The Cambrian problem

[lasthero]

I've been kind enough to provide you with several routes

The links you provided showed no evidence of phenotype plasticity. Furthermore, that phenomena is mostly linked to plants, and I can find a single incident where it caused a chance this drastic. Also, plasticity occurs in individuals, not whole populations.

.

All I heard was an unsupported claim.

Can you actually quote where I made that claim?

 

[PsychoSarah]

There is a phenomena called "Phenotypic Plasticity" which is the ability of an organism to change its phenotype in response to changes in the environment. No mutations required. No "new" information has been added. Instead, what has happened is a change in how the genes are expressed.

That has limits. As in, the genes must be present in order to be expressed or turned off. We know for a fact that individual organisms do not have the genetic variety required for evolution observations to all be accounted for that. Most evolutionary observations could not be accounted for by that, especially considering that the majority of species do not have mechanisms by which to have drastic changes via such mechanisms.

That, and we observe mutations in every generation.

 

[-57]

That has limits. As in, the genes must be present in order to be expressed or turned off. We know for a fact that individual organisms do not have the genetic variety required for evolution observations to all be accounted for that. Most evolutionary observations could not be accounted for by that, especially considering that the majority of species do not have mechanisms by which to have drastic changes via such mechanisms.

That, and we observe mutations in every generation.

You said above "That, and we observe mutations in every generation"

I'm looking for a ballpark figure..
What percentage of mutations are considered to enhance the fitness of an organism?
What percentage of mutations would be considered as deleterious?
What percentage would be considered as neutral?

 

[sfs]

You said above "That, and we observe mutations in every generation"

I'm looking for a ballpark figure..
What percentage of mutations are considered to enhance the fitness of an organism?
What percentage of mutations would be considered as deleterious?
What percentage would be considered as neutral?

Same as the last time you asked.

 

[Gracchus]

You said above "That, and we observe mutations in every generation"

I'm looking for a ballpark figure..

If you must have a ballpark figure, go to a ballgame. We all know by this time that you would accept no numbers, no matter how accurate and well supported. For religious folks, no evidence that challenges doctrine or dogma is considered.

What percentage of mutations are considered to enhance the fitness of an organism?
What percentage of mutations would be considered as deleterious?
What percentage would be considered as neutral?

The same mutation might enhance survival chances, or lessen survival chance or have no effect whatsoever depending on environmental conditions.

 

[-57]

Same as the last time you asked.

Your numbers didn't work then...you said, "In humans? Something like 95% neutral, 5% deleterious and beneficial maybe 1 in 100,000 beneficial".

Where did the 1 in 100,000 come from?

 

[-57]

If you must have a ballpark figure, go to a ballgame. We all know by this time that you would accept no numbers, no matter how accurate and well supported. For religious folks, not evidence that challenges doctrine or dogma is considered.
The same mutation might enhance survival chances, or lessen survival chance or have no effect whatsoever depending on environmental conditions.

Judging from your post...your belief in evolutionism is based upon faith.

 

[sfs]

Your numbers didn't work then...you said, "In humans? Something like 95% neutral, 5% deleterious and beneficial maybe 1 in 100,000 beneficial".

What didn't work about them?

Where did the 1 in 100,000 come from?

If you don't know, how do you know the numbers didn't work?

I don't remember exactly what ballpark numbers I used then. Let's see. . . We've found evidence for (very) roughly 1000 selective sweeps in modern human populations. The tests for selection that were used are sensitive to selection occurring in the last ~20,000 years. Call it 800 selective sweeps in 800 generations, representing 800 new beneficial mutations. Most beneficial mutations are lost early, though, so the actual number will be much higher. If the average beneficial mutation has a selective advantage of 0.1%, then approximately 1 in 500 of them will reach high enough frequency to be detected, which gives 500 beneficial mutations per generation. If the human population was two million during this period, and there are 75 new mutations per birth, then that's 1 beneficial mutation out of every 300,000 new mutations -- pretty close to my previous estimate. Since our tests for selection are far from perfect at detecting it, the actual number would be higher.

 

[Gracchus]

Judging from your post...your belief in evolutionism is based upon faith.

So, if you accuse me of faith, faith must be a bad thing?
There is faith based on evidence and reason and then there is faith based on wishful thinking and fear.

By the way, you have shifted the discussion from the subject to me, and I don't think we are supposed to do that.

The subject under discussion is "The Cambrian Problem".

 

[-57]

What didn't work about them?


If you don't know, how do you know the numbers didn't work?

I don't remember exactly what ballpark numbers I used then. Let's see. . . We've found evidence for (very) roughly 1000 selective sweeps in modern human populations. The tests for selection that were used are sensitive to selection occurring in the last ~20,000 years. Call it 800 selective sweeps in 800 generations, representing 800 new beneficial mutations. Most beneficial mutations are lost early, though, so the actual number will be much higher. If the average beneficial mutation has a selective advantage of 0.1%, then approximately 1 in 500 of them will reach high enough frequency to be detected, which gives 500 beneficial mutations per generation. If the human population was two million during this period, and there are 75 new mutations per birth, then that's 1 beneficial mutation out of every 300,000 new mutations -- pretty close to my previous estimate. Since our tests for selection are far from perfect at detecting it, the actual number would be higher.

I think part of your problem is that your numbers are made up of what you think they are with no reference to substantiate them.
Sticking with your numbers.... 1 beneficial mutation out of every 300,000 new mutations...would not be enough to drive the process of evolution. In fact with numbers like those the 300,000 future new mutations would have great odds of overriding any of your high enough frequency to be detected mutations.
Picture this, you shoot at a target with one shot. Call it the beneficial shot. Now shoot at the target again with a shotgun. More than likely one of the shotgun pellets will hit where your beneficial shot first hit.

But for the sake of the argument lets say a beneficial mutation does occur. You do realize a second, third, fourth etc. beneficial mutation MUST occur in the DNA responsible for the morphological change in an evolving species? For instance a mutation to the part of the DNA responsible for making a foot won't effect the nose.

 

[-57]

So, if you accuse me of faith, faith must be a bad thing?
There is faith based on evidence and reason and then there is faith based on wishful thinking and fear.

By the way, you have shifted the discussion from the subject to me, and I don't think we are supposed to do that.

The subject under discussion is "The Cambrian Problem".

I was simply trying to point out you have nothing to support evolutionism....Your concepts are based upon faith.
Secondly, concerning changing the topic towards you....in a previous post you semed to try and change the topic to "religious folks" when you slammed then with the following ... "For religious folks, not evidence that challenges doctrine or dogma is considered".

 

[AV1611VET]

So, if you accuse me of faith, faith must be a bad thing?

It depends on who or what the object of your faith is.

 

[AV1611VET]

-57, just out of curiosity, what does your name mean?

 

[sfs]

I think part of your problem is that your numbers are made up of what you think they are with no reference to substantiate them.

Instead of accusing me of making up numbers, why don't you just ask for references? That seems like a more productive and less hostile approach. I can, in fact, supply references for all of the numbers I gave; are you interested in reading the papers?

Sticking with your numbers.... 1 beneficial mutation out of every 300,000 new mutations...would not be enough to drive the process of evolution.

Why not? That's one per generation with a population of 2 million, or one every 100 generations for the long-term population size for our lineage. That would mean ~2500 beneficial changes fixed in humans since our split with the chimpanzee lineage. (After looking around the literature a little, by the way, I suspect that my number is an underestimate by at least a factor of a few. This leaves out the large contributions from selection on standing variation, much of which would not be detected by the kinds of approaches I'm talking about. My bet would be that there have been more like 10,000 beneficial mutations fixed.)

In fact with numbers like those the 300,000 future new mutations would have great odds of overriding any of your high enough frequency to be detected mutations.

I have no idea what this means in terms of genetics.

Picture this, you shoot at a target with one shot. Call it the beneficial shot. Now shoot at the target again with a shotgun. More than likely one of the shotgun pellets will hit where your beneficial shot first hit.

Evolution is not a shooting match and the genome is not a target. The human genome has 3 billion bases in it. The probability that a new mutation at the same location will undo a beneficial mutation is very, very small.

But for the sake of the argument lets say a beneficial mutation does occur. You do realize a second, third, fourth etc. beneficial mutation MUST occur in the DNA responsible for the morphological change in an evolving species?

No, I don't realize that. Why would you think that? Yes, substantial morphological changes will require multiple beneficial mutations. Why is that a problem?

For instance a mutation to the part of the DNA responsible for making a foot won't effect the nose.

There are multiple problems with this statement, but mostly I just don't see your point. So what?

 

[-57]

Instead of accusing me of making up numbers, why don't you just ask for references? That seems like a more productive and less hostile approach. I can, in fact, supply references for all of the numbers I gave; are you interested in reading the papers?


Why not? That's one per generation with a population of 2 million, or one every 100 generations for the long-term population size for our lineage. That would mean ~2500 beneficial changes fixed in humans since our split with the chimpanzee lineage. (After looking around the literature a little, by the way, I suspect that my number is an underestimate by at least a factor of a few. This leaves out the large contributions from selection on standing variation, much of which would not be detected by the kinds of approaches I'm talking about. My bet would be that there have been more like 10,000 beneficial mutations fixed.)


I have no idea what this means in terms of genetics.


Evolution is not a shooting match and the genome is not a target. The human genome has 3 billion bases in it. The probability that a new mutation at the same location will undo a beneficial mutation is very, very small.


No, I don't realize that. Why would you think that? Yes, substantial morphological changes will require multiple beneficial mutations. Why is that a problem?


There are multiple problems with this statement, but mostly I just don't see your point. So what?

sfs posted in response to me..."Evolution is not a shooting match and the genome is not a target. The human genome has 3 billion bases in it. The probability that a new mutation at the same location will undo a beneficial mutation is very, very small."

I understand evolution isn't a shooting match...it was just an analogy to help you understand.

So, lets consider the second part of your comment. You said the probability that a new mutation at the same location will undo a beneficial mutation is very, very small....so if the chance of one of the 300,000 mutations hitting the location (target) is very very small...you know considering the 3 billion base pairs......what is the chance of a second extremely rare so called beneficial mutation occuring effecting the DNA and adding to the previous morphological change? If you argue 300,000 mutations can't do it how can you argue that a single rare mutation can?

 

[sfs]

I understand evolution isn't a shooting match...it was just an analogy to help you understand.

It was a bad analogy. You really shouldn't be trying to teach me about the genetics of natural selection.

So, lets consider the second part of your comment. You said the probability that a new mutation at the same location will undo a beneficial mutation is very, very small....so if the chance of one of the 300,000 mutations hitting the location (target) is very very small...you know considering the 3 billion base pairs......what is the chance of a second extremely rare so called beneficial mutation occuring effecting the DNA and adding to the previous morphological change? If you argue 300,000 mutations can't do it how can you argue that a single rare mutation can?

Because we're talking about very different probabilities. To undo a beneficial mutation, a back mutation has to occur in exactly the same base, in the one individual carrying it, during the few generations that a single individual has it. (Once it has started to become more common, a single back mutation won't eliminate it.) In the case of a second beneficial mutation, however, it can typically occur in more than one spot in the genome -- sometimes in hundreds or thousands of places, depending on the trait in question. It can occur anytime after the first mutation, not just within a handful of generations. Most importantly, it doesn't have to occur in a single individual. As the first mutation becomes more frequent in the population, thanks to natural selection, there are more and more people in whom the second mutation can occur. If the second mutation doesn't require the first one to be in place, in fact, it can occur in anyone at any time, and the two mutations can later get together thanks to sexual reproduction. With all of those factors in play, the probability of a second beneficial allele occurring for the same trait is typically millions of times more likely than a back mutation that eliminates the first.

Did you really think that scientists wouldn't think of something so obvious as this?

(And they're not "so-called beneficial alleles". They're just beneficial alleles.)

 

[lasthero]

Instead of accusing me of making up numbers, why don't you just ask for references? That seems like a more productive and less hostile approach. I can, in fact, supply references for all of the numbers I gave; are you interested in reading the papers?

It doesn't seem like -57 is - no surprise - but I am, if you could.

 

[ecco]

Do those that have faith in evolutionism realize that when the cambrian fossils are examined it is seen that the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian strata with no ancestral linage leading up to the many different phyla and classes.

In other word, you don't see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.

Instead, as mentioned above, the cambrian geological record contains fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor....the mutations are not show to add up.

The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?

The question becomes:

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there as the T.O.E. predict they should?

Instead, a major problem for evolutionism is recognized. The geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor. The animals found in the cambrian strata are already divided into different phyla and classes.

The bedrock, or the basement strata of rocks don't present descent with modification as the theory of evolutionism calls for. In fact, one could claim that it appears to be pretty much up-side-down.

Are the words in the OP your original writings? I don't see any attribution to indicate you copy and pasted. However I did a quick Google and found this...

Secret of Evolutionism
Author: YEC
Posted: 01/02/2005 04:48 PM

​

Let's look at what is in your OP and what YEC wrote in 2005:

From the OP
The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?

From YEC 2005
The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this and other forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?


From the OP
In other word, you don't see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.

From YEC 2005
In other word, you don�t see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.


From the OP
Instead, a major problem for evolutionism is recognized. The geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor. The animals found in the cambrian strata are already divided into different phyla and classes.

From YEC 2005
Instead, as mentioned above, the geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor. The animals found in the cambrian strata appear suddenly already divided into different phyla and classes.

​

Unless you are YEC your op is blatant plagiarism. Worse yet, it shows you have no ability to convey your own thoughts, if any.

If you are YEC you could have avoided all this by indicating that you were quoting from an earlier posting.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You said above "That, and we observe mutations in every generation"

I'm looking for a ballpark figure..
What percentage of mutations are considered to enhance the fitness of an organism?

It varies from species to species. There is no set percentage of mutations that are beneficial, and the same mutation that is beneficial in one context may be harmful in another, such as the ability to breathe salt water. Useful if the creature lives near and spends a lot of time in salt water, but completely useless or even deadly to one that lives in a desert. Some mutations are a little bit of both, such as the one for sickle cell anemia. It significantly increases resistance to malaria in both homozygotes (people afflicted with the condition) and heterozygotes (rarely affected by the mutation so much as to suffer from it, but still have the benefits of the malaria resistance), but it also produces a potentially deadly condition in people with two copies of the mutated gene. It just so happens that malaria resistance is so beneficial, that the negatives were not a strong enough selection pressure to have it decrease in frequency in the population.

If you want a "ballpark figure" for this stuff, sorry to say, you won't find one. The variation in it is too extensive. What I can tell you is the number of mutations in your DNA that neither of your parents have: between 40-60. Using the estimated number of births per day in 2014, and using the average of 50 independent mutations per person, that's the potential for a whopping 17,650,000 new mutations in the human population PER DAY. Even if only .00001% of those were on genes, that would make a new non-neutral gene occur each day. And humans have a pretty long reproductive cycle, and nothing is special about our mutation rate. That number would be exponentially larger for bacteria, which reproduce far faster and have higher mutation rates than humans. And I am being the least generous I can be without being a parody of criticism. Neutral mutations may dominate, but not to that extent.

BTW, that 70% comes from the pool of mutations affecting actual genes, so it doesn't include mutations on noncoding regions. Yes, many mutations even on coding regions of DNA are neutral.

What percentage of mutations would be considered as deleterious?

Just so you know, deletions are not inherently bad mutations. In fact, I know of at least 2 which were necessary for humans to become as intelligent as they are; one for developing a jaw muscle that would have restricted cranial capacity but made our jaws stronger, and another that regulates brain growth. Both were mixed bags; on the good side, we became that much smarter, and intelligence is highly beneficial to survival. On the bad side, our jaws are weaker than other primates, and we are more prone to brain cancer. Most mutations that affect phenotype are like that.

As for estimates given on an actual percentage, I couldn't find it for humans, but in fruit flies, the percentage of mutations that ended up having a measurably negative impact was 70%. That means 30% are beneficial or neutral. To be blunt, it is neither shocking, nor a problem for evolution, that the majority of mutations aren't beneficial. However, it should be noted that fruit flies don't have as many protective mechanisms against genetic damage as humans do, namely, the degree of redundancy in their genome is less than is seen in humans, and their genome is smaller, making a mutation more likely to occur on a coding portion. As I have mentioned before, how mutations affect species varies from species to species thanks to so many factors that it is impossible to say what percentage of mutations in humans are harmful by using the percentage seen in fruit flies.

What percentage would be considered as neutral?

The majority are, but even if the number of beneficial mutations was abysmally low, less than .000000001%, natural selection and evolution would still apply.

 

[-57]

It was a bad analogy. You really shouldn't be trying to teach me about the genetics of natural selection.


Because we're talking about very different probabilities. To undo a beneficial mutation, a back mutation has to occur in exactly the same base, in the one individual carrying it, during the few generations that a single individual has it. (Once it has started to become more common, a single back mutation won't eliminate it.) In the case of a second beneficial mutation, however, it can typically occur in more than one spot in the genome -- sometimes in hundreds or thousands of places, depending on the trait in question. It can occur anytime after the first mutation, not just within a handful of generations. Most importantly, it doesn't have to occur in a single individual. As the first mutation becomes more frequent in the population, thanks to natural selection, there are more and more people in whom the second mutation can occur. If the second mutation doesn't require the first one to be in place, in fact, it can occur in anyone at any time, and the two mutations can later get together thanks to sexual reproduction. With all of those factors in play, the probability of a second beneficial allele occurring for the same trait is typically millions of times more likely than a back mutation that eliminates the first.

Did you really think that scientists wouldn't think of something so obvious as this?

(And they're not "so-called beneficial alleles". They're just beneficial alleles.)

If a second beneficial mutation can occur in a different place and enhance the fitness of a species most certainly a second harmful mutation...which there are more of... can occur in the same place and harm what is evolving. You should have know that.