Natural Selection or Luck

[notto]

Micaiah,

Again, you are missing the point. You are looking at the probability for a mutation in one specific place and calculating the odds after the fact. The environment dictates what mutations will be beneficial and be carried on. The process does not depend on specific mutations, but rather diverse mutations to be selected on. Similar to the coint tossing example I gave, it depends on a large amount of random outcomes to select from. Mutation causes a large number of random outcomes and solutions to select from and environmental pressure selects the fittest solutions. You are still ignoring the solutions that were NOT selected from your calculations. You are also ignoring the number of attempts and fixing it at 1. This is not an accurate analogy of evolutionary mutation and selection. Many outcomes are possible that would produce benefit in any generation. Many solutions are presented in any generation. Pressure selects the fittest outcome from the many outcomes and solutions. You need to look at the odds of ANY beneficial mutation happening, not a specific one.

In your example of getting coins to line up in a row, what if the outcome that you wanted was to NOT get them to line up. If this was the solution you were looking for, your statistics are meaninless. What are the chances of getting the coins NOT to line up. You are calculating after the fact and looking for a desired outcome that was set in place ahead of time. This is not how natural selection works.

 

[Micaiah]

I was responding to a post in which you use the tossing of coins as an analogy to natural selection. I have shown that in reality the chances of mutations occuring in this way are so low that it is impossible.

 

[Arikay]

are so low that it is impossible.

Um, if they are low, but not non existant, then they are possible.

 

[Gracchus]

Today at 05:57 AM Micaiah said this in Post

#100

The rate of mutations resulting from copying errors in animals is about 1 in every 10 billion (10^-10). This is also the chance of a copying error occuring.

Where did you get this figure?

The chances of multiple mutations of the same nucleotide occuring in a single generation is extemely low.

In a population of say 100 000, the chance of a point mutation occuring in a specific nucleotide in one generation is 100 000 * 10^-10 = 10^-5.

The chance of the same mutation occuring 5 times in a generation is
(10^-5)^5 = 10^-25.

The probability of 10 animals having the same mutation would be 10^-50.

The probability of 1000 animals in one generation with the same mutation would be 10^-5000. or 1 in 10^5000.

A mutation only has to happen once. And point mutations are not the only mutations possible.

I want to investigate the chances of a change to a single nucleotide. These chances remain unaffected for calculation purposes by alternative nucleotide substitutions giving the same phenotypic changes.

This would require observation. You can't just pull numbers out of your hat, especially if it is empty.

How many animals do you think would need to have the same point mutation to be sure that the mutation survives?

You cannot be sure that a mutation will survive. The whole species might be wiped out.

It may be argued that the changes could occur in one animal and then get passed onto subsequent generations.

This is the most likely case.

In that case, the chances would need to include the chance of survival.

What makes you think that the chance of survivable would be calculable? It doesn't have to be.  You seem to think very small chances are "impossible".  I know that it has been pointed out to you before, that the world is full of events that your eccentric calculations would prove "impossible".

 

[Micaiah]

Do you have a better number for the rate of mutations? I understand this is a commonly used rate of mutation for animals.

Look again at the coin tossing analogy given by Notto to show how natural selection works. The analogy assumes there were multiple outcomes the same.

How do you explain the outcomes considered "impossible" occuring more than once.

 

[notto]

22nd March 2003 at 05:34 AM Micaiah said this in Post #70

Here is another example to illustrate. If you had say 3 coins on the floor in a straight line each separated by a distance of 200mm (your turn to convert units), most people would assume that they were positioned in that order by someone (Intelligent design). The chance of getting the coins to line after tossing them in the air would be very unlikely. The chance of getting three mutations in a specific nucleotide in unison is like the example of the coins.

The coin example was yours Micaiah. I simply showed how randomness and selection can select desired outcomes without intelligence. Coin tossing examples are a poor analogy unless they contain the same processes that are involved in discussions of actual evolution.

They need to have numerous random outcomes that can be selected to find a solution. Probability statements are pointless unless you know how many "tries" have been attempted.

You have been focusing on the probability of a specific mutation in an individual. Take your examples and apply them to a stable population of 10,000 individuals for 10,000 generations, and what might seem impossible by your numbers related to an individual becomes very probable of happening to an individual in the population.

How can anyone ever win the lottery? The chance of winning is nearly impossible.

 

[Gracchus]

Today at 06:46 PM Micaiah said this in Post #105

Do you have a better number for the rate of mutations? I understand this is a commonly used rate of mutation for animals.

Please cite. 

Look again at the coin tossing analogy given by Notto to show how natural selection works. The analogy assumes there were multiple outcomes the same.

How do you explain the outcomes considered "impossible" occuring more than once.

Why does a point mutation have to occur more than onced to become fixed? 

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 11:13 AM notto said this in Post #106


The coin example was yours Micaiah. I simply showed how randomness and selection can select desired outcomes without intelligence. Coin tossing examples are a poor analogy unless they contain the same processes that are involved in discussions of actual evolution.

They need to have numerous random outcomes that can be selected to find a solution. Probability statements are pointless unless you know how many "tries" have been attempted.

I agree your example given on tossing coins has flaws as an analogy of evolution. My analogy of coins lining up on the floor includes the element of numerous random outcomes.

You have been focusing on the probability of a specific mutation in an individual. Take your examples and apply them to a stable population of 10,000 individuals for 10,000 generations, and what might seem impossible by your numbers related to an individual becomes very probable of happening to an individual in the population.

If you look at my post above, then you will note that I considered the chances of the same mutation occuring at once in a large population.

How can anyone ever win the lottery? The chance of winning is nearly impossible.

What is the probability of winning the lottery? What is the probability of winning it three times in a row? Would you be suspicious of someone who won it three times in a row?

 

[notto]

Today at 06:24 AM Micaiah said this in Post #108
My analogy of coins lining up on the floor includes the element of numerous random outcomes.

But it is lacking in numerous tries and selection for favored outcomes.

Populations of 100,000 over the course of 5 generations does not statistically represent the scope that is present for mutation to occur. Re-run your statistics on a population of 100,000 for 100,000 generations. What are our chances then? Greatly improved?

There is no need to determine the probability of several individuals from the same generation having the same mutation because this is not necessary for evolution to occur (Unless you would like to elaborate on your reasons for why you think this is important).

There is also no need to determine the probability of multiple beneficial mutations happening to the same individual as this is also not necessary for evolution to occur.

How does the probability of the same person (individual) winning the lottery three times in a row work as an analogy to evolution?

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 12:33 PM Gracchus said this in Post #107

Please cite. 

Why does a point mutation have to occur more than onced to become fixed? 

Are you suggesting that you only ever need one mutation for evolution to procede as theorised. Statistically, mutations would not survive if that were the case.

For evolution to procede as theorised you need to get a string of mutations, and each has to survive. The smaller the number of animals carrying the mutation, the lower the chance of it spreading to the entire population. My question is how many animals must carry a certain mutation in order for the chance of it spreading to the population to be reasonably high.

 

[notto]

Today at 06:50 AM Micaiah said this in Post #110



Are you suggesting that you only ever need one mutation for evolution to procede as theorised. Statistically, mutations would not survive if that were the case.

For evolution to procede as theorised you need to get a string of mutations, and each has to survive. The smaller the number of animals carrying the mutation, the lower the chance of it spreading to the entire population. My question is how many animals must carry a certain mutation in order for the chance of it spreading to the population to be reasonably high.

If a single individual has the mutation, breeds, and passes it to their offspring, and their offspring passes it on, and so on and so on, it only has to happen once to have it increase in the population and become fixed. These offspring can have mutations of their own in addition to the original mutation (traits that are dependent on several mutations can be cummulative. All of the mutations do not need to happen in the same individual at the same time or within the same generation.)

The mathematics of this have already been shown in this thread. You just continue to doubt them or do not understand them and keep trying to come up with something that shows that mutation and natural selection producing population adapted to their environment is impossible based on some weird probability numbers. You are trying different analogies that do not relate to the mechanisms that actually happen in nature (lots of variability, lots of tried, and selection of favored outcomes)

You seem to be arguing that mutation and natural selection producing adaptation of populations to their surroundings does not happen. I thought that creationists accepted that now?

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 08:27 PM notto said this in Post #109



But it is lacking in numerous tries and selection for favored outcomes.

Populations of 100,000 over the course of 5 generations does not statistically represent the scope that is present for mutation to occur. Re-run your statistics on a population of 100,000 for 100,000 generations. What are our chances then? Greatly improved?

It is not hard to extend the analogy to include this.

There is no need to determine the probability of several individuals from the same generation having the same mutation because this is not necessary for evolution to occur (Unless you would like to elaborate on your reasons for why you think this is important).

There is also no need to determine the probability of multiple beneficial mutations happening to the same individual as this is also not necessary for evolution to occur.

My understanding is that evolutionists typicaly assume this to be the case.

How does the probability of the same person (individual) winning the lottery three times in a row work as an analogy to evolution?

Reading this post indicates you recognise my point but don't consider it necessary.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 09:00 PM notto said this in Post #111

If a single individual has the mutation, breeds, and passes it to their offspring, and their offspring passes it on, and so on and so on, it only has to happen once to have it increase in the population and become fixed. These offspring can have mutations of their own in addition to the original mutation (traits that are dependent on several mutations can be cummulative. All of the mutations do not need to happen in the same individual at the same time or within the same generation.)

The mathematics of this have already been shown in this thread. You just continue to doubt them or do not understand them and keep trying to come up with something that shows that mutation and natural selection producing population adapted to their environment is impossible based on some weird probability numbers. You are trying different analogies that do not relate to the mechanisms that actually happen in nature (lots of variability, lots of tried, and selection of favored outcomes)

You seem to be arguing that mutation and natural selection producing adaptation of populations to their surroundings does not happen. I thought that creationists accepted that now?

I responded to an analogy you provided to illustrate how evolution occurs. You have acknowledged it has a flaw. One of the other flaws is the notion that you begin with a number of the same mutations. In reality, that is very unlikely, as you have rightly pointed out. If you look at my post above I did raise the possibility of the scenario of a mutation being passed onto subsequent generations. You must then also consider the chance of survival in the calculation.

Still no estimates on how many of the same mutations you could expect in a population such as the one we're discussing in one generation. Are you saying that you would only ever expect to get one? I would like this question answered before moving on to the other scenario mentioned where you have a mutation being passed onto other generations.

 

[notto]

Today at 07:14 AM Micaiah said this in Post #113


Still no estimates on how many of the same mutations you could expect in a population such as the one we're discussing in one generation. Are you saying that you would only ever expect to get one? I would like this question answered before moving on to the other scenario mentioned where you have a mutation being passed onto other generations.

I am suggesting that you only NEED one. This thread seems to be going in circles. This has already been discussd starting back a few pages.

Now, let us suppose an individual has a mutation that can be passed on to their offspring. This individual has five children. What are the chances that another random mutation will happen in this process that will cause all 5 of the children to lose the mutation.

Be careful Micaiah, or your statistics will begin to work against you. The probability of a mutation being removed from a population through mutation at the time of birth are as high as they are for the mutation to be introduced in the first place (I think, Lucaspa can correct me if I am wrong here). Natural selection is the main mechanism that removes traits from a population and it removes them if they are a liability. Several neutral mutations can accumulate in a population before another mutation makes them all combine for a beneficial trait. The chances of these neutral mutations being removed from the population once they are introduced through only random mutation are staggering.

 

[Micaiah]

I understand copying errors may be corrected in subsequent generations. Of course that reduces the probability of it spreading to the population.

 

[notto]

Today at 08:02 AM Micaiah said this in Post #115

I understand copying errors may be corrected in subsequent generations. Of course that reduces the probability of it spreading to the population.

My understing is that the mutation can be removed from the population if the line carrying it fails to reproduce. I don't think that the mutations are removed from the line itself in subsequent generations. This is what genetic testing and DNA analysis depend on to trace family trees back over many generations. That would only happen again through random mutations (which, as you know, would have to beat tremendously high odds to happen again in the same place to cancel the mutation initial mutation and put it back to what is was in a previous generation)

Maybe someone with more knowledge in the area (hint, hint) can clear this up for us.

 

[Gracchus]

Today at 04:50 AM Micaiah said this in Post

#110
Are you suggesting that you only ever need one mutation for evolution to procede as theorised. Statistically, mutations would not survive if that were the case.

No, what is required is variation in the gene pool that selection can work on. When an interbreeding population is environmentally stressed there may be more than one mutation that would ameliorate that stress. For instance, in an environment that is becoming colder, some might carry a gene for better insulation, hair or feathers; some might carry a gene for more compact body size, providing less surface to volume so that heat lost is less. If it happens that these genes are already scattered through the population then those with the genes would have a better chance of survival. Those with both genes would have the best survival chance of all. Thus the frequency of those genes in the gene pool would tend to increase. If the change was drastic, predator/prey relationships could change, new species could immigrate or old ones could emigrate or become extinct.

For evolution to procede as theorised you need to get a string of mutations, and each has to survive. The smaller the number of animals carrying the mutation, the lower the chance of it spreading to the entire population. My question is how many animals must carry a certain mutation in order for the chance of it spreading to the population to be reasonably high.

I would be a ratio of those with the new phenotype to those without the new phenotype that would be controlling, not the number of occurrences. Of course, in a smaller population there is not only more chance for the favorable mutation to be lost, but a greater chance of extinction. The mathematics involved is very simple in theory, but in the real world the variables are so many that actual calculations may not be feasible. What secondary effects would a changing environment have on predator/prey relationships? A change in seasonal wind patterns might effect the spread of air-borne seeds, which in turn would effect the geographical distribution of species that prey upon species depending on that plant.

Although the mathematics in these cases can explain the theory, the factors involved are chaotic. Thus, trying to quantify predictions of such changes is an exercise in futility. Demanding numbers in such cases is either naïve or disingenuous.

 

[Tawhano]

Here’s something I have always wonder about concerning natural selection that maybe someone here can clarify it for me. I remember watching a documentary about a species of plant (sage?) that only grew on one particular island. This island was where a species of sea turtles go to lay their eggs. The sea turtles would come on shore, exhausted, and eat the plants. The results of this were that the top of the plants would be eaten down to ground level on the entire bed of plants. The plants survive because unlike other similar species their seeds were buried underground. How can this be explained in regards to the theme of this thread?
If evolution takes such a long period of time wouldn’t the species have died out before the mutation of burying its seeds underground took hold and spread throughout the population? Also, was it the plant that decided to bury it’s seeds underground or just a fluke of mutation?

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 12:04 AM notto said this in Post #116



My understing is that the mutation can be removed from the population if the line carrying it fails to reproduce. I don't think that the mutations are removed from the line itself in subsequent generations. This is what genetic testing and DNA analysis depend on to trace family trees back over many generations. That would only happen again through random mutations (which, as you know, would have to beat tremendously high odds to happen again in the same place to cancel the mutation initial mutation and put it back to what is was in a previous generation)

Maybe someone with more knowledge in the area (hint, hint) can clear this up for us.

If the line with the mutation fails to reproduce or dies before being reproduced then it no longer exists in the populations gene pool. That is the most likely case where you have a low number of mutations eg one. In the case I gave way back, there was a 20 % chance of survival. The chance of survival would not be greatly influenced by the advantage of the mutation which was assigned a value of 0.1 %.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 04:51 AM Gracchus said this in Post #117



No, what is required is variation in the gene pool that selection can work on. When an interbreeding population is environmentally stressed there may be more than one mutation that would ameliorate that stress. For instance, in an environment that is becoming colder, some might carry a gene for better insulation, hair or feathers; some might carry a gene for more compact body size, providing less surface to volume so that heat lost is less. If it happens that these genes are already scattered through the population then those with the genes would have a better chance of survival. Those with both genes would have the best survival chance of all. Thus the frequency of those genes in the gene pool would tend to increase. If the change was drastic, predator/prey relationships could change, new species could immigrate or old ones could emigrate or become extinct.



I would be a ratio of those with the new phenotype to those without the new phenotype that would be controlling, not the number of occurrences. Of course, in a smaller population there is not only more chance for the favorable mutation to be lost, but a greater chance of extinction. The mathematics involved is very simple in theory, but in the real world the variables are so many that actual calculations may not be feasible. What secondary effects would a changing environment have on predator/prey relationships? A change in seasonal wind patterns might effect the spread of air-borne seeds, which in turn would effect the geographical distribution of species that prey upon species depending on that plant.

Although the mathematics in these cases can explain the theory, the factors involved are chaotic. Thus, trying to quantify predictions of such changes is an exercise in futility. Demanding numbers in such cases is either naïve or disingenuous.

In the examples you gave, the genes for say height or hairiness considered will exist in certain populations in significant numbers. That is different to the case we are considering where a single copying error occurs. In this case, there may be only one in the entire population.

Incidentally, ratio of animals with a certain gene is calculated from the number of animals with the gene. These are different ways of expressing the same thing mathematically.

For evolution to be true, these copying errors must be able to add new information to the animals DNA, and it must result in a beneficial mutation. The importatnce of these assumptions is seen by considering the theorised evolution from bacteria to human.

The problem is there are no known cases where these two assumptions have been known to occur. I have assumed them correct correct for the purposes of our discussion.

Statistical analysis is carried out in a range of real applications, and the results are used in decision making. I understand that industrial geneticists use calculations to assist in their research.