How does natural selection determine which mutations remain and which do not?

[tas8831]

How did Jesus design and create the olfactory receptor?

Lay out the means of production , please.

No analogies.

Xianghua?

 

[PsychoSarah]

and what if the chance is about one in 10^30 trials?

I don't even know how you get your probability numbers sometimes. It's not like the 3 billion base pairs in human DNA all spontaneously formed at once. Furthermore, each codon isn't equally likely, each mutation isn't equally likely, and natural selection immensely influences the likelihood of sequences persisting, so your 10^30 is a gross generalization even at best. Not that it even makes sense to try to calculate the probability of something that already happened.

For example, let's say my aunt has 5 sons and no daughters, and is currently pregnant. I don't include the probability of having 5 sons in a row when calculating the probability of her next child being male (which is equally probable to a person's first child being male, about 50%). Her chances of ending up with 6 sons isn't the same as someone that currently has no children having 6 sons in a row, because she's already had 5.

 

[USincognito]

and still this system need at least 3 parts: a OR, a connection to his nervous system and a mechanism that is able to process the signal from the OR. so again; even in it's basic form this system cant evolve stepwise.

What a very odd way of admitting you were wrong about olfactory systems needing at least three parts.

 

[Motherofkittens]

That "randomness results in creatures seemingly designed to survive" is an erroneous conclusion based on the presupposition of randomness as the cause. The evidence based conclusion should be that those creatures that survive can pass on some of the mutations they randomly accumulated (thus the logical conclusion being the exact opposite).

Perhaps we could interrupt it that way, if we had no other evidence. But as I am sure you know, evolution is one of (I actually think it is the number one) theory with the most evidence in favor of it.

Also, although Dawkins and some others are found of saying that natural selection is a "good designer", that actually is one of the few things that are a matter of interpretation. I, and most of the biologists I have read think it doesn't look very designed, and there is no evidence whatsoever that some "conscious entity" had anything to do with it , but if it were, it isn't very well "made".

Obviously if the organism is still alive then it can be said at best the "design" is good enough for it to be currently alive or to have had been alive. But knowing some of our history and our future and the concept of well made, is good enough to be currently alive or to have been alive for a brief time before a good "design"? It is a matter of interpretation, unless of course one thinks an omni three designed it, then that is a resounding NO. I know some think "sin" (and of course what sin is seems to differ among who you talk to) somehow caused this, but then that means the devil and/or sin is more powerful then the omni three or the omni three allowed it. Which both mean then that it cannot be an omni three. And of course, the most important part is, there is absolutley no evidence indicating any of that as based on reality or fact.

 

[DogmaHunter]

and what if the chance is about one in 10^30 trials?

I already explained it in the post you are replying to.

I'll add one more thing: only a probability of zero, means that something is impossible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And what if post hoc statistical analyses are shown to be irrelevant to the outcome of a non-goal oriented stochastic process?

That's an easy one...

You simply ignore that demonstration and then repeat the same question while waving with a bible, obviously.

 

[xianghua]

What a very odd way of admitting you were wrong about olfactory systems needing at least three parts.

the opposite is true, since you still cant falsified this claim. wonder why...

 

[xianghua]

I already explained it in the post you are replying to.

I'll add one more thing: only a probability of zero, means that something is impossible.

so you have no problem to believe in a chance of one in 10^30 or less? fine.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so you have no problem to believe in a chance of one in 10^30 or less? fine.

No, that's not what I said at all.
But I didn't expect intellectual honesty from you anyway, so whatevs.

 

[xianghua]

I don't even know how you get your probability numbers sometimes. It's not like the 3 billion base pairs in human DNA all spontaneously formed at once. Furthermore, each codon isn't equally likely, each mutation isn't equally likely, and natural selection immensely influences the likelihood of sequences persisting, so your 10^30 is a gross generalization even at best. Not that it even makes sense to try to calculate the probability of something that already happened.

For example, let's say my aunt has 5 sons and no daughters, and is currently pregnant. I don't include the probability of having 5 sons in a row when calculating the probability of her next child being male (which is equally probable to a person's first child being male, about 50%). Her chances of ending up with 6 sons isn't the same as someone that currently has no children having 6 sons in a row, because she's already had 5.

i actually refer to the chance of geting 3 functional parts at once (if we indeed need 3 parts at once). as we seen- there is no function for an olfactory receptor by itself. since in science we go by the evidence we have - then we will need to conclude that this olfactory system cant evolve stepwise.

 

[PsychoSarah]

i actually refer to the chance of geting 3 functional parts at once (if we indeed need 3 parts at once).

-_- then how the heck did you get the 10^30 number from that? Furthermore, you are assuming that those genes contributing to the "three functional parts" didn't originate as copies of genes with different functions (a very common way for new genes to arise is through mutation of gene copies). That is, they had a function to begin with, then mutated into having a different function. That is, the 3 functional parts gradually came together, and not necessarily with related functions prior to, say, functioning together for the sense of smell... which is a really basic sense that is merely an extension of every cell's capacity to react to chemicals in the environment. That is, cells related to that sense became more specialized to sensing chemicals in the air rather than necessarily gaining an entirely new function.

as we seen- there is no function for an olfactory receptor by itself. since in science we go by the evidence we have - then we will need to conclude that this olfactory system cant evolve stepwise.

Nope, since organisms as a whole evolve, your contention makes no sense. There is no reason that, say, a proto olfactory receptor couldn't have handled all the necessary functions by itself, albeit not doing as good of a job as a modern one, and the accessory structures came later. Over time, as these structures evolved together, they became more specialized to their roles and eventually demanded each other's presence to function.

 

[pshun2404]

Perhaps we could interrupt it that way, if we had no other evidence. But as I am sure you know, evolution is one of (I actually think it is the number one) theory with the most evidence in favor of it.

Also, although Dawkins and some others are found of saying that natural selection is a "good designer", that actually is one of the few things that are a matter of interpretation. I, and most of the biologists I have read think it doesn't look very designed, and there is no evidence whatsoever that some "conscious entity" had anything to do with it , but if it were, it isn't very well "made".

Obviously if the organism is still alive then it can be said at best the "design" is good enough for it to be currently alive or to have had been alive. But knowing some of our history and our future and the concept of well made, is good enough to be currently alive or to have been alive for a brief time before a good "design"? It is a matter of interpretation, unless of course one thinks an omni three designed it, then that is a resounding NO. I know some think "sin" (and of course what sin is seems to differ among who you talk to) somehow caused this, but then that means the devil and/or sin is more powerful then the omni three or the omni three allowed it. Which both mean then that it cannot be an omni three. And of course, the most important part is, there is absolutley no evidence indicating any of that as based on reality or fact.

Glad "designed" was not the word I used, though likewise there is "absolutely no evidence indicating" it is not.

The INTERPRETATION was in concluding the randomness somehow caused or enhanced the ability to survive...it only actually shows that those that survive pass on their mutations (which is obvious to all)!

 

[xianghua]

-_- then how the heck did you get the 10^30 number from that? Furthermore, you are assuming that those genes contributing to the "three functional parts" didn't originate as copies of genes with different functions (a very common way for new genes to arise is through mutation of gene copies). That is, they had a function to begin with, then mutated into having a different function. That is, the 3 functional parts gradually came together, and not necessarily with related functions prior to, say, functioning together for the sense of smell... which is a really basic sense that is merely an extension of every cell's capacity to react to chemicals in the environment. That is, cells related to that sense became more specialized to sensing chemicals in the air rather than necessarily gaining an entirely new function.


Nope, since organisms as a whole evolve, your contention makes no sense. There is no reason that, say, a proto olfactory receptor couldn't have handled all the necessary functions by itself

again: where is the evidence for that claim? as far as we know many proteins cant function unless we have other proteins working with them:

Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome | Science

so we know that many functions in the cell need at least several proteins to their minimal function.

we also know it from knock out experiments.

 

[PsychoSarah]

again: where is the evidence for that claim? as far as we know many proteins cant function unless we have other proteins working with them:

Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome | Science

The evidence for my claim that structures and genes develop co-dependence over time rather than always start out with it, as well as the fact that new genes can arise from mutations on copies of old ones, is that we observe that happening on a regular basis. For example, there are organisms with circulatory systems that don't have hearts, have very simple hearts, and so on and so forth. Additionally, many genes with different functions are in positions that copies of other genes are in within other organisms, and they have nearly identical sequences to the genes from which they arose. This is the relationship between myoglobin and hemoglobin. They both bind to oxygen and have very similar gene sequences, but the differences in their sequences result in proteins with different properties. Most notably, that myoglobin binds more strongly to oxygen than hemoglobin does, making it more suitable for oxygen storage than oxygen transport.

so we know that many functions in the cell need at least several proteins to their minimal function.

we also know it from knock out experiments.

Knock out experiments? The issue with that is that it doesn't account for how the individual genes could have changed over time. As I said, these things evolved together, so it would be erroneous to assume that any given gene within a system of codependent genes automatically had to have stayed the same throughout the entire history of those systems. That is, you can only confirm their modern co-dependence, not establish that they have always been.

 

[USincognito]

the opposite is true, since you still cant falsified this claim. wonder why...

Uhhh, I did. Your claim is that olfactory systems need a brain, but they exist in beings that don't have brains.

 

[xianghua]

Uhhh, I did. Your claim is that olfactory systems need a brain

incorrect. i said that it need a part in the brain the can process the signal from the olfactory receptor. it doesnt necessarily need to be a part in a brain but any part that can process the signal. also: many new olfactory receptor indeed evolved (according to evolution) in animal after they already had olfactory system. and in this case they indeed may need a new part in the brain for some new sense of smell.

 

[xianghua]

Additionally, many genes with different functions are in positions that copies of other genes are in within other organisms, and they have nearly identical sequences to the genes from which they arose.

actually some globins suppose to evolve via convnergent evolution since they arent orthologous. also the phylogeny of some globins is a bit complex and involve convergent loss. so it not simple as you may think.

That is, you can only confirm their modern co-dependence, not establish that they have always been.

true. and again: in science we go by the evidence we have.

 

[PsychoSarah]

actually some globins suppose to evolve via convnergent evolution since they arent orthologous. also the phylogeny of some globins is a bit complex and involve convergent loss. so it not simple as you may think.

I was simply giving an example of 1 way new genes can develop. I never said it was the only way, and I am not sure what the point of your nitpicking is.

true. and again: in science we go by the evidence we have.

If you agree with me, then drop the assertion that the only way sensory structures work is if all the components of them currently were always present together, and have no means by which they could have developed without all spontaneously appearing at the same time.

 

[xianghua]

If you agree with me, then drop the assertion that the only way sensory structures work is if all the components of them currently were always present together, and have no means by which they could have developed without all spontaneously appearing at the same time.

i said true for your first conclusion. it doesnt necessarily mean that there is a possible way for such a system to evolve.

 

[PsychoSarah]

i said true for your first conclusion. it doesnt necessarily mean that there is a possible way for such a system to evolve.

I literally outlined it. In your example of a system that demands 3 structures to be present currently, there are at least 2 different ways I can think of by which they could have developed that has precedent:
1. One of the structures arose by itself, and maintained the function as recognized currently, albeit it wasn't nearly as good at it, and the other two originated as beneficial but not necessary accessory structures. Over time, as they all became more specialized, the former accessory structures became an absolutely necessary part of the system. I already mentioned this one in a previous post.
2. All the structures had different original functions, and the currently recognized primary function was originally a secondary function of these structures that became more developed over time. After all, structures can have more than one function at a time.