|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: TOE and the Reasons for Doubt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4519 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
If the actual number of differences is much less than the prediction, the null hypothesis has failed, and researchers may reasonably assume that selection has acted on the sequences in question Notice that the null hypothesis fails when it doesn't match the prediction, Otto. Another example of the facts being shaped by the theory: "If this supports what we already believe, then our belief is confirmed; if not then it must be the result of selection". The fact is that natural selection doesn't operate that way. As Kimura's work illustrated, it rarely wipes out "most of the mutations", rather it eliminates "the most mutated". This is because the majority of neutral mutations are actually slightly deleterious, so if you accumlate enough of them, you're done for. It follows that if the critters with 100 mutations are selected out, the critters with 95 mutations survive. This process is therefore highly unlikely to give a wildly unreliable reading, with or without natural selection. But because it is so often at gross variance with the time-honoured principles of carbon dating and rock-strata-dated-by-fossils-dated-by-rock-strata methods, it's safest for evolution to sideline it as a "null theory". Kimura drew graphs illustrating the effects of mutations on fitness. The graphs did not include the supposed "positive" effects of beneficial mutations. This cannot be explained away by the idea that Kimura wasn't concentrating on beneficial mutations. That would be bad science, and Kimura has never been accused of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Let's put it another way. The probability of a fruitfly's wing not being arrived at is 41000-1/41000. Which is really, really really close to 1 which is stone cold certainty. I assure you that 41000 is a very long way from one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Their problem lies in convergence. The same organ appearing in vastly disparate species. Could you elaborate on what exactly you are talking about here? We share organs (and all the other common features) with other species because we have a common ancestor with them. These organs don't uniquely spring forth anew, they are conserved from that ancestor. Or was that not what you meant?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
anyway, regarding genetic research and its inability to prove ToE here is a research paper of Lonig Well, I've read that paper which discusses how mutation breeding experiments behave. It discusses the unsurprising result that the number of novel mutations found is asymptotic with the number of experiments. This is a paper based on discussing a particular aspect of agricultural breeding; it is fantasy to think it has any impact on evolutionary issues. Could you explain why you think it proves that genetic research is unable to prove ToE? Edited by Mr Jack, : Improved clarity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3473 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Gday all,
I don't think Peg ever answered this - Do you really think Carl Sagan supports design, rather than evolution, Peg? K. Edited by Kapyong, : Minor addition
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The outcome that produces a fruitfly's wing is a miniscule fraction of acceptable outcomes. If we're talking about outcomes over all creatures, then looking around at every creature upon the planet, I don't see many with fruitfly wings, so I can agree with you. If you are talking about a single generation, with some hypothetical wing-less proto-fruitfly population suddenly developing wings overnight, I'd also agree with you. Is this how you think fruitflies got their wings in an evolutionary scenario? Perhaps you need to define a bit more clearly exactly what you're trying to say?
The probability of a fruitfly's wing not being arrived at is 4^1000-1/4^1000. Err, you may want to rethink that number Seriously though, a fruitfly's wing not being arrived at from what? A fruitfly that doesn't have wings?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The outcome that produces a gene relating to a fruitfly's wing is a vanishingly small fraction of this. For a 1000 base pair gene it is 1/41000. No, what you mean is that *THE* gene, the observed gene, relating to a fruitfly's wing is a vanishingly small fraction of this. Question 1) How many possible genes would lead to a working wing? Question 2) Why do we even need a wing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Peg,
Really you should do some research before you post things you read on creationist websites. I can tell you know that Genetics does not help the ToE because the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations It seems the 'law of recurrent variation' is the latest weapon for creationists. It also seems to be very prevalent among the Jehovah's Witness. Here is the problem. There is no scientific law called this. It seems pretty presumptuous even unscientific for a scientist to unilaterally declare a law. Some background
quote:Source Here are some examples of speciation from yoru new favorite website http://www.talkorigins.com.
quote:Source Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
More info on the "law of recurrent variation"
As of yet I can find no instance of this being published in a peer reviewed journal. Here is a great rebuttal to someone that claims that it has been published in scientific literature
quote:Source Wow. Amazing what you can find out when you actually do 10 minutes of research. Edited by Theodoric, : Added source info Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2361 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
I'm like you, Kaichos Man, in the sense that I have no formal training in biology and do not practice that branch of science myself. I just read what biologists write and I try to understand. But it's in this last point that I think you and I differ, because I get the sense from your reply that you don't really understand, and you aren't really trying to.
Kaichos Man writes: quote: Notice that the null hypothesis fails when it doesn't match the prediction Notice what prediction it is that we're talking about. As I understand it (and I hope some real biologists here will correct me if I'm wrong), this sentence, just before the one you quoted:
quote: is saying that Kimura's Neutral Theory predicts a specific rate of mutations in a lineage over time (and this prediction is based on carefully observed evidence). Given data from two distinct generations separated by a known period of time, if the difference between them is significantly less than the predicted difference, some other factor must have affected the process of descent with modification, and that factor is called "natural selection".
Another example of the facts being shaped by the theory: "If this supports what we already believe, then our belief is confirmed; if not then it must be the result of selection". That's twisted to the point that you are making no sense. Belief has nothing at all to do with any of this. It's a matter of having an evidence-based prediction about the extent of difference between two stages in a lineage, and then comparing/contrasting that against the actual observed difference in order to understand the factors that account for the difference.
This process is therefore highly unlikely to give a wildly unreliable reading, with or without natural selection. But because it is so often at gross variance with the time-honoured principles of carbon dating and rock-strata-dated-by-fossils-dated-by-rock-strata methods, it's safest for evolution to sideline it as a "null theory". More twisting of terms into tortuous nonsense. You seem to have some notion of how "null" is used in science that is completely at odds with how it's actually used. (Objective research uses the term "null hypothesis" to refer to one of two possible outcomes in a statistical study; there is no notion of a "null theory".) You also seem to have some faith-based reason for rejecting evidence that supports natural selection, and this is something I don't understand, given the fact that there is no evidence-based reason for rejecting it. Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor rewording for clarity autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Peg.
Peg writes: animals adapt to cold by growing thicker body hair. We are one of the animals, we are all linked, so why should we not be growing hair the same way as they do? Oh, I get it now! The theory says that all organisms must adapt to the same environment in the same way! Wow, that is a spectactularly stupid theory, isn't it? I'm hereby joining your cause, Peg. I will join my voice with yours in ridiculing the idiot theory that clearly cannot explain why monkeys don't have claws like squirrels, or dolphins don't have four fins like turtles, or bats don't have flow-through lungs like birds. Any theory that requires all things to respond the same way to every environmental stimulus clearly fails to provide an explanation for why arctic spiders do not have fur to keep themselves warm, or why the sloth bear and the giant anteater have heavy, thick fur despite living in tropical regions. Boy, what a stupid theory! Sometime, I should tell you about this other theory that doesn't say any of that crap. It's called "the Theory of Evolution." I think you'll like this one, because, like I just said, it doesn't say any of the crap that that theory you were just arguing against says. -----
Peg writes: whats nonsense? that frogs are going extinct in australia because of climate change??? That's not the nonsense he was talking about: he was alluding to your apparent belief that extinction of some things disproves evolution. Evolution does not demand that all things be successful, and, in fact, works rather better in a situation in which not all things are successful. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Kaichos Man.
Welcome to EvC! ----- Aside from the teleological assumption others have pointed out, your example also fails to address the effects of a population, which is the entity that ToE theorizes will evolve. All you have is one individual. Populations have many different sequences for the same region of the genome. Reproduction is also a key here. Each time an organism reproduces, roughly half of its offspring will inherit its mutated version of a particular gene, and the other half will inherit the version of the mate. Many of the offspring will have added new mutation(s) to the gene, but many will not. Thus, each generation will have a range of sequences, some of which will surely be very much like the parents’ sequence(s). So, each round of reproduction produces new variety for natural selection to work on, and often presents much of the same variety for mutation to try to work on again. So, your model needs to provide multiple opportunities for the same sequence to mutate in multiple different directions simultaneously, otherwise it is not meaningful for evolution. Remember, if insects are going to evolve wings, all we need is one individual out of hundreds of thousands to accidentally acquire the right suite of mutations after hundreds of thousands of attempts, and to then pass the trait on to its offspring. Then, we will have successfully evolved insects with wings. So, your model would be more accurate if each round of mutations produced multiple options, and we got to select which one we want to mutate further. But, remember, you cannot require evolution to produce something you want on demand, because that is exactly what we theorize that it does not do. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
padion, i have already posted all this information, do i really need to redo the whole thread?
why cant you start from the beginning?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
MrJack writes: Could you explain why you think it proves that genetic research is unable to prove ToE? the law states that:
quote: Evidence that mutations do not produce viable new species has been applied to the animal mutation experiements and Leibenguth describes the overall results of mutation breeding in his work Zchtungsgenetik (Genetics of Breeding) as follows (40):
quote: He also says on page 50 that "If one multiplies the proportionate number of disadvantageous mutations by the factor of 10, the result would already be some 100,000 to 400,000 negative (or unavailing or neutral) mutants to 1 useful for breeding research" he goes on to explain that this is reason why almost all commercial breeding stations in the USA and Europe have deleted mutation breeding from their research programmes. Because they dont work! How can they be a basis for undirected evolution when even under laboratory conditions, mutations fail? This is a huge reason to doubt the relevance of mutations as a road to evolution. Now if you think about the sheer complexity of DNA, you cant possibly imagine that such a structure could come into existence without direction and intelligence.Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes). The chance of forming even the simplest of these histones is said to be one in 20/100 The genetic code which is a requirement for cell reproduction could not have evolved for the reason that Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein. And without the genetic code, there can be no reproduction in the first place. This fact makes the ToE impossible for without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select. this is another HUGE reason to doubt the ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Kapyong writes: Do you really think Carl Sagan supports design, rather than evolution, Peg? i have already seen the error of my way over this point and have apologised. I know Sagan is an evolutionist and not a believer in creation. The quotes i used in msg 13 were to show that scientists findings are not also pointing only to evolution. When i used his quote i should have specified why i was using it. he did say that nature gives the 'appearance of design'
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024