Does evolution have a chance?

[Micaiah]

Ok great, you have argued that there are subspecies of dogs. Where is the subspecies of humans in the images of the kids you offered in the post?

Diversified? That is a stretch, between any two humans we have a diversity of one tenth of one percent at a nucleotide seqeunce level. In order to evolve from apes we would have had to change 6.6 nucleotides per year for millions of years and rearrange 3.5 per year on average in order to evolve from apes. That in addtion to the exponential growth of the brain as an effect, or the cause depending on how you look at it.

Have a nice day
Mark

Yeah, what Mark said.

 

[perplexed]

Someone could perhaps tell me how a question can be a lie.

A question cannot be a lie
but the specific calculation given in
http://www.wpbc.org.nz/Feature/stats2.asp
is a lie.

If you don't believe me express the calculation in your own words and I will show you where the lie is.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yeah, what Mark said.

Something about the genetic basis for evolution that makes them think. I'm subscribed to the thread now, can't wait to see how my post is answered.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Micaiah]

And that has been done and has nothing to do with determining how many nucleotide changes (from what starting point you don't say) to make a wing.

I haven't noticed. References please.

But then you really don't want an answer to your question. You simply use it as a way to set the goalposts in a position where you don't need to address the actual evidence presented and can simply say what is presented isn't enough or isn't what you asked.

If nothing else it again demonstrates how little those arguing for evolution know about the theory. And no I wouldn't do the nasty things you suggested Notto.

After all, anything we provide needs to match the 'requirments of evolution', whatever that may be. It's hard to know since you won't tell us what you mean nor the context of your questions.

These are not my requirements. They are the requirements of the current theory of evolution most commonly promoted by scientists. I assumed you as evolutionists would be familiar with, then again that was probably not what I assumed.

Okay, stand back. NO one else is game, so I'm going to make an estimate of the number of nucleotides required for the development of the wing.

Typical gene 1000 - 2500 nucleotides, mumble, mumble, say equivalent of 5 new genes required mumble, mumble, include Micaiah's uncertainty factor, mumble, mumble.

Okay, I estimate you need 10, 000 nucleotide substitutions and insertions. And that is my final offer.

Now watch the feathers fly (pun intended) as everyone who was incapable of making an estimate tells me why my estimate is wrong.

 

[notto]

Okay, stand back. NO one else is game, so I'm going to make an estimate of the number of nucleotides required for the development of the wing.

Whats the starting point?

Please be specific so we can be sure you simply are not presenting a creationists strawman. Make sure your starting point is within the 'requirments of evolution' which you may or may not be able to define.

 

[Micaiah]

Whats the starting point?

Please be specific so we can be sure you simply are not presenting a creationists strawman. Make sure your starting point is within the 'requirments of evolution' which you may or may not be able to define.

Starting point would be say an animal with forelimbs but without wings. Oh lets say it also has to evolve fingers as well, so I'll add another 753 nucleotides to the estimate, to give a total of 10, 753 nucleaotide substitutions and insertions.

 

[Micaiah]

A question cannot be a lie
but the specific calculation given in
http://www.wpbc.org.nz/Feature/stats2.asp
is a lie.

If you don't believe me express the calculation in your own words and I will show you where the lie is.

Claiming someone is lying with no evidence to support the claim is close to flaming. We await your evidence.

 

[anunbeliever]

How about this one:
"Mutations which are selected as beneficial to an organism are so rare that
they are negligible. Natural selection merely chooses traits from the available
genome. So whilst mutation may change allele frequency, the changed portion
does not provide a selectable advantage".

 

[perplexed]

Claiming someone is lying with no evidence to support the claim is close to flaming. We await your evidence.

The evidence is the many dice, cards and birth examples people have given. If you don't beleive me perhaps try asking Mark Kennedy.

 

[mikeynov]

How about this one:
"Mutations which are selected as beneficial to an organism are so rare that
they are negligible. Natural selection merely chooses traits from the available
genome. So whilst mutation may change allele frequency, the changed portion
does not provide a selectable advantage".

Maybe not so rare?

 

[Micaiah]

How about this one:
"Mutations which are selected as beneficial to an organism are so rare that
they are negligible. Natural selection merely chooses traits from the available
genome. So whilst mutation may change allele frequency, the changed portion
does not provide a selectable advantage".

Where was this from? What is the context? Where is the calculation?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Ok great, you have argued that there are subspecies of dogs. Where is the subspecies of humans in the images of the kids you offered in the post?

There are no images of either Homo neandertalensis nor Homo floresiensis, nor any of the other human subspecies in this image, because Homo sapiens is the only species of human still around. Ours is a globally-interbreeding population, and has been since the invention of the boat. So we can't really generate a new species anymore. You knew that of course, so I suspect you only said this to dodge the argument about the dogs, and obfuscate what you couldn't address about the rest of the points I made.

Diversified? That is a stretch, between any two humans we have a diversity of one tenth of one percent at a nucleotide seqeunce level.

Which is still pretty good for a globetrotting species that was never completely isolated, right?

In order to evolve from apes we would have had to change 6.6 nucleotides per year for millions of years and rearrange 3.5 per year on average in order to evolve from apes. That in addtion to the exponential growth of the brain as an effect, or the cause depending on how you look at it.

And how much would we have to change to evolve from mammals?
Oh yeah, we are mammals.

Wait a minute, we're still apes too!
I guess we didn't have to change one iota to evolve from them then, did we?

 

[Micaiah]

Back to bird mutations. Each time that a mutation occurs, there would have been a number of other possible locations in the genome at which a mutation could have occurred that would have given the animal a survival advantage and added information. How many other possible locations would there have been? Lets say there were a million. Since no one wanted to estimate the number of steps to the evolution of the bird wing, I don't think there will be any takers on this number either.

That makes for a lot of possible evolutionary paths. If you consider the first step, it could have gone one of a million ways. The second step would be the same except it could build on any one of the million paths possible in the first step. the number of possible alternative paths would therefore be

10^6 x 10^6 = 10^12

I'm going to scale back the number of steps taken for the evolution of the bird wing. The previous estimate was a bit tongue in cheek. Lets say it took 500 steps. If we repeat the tree of outcomes started above a total of 500 times then the number of possible paths is

10^(6x500) = 10^(3,000) evolutionary paths, one of which was the bird wing.

The evolution of the bird wing and the wing of a bat is said to be convergent. It is supposed to have evolved independently. It is true that evolutionary theory requires there to be an outcome in which case the probability is 1. However, considering all the possible paths that evolution could take, the chance of it taking the same path twice is extremely remote. It is easy to estimate the probabality based on these numbers.

There are estimated to be 10^80 atoms in the universe. Imagine a lucky dip containing all the atoms in the universe. What is the chance of selecting a certain atom. That would be 1 in 10^80. The chance of randomly dealing a pack of cards in perfect order is the same as dealing cards in the same sequence twice which was previously calculated as about 1 in 10^67. The chance of the wing evolving twice is 1 in 10^(3, 000). That is the equivalent of dealing 45 packs of shuffled card in a specified order. If we think in terms of atoms in the universe we're saying that it is the same chance as taking a tagged atom from a lucky dip that holds the the equivalent of all the atoms in 38 universes.

That is what is meant by an extremely remote chance. It is so remote that it is impossible.

Edit: 6x500=3000, not 30,000

 

[perplexed]

However, considering all the possible paths that evolution could take, the chance of it taking the same path twice is extremely remote. It is easy to estimate the probabality based on these numbers.

I agree that it is ridiculous that two organisms follow the exact same path over 500 steps. Who actually claims that birds and bats went down the exact same path?

 

[Micaiah]

That they ended up with a phenotype that is substantally the same would suggest this was the case.

 

[yossarian]

a bird wing is nothing like a bat wing except in terms of function

its convergence at the functional level, but not in terms of evolutionary paths to reach that function

bats wings are formed by membranes between the phalanges, in birds wings the phalanges are fused and the wing is formed by feathers that come off the humerus radius and ulna

 

[Jet Black]

That they ended up with a phenotype that is substantally the same would suggest this was the case.

they aren't substantially the same though.

 

[Micaiah]

a bird wing is nothing like a bat wing except in terms of function

its convergence at the functional level, but not in terms of evolutionary paths to reach that function

bats wings are formed by membranes between the phalanges, in birds wings the phalanges are fused and the wing is formed by feathers that come off the humerus radius and ulna

Good to see you all picked up the deliberate mathematical error which I've now corrected.

The answer would be to estimate the percent of genetic difference. Since no one will do that based on past experience, lets say that 100 of the steps are the same. In that case the odds are 10^600 to 1. You can build a lot of universes from that number of atoms.

If you are wondering where the 500 steps comes from, this was an estimate by G. Ledyard Stebbins who was one of the architects of the NDT. He estimated it would take on average 500 steps to form a new species. No one would expect that something like the wing or the eye would form in a single species, so that the number of steps would be significantly higher.

Before we start discussing convergence of organs we can talk about the eye, which is supposed to have developed independently in invertebrates, mollusks, and arthropods. Spetner claims that in 1994 it was unanimously believed by biologists that the eye had evolved independently as many as two or three dozen times. If you have three separate cases of the eye forming independently we end up with a lot more universes of atoms, or decks of cards.

 

[Jet Black]

Since no one will do that based on past experience, lets say that 100 of the steps are the same. In that case the odds are 10^600 to 1. You can build a lot of universes from that number of atoms.

are they though? and are you also assuming that they all have to be in the same order? It seems to me that you are saying that substantial stretches of the genomes coding for these features will be the same, and will have evolved separately. can you show this anywhere?

 

[Micaiah]

Spetner cites Quiring with regard to the eye, stating that it was found there is a striking identity between the gene for control of eye development in both the gene of the insect and the vertebrate. The genes from these two phyla were found to be 94 % identical (1). The author concluded that:

"the traditional view that the vertebrate eye and the compound eye of insects evolved independently has to be reconsidered"

Maybe that is because God created the eyes of both the insect and the vertebrate.

Some of the evolutionists on this forum may like to tell us about the evolution of the human brain, perhaps the most compelx object in the universe.

1. Quiring, R., U. Walldorf, U.Kloter, and W.J. Gehring, (1994) "Homology of the eyeless gene of the Drosophila to the Small eye gene in mice and Aniridia in humans," Science, vol. 265, pp 785-789

Edit: Reference.