Random mutations

[CabVet]

(sfs)…

“And the same scientists then go on to say why the calculation isn't right -- in the same papers you're quoting. Which have been quoted back to you, even in this thread. So it's simply not true that biologists actually think this is the genetic load imposed by this number of deleterious mutations.”

The problem is that the calculation is right but the science is not pointing to common decent. Some scientists not just creationist object to such hand waiving and recognize that such a practice has no place in the science.

“Sanford vigorously objected to the hand-waving in Nachman’s paper and Nachman’s appeals to “synergistic epistasis” to kluge away the problems. “Synergistic epistasis” was essentially a phrase to cover up a serious problem [for example, the Darwinists concocted "abiogenesis" and compartmentalized away a major problem for their theory]. There may be isolated examples of “Synergistic epistasis”, but as a generalized principle and cure-all for the U-paradox, Sanford is highly skeptical.”


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/other-problems-for-human-evolution-nachmans-u-paradox/

Mutation is not the savior of evolution but is the downfall of it.

No, the problem is that the part of the paper that you (and the website you cite) agree with is treated by you (and the website you cite) as evidence, and the part that you (and the website you cite) don't agree with is considered hand waving. On the very same paper. The evidence they have for the first part of the paragraph is about the same as the second, and epistasis is not the only explanation they give for explaining their data.

 

[Zaius137]

(phred)… don’t be a clown.

I respect your opinion…

But the science is observing otherwise…

“On the other hand, hominids of some sort did indeed change into humans. What never happened is we never had people just suddenly, magically appear on the planet. No species just "poofed" into existence. Your U-paradox has been explained and dealt with. I believe you just don't get the answers so... I have to just dismiss your constant use of the item.”

No transitional forms in the fossil record and no molecular mechanism for evolution. Creationist did not discover the “U” paradox science did.

 

[CabVet]

No transitional forms in the fossil record and no molecular mechanism for evolution. Creationist did not discover the “U” paradox science did.

There are transitional forms in the fossil record, for many, many species, and lots of molecular mechanisms to explain evolution. The "U" paradox is a hypothesis being tested, there is evidence for it and (mostly) against it.

 

[Zaius137]

CabVet…

“No, the problem is that the part of the paper that you (and the website you cite) agree with is treated by you (and the website you cite) as evidence, and the part that you (and the website you cite) don't agree with is considered hand waving. On the very same paper. The evidence they have for the first part of the paragraph is about the same as the second, and epistasis is not the only explanation they give for explaining their data.”

I hope we can agree that there is really no scientific explanation of the “U” paradox to date. I brought up the matter to maybe get some perspective on mutations. I can not argue authoritatively with the scientific findings because I am not a scientist but only a student of the science who happens to be a fundamental Christian. That fact should never disqualify me from critical thought.

 

[Zaius137]

There are transitional forms in the fossil record, for many, many species, and lots of molecular mechanisms to explain evolution. The "U" paradox is a hypothesis being tested, there is evidence for it and (mostly) against it.

Good because I need to review them…. So please don’t withhold a quote or two.

 

[Phred]

(phred)… don’t be a clown.

Have you even looked at my avatar?

No transitional forms in the fossil record

You keep saying that but you're wrong. There are transitional forms all over the fossil record. YOU are a transitional form. What there isn't here is your understanding of what you're talking about.

and no molecular mechanism for evolution.

Right... but there's evidence that life forms just popped into existence magically?

Creationist did not discover the “U” paradox science did.

Now you're being purposefully obtuse. There is no "U" paradox. You've made it up. The paragraphs right after the one you quote explain it quite well. And it's been explained to you over and over. Science didn't discover a paradox. You created it by not quoting the entire paper. That's deception. Stop it now.

 

[Phred]

I hope we can agree that there is really no scientific explanation of the “U” paradox to date.

That's because there's no paradox to explain.

I can not argue authoritatively with the scientific findings because I am not a scientist but only a student of the science who happens to be a fundamental Christian. That fact should never disqualify me from critical thought.

Then would you please try it? It's not hard to think about the paragraphs that follow the "paradox" you claim to have found. Being a fundamentalist Christian seems to have disqualified you from reading a paper all the way to the end.

 

[CabVet]

CabVet…

“No, the problem is that the part of the paper that you (and the website you cite) agree with is treated by you (and the website you cite) as evidence, and the part that you (and the website you cite) don't agree with is considered hand waving. On the very same paper. The evidence they have for the first part of the paragraph is about the same as the second, and epistasis is not the only explanation they give for explaining their data.”

I hope we can agree that there is really no scientific explanation of the “U” paradox to date. I brought up the matter to maybe get some perspective on mutations. I can not argue authoritatively with the scientific findings because I am not a scientist but only a student of the science who happens to be a fundamental Christian. That fact should never disqualify me from critical thought.

That is exactly the problem, you say you cannot argue authoritatively because you are not an expert, yet you are dismissing the explanation the authors give for their findings as invalid based on pre-conceived ideas (not evidence) and labeling their conclusions "hand-waving". There is plenty of explanation for the U paradox (if you insist that exists).

1) There are several (different) estimates of U values, you are picking one that happens to be the highest one.

2) The equation that you use for your calculations does not account for soft selection.

3) Most deleterious mutations are not fatal. I will give you one example, scoliosis, hunched backs, they are not pretty, certainly deleterious (as it would cause reduced fitness in our ancestors back in the day), but that doesn't mean that somebody with scoliosis would die.

4) All your calculations tell us is that you need a high fertility rate like that for every female to have at least one offspring completely free of deleterious (non-fatal) mutations. That is not necessary for species survival.

 

[Loudmouth]

No transitional forms in the fossil record and no molecular mechanism for evolution.

Please describe what a transitional fossil should look like, and also tell us why DNA differences between species is not a valid explanation for the differences between species.

 

[sfs]

3) Most deleterious mutations are not fatal. I will give you one example, scoliosis, hunched backs, they are not pretty, certainly deleterious (as it would cause reduced fitness in our ancestors back in the day), but that doesn't mean that somebody with scoliosis would die.

This turns out not to matter, if selection is all hard and there is no epistasis. Mildly deleterious alleles exact less fitness cost per copy, but rise to higher frequency and so contribute equally to the genetic load as highly deleterious ones.

 

[CabVet]

This turns out not to matter, if selection is all hard and there is no epistasis. Mildly deleterious alleles exact less fitness cost per copy, but rise to higher frequency and so contribute equally to the genetic load as highly deleterious ones.

Yes, but raising to higher frequency means they leave offspring, and that goes against the original equation that says that you have to have 40 (or however many that was) offspring to keep the species from going extinct.

Another factor that seems not to be accounted for in this equation is pure Mendelian genetics. Many of us may be carrying deleterious genetic mutations but not expressing them because we are heterozygous.

 

[Naraoia]

Are all mutations under selection? Or is there some mutations that are silent?

Was that question meant as bait? You seem well aware that silent mutations can be under selection...

Yes bacteria by damaging there envelope can give resistance to specific antibiotics but overall fitness has never been increased. If you know of a study concerning fitness to improve overall? Please post it now, I am really trying to locate information for further study on this topic.

You could start at the website of the long-term E. coli experiment...

Here's some fitness data from the first 10 000 generations.

Here's the summary page for genome evolution. Lots of mutations for you to chew on, it would seem.

(BTW, what do you mean by "fitness to improve overall"? It is impossible to be fit in every environment. Fitness is always conditional.)

Also the molecular mechanism as “Mark Kennedy (poster)” mentioned does not exist for evolution. There are a couple of articles I have read that claim a mechanism but they are too complicated and must have evolved themselves so saying they are the mechanism is an equivocation.

The only one saying that "the" mechanism should exist is you. Face it. Reality is complex.

 

[Zaius137]

Was that question meant as bait? You seem well aware that silent mutations can be under selection...

You could start at the website of the long-term E. coli experiment...

Here's some fitness data from the first 10 000 generations.

Here's the summary page for genome evolution. Lots of mutations for you to chew on, it would seem.

(BTW, what do you mean by "fitness to improve overall"? It is impossible to be fit in every environment. Fitness is always conditional.)

The only one saying that "the" mechanism should exist is you. Face it. Reality is complex.

Naraoia… This model does not cover Overall fitness.

"Relative fitness is a dimensionless quantity, which is calculated as the ratio of the growth rate of the derived type to its ancestral competitor during direct competition." (My emphasis)

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/relfit.html

Overall fitness always degrades according to observation. Some temporary advantage may be gained.

 

[Zaius137]

This turns out not to matter, if selection is all hard and there is no epistasis. Mildly deleterious alleles exact less fitness cost per copy, but rise to higher frequency and so contribute equally to the genetic load as highly deleterious ones.

To (sfs)…

Lessening the selective pressure does not help your case against Haldane or ReMine. You want to ease the effects of a high “U” value and avoid paying the needed price for population purification. Sorry but that is just another case of the evolutionist not wanting to face the consequences of there own theory.


If deleterious mutations are not purged immediately they are just carried over and add to the genetic loading. The population cannot undergo purification without purging deleterious mutations no matter what the selective pressure is.

Something I would add about the deleterious effects of silent mutations and it is a hot topic in genetics. Silent Mutations are now being found at the heart of many common diseases. Thousands of genetic diseases have been identified by genetic mutation thought once to be harmless.

 

[Zaius137]

CabVet...

That is exactly the problem, you say you cannot argue authoritatively because you are not an expert, yet you are dismissing the explanation the authors give for their findings as invalid based on pre-conceived ideas (not evidence) and labeling their conclusions "hand-waving". There is plenty of explanation for the U paradox (if you insist that exists).

I did not make up the paradox. I use the same calculations for birthrate as the evolutionary scientist. The authors because they can not account for results that would not support the evolution fairytale they “make up” possible explanations. Hand-Waving if you will.

1) There are several (different) estimates of U values, you are picking one that happens to be the highest one.

I did three separate calculations using all the data and all three results exceeded observed worldwide fertility rates by at least 3 offspring.

2) The equation that you use for your calculations does not account for soft selection.

I believe it does but if it does not, take it up with the evolutionary scientist.

3) Most deleterious mutations are not fatal. I will give you one example, scoliosis, hunched backs, they are not pretty, certainly deleterious (as it would cause reduced fitness in our ancestors back in the day), but that doesn't mean that somebody with scoliosis would die.

Still according to the evolution dogma these mutations need to be purged from the population to “cleanse” it.

 

[CabVet]

I did not make up the paradox. I use the same calculations for birthrate as the evolutionary scientist. The authors because they can not account for results that would not support the evolution fairytale they “make up” possible explanations. Hand-Waving if you will.

No, you are calling part of the paper sound scientific evidence and another part hand-waving. The former happens to be part you agree with, the later the part you don't agree with.

I did three separate calculations using all the data and all three results exceeded observed worldwide fertility rates by at least 3 offspring.

Modern worldwide fertility rate does not apply.

I believe it does but if it does not, take it up with the evolutionary scientist.

Wait, what?

Still according to the evolution dogma these mutations need to be purged from the population to “cleanse” it.

They need, and will be eliminated, in future generations, not the current generation.

Care to address point number 4? And I quote:

4) All your calculations tell us is that you need a high fertility rate like that for every female to have at least one offspring completely free of deleterious (non-fatal) mutations. That is not necessary for species survival.

 

[Zaius137]

Care to address point number 4? And I quote:

You asking me this brings up the question if you understand the dynamic at all.

 

[CabVet]

Come on, don't dismiss my points like that, I am not dismissing yours. Here, read this paper and let me know what you think. Also, the only place where I could find an explanation for the equation you posted is in a creationist website. Here is how they get those numbers:

So, to determine the reproductive impact, let
p = probability an individual's genome does not receive a new defect this generation
A female is required to produce two offspring, one to replace herself and her mate. So, she needs to produce at least 2/p to pay this cost and maintain the population. Let B represent the birth threshold:
B = 2/p
The probability p of an offspring escaping error-free is given by e^-U. Therefore, making the substitution,
B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female!

What I said in my point 4 was that this formula calculated the number of offspring that a female needs to have to produce one that is completely error-free. That's exactly what they say above.

Now, while searching for more information about this I found much more creationist pages than anything else (as expected). And most were just copies from each another, all of them also containing this statement:

Consider then that we humans have a 180,000,000 base pair difference from chimps, about 6% difference. Does one get the sense a problem is lurking somewhere? Let’s assume (very generously) that for every 3 desirable mutations fixed we need to purify out 3 unwanted mutations. For the chimp human divergence we would be dealing with 90,000,000 nucleotides (180,000,000 / 2 ). 90,000,000 /3 = 30,000,000 generations or about 600,000,000 years.

Can you spot the errors in the statement above? Here is the source.

 

[sfs]

Lessening the selective pressure does not help your case against Haldane or ReMine.

Since we are, once again, talking about the deleterious mutation rate and not Haldane's Dilemma, and since the two have next to nothing to do with one another, why do you keep bringing up Haldane? Could you at least try to keep straight the argument you're making?

You want to ease the effects of a high “U” value and avoid paying the needed price for population purification.

Exactly. And soft selection does precisely that -- as noted in that piece of the Nachman and Crowell paper you keep ignoring, and by Wallace who introduced the term soft selection, whom I have quoted to you, and by many others. So let's see how you respond to the quite simple fact that soft selection mitigates genetic load . . .

Sorry but that is just another case of the evolutionist not wanting to face the consequences of there own theory.

So there we have your detailed response: nothing.

If deleterious mutations are not purged immediately they are just carried over and add to the genetic loading. The population cannot undergo purification without purging deleterious mutations no matter what the selective pressure is.

Since that's what I just wrote, I'm not likely to disagree. Deleterious mutations are indeed purged. So what? Try to understand this fact: purging deleterious mutations only imposes a genetic load if the selection is hard.

Something I would add about the deleterious effects of silent mutations and it is a hot topic in genetics. Silent Mutations are now being found at the heart of many common diseases. Thousands of genetic diseases have been identified by genetic mutation thought once to be harmless.

Deleterious silent mutations (including noncoding mutations and synonymous coding mutations) have been known and studied for decades. (Detecting and characterizing disease-causing mutations is a significant chunk of what our research institute does, as it happens.)

 

[sfs]

2) The equation that you use for your calculations does not account for soft selection.

I believe it does but if it does not, take it up with the evolutionary scientist.

What do you mean, take it up with the evolutionary scientist? You've repeatedly seen quotations from evolutionary scientists saying that soft selection changes that relationship, and you've got an evolutionary scientist telling you that again right now. All of the evolutionary scientists are telling you that you're wrong. If you want to make this argument, you're the one who has to take it up with us, and something a little better grounded than "I believe it does" will be required.