This does not seem to be a recent phenomenon. I believe it was Ambrose Bierce, in the 1800s, who said "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography".
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I also read a study the other day about how few high school seniors could find their own country on a map, truly sad.
This does not seem to be a recent phenomenon. I believe it was Ambrose Bierce, in the 1800s, who said "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography".
On the contrary, I would think the findings you describe actually make evolution far more plausible, not less. When we thought the genome contained a lot of junk DNA, this also meant that many mutations were considered to be neutral or slightly deleterious mutations.
However, if those findings are right and the genotype affects the phenotype a lot more than we used to think, then that means that there are a whole lot more beneficial (and deleterious) mutations than we once thought there were (since now, any change anywhere has some effect). Furthermore, since mutations happen simultaneously across the genome, there is much more chance for synergistic effects to occur (again, since any change anywhere has some effect, which would interact with the effects of other changes elsewhere).
Actually, if you look at the probability (statistics), for each level of complexity, the probability of evolution decreases. That is because when you have two percentages, you have to multiply them. So, if you have two items, yes, a correct mutation for both would be a boondoggle for evolution, however, the probability of this happening goes down significantly. It approaches statistical impossibility (10 to the -50th). And each mutation that occurs is another level of statistics. Another set of percentages to multiply, and in just two generations, you have already well surpassed statistical impossibility. And, this is supposed to have gone on for billions of years.
One thing with genotype is that it takes significant changes in genotype to affect phenotype, since the typical gene is 1000 nucleotides long. We're not talking about slight changes in color or protein function. We're talking about turning a fish into a land-breathing animal. That would require billions and billions of mutations to occur on top of each other in just the right way to not kill the creature. And each of these mutations would have to work in multiple pathways, not just one. So, the stats just keep getting worse. The statistics are staggering.
As gluadys has pointed out, you should not simply be multiplying the probabilities, at least if you want to calculate anything interesting. Consider that, by your logic, it would also be impossible for me to be here. I have roughly 100 new mutations (compared to my parents). The probability of my getting exactly those 100 mutations, out of the 6 billion bases that could have mutated, is staggeringly small (something less than 10^-700, I believe). In other words, the probability of getting to any particular genome by mutation is extremely small. Since these low-probability events actually happen all the time, the fact that a particular set of mutations is improbable doesn't tell you anything about whether it has happened.Actually, if you look at the probability (statistics), for each level of complexity, the probability of evolution decreases. That is because when you have two percentages, you have to multiply them. So, if you have two items, yes, a correct mutation for both would be a boondoggle for evolution, however, the probability of this happening goes down significantly. It approaches statistical impossibility (10 to the -50th). And each mutation that occurs is another level of statistics. Another set of percentages to multiply, and in just two generations, you have already well surpassed statistical impossibility. And, this is supposed to have gone on for billions of years.
Actually, turning a fish into a land animal is indeed largely a matter of slight changes in protein function and timing. The basic cellular machinery and the body plan is the same for both, and most organs are quite similar.One thing with genotype is that it takes significant changes in genotype to affect phenotype, since the typical gene is 1000 nucleotides long. We're not talking about slight changes in color or protein function. We're talking about turning a fish into a land-breathing animal.
Where on earth did you get that number? That would mean that there have been ~250,000 changes in every gene in the genome, which is ridiculous. Even if you include regulatory regions, you're requiring every base in every gene to have changed 50 times over.That would require billions and billions of mutations to occur on top of each other in just the right way to not kill the creature.
If they thought so, they were massively incompetent at implementing the idea; in the TIMSS study, comparing the math and science achievement of 8th grade science students in about 40 nations around the world, the US came out better than most of them.The State of Ohio commissioned a study to determine what happened to our educatiuion system. The study found damning evidence in the papers of the AEA that that they decided to reduce the quality of education in the United States for the stated reason that "a less educated population can more easily be persuaded to accept socialism."
In other words, he won states where educational achievement was relatively low, or where it was relatively high. And he won in states where it was mediocre, too. There's a good reason for this, and you could figure it out, if you thought about it.And it worked. If you don't believe it, check out the last election. On a county-by-county basis, Obama won in all the areas with unusually low levels of educational achievement. Aside from these areas, essentially the only areas he won were the areas containing unusually high percentages of extreme liberals.
Well, the statistics are not nearly as bad as that when you remember that populations evolve, not individuals. The figures you are referring to assume that all the various mutations would have to happen to a single gene in a single individual (or at best in two individuals who mated and passed them all onto their descendants.)
But to start with we have a population and every member of the population carries at least one and often two copies of each gene.
So perhaps there is a million to one chance of mutation A occurring in one gene, and a million to one chance of mutation B occurring in one gene. It looks like the chances of getting both are 1 in 10^12.
But you have a population of two million and it is a species with diploid cells, so that gives us a population of 4 million genes even if we only look at one germ cell per individual. So in one generation you likely have 4 individuals with mutation A and four with mutation B. And this will occur again the next generation and the next and the one after that, as long as the population stays in the 2 million range.
Now, lets suppose that mutation A is very slightly beneficial and mutation B is neutral but the combination A+B is very beneficial. Well, over a few generations almost everyone in the population will have mutation A. So now you just have to have someone who already has mutation A to acquire mutation B (something that is already happening about 4 times each generation) and voila. No need to multiply 1 million by 1 million to get the combination A+B when you have a little natural selection working on your side. And since the combination A+B is very beneficial, almost all the population will soon have it, and be ready for mutation C to turn up.
The problem is that mutations do not occur in major species in populations.
The idea that population genetics applies directly to standard evolution is a huge logical fallacy that haunts evolutionary biology.
A few items can be gleened from population genetics, though. The majority of mutations are deleterious and make an organism less fit than its parent.
This is stated plainly by population American has an article reflecting this. Natural selection must wade through a multitude of bad mutations to find the rare good one (all clearly stated and again swept under the rug by population geneticists).
As gluadys has pointed out, you should not simply be multiplying the probabilities, at least if you want to calculate anything interesting. Consider that, by your logic, it would also be impossible for me to be here. I have roughly 100 new mutations (compared to my parents). The probability of my getting exactly those 100 mutations, out of the 6 billion bases that could have mutated, is staggeringly small (something less than 10^-700, I believe). In other words, the probability of getting to any particular genome by mutation is extremely small. Since these low-probability events actually happen all the time, the fact that a particular set of mutations is improbable doesn't tell you anything about whether it has happened.
A better way of looking at the question is to consider the probability that a species will change, rather than whether it will change into something specific. After all, evolutionary theory does not propose that fish were attempting to evolve into air-breathing land animals. What it proposes is that fish kept changing, and that some of those changes were beneficial, and that some of those beneficial changes happened to involve the gradual development of limbs and lungs.
The probability of change happening to a species is high. For a reasonably sized population, every gene in the genome will experience something like four mutations each and every generation. If there are any beneficial changes possible, they are quite likely to be hit upon by mutation.
The fact is, the rate of long-term morphological change in the fossil record is many orders of magnitude smaller than the observed rate caused by natural selection under changing environmental conditions. To the extent that we can tell, evolution by mutation and natural selection is entirely plausible.
Actually, turning a fish into a land animal is indeed largely a matter of slight changes in protein function and timing. The basic cellular machinery and the body plan is the same for both, and most organs are quite similar.
Where on earth did you get that number? That would mean that there have been ~250,000 changes in every gene in the genome, which is ridiculous. Even if you include regulatory regions, you're requiring every base in every gene to have changed 50 times over.
The genome of a minor organism is much less complex than a complex organism.
While the differences in species is primarily protein based, there is a massive amount of genetic material that must be created by natural selection.
A bacterias genome is between 1 to 4 million nucleotides. However, the genome of a sea urchin is 840 million. The canine genome is 2.4 billion and the human genome is 3.3 billion. While these are not all in the same linear tree, they reflect the amount of genetic material that resides in minor and major species, and the massive amount of data that has to be created at random via mutations and natural selection.
So, the statistics are staggeringly bad for evolution. If statistical zero is 10 to the -50th, evolution's chances of creating the diverse range of life that has existed on earth is 10 to the -500000000000th. (This is a significantly conservative estimate.)
The problem is that mutations do not occur in major species in populations. In bacteria, they involve massive populations, but not outside of the bacterial medium. A mutation must occur in one individual, and be passed on to offspring.
The idea that population genetics applies directly to standard evolution is a huge logical fallacy that haunts evolutionary biology.
A few items can be gleened from population genetics, though. The majority of mutations are deleterious and make an organism less fit than its parent. This is stated plainly by population American has an article reflecting this.
Natural selection must wade through a multitude of bad mutations to find the rare good one (all clearly stated and again swept under the rug by population geneticists).
I'm afraid this sentence makes very little sense. Population genetics is the mathematical description of standard evolution. Applying to standard evolution is all population genetics does.The idea that population genetics applies directly to standard evolution is a huge logical fallacy that haunts evolutionary biology.
That's the right order of magnitude for bacteria, but too low by a factor of ten or so for mammals. (Kimura is more than merely a published geneticist, by the way. I'm a published geneticist; Kimura was a great geneticist, probably the most important population geneticist of the last fifty years.)Kimura (peer reviewed published geneticist) states nucleotides have a 1 in 1 billion chance of mutating.
That number is inconsistent with your previous one. The mutation rate in humans is about 20 mutations per billion base pairs. With 3 billion base pairs in a gamete, that makes for 60 mutations. For bacteria, which have much smaller genomes and lower mutation rates, the number of mutations is even smaller.The average mutation rate per gamete is 300 to 600 nucleotides.
The majority of mutations in bacteria may be deleterious, since they are highly optimized by selection and have compact genomes, with little nonfunctional DNA. The statement is certainly wrong for more complex organisms, which is what you were talking about (fish to land animals, right?). A large fraction of most genomes (~95% in humans) have no function, and mutations in that fraction have no effect. Even within functional regions, most mutations have no effect. When mutations do have an effect on the functioning of the organism, then yes, most are deleterious.The majority of mutations are deleterious.
The majority of that vast amount of genetic data is meaningless noise, and has little or no interaction with natural selection. Most of it is the result of transposable genetic elements copying themselves over and over in the genome.The genome of a minor organism is much less complex than a complex organism. While the differences in species is primarily protein based, there is a massive amount of genetic material that must be created by natural selection. A bacterias genome is between 1 to 4 million nucleotides. However, the genome of a sea urchin is 840 million. The canine genome is 2.4 billion and the human genome is 3.3 billion. While these are not all in the same linear tree, they reflect the amount of genetic material that resides in minor and major species, and the massive amount of data that has to be created at random via mutations and natural selection.
Your argument sounds reasonable on a state-by-state basis. But when examined on a county-by-county basis, what I said becomes exceedingly obvious. He won in all large cities where educational performance is well known to be exceedingly low, and aside from these, he won very few counties except in radically leftist areas.In other words, he won states where educational achievement was relatively low, or where it was relatively high. And he won in states where it was mediocre, too. There's a good reason for this, and you could figure it out, if you thought about it.
Here's a list of states, ordered by educational achievement:
http://www.statestats.com/edrank.htm
Looks a bit top-heavy on blue.
Your argument sounds reasonable on a state-by-state basis. But when examined on a county-by-county basis, what I said becomes exceedingly obvious. He won in all large cities where educational performance is well known to be exceedingly low, and aside from these, he won very few counties except in radically leftist areas.
I run into a lot of creationist (mostly young earth) who has a real warped view on what "evolution" is. Most of the YEC's I encounter hold a very "Hovindistic" definition of the word "evolution". To them "evolution" means "everything explained without God", that includes everything from elements being formed in stars to abiogenesis to cosmology. In reality the theory of evolution is simply a mechanism used to describe the complexity of life on earth. It has nothing to do with where life came from (abiogenesis) or the creation of the universe (cosmology).
Why do so many creationist get this definition wrong?
I do believe in Micro Evolution meaning small changes with in a species, but I reject macro evolution meaning the change of a species into another whole kind of new species.
And this is from reading both sides of arguments and finding out which side provides suffecient eveidence, as well as viewing the evidences through biblical world view.
I run into a lot of creationist (mostly young earth) who has a real warped view on what "evolution" is. Most of the YEC's I encounter hold a very "Hovindistic" definition of the word "evolution". To them "evolution" means "everything explained without God", that includes everything from elements being formed in stars to abiogenesis to cosmology. In reality the theory of evolution is simply a mechanism used to describe the complexity of life on earth. It has nothing to do with where life came from (abiogenesis) or the creation of the universe (cosmology).
Why do so many creationist get this definition wrong?
Your argument sounds reasonable on a state-by-state basis.
But when examined on a county-by-county basis, what I said becomes exceedingly obvious.
You have entirely missed the central point of what I said. I never intended to even hint at the idea that hese species never existed. I rather pointed out that the half dozen or a dozen intermediate forms that are claimed by evolutioniste to demonstrate human evolution are less than a thousandth of a percent of the intermediate forms that would have to have existed if man indeed evolved from an ape-like creature.
I will not address the rest of what you said at this time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?