The Probability of Evolution by Chance

[Notedstrangeperson]

Mark kennedy: We eagerly await the posts where you post the size difference between human and ape brains, and the link to a site about genetic disease to "prove" that all mutations are harmful.

 

[gluadys]

I have tried to work out some of the details of a probability argument but the fact is that evolutionists simply won't admit that the probability is astronomical.

That's because most arguments that evolution is improbable make the error of assuming that chance is the only factor in evolutionary probability.

The known effect of mutations on fitness is the single greatest fact of life and living systems opposed to TOE as natural history.

Sounds like you are still ignoring the difference between the effect on the fitness of single organisms and the effect on the fitness of the species.

 

[Papias]

mark is, as usual, ignoring the effect of selection, which makes a difference in this topic.

To see the effect of selection to evaluate these discussions, you can read the other times selection was explained to him here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7458722-5/ (posts #48 and on)



http://www.christianforums.com/t7513938-6/ (posts #56 - 60, this is when he became "irradiated", maybe by a nuclear source)


[URL]http://www.christianforums.com/t7526882-3/[/URL]


Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

(Genetics and the making of Homo sapiens. Nature April 2003)
FIGURE 2. Comparative neuroanatomy of humans and chimpanzees.

Mark kennedy: We eagerly await the posts where you post the size difference between human and ape brains, and the link to a site about genetic disease to "prove" that all mutations are harmful.

Typical Darwinian rhetoric, I never said that and you know it. This is the challenge for the resident TEs who want to pretend to have a viable probability argument.

All mutations mutation rate 2.5 x 10^-8

Rates calculated on the basis of a divergence time of 5 mya, ancestral population size of 10,000, generation length of 20 yr, and rates of molecular evolution given in Table 1.

Calculations are based on a generation length of 20 years and average autosomal sequence divergence of 1.33%​

Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans (Michael W. Nachmana and Susan L. Crowella, Genetics, 297-304, September 2000)

When the actual divergence is found to be between 5% and 6% does the calculation of the mutation rate change?

What would have to happen is that the DNA would have to be altered on a macro scale, there is a good scientific reason for being skeptical of TOE with regards to human evolution:

Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common.

MUTATION is the ultimate source of genetic variation; it is both the substrate for evolution and the cause of genetic disease.​

So what is your estimate of the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) when the divergence spikes to 5% ?

I eagerly await your response. In the mean time pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will find deleterious effects from mutations. This is especially true of those involved in brain related genes:

Human Genome Landmarks Poster: Chromosome Viewer

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[gluadys]

The known effect of mutations on fitness is the single greatest fact of life and living systems opposed to TOE as natural history.

Is that the effect of on the fitness of a single organism or on the fitness of the species?

They can be quite different, Mark.

Take a parallel case: the effect of predation on the fitness of prey.

The effect of predation on the fitness of a single prey organism is, typically, death. You can't get much more deleterious than that.

But the effect of predation on the fitness of a prey species is to improve its adaptation to the presence of predators through such means as camouflage, greater speed, warning signals, etc.

You have shown us many examples of the deleterious effects of certain mutations on individuals. You have not yet shown what the effect is on the species.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

(Genetics and the making of Homo sapiens. Nature April 2003)
FIGURE 2. Comparative neuroanatomy of humans and chimpanzees.

------------------------------

In the mean time pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will find deleterious effects from mutations. This is especially true of those involved in brain related genes:

Human Genome Landmarks Poster: Chromosome Viewer

Mark kennedy: We eagerly await the posts where you post the size difference between human and ape brains, and the link to a site about genetic disease to "prove" that all mutations are harmful.

Typical Darwinian rhetoric, I never said that and you know it.

Mark Kennedy ... I honestly cannot tell if you're playing around or whether you cannot comprehend irony.

 

[mark kennedy]

Is that the effect of on the fitness of a single organism or on the fitness of the species?

Mark Kennedy ... I honestly cannot tell if you're playing around or whether you cannot comprehend irony.

So what is your estimate of the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) when the divergence spikes to 5%?

Do you not understand the question or just having trouble with the math?

 

[gluadys]

So what is your estimate of the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) when the divergence spikes to 5%?

Do you not understand the question or just having trouble with the math?

You first. Do you not understand my question?

Is that the effect on the fitness of a single organism or on the fitness of the species?

I always have trouble with math.


But the paper cited is clearer:

The average mutation rate was estimated to be ~2.5 x 10^-8 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation.


Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans




It is also worth quoting the conclusion on deleterious mutation rates in full--well almost--this is the first sentence and the final paragraph:

KONDRASHOV and CROW 1993 Down suggested that it is possible to calculate the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) from an estimate of the neutral mutation rate and an estimate of the fraction of the genome that is subject to constraint. Our estimate of the neutral mutation rate is 175 mutations per genome per generation (range 91–238). . . .

The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (MULLER 1950 Down; WALLACE 1981 Down; CROW 1993 Down; KONDRASHOV 1995 Down; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 Down). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 - e-U (KIMURA and MORUYAMA 1966 Down). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection (WALLACE 1991 Down) or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (KONDRASHOV 1995 Down; CROW 1997 Down; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 Down). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.​

 

[gluadys]

The following 5 statements about evolution are real facts which even evolutionists cannot deny:

(1) There are 2 kinds of evolution: micro and macro. They are 2 different concepts. But evolutionists tried to make people believe one automatically implies the other.

I expect most evolutionists do deny this. There are not two kinds of evolution. There is one kind of evolution from that which produces sub-species variations to the differences of phyla, kingdoms and domains. This one kind of evolution can obviously be studied on different scales. When studied on a micro-scale (within a species) it is called microevolution; when studied on a macro-scale (at or above the level of species) it is called macroevolution. But a difference in scale is not a difference in the process.

(2) Less than 50% of people in USA believe in theory of evolution, despite the fact that it has monopolized the school curriculum for more than 40 years (based on data from Evolution: The Grand Experiment).

This has nothing to so with whether evolution is good science or not. In fact, it has not monopolized the school curriculum. In many situations after the 1968 court case which banned biblically-based creationism in the classroom, evolution simply disappeared from the curriculum entirely.

(3) More than 700 scientists have publicly expressed their doubts on theory of evolution, even though this means RISKING their scientific careers. The number 700 is very significant in this case.

Significant for what? In fact, the statement you are referring to does not cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

(4) The history of theory of evolution is full of frauds, e.g. Piltdown man, Peking man, Nebraska Man, etc.

As mentioned earlier, only one of these is actually a fraud. In any case, this objection doesn't deal with the bona fide evidence supporting the theory.

(5) Theory of evolution is always associated with totalitarian regimes, especially Nazi Germany and Communist China, etc.

It is also associated with most democratic regimes.


Four out of five of these statements are not about evolution. Only the first is actually about evolution and it is incorrect. The other four statements are also incorrect, or at best, partially correct.

They can certainly all be described by evolutionists as false, shaky or incomplete. Definitely not "real facts".

 

[Tomm]

I expect most evolutionists do deny this. There are not two kinds of evolution. There is one kind of evolution from that which produces sub-species variations to the differences of phyla, kingdoms and domains. This one kind of evolution can obviously be studied on different scales. When studied on a micro-scale (within a species) it is called microevolution; when studied on a macro-scale (at or above the level of species) it is called macroevolution. But a difference in scale is not a difference in the process.

Your statements may sound valid, but they are really just theories. Your statements could be misleading
--- since you sound like you are saying :
*boundaries of species are just arbitrary ;
*bodily structure of each species is just arbitrary.

I doubt they are arbitrary. I suspect if there is significant DNA changes, it might lead to disease(s).
___________________________________________________________________________________
Besides, who have proved that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution ???
Nobody. But scientists have raised many problems about the possibility of macro-evolution !

Evolutionists, including you, have been trying to mislead people to believe macro-evolution.

_____________________________________________________________________________

In my opinion, there are 2 things that most cause people to believe macro-evolution:

• Micro-evolution imples macro-evolution;
• Animals evolve by way of Adaptation.

In the second point, many laymen thought animals evolve through adaptation. In other words, they thought there is a built-in mechanism which responses to the environment and causes DNA changes so that the animal may better fit into the environment.

They thought there is such a fantastic mechanism in each living being's body that brings about evolution, that's why it's easy for them to believe. But if they found out it's not by purpose but by chance, then they will certainly think differently !

In fact, some evolutionary scientists today feel that the word "adaptation" is misleading and should be removed from evolutionist vocabulary --- because there is NO such thing as adaptation, but ONLY ACCIDENTAL MUTATIONS. Yes, evolutionary changes are just result of ACCIDENTAL MUTATIONS (and natural selection).





For example, if I TELL my friend I won the lottery everyday in the last month. When they asked how did I do it,

• I replied saying some witch gave me psychic power to predict the lottery numbers each day, that's why I won so much. That's easier for them to believe, although not necessarily fully, than the next case;
• On the other hand, if I told them I was choosing the numbers by chance only, nothing else, just by chance. Would they believe so readily ??

Of course not as in the first case.

 

[Greg1234]

many laymen thought animals evolve through adaptation. In other words, they thought there is a built-in mechanism which responses to the environment and causes DNA changes so that the animal may better fit into the environment.[/COLOR]

Scientists and laymen. Experimentally shown, not thought.

But if they found out it's not by purpose but by chance, then they will certainly think differently !

Darwinists don't not do not believe in random mutations and natural selection.

In fact, some evolutionary scientists today feel that the word "adaptation" is misleading and should be removed from evolutionist vocabulary --- because there is NO such thing as adaptation,

Darwinists believe in stochastic alterations as a cause. The word adaptation already meant chance.

but ONLY ACCIDENTAL MUTATIONS. Yes, evolutionary changes are just result of ACCIDENTAL MUTATIONS (and natural selection).

That's not the case. And Darwinists dont already not think that it's not non-accidental mutations and unnatural selection.

For example, if I TELL my friend I won the lottery everyday in the last month. When they asked how did I do it,

• I replied saying some witch gave me psychic power to predict the lottery numbers each day, that's why I won so much. That's easier for them to believe, although not necessarily fully, than the next case;
• On the other hand, if I told them I was choosing the numbers by chance only, nothing else, just by chance. Would they believe so readily ??

Of course not as in the first case.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. In your soma cells divide millions upon millions of times with each division bringing about a change. You wont turn into a lion in your lifetime no matter how many lottery tickets you have. Try it out.

Pupil contraction is not lottery, muscle growth is not lottery, immune response is not lottery, Germline adaptation is not lottery.

A rusting car is "lottery," when it matches the numbers of the mineral's stochastic draws. randommutation.com try it out here also. Remember, broken word is not dead organism, but broken gene, which is said to confer some advantage and build the organism if you continue.

 

[Papias]

tomc wrote:

Evolutionists, including you, have been trying to mislead people to believe macro-evolution.

tomc, I notice your icon indicates you are Catholic. Are you aware that Pope Benedict has stated that evolution, including common descent from a microbe, is "virtually certain"?

For a more detailed view of the Pope's view of evolution, you can read a very detailed explaination by the committee he led by going to the link partway down on this page, here: Evidence for Evolution and Old Earth, A Catholic Perspective

Do you think that our Holy Father has been trying to mislead people?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[gluadys]

Your statements may sound very reasonable, but they are really just theories. You are actually misleading people since you sound like you see them as facts.

Who have proved that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution ???

Who has proved it doesn't? What do you think needs to happen for microevolution to become macroevolution?

In my opinion, there are 2 things that most cause people to believe macro-evolution:

• Micro-evolution imples macro-evolution;

Macroevolution is microevolution taking place under certain circumstances. In particular, circumstances that prevent gene flow from one part of a population to another. When circumstances arise that prevent two populations from sharing their genes, exchanging new variations between one population and another, then you have the potential for them to become different species. That is macroevolution.

• Animals evolve by way of Adaptation.

In the second point, many laymen thought animals evolve through adaptation. In other words, they thought there is a built-in mechanism which responses to the environment and causes DNA changes so that the animal may better fit into the environment.

These laypeople were wrong. There is no such built-in mechanism. The mechanism that produces adaptation is natural selection. That is not built in to the species.

They thought there is such a fantastic mechanism in each living being's body that brings about evolution, that's why it's easy for them to believe. But if they found out it's not by purpose but by chance, then they will certainly think differently !

It is not by chance either. Natural selection is not a matter of chance; it is not statistically random.

In fact, some evolutionary scientists today feel that the word "adaptation" is misleading and should be removed from evolutionist vocabulary --- because there is NO such thing as adaptation, but ONLY ACCIDENTAL MUTATIONS.

I never heard that anyone wanted to drop the word 'adaptation'. Adaptation is the consequence of positive natural selection and there is no reason not to use it to describe what natural selection does.


It is improper to use "adaptation" as a synonym for "evolution", but that is more a failing of non-scientists, especially those who want to drop the word "evolution". I often see people saying "That's not evolution; it's adaptation." But you can't make that contrast because evolution (specifically natural selection) is the cause and adaptation is the effect. So they are linked together in that way.

As for your last statement, it is incorrect. There are not only accidental mutations. There is also natural selection. Natural selection is what turns accidental mutations into non-accidental evolution.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

tomc, I notice your icon indicates you are Catholic. Are you aware that Pope Benedict has stated that evolution, including common descent from a microbe, is "virtually certain"?

For a more detailed view of the Pope's view of evolution, you can read a very detailed explaination by the committee he led by going to the link partway down on this page, here: Evidence for Evolution and Old Earth, A Catholic Perspective

Do you think that our Holy Father has been trying to mislead people?

In Christ-

Papias

The pope didn't say that,the ITC did. And they were stating the scientific account of origins in that paragraph.

 

[Papias]

Anthony, as we've discussed at length before, the Pope was the chair of that commission, as you well know. The paragraph is written by the commission in their own words, they are not quoting anyone, and the words they chose show without a doubt that they agree with that account.

If you like, we can get into the details to make that perfectly clear, as we did before.......

I can't be sure of course, but I happen to think that tomc is able to answer on his own.

Papias

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Who has proved it doesn't? What do you think needs to happen for microevolution to become macroevolution?

Organisms would have to be much more genetically changeable than they are. Mutations would have to affect many more things than just pigmentation,bodily growth,resistance to disease,or cause disease and deformation.

Macroevolution is microevolution taking place under certain circumstances. In particular, circumstances that prevent gene flow from one part of a population to another. When circumstances arise that prevent two populations from sharing their genes, exchanging new variations between one population and another, then you have the potential for them to become different species. That is macroevolution.

Macro-evolution is change above the species level,as in dinosaurs leading to birds - not just any kind of branching or speciation. Macro-evolution is something that cannot be seen,nor shown to have happened. It is illogical and disingenuous to see macro-evolution in observed speciation when it cannot be seen or shown to have happened at all.

These laypeople were wrong. There is no such built-in mechanism. The mechanism that produces adaptation is natural selection. That is not built in to the species.

Natural selection does not make a species adapt to its environment,it is just a process of elimination. The elimination of members with certain traits does not help the other members with supposedly more suitable traits to adapt.
The members that have more suitable traits can survive without the others dying off.

It is not by chance either. Natural selection is not a matter of chance; it is not statistically random.

Is it naturally deterministic? That would still be a matter of chance.

 

[leftjohn]

Evolution and Creationism

It is easy to look at a wolf and yard dog and think maybe they came from the same animal way back when. There is strong evidence that evolution in some form or fashion has happened.

However, there is no evidence that a K9 ever evolved into a squirrel. There is also no evidence of life (dog, squirrel, or simple single cell) just spontaneously happening.

But....

There is still that dog in my yard looking a lot like a wolf

Maybe, there is a little something to both versions.

Maybe, God created life and then continued to shape its various forms.

 

[gluadys]

Macro-evolution needs to happen,which can't be shown to have happened.

That's not a very helpful answer. Instead of using labels, could you describe what has to happen?

Macro-evolution is change above the species level,as in dinosaurs leading to birds - not just any kind of branching or speciation.

Macro-evolution is evolution at or above the species level. Is not every branching a speciation? What other kind of branching could there be?

Macro-evolution is something that cannot be seen,nor shown to have happened.

Yet, in another thread you perfectly described macro-evolution and I complimented you on the precision of your description.

It is illogical and disingenuous to see macro-evolution in observed speciation when it cannot be seen or shown to have happened at all.

Speciation is macroevolution and the first step in any longer history of macroevolution.

Natural selection does not make a species adapt to its environment,it is just a process of elimination. The elimination of members with certain traits does not help the other members with supposedly more suitable traits to adapt.

The members with more suitable traits have already adapted. The issue is how this helps the species adapt. If those adaptations do not become the norm of the species, then even if some members have adapted, the species has not.

As you explained in the other thread, what is needed is for the adapted forms to become PROPORTIONALLY more prevalent in the population. That is the way the species adapts. And that is what natural selection does: ensure that the adapted forms become proportionally more prevalent in the species---sometimes to the point that they become the only form in the species.

The members that have more suitable traits can survive without the others dying off.

Indeed, that is true. But that won't help the species adapt unless they survive in greater numbers than the others. Suppose the mortality rate of unadapted individuals does not lessen but stays the same. Then the only way to get a greater proportion of adapted individuals is for adapted individuals to have larger families and so have more descendants than the others, thus increasing the proportion of the population that is adapted.

That is what would result in species change.

Is it naturally deterministic? That would still be a matter of chance.

I have no idea what that means.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Evolution and Creationism

It is easy to look at a wolf and yard dog and think maybe they came from the same animal way back when. There is strong evidence that evolution in some form or fashion has happened.

However, there is no evidence that a K9 ever evolved into a squirrel. There is also no evidence of life (dog, squirrel, or simple single cell) just spontaneously happening.

But....

There is still that dog in my yard looking a lot like a wolf

Maybe, there is a little something to both versions.

Maybe, God created life and then continued to shape its various forms.

Dogs and wolves certainly seem to be related by ancestry,because they can breed with each other. But this does not justify the idea that physical similarities between species is evidence of common ancestry.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

I have no idea what that means.

Deterministic selection would be the alternative to chance or random selection,as chance and random is commonly understood. Supernatural causation is out of the question,as far as science is concerned. I keep reading that natural selection is not random,but scientists do not say the alternative.

If natural selection is non-random,how should it be characterized?