Do the math, mutations don't add up.

[Ark Guy]

Ark guy, are you saying that morphological changes we have seen within species (huge size and shape differences, longer or shorter apendages, immunities and other traits) have NOT occured through microevolution as explained by the theory of evolution, including genetic mutation, natural selection, etc? You do know that micro-evolution is described by means of mutations as well, don't you?

A mutation is not a deformity, as used in the common parlance, it is just a variation giving rise to a very slight change which can be passed on to the next generation. A series of small changes lead to a large change.

And, btw, morphological changes refer to any difference in the outward form, not just new apendages, etc.

I am not saying that change does not occur. many kinds have changed into different species after departing from the ark.

What I am saying is that the needed repeated mutations occuring again and again and again in the same DNA strand is impossible to the point where a system such as the dolphins echo-location system is formed.

The mutations are to random and there is way to many places for the mutation to occur in the time frame required to produce such a system such as the dophins echo-location system..

 

[Ark Guy]

One needs to ask....how many different locations can a mutation occur in the DNA program?

Then one needs to ask, what percentage of mutations are beneficial.

Then one needs to ask, what are the odds of said mutation occuring in a specific spot.

Then we need to ask, what is the odds of it occuring several thousand? million? times to the same DNA strand in the future offspring that a system such as an echo-location system is developed.

 

[Vance]

Ah, that makes a bit more sense, but you are vastly underestimating the power of large numbers over vast time periods. Since we are talking about a combination of the simple variations you admit can cause HUGE morphological changes (albeit within species) along with the mutations which provide for more specific morphological changes and are passed on, then I do not see a problem at all. Dawkins very clearly set this out in "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mount Improbable". Large numbers and large time frames make such rare events as beneficial mutations still "regular" events all along the DNA. It only has to happen in one and it will be passed on. Even though the slightest change will only create the slightest advantage and that slight advantage will only result in a slight increase in reproductive result, these "slights" eventually increase exponentially like the wonder of compound interest.

 

[Ark Guy]

You claim it can happen...but don't show the proof.

Please vance. present some evidence rather than sound good statements

 

[Ark Guy]

To complicate things even more, most systems are dependent on a portion of another system.
For example the echo location transmitter needs a seperate system that receives what has been transmitted.

The transmitter is useless with out the receicver and the receiver would be useless with out the transmitter.

So, the question is...considering that each system needs their own set of pinponted mutations to occur again and again...how did they manage to mutate and occur at the same time so that they could work together....now talk about the odds against evolution increasing.

lets face it evolution is impossible.
The bible tells the real story

 

[Ark Guy]

And if you even want to complicate things even more, consider this..just the transmitter portion of the echo-location system requires sections of the systems that needs to develope together...and all through chance mutations according to the evos.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Anyone who claims Barry Setterfield has done 'wonderful work' is at best clueless otherwise lying.

His work on the spped of light is nothing short of fraud.

Wanting his work (and I hate to use the word work) to be true and it being true are in fact mutually exclusive states.

I assume Ark Guy still has me on ignore so he wont see this but I just have to comment on someone citing Setterfield as anything but a fraudulent dope.

 

[Vance]

Well, you are talking as if mutation was the sole driving force behind evolution, rather than a component for change. We lose genes and aquire new ones through a variety of processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, biased variation, movable elements and non-random mating. Further, the importance behind mutation is that it provides greater variation for the all-important SELECTION to work upon. These genetic changes provide greater phenotypic variation and the useful features are favored, the less useful are selected against.

BUT, as Mayr points out, the recombination occuring in sexual reproduction "makes far more new phenotypes available for natural selection than does mutation or any other process . It is the major source of the variation found in populations of sexual species". Added to this is the interplay of the two, since sexual reproduction allows for a "greater survival of beneficial mutations and a faster elimination of deleterious mutations".

Somehow, Creationists have gotten the idea that mutations are used by the evolutionists as magic wands immediately creating wholly new morphological features. This has never been true. Mutation is an important aspect of the change in the genetic content to create the necessary variation for selection to choose from, but it does not work in isolation, much less on its own.

 

[notto]

Ark Guy,

In a population of a million individuals over several generations, the probability of a mutation occuring in the 'same strand of DNA' is assured, in fact, many will occur. The chance that one of these is beneficial has the same probability as the first one. They are not related.

You need to add to your 'calculations', the number of generations and the size of the population. Would you care to comment on this? Otherwise, your assertions are meaningless.

 

[Ark Guy]

I kinda doubt it notto.

As posted above, the need for the mutation often needs another mutation to be concurrent with each other other..now what happens to your odds..and remember these mutations BOTH must be beneficial.

 

[notto]

I kinda doubt it notto.

As posted above, the need for the mutation often needs another mutation to be concurrent with each other other..now what happens to your odds..and remember these mutations BOTH must be beneficial.

Again, in a population of multiple generations of millions of individuals, this does not create a problem of probability. Your assertion that both mutations much be beneficial is also incorrect. A beneficial mutation can act in correlation with neutral mutations already fixed in a population.

One million individuals producing one million offpsring over 1000 generations could certainly overcome all of the 'mathematical' problems you have presented in this thread. Again, your assertions are meaningless unless you actually show us some math. How can we 'Do the Math' if you won't show it?

Your problem has already been shown to be no problem at all in studies of bacteria. Beneficial mutations, whether they are singular or compound, have been observed in bacteria populations.

Another simple way to defeat your assertions is to note that even unbeneficial mutations can become fixed in a populations as evidence by heritable diseases that are genetic in nature. Heart disease is heritable but because it does not cause death before reproduction, it is passed on. If it caused death before reproduction, it most likely would be removed from the gene pool.

In bacteria, resistence to anti-biotics and the ability to digest nylon are two examples of beneficial mutations that are observed and become fixed in a population.

In humans, sickle cell anemia (which provides resistence to malaria) and lactose tolerance are two examples that can be trased back in populations that would have benefited from these mutations.

Chances are, that this same process will find a 'cure' for AIDS, long before we do in the populations that are being ravaged by the disease. There are already promising studies being done that have found family lines that are resistent to the virus that causes AIDS.

 

[Ark Guy]

notta, you are not answering the questions..instead you are sides stepping them with unproven theories.

Now back to the odds...millions of individuals are not enough to even dent the odds when one considers the amount of mutations required to create a simple change.

 

[seebs]

Ark Guy: Could you show us the exact calculations you're using, and cite your sources for any probability estimates you use?

 

[Ark Guy]

In fact large populations would tend to hide any mutational change. Thus negating any advanntage for survival.

For example, when..that is when this hypothetical mutation occurs to one of the millions of individuals which gives it a survival advantage, that mutation will more than likely prove to be insignaficant.

For example, gather 1 million people, six feet and smaller and group them in one place. Add a 7 foot tall person and toss in a loaf of bread with out looking at where your throwing it. I doubt the 7 foot tall person will come up with the bread...
The odds say you'll need to throw a lot of bread before the tall guys even gets his loaf.

So as you see, the added benefit in a large population has llittle effect.

Now drop the number down to 12 people and a tall guy and you have a chance of the tall guy getting the bread.

But of course you already admitted that you need large populations for the mutation to be successfull and survive.

 

[Ark Guy]

seeds, pick an animals..lets use a dolphin and figure out how many points in the DNA a mutation can occur.

Then figure out how many mutations occur on average when this dolphin is created.

Of those mutations figure out on average how many are beneficial.

Then crunch the numbers. I figure you evos should have no problem with that.

Now figure out what the odds are of another beneficial mutation occuring in the same DNA strand to enhance the change from the previous generations.

Then do this for as many mutations are required to complete the change.

Do the math. Evolution just doesn't work.

 

[lucaspa]

In order for the mutation to occur and advance an animal into a more complex structure as claimed happens by the evolutionist, a repeated series of extremely rare benifecial retained mutation is required that effect the same area of the DNA sequence, with the pinpointed accuracy of a skilled bowsman attempting to hit the bullseye.


So what are the odds of a mutation occuring with in the future offsprings same DNA strand again and again, repeatably, in such a fashion to produce these small micro changes?

Several misconceptions here.

1. The most important is that all the mutations have to show up in a single generation! NO! Natural selection is cumulative. So, you get one mutation that improves echolocation. Natural selection means that this mutation will be fixed. That means that selection will ensure that, in several generations, every member of the population will have the mutation. Thus, when the second mutation appears, it will automatically be in an individual that already has the first mutation. And so forth.

2. Most traits are polygenic. Echolocation, for example, is not controlled by one gene but by dozens. So you can have mutations in any of them. So now you can have 2 mutations at once in the population: an individual with gene 1 and another in gene 12. Both will be selected for and spread thru the population. The first time a gene 1 mates with a gene 12, then you end up with an offspring with both. This is even more favorable than the mutations singly, go gene 1,12 individuals will be selected. Of course, while this is happening, you can get a mutation in gene 6 to add to the two.

3. In developmental genes, "micro" changes in the DNA can have large effects on the organism. For instance, a single base change will convert a multilegged animal to 6 legs. Small change in DNA, big change in organism. This is what happened in the evolution of feathers from scales.
2. RO Prum and AH Brush, Which came first, the feather or the bird? Scientific American, 84-93, March 2003.

 

[lucaspa]

Now back to the odds...millions of individuals are not enough to even dent the odds when one considers the amount of mutations required to create a simple change.

How many mutations are required for a simple change? Or a big one?

Here's another example of a change in a single nucleotide giving a tail or not. A rather big change but needs only 1 mutation.

"Tracing a Backbone's Evolution Through a Tunicate's Lost Tail" Science vol. 274, pp 1082-1083, Nov. 15, 1996' Primary article is "Requirement of the Manx Gene for Expression of Chordate Freatures in a Tailless Ascidian Larvae" pp 1205-1208.

So where did you get the information of "amount of mutations required to create a simple change"? Source, please. Thank you.

 

[seebs]

seeds, pick an animals..lets use a dolphin and figure out how many points in the DNA a mutation can occur.

Then figure out how many mutations occur on average when this dolphin is created.

Of those mutations figure out on average how many are beneficial.

Then crunch the numbers. I figure you evos should have no problem with that.

Forgive me, but I'm afraid I'm not really that skilled at this kind of thing.

I mean, how many points in the DNA? I would assume "any point", but I don't know exactly how many base pairs a dolphin's DNA has. How many occur in an average dolphin? I don't know. How many are "beneficial"? Depends on circumstances. How shall I estimate that probability?

You're the one making a claim here. Back it up. Show your work. What are the numbers? Let's see how you got the number you got.

 

[lucaspa]

seeds, pick an animals..lets use a dolphin and figure out how many points in the DNA a mutation can occur.

Then figure out how many mutations occur on average when this dolphin is created.

Of those mutations figure out on average how many are beneficial.

Then crunch the numbers. I figure you evos should have no problem with that.

Neither should you. Please do so.

Now figure out what the odds are of another beneficial mutation occuring in the same DNA strand to enhance the change from the previous generations.

The same as happening the first time. Or better. Some areas of the DNA, Ark Guy, are hotspots and very prone to mutations.

Errors have no memory. They can't tell that they have happened in an area before and avoid it.

Do the math. Evolution just doesn't work.

Do the math for us, Ark Guy. I suspect you are using Spetner's math, but that ignores selection.

 

[lucaspa]

Another part of the equation that shows us that mutations won't add up over time is that most mutations are non beneficial.

What the data shows is that most mutations are neutral. Only 2.6 mutations per thousand are actually harmful.

There is no way to tell the exact number that are "beneficial" because "beneficial" depends on the environment. What we do know is that there are 1-5 mutations per individual depending on the size of the genome.

So, in each generation, you have at least the same number of mutations that you have individuals. If you have a population of 1 million, that's 1 million mutations and even if only 1 out of 10 are beneficial, you still have 100,000 beneficial mutations. That's a lot.

So, what are the odds of a mutation occuring again and again in the same strand of DNA responsible for the changing body part...then add to that the odds of it being beneficial.

Pretty good. Let's run some rough numbers. The human genome 30,000 genes.

We have 1 mutation per individual and a population of 1 million. So, for this generation we have 1 million mutations and 30,000 genes so 3 of the mutations should be in the same gene.

The next generation 3 of the mutations will appear in the same gene. Those are pretty good odds, wouldn't you say?

Over 10 generations we have 30 mutations in that gene. If only 1 in 10 of the mutations is beneficial (rare)for that environment, then we have 3 beneficial muations in that gene or 1 beneficial mutation every 3 generations. Not bad odds.

How many bad mutations would have occured in the same strand, tearing down any advances, prior to receiving a beneficial mutation?

Well, since only 2.6 mutations per thousand are harmful, multiply 3 by 0.0026 and you have the number of bad mutations that would tear down the advances. That's 0.068. Not very many.

What's your problem again?