mind that many mutations do not result in an effect that would be acted upon by natural selection. For example, if the third-position base on a gene changes, it very often does not change the protein that is coded for.

Your thought about the number of mutations 'required' for the number of people we have is muddled-- mutations are very rarely isolated in a single individual. People are each unique because they carry a very different set of alleles. Think of this, how many unique combinations can you make with A1-3, B1-3, and C1-3?

A1B1C1 A1B1C2 A1B1C3 A1B2C1 A1B2C2 A1B2C3
A1B3C1 A1B3C2 A1B3C3 etc.

You'll end up with FAR more combinations than the original 9 'possibilities' that you start with. But the human genome has far, far more than 9 different alleles. I don't know the actual number, but given how recombination like that works, I would imagine that you could create genetically 'unique' individuals from pure recombination (no mutations) to a degree that would dwarf the actual number of humans who have ever lived. The number of alleles in a genome is (defitionally) far less than the actual number of genes-- some alleles might function on huge gene families. A better question, I suppose, would be to ask if it is concievable that all of your actualized alleles had time to develop? I think that the answer here is clearly yes-- an allele only has to arise by mutation once in order to spread throughout a population, either by means of selection or random fixation.

I hope you can make some sense of this, and moreover, I hope it answers whatever question you're trying to ask of us.

~AA

Chance and evolution, hmm. Lets look at it scientifically and mathmatically. Inside the cell of a human being or a living system there are over 60,000 proteins of a 100 different configurations. Now those proteins are not just scattered, they're actually produced through the Endoplasimic Reticulum, actually have zip codes added to them there where they go to the specific placement within that cell, each one is absolutly unique.

Now scientifically, mathmatically the chance that those 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations each fitting in its own niche with a predetermined zip code the odds of those could evolve in thier placement is 1 chance in 10 to the exponent 4,478,296. That is 1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros, it ias agreed anything over 10 to the 50th power is impossible. May I conclude evolution is impossible using the scientific method? Yes. (Scientific method is using logic and mathmatics.)

No, I would not, I remember reading in some science magazine a while back that there are on average between 10 and 15 point mutations between a child and their parents, mutations that neither parent had, so if there can be that many between a parent and child, imagine how many could build up in just 1000 generations.

I'll have to see if I can find the maazine...

Using the same thought here, The chances that everything would line up so that you would be born, are Astronomical. So sorry, you dont exist.

The problem is, you are taking an end result and trying to find the possibility that that end result would happen. Evolution does not drive to an end result, and thus your calculations are meaningless to evolution.

Yes, there is a small chance that we would evolve to look the way we do today, but we did. If it all happend again, we probably wouldn't be the same. Yet since evolution does not evolve organisms to a final specific goal. The calculations are meaningless.

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

But sir without cells we arent alive. I am concluding up unto this point in time, not the final goal, the cell to evolve to what it is now is impossible.

Gnarly... Laying odds is not the scientific method, maybe the Las Vegas method, but not the scientific method...

But just think about the odds of you being born...

Most pregnancies spontaniously abort within the first month, so you beat those... Then add the odds that your mom and dad would "do it" withing the 15 minute window that a woman is receptive... then add the chance that the sperm cell that made you beat the other million... then add the odds that in a world of billions of people your parents would meet... then add the odds against them falling in love... then add the odds of them staying married long enough for you to be born... then add it over and over again to get just a few generations of your family...

By now, just a few generations into your family tree we have well surpassed the odds you gave for evolution... Therfore you must not exist since the odds were so stacked against you...

again, you are baseing your claims that it is "impossible" based on the odds of the current end results.

As as been shown by Lewis, the odds that you are the end result of only a few generations is so small, its impossible, thus you must not exist.

Can you see the flaw in this thinking? Or are you either a ghost or a god?

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries