B
buffalo
Guest
But, there are arguments that environmental pressures lead to mutations that result in speciation. Aren’t the odds high there too?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
rossum
Guest
Envoronmental pressures do not “lead to” mutations as the Luria-Delbrück experiment showed. What environmental pressure can do is to increase the distance between the organism’s current genome and its current environment. That increased distance allows space for more mutations to be beneficial and hence to be enhanced by natural selection. The underlying mutation rate is not affected by environmental pressures.But, there are arguments that environmental pressures lead to mutations that result in speciation.
No. A beneficial mutation is increased in frequency by natural selection because on average it leaves more copies in the next generation. The process is a bit like compound interest. As an example, take a stable population; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have 1.01 descendants in the next generation. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:Aren’t the odds high there too?
Code:
Generation Normal Mutant
---------- ------ --------
0 1.00 1.00
1 1.00 1.01
10 1.00 1.10
100 1.00 2.70
500 1.00 144.77
700 1.00 1059.16
1000 1.00 20959.16This is a very simple model, but it is enough to show the advantage a beneficial mutation has and how over many generations it can spread through a population. Thus a beneficial mutation only needs to happen once rather than to happen simultaneously in many different individuals as with your gamma ray shower.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
What causes the mutation then?Envoronmental pressures do not “lead to” mutations as the Luria-Delbrück experiment showed. What environmental pressure can do is to increase the distance between the organism’s current genome and its current environment. That increased distance allows space for more mutations to be beneficial and hence to be enhanced by natural selection. The underlying mutation rate is not affected by environmental pressures.
No. A beneficial mutation is increased in frequency by natural selection because on average it leaves more copies in the next generation. The process is a bit like compound interest. As an example, take a stable population; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have 1.01 descendants in the next generation. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:
You can see how the small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the mutant variant spreads through the population.Code:Generation Normal Mutant ---------- ------ -------- 0 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.01 10 1.00 1.10 100 1.00 2.70 500 1.00 144.77 700 1.00 1059.16 1000 1.00 20959.16
This is a very simple model, but it is enough to show the advantage a beneficial mutation has and how over many generations it can spread through a population. Thus a beneficial mutation only needs to happen once rather than to happen simultaneously in many different individuals as with your gamma ray shower.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
There are many causes of mutations: copying errors, certain chemicals, ionizing radiation, failures in error-correction mechanisms, retrovirus insertion, whole or partial gene duplication, exon shuffling and others.What causes the mutation then?
The phrase “random mutation” is shorthand for “mutations that are random with respect to their effect on the phenotype”; it is not a synonym for “uncaused mutation”.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
So is it possible that a gamma ray burst could mutate the same gene in us and an ape? Yes or no.There are many causes of mutations: copying errors, certain chemicals, ionizing radiation, failures in error-correction mechanisms, retrovirus insertion, whole or partial gene duplication, exon shuffling and others.
The phrase “random mutation” is shorthand for “mutations that are random with respect to their effect on the phenotype”; it is not a synonym for “uncaused mutation”.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
In practical terms no. It is well outside Dembski’s Universal Probability Bound.So is it possible that a gamma ray burst could mutate the same gene in us and an ape? Yes or no.
It is a lower probability than all Bibles having exactly the same misprint in them.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Dembski? I am surprised you give him the time of day. Cool.In practical terms no. It is well outside Dembski’s Universal Probability Bound.
It is a lower probability than all Bibles having exactly the same misprint in them.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
R
rusty20
Guest
What about the probablity of the formation of the first one-celled organism? The probability of an amino acid randomly forming from the required pieces? I would guess (from what I’ve heard on the subject) that their probabilities are equally unlikely.In practical terms no. It is well outside Dembski’s Universal Probability Bound.
It is a lower probability than all Bibles having exactly the same misprint in them.
rossum
I find it rather ridiculous to believe that a one celled living organism formed (with an incredibly complex DNA structure) randomly, with no intelligence involved.
Is there a source for probabilities relating to evolutionary theory?
EDIT:
The ability of complex structures to form by naturalistic processes is essential for the evolution model to work. However, the complexity of life appears to preclude this from happening. According to the laws of probability, if the chance of an event occurring is smaller than 1 in 10-50, then the event will never occur (this is equal to 1 divided by 1050 and is a very small number).19
What have scientists calculated the probability to be of an average- size protein occurring naturally? Walter Bradley, Ph.D. materials science, and Charles Thaxton, Ph.D. chemistry,5 calculated that the probability of amino acids forming into a protein is
4.9 x 10-191.
This is well beyond the laws of probability (1x10-50), and a protein is not even close to becoming a complete living cell. Sir Fred Hoyle, Ph.D. astronomy, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied Math and Astronomy, calculated that the probability of getting a cell by naturalistic processes is
1 x 10-40,000.
R
rossum
Guest
Nobody knows, and that includes creationists. We do not know what the very first living organism looked like, nor exactly how simple it was. We can be reasonably sure that it was simpler than anything alive today (except possibly viruses).What about the probablity of the formation of the first one-celled organism?
Abiogenesis is still developing hypotheses as to how life originally arose: see RNA world and Spiegelman Monster for some of what is going on.
Until we have a reasonably solid model of what happened it is not possible to say what the probability of it happening was.
Beware of probability calculations that use random combinations of chemicals. Chemistry is not random. If you mix oxygen and hydrogen atoms you do not get random combinations, you get H[sub]2[/sub]O. A random probabilitty calculation would not give you the right result.
The probability of the amino acid forming is 100% because amino acids are simple chemicals and form using the rules of chemistry. You may be thinking of the probability of a chain of amino acids forming to make a protein. That is governed by the sequence of RNA that is used to build the protein, and it close to 100%. The real problem is how to get the RNA sequence that we start from. That is still being worked on.The probability of an amino acid randomly forming from the required pieces?
Since there is no model to work from, any probability calculation has to be based on a very uncertain model and hence any result will be equally uncertain - GIGO.I would guess (from what I’ve heard on the subject) that their probabilities are equally unlikely.
Here is what I mean about models. Your model includes DNA. That is probably wrong, because the earliest living organisms probably did not use DNA, but RNA instead. If your model is wrong then the probability you derive from it is wrong.I find it rather ridiculous to believe that a one celled living organism formed (with an incredibly complex DNA structure) randomly, with no intelligence involved.
For example, if I use an incorrect model for the origin of God, I can “prove” that God is unlikely to exist:God is complex, but how complex? This question is dependent on how much information God contains. God is omniscient, knowing everything; a very large amount of information indeed. However we can put a lower limit on the information contained in God. Given that God inspired the Bible, the minimum amount of information is the amount contained in the Bible. God knows more than is in the Bible; knowing less is not possible.
Looking at one of my Bibles, I find that it has about 30 characters per line, 56 lines in a column and two columns per page. The Old Testament contains 840 pages and the New Testament 240 pages. A total of 1080 pages. This is 30 x 56 x 2 x 1080 = 3628800 characters. For simplicity let us take the number of possible characters as 30, 26 letters plus space and some punctuation. Therefore by the standard probability argument the likelihood of the Bible having arisen by chance is 1 in 30 ^ 3628800. Remember that this is an upper bound, God is less probable than this because He contains more information than is in the Bible.
Working out the numbers, 1 in 30 ^ 3628800 is a probability of 1.8 x 10 ^ -3628942.
Because this uses an incorrect model for the origin of God the numbers the model produces are worthless.
If you are talking about the origin of life then you need to look up ‘abiogenesis’ rather than ‘evolution’. Evolution deals with what happens after life gets started. As I said, abiogenesis research has not progressed far enough to allow us to set up detailed models which means we cannot make any reliable probability calculations.Is there a source for probabilities relating to evolutionary theory?
For a very simple example of the calcualtion of evolutionary probabilities, that is by random mutation and natural selection, see my piece on The Evolution of Boojumase. One thing I have noticed about many probability calculations produced by creationists is that they correctly model random mutation, but they fail to include the effects of natural selection. Any model of evolution that fails to include natural selection is faulty.
rossum
M
melbourne_guy
Guest
Evolution tells use that intelligence has to evolve from something lesser i.e Single cell ==> fish ==>reptile==>common ancestor==> intelligent human. I dont understand the concept
of God, this extreme form of intelligence just popping out of existence from nothing.
of God, this extreme form of intelligence just popping out of existence from nothing.
R
richardwy
Guest
I love this from the Tridentine Catechism:
The above speaks volumes to my soul. My heart rejoices. Can’t help but be joyfully awed by God.
- God formed the world not from materials of any sort, but created it from nothing, and that not by constraint or necessity, but spontaneously, and of His own free will. Nor was He impelled to create by any other cause than a desire to communicate His goodness to creatures. Being essentially happy in Himself He stands not in need of anything, as David expresses it: I have said to the Lord, thou art my God, for thou hast no need of my goods.
The above speaks volumes to my soul. My heart rejoices. Can’t help but be joyfully awed by God.
T
Thing
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)Unlikely. We share an identical error in the GULO gene (part of the vitamin-C synthesis system) with other apes and old-world monkeys.
rossum
Alas, the GULOP is not identical, to my eyes at least.
R
reggieM
Guest
God *is *existence and did not pop out of existence.I dont understand the concept
of God, this extreme form of intelligence just popping out of existence from nothing.
R
rusty20
Guest
But how far back do you go? Where did the first living organism, which logically would be a one-celled organism, originate from? If evolutionary theory is correct, then there had to be a beginning of life. It rests on random mutation and natural selection. Are we to believe that billions of years ago, life simply originated in a sea of chemicals, randomly? I know scientists are “still figuring this out” and its “only a matter of time before they get it right.” But this sounds like the same probability that if you throw tons of metal in a barn and come back in 1 million years, there’d be a 747 in the barn.Evolution tells use that intelligence has to evolve from something lesser i.e Single cell ==> fish ==>reptile==>common ancestor==> intelligent human. I dont understand the concept
of God, this extreme form of intelligence just popping out of existence from nothing.
Evolution just doesn’t make sense to me. I believe in adaptation and natural selection. And I understand small mutations which can adapt us to our environment (longer hair, darker skin, etc.). But the theory of evolution expands this to account for all creatures on Earth. There still remains no credible theory of how life began, as the probabilities of such theories are so incredibly small they are irrelevant.
R
ricmat
Guest
Your statement above intrigues me.One thing I have noticed about many probability calculations produced by creationists is that they correctly model random mutation, but they fail to include the effects of natural selection. Any model of evolution that fails to include natural selection is faulty.
rossum
Failing to include natural selection - it seems to me that failing to include natural selection actually changes the odds in your favor.
Once an advantageous random mutation takes place, there is still some chance that it will be killed off (natural selection) before it has time to propagate. If this is left out of the calculation, it is to your advantage since all advantageous mutations would be assumed to propagate. With natural selection in the mix, this cannot be assured and you might have to wait a long long time for that same random successful mutation to occur again.
So yes, the model would be faulty as you state, but to your advantage. If even then, the probabilities are not in your favor, it will only get worse when natural selection is included.
R
ricmat
Guest
Exactly - that is the revelation to Moses of “I AM.” The very essence of God is existence.God *is *existence and did not pop out of existence.
R
rossum
Guest
The theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of the first living organism. It only deals with the development of that initial organism into the immense variety we see around us today. To quote from “On the Origin of Species”:There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.But how far back do you go? Where did the first living organism, which logically would be a one-celled organism, originate from?
Origin, 6th edition, [Emphasis added]
Darwin was happy to assign the origin of life to God, even down to the use of the word “breathed”. Evolution deals with the development from the “simple” beginning to the “endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful” that surround us today.
There is a separate group of hypotheses (not yet a theory) dealing with the origin of life which are called abiogenesis.
Correct.If evolutionary theory is correct, then there had to be a beginning of life.
No. If there was no life then there could not have been natural selection since natural selection requires a living, reproducing population. That is why abiogenesis is separate from evolution; their mechanisms are different.It rests on random mutation and natural selection.
No, there was a sea of chemicals but they interacted according to the laws of chemistry. If you mix oxygen and hydrogen atoms then the result is determined by the laws of chemistry, not randomly. Abiogenesis is the study of some very complex chemistry.Are we to believe that billions of years ago, life simply originated in a sea of chemicals, randomly?
You can only calculate probabilities if you have a model. So far there is no well defined model for abiogenesis (you are right to say that scientists are still working on it), and without a well defined model it is impossible to do any useful probability calculations. GIGO.There still remains no credible theory of how life began, as the probabilities of such theories are so incredibly small they are irrelevant.
In passing I would mention that creationists also have no real answer to the question of the origin of life. I suggest you read Psalm 42:2 before giving me the answer that you first think of; that answer is not correct.
rossum
R
rusty20
Guest
The theory of evolution presupposes a one-celled or extremely simple lifeform as the beginning of life in the universe. Where does this life-form come from? Scientifically, there is no explanation. Is that what you are saying? If so, IMO that takes credibility away from evolutionary theory. If your presupposition is invalid, then your theory is invalid, or at the very least, highly questionable…The theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of the first living organism. It only deals with the development of that initial organism into the immense variety we see around us today. To quote from “On the Origin of Species”:There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Origin, 6th edition, [Emphasis added]
Darwin was happy to assign the origin of life to God, even down to the use of the word “breathed”. Evolution deals with the development from the “simple” beginning to the “endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful” that surround us today.
There is a separate group of hypotheses (not yet a theory) dealing with the origin of life which are called abiogenesis.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
I disagree.Your statement above intrigues me.
Failing to include natural selection - it seems to me that failing to include natural selection actually changes the odds in your favor.
Natural selection is about differential reproductive success - getting more copies of your genes into subsequent generations. It is an average process; as you say one copy of a beneficial mutation might get eaten but then the next time that mutation happens it might survive, and overall it has less chance of being eaten than an unmutated organism because we are looking at a beneficial mutation.Once an advantageous random mutation takes place, there is still some chance that it will be killed off (natural selection) before it has time to propagate. If this is left out of the calculation, it is to your advantage since all advantageous mutations would be assumed to propagate. With natural selection in the mix, this cannot be assured and you might have to wait a long long time for that same random successful mutation to occur again.
The mutation rate for mammals is about 3 x 10[sup]-8[/sup] mutations per base pair per generation. Applying this rate to humans we would expect about 100 mutations in the 3.2 x 10[sup]9[/sup] base pairs of the human genome. With six billion individuals in the human population this is 600 billion individual mutations over the whole human population in each generation. If a beneficial mutation does not take the first time around there will be another one along shortly.
I suggest that you read the piece on Boojumase I linked to; that shows how natural selection acts to differentially amplify beneficial and deleterious mutations so that beneficial mutations are more likely (not certain, just more likely) to spread through the population.
You are wrong on this. In my Boojumase model I compare the random probability (tornado in a junkyard model) with a more complex model including natural selection. The time taken to evolve a 100 amino acid protein is 6.35 x 10[sup]130[/sup] years on the random model and 2.1 million years on the model including natural selection. That is a major difference and moves the scenario from highly unlikely to perfectly possible in the time available.So yes, the model would be faulty as you state, but to your advantage. If even then, the probabilities are not in your favor, it will only get worse when natural selection is included.
rossum
- Status
- Not open for further replies.