Does evolution have a chance?

[Micaiah]

Some questions to consider previously posted and substantially unanswered:

1. What is the probability of a mutation occuring in the haploid that meets the requirements of the Neo Darwinian thoery of evolution (the most common theory in vogue).

2. Provide an explanation of the probability calculation including any important assumptions about randomness.

3. Provide examples of mutations that meet the NDT requirements and can be considered candidates for evolution. Remember that evolution assumes a net gain in genetic information over time.

 

[Jet Black]

1. What is the probability of a mutation occuring in the haploid that meets the requirements of the Neo Darwinian thoery of evolution (the most common theory in vogue).

Grammar Much?

2. Provide an explanation of the probability calculation including any important assumptions about randomness.

Content Much?

3. Provide examples of mutations that meet the NDT requirements and can be considered candidates for evolution. Remember that evolution assumes a net gain in genetic information over time.

aah, a few words strung toghether which may make some sense. before we go anywhere, what is the unit of information?

 

[FreezBee]

aah, a few words strung toghether which may make some sense. before we go anywhere, what is the unit of information?

1 bit.


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[notto]

Populations evolve, not individuals.

The environment determines if a mutation is beneficial or not. A mutation that is detrimental in one environment may be beneficial in another.

Therefore, your questions seem to be meaningless.

Or perhaps you can help us a bit.

Your first point references 'the requirements of the Neo Darwinian theory of evolution'.

You should be able to outline those for us if we are to accept you as a valid critic of the answers provided.

So, what are 'the requirements of the Neo Darwinian theory of evolution'?

 

[Jet Black]

1 bit.


cheers

- FreezBee

aah the day that a creationist will define something so clearly

 

[Maxwell511]

3. Provide examples of mutations that meet the NDT requirements and can be considered candidates for evolution. Remember that evolution assumes a net gain in genetic information over time.

I am really intrigued with this idea of information. What do you mean by a net gain of information?

Consider the transfer of a binary incoded numerical system across a channel. If a transmission error occurs when sending 1100011 that makes the recieved signal 1110010 does this increase the information in the signal? Does the decoded output have increase in information? (It should have been 99 but is now 114).

 

[Micaiah]

We previously discussed this ad nauseum. I know the game and don't want to play. It goes like this. I give a definition, you try to pick holes in it and somehow claim that anything stated is wrong because you claim to have found an error in the definition. This is the kind of argument that lawyers and evolutionsits thrive on. It is not the way of true science.

I can post the link to previous discussions on the topic if you wish. Surfice to say that befor the first cell there was no genetic information encoded on a DNA. It is hypothesised that after many millions of years we end up with man for example who has a lot of genetic information encoded in the DNA. So we went from zero to lots of genetic information. It is clear that there has therefore been a net increase in the DNA as part of the hypothesised evolution of life. To appreciate this point you require a basic understanding of the meaning of genetic information encoded in the DNA. For that you can look up the internet or a science dictionary. If you are not happy with that, then give your own definition for us to pick holes in.

 

[notto]

We previously discussed this ad nauseum. I know the game and don't want to play. It goes like this. I give a definition, you try to pick holes in it and somehow claim that anything stated is wrong because you claim to have found an error in the definition. This is the kind of argument that lawyers and evolutionsits thrive on. It is not the way of true science.

I can post the link to previous discussions on the topic if you wish. Surfice to say that befor the first cell there was no genetic information encoded on a DNA. It is hypothesised that after many millions of years we end up with man for example who has a lot of genetic information encoded in the DNA. So we went from zero to lots of genetic information. It is clear that there has therefore been a net increase in the DNA as part of the hypothesised evolution of life. To appreciate this point you require a basic understanding of the meaning of genetic information encoded in the DNA. For that you can look up the internet or a science dictionary. If you are not happy with that, then give your own definition for us to pick holes in.

So a new allele would qualify and satisfy your request, right?

 

[Athene]

We previously discussed this ad nauseum. I know the game and don't want to play. It goes like this. I give a definition, you try to pick holes in it and somehow claim that anything stated is wrong because you claim to have found an error in the definition. This is the kind of argument that lawyers and evolutionsits thrive on. It is not the way of true science.

How many scientific conferences have you been too? There'll be somebody giving a presentation then there'll be question time and the rest of the scientists descend like vultures on a carcass and proceed to tear holes in the presenting scientists hypothesis. I was forced to go to a few when I did my post-grad degree, it put me off going for a career in academia.

This is true science and it ain't pretty. True Science never takes things at face value, thats why scientists will work for years and years on a particular hypothesis to be sure they've thought of every possibility. Because if you miss something out, somebody else will pick it up, publish it and then it's your reputation down the toilet.

 

[caravelair]

We previously discussed this ad nauseum. I know the game and don't want to play.

why on earth did you start this thread if you didn't understand the topic?

"It goes like this. I give a definition, you try to pick holes in it and somehow claim that anything stated is wrong because you claim to have found an error in the definition."

that is because creationists never like to properly define information. any time they give one, it is easy to find a counter example that proves they are wrong about information not being able to increase.

This is the kind of argument that lawyers and evolutionsits thrive on. It is not the way of true science.

in true science, you have to define things properly.

I can post the link to previous discussions on the topic if you wish. Surfice to say that befor the first cell there was no genetic information encoded on a DNA. It is hypothesised that after many millions of years we end up with man for example who has a lot of genetic information encoded in the DNA. So we went from zero to lots of genetic information. It is clear that there has therefore been a net increase in the DNA as part of the hypothesised evolution of life. To appreciate this point you require a basic understanding of the meaning of genetic information encoded in the DNA. For that you can look up the internet or a science dictionary. If you are not happy with that, then give your own definition for us to pick holes in.

please see the following post in the quiet thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10690067&postcount=8

it explains how "information" can increase, and provides examples of mutations i believe you are looking for.

 

[Micaiah]

I take this as an attempt to answer question 3, and from what I can see the first attempt to answer a question.

Caravelair. If you would like to take one of the examples from the 'Quiet Thread' and show how it meets the crditeria of question 3 it would provide a more complete answer.

 

[Lucretius]

Micaiah, try this simple experiment to show how meaningless probability can be in determining the outcome of a given situation:

Take a six-sided die and roll it once each second, for one minute. Record the resulting string of numbers.

Now that you have gotten this exact string, calculate the probability of getting it randomly (I assume your rolls were done in a random manner that obeyed physical law, like any other physical interaction).

To find P(D) simply take 6^60. The number will be small but you still get that same string of numbers.

 

[Micaiah]

To find P(D) simply take 6^60. The number will be small but you still get that same string of numbers.

The probabailty of throwing a specified number is (1/6)
The probability of throwing a specified number 'n' times is (1/6)^n or 6^(-n)

This indicates that some things are very unlikely to happen. If the probability of it happening is low enough we can say it is impossible.

 

[caravelair]

The probabailty of throwing a specified number is (1/6)
The probability of throwing a specified number 'n' times is (1/6)^n or 6^(-n)

every such string of numbers has the exact same probability of occurring, whether or not they are all the same, yet you will get one of these strings if you do the experiment. obviously it's not impossible, despite the odds.

 

[caravelair]

I take this as an attempt to answer question 3, and from what I can see the first attempt to answer a question.

Caravelair. If you would like to take one of the examples from the 'Quiet Thread' and show how it meets the crditeria of question 3 it would provide a more complete answer.

well it all depends how you define information. different definitions will require different examples. i don't see why it is so difficult to define it. as far as i can see, a duplication mutation followed by a substitution mutation would be an increase in information. or any new allele. again, depends how you define it. if you do not think these would be examples of increased information, please explain why.

 

[Micaiah]

If this happened randomly I accept it meets the required definition.

And your example?

 

[caravelair]

If this happened randomly I accept it meets the required definition.

And your example?

do you doubt that a duplication mutation could occur randomly? do you doubt that a substitution mutation could occur randomly? then why not one following the other?

examples are discussed here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000214.html

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Micaiah - what is "a haploid"? Last time I checked, "haploid" was an adjective, not a noun.

 

[FreezBee]

Consider the transfer of a binary incoded numerical system across a channel. If a transmission error occurs when sending 1100011 that makes the recieved signal 1110010 does this increase the information in the signal? Does the decoded output have increase in information? (It should have been 99 but is now 114).

Just for the record: we have here 7 bits as input (1100011) and 7 bits as output (1110010). The information may be different, but there is the same amount of information in both input and output.

Usually in transmissions, where errors are expected some redundancy scheme is involved, which requires extra bits, to detect errors and possibly to correct them. These extra bits do not add to the original information, but are information about that information, hence still information.


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[Aron-Ra]

Some questions to consider previously posted and substantially unanswered:

1. What is the probability of a mutation occuring in the haploid that meets the requirements of the Neo Darwinian thoery of evolution (the most common theory in vogue).

The answer is 100%. According to PubMed, every human has an average of 156 mutations already, just at the point of conception, and these compile as the individual grows. This degree of divergence is what keeps siblings from being identical. Every individual born bares mutations that can or could influence the population eventually.

"New variance comes from mutations at a rate approximately 10-2 to 10-4 VE per generation. VM should be equal to 2nua2, where n is the number of genes which can mutate to have effect on the trait, u is the per locus mutation rate, and a is the effect of the mutation. We can estimate nu from mutation accumulation experiments (like Mukai 1972). For viability, nu is in the range 0.1 to 1. This means that either the mutation rate is extremely high, or there are many loci which mutate to affect viability."
--Quantitive Genetics; Dept. Zoology, University of British Columbia

2. Provide an explanation of the probability calculation including any important assumptions about randomness.

As has already been explained, that would be meaningless. Every week, someone wins a lottery despite staggering odds. Alternatively, how probable is magic?

Remember that the Torah, the gospels, the Qu'ran, the Adi-Granth, the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Vedas, the Avestas, and the book of Mormon -are each claimed by millions to be the "absolute truth", and the "revealed word" of the "one true god". Now think about your probabilities for a moment. Which is more probable? That all of these conflicting religious doctrines are indeed what they claim to be? Or that all of them are inaccurate? Because the least probable position I can imagine is that all of these are absolutely wrong -except one, and that one is absolutely without error of any kind. That is a statistical impossibility given the circumstances.

3. Provide examples of mutations that meet the NDT requirements and can be considered candidates for evolution.

Do you want those to be just from our own species?

In the Italian village of Limone sul Garda, there is a family with a mutation related to their HDL cholesterol which made them insusceptible to heart failure, despite their high-risk diet and lifestyle. This family is now being genetically-sampled in the hopes of treating heart disease.

Another example of new variance is the Glycophorin A somatic cell mutation (Jensen, R. H., S. Zhang, et al. (1997) which has been identified in some Tibetans, which allows them to endure prolongued periods at altitudes of 7,000 feet without succumbing to apoplexia, or “altitude sickness”. A different, but similar mutation was identified in high altitude natives in the Andes.
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/204/18/3151

Another example of that is the CCR5-delta 32 mutation. About 10% of whites of European origin now carry it. But the incidence is only 2% in central Asia, and is completely absent among East Asians, Africans, and American Indians. It appears to have suddenly become relatively common among white Europeans about 700 years ago, evidently as a result of the Black Plague, indicating another example of natural selection allowing one gene dominance in a changing environment. It is harmless (or neutral) in every respect other than its one clearly beneficial feature; if one inherits this gene from both parents, they will be especially resistant (if not immune) to AIDS.
(source: Science-Frontiers.com / PBS.org)

For another example, we’ve also identified an emerging population of tetrachromatic women who can see a bit of the normally invisible ultraviolet spectrum.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4128183,00.html

There’s also a family in Germany who are already unusually strong. But in one case, a child was born with a double copy of an anti-myostatin mutation carried by both parents. The result is a herculian kiddo who was examined at only a few days old for his unusually well-developed muscles. By four years old, he had twice the mucle mass of normal children, and half the fat. Pharmaceutical synthesis of this mutation is being examined for potential use against muscular dystrophy or sarcopenia.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2004/06/24/512617.html

There is also a family in Connecticut that has been identified as having hyperdense, virtually unbreakable bones:

“Members of this family carry a genetic mutation that causes high bone density. They have a deep and wide jaw and bony growth on the palate. Richard P. Lifton, M.D., Ph.D., chair of the Department of Genetics, along with Karl L. Insogna, M.D., professor of medicine and director of the Yale Bone Center, and colleagues, traced the mutation to a gene that was the subject of an earlier study. In that study researchers showed that low bone density could be caused by a mutation that disrupts the function of a gene called LRP5. In the recent study, the Yale team mapped the family’s genetic mutation to the same chromosome segment in LRP5. “It made us wonder if a different mutation increased LRP5 function, leading to an opposite phenotype, that is, high bone density,” Lifton said.
Family members, according to the investigators, have bones so strong they rival those of a character in the 2000 movie Unbreakable. “If there are living counterparts to the [hero] in Unbreakable, who is in a terrible train wreck and walks away without a single broken bone, they’re members of this family,” said Lifton. “They have extraordinarily dense bones and there is no history of fractures. These people have about the strongest bones on the entire planet.”
http://info.med.yale.edu/external/pubs/ym_au02/findings.html

Do these satisfy your request? Or is your faith of the type which decides in advance that no amount of evidence or reason will ever cause you to question the absolute accuracy of your preconceived notions?

Remember that evolution assumes a net gain in genetic information over time.

No it doesn't. Whoever told you otherwise was either ignorant or trying to deceive you deliberately.