|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question for KSC | |||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ksc writes: The analogy is good, but incorrectly argued. The purchasers of lottery tickets represent the individual members of a population. While the odds of any individual winning the lottery are tiny, there *is* a winner who then gets to pass his positive mutation on to the next generation. This mutation spreads quickly through the population since it is positively selected for, and in a few generations there can be another lottery which will result in another member of the population receiving a positive mutation. You're also forgetting that each individual can own many lottery tickets, which is analogous to many possible positive mutations. Your rejection of evolution appears based on a false estimate of the odds. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ksc Guest |
Message deleted by ksc
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ksc writes: No, it would be less like real evolution to consider only the winners offspring winning the next lottery. Positive mutations spread quickly through populations, so in a few generations large portions of the population are winners. With positive mutations the money isn't spent but is instead shared and multiplied more and more widely with each generation. You must also consider other factors, such as that the mutation lottery has been going on since the beginning of life, and all organisms have large mutation banks on which to draw. Neutral mutations may lie dormant for eons awaiting additional mutations with which they can combine for a positive outcome. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ksc Guest |
[Hack deleted. --Percy]
[This message has been edited by ksc, 05-12-2002]
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-13-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I thought about it before I wrote it, but it seems that you did not think about it at all before you responded. It is YOUR belief that some mythological 'cat-kind' present on the ark produced - in only a few thousand years - all of the extant felids. I seriously doubt that the 'variation' you see in your kids is even remotely like the variation that is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED in the creation model. Unless, of course, you think that your great-great grandchildren will be members of a distinct species. I am not talking about different breeds of dogs, either. I am talking about getting ocelots, cerval cats, jaguarundis, lions, cheetahs, lynxes, cougars, house cats, etc. from some original 'kind' of cat. You say that the original cat kind had all of this variation 'built in'. And your evidence appears to be 'variations' in your children and differential expression of traits in dog litters.Noted. quote: Hinderance? What are you talking about? I asked for your proposed mechanisms that would, for example, repress all of the alleles responsible for the traits seen in, say, a ceval cat in this original kind. Your 'answer' is a total non-sequitur. quote: This is your standard comeback, and it is as nonsensical now as it was when you first used it years ago on CARM and elsewhere. What is your hang-up with echolocation? The fact of the matter is, mutations that affect limb morphology could very well affect other systems. Indeed, some genetic defects in fact are manifested in what appear to be completely unrelated ways. Am I making any sort of statemtn about the "DNA strand" that controls limb morphology and echo-location apparatus? No. But I do understand that development is not dictated by Karl Crawfords odd take on such things. quote: Whyt over and over again? And what does 'pinpointed' mean? If it such a no-brainer, surely you must have lots of evidence suportive of your position. It is a no-brainer that what you are proposing is in fact the opposite of what evolution indicates - you are proposing that some proto-whale (or some 'designer') wanted flippers and somehow directed specific mutations to occur. You are quite wrong. And THAT is a no brainer. quote: have you ever seen the bone structure of an achondroplastic limb? By the way, ALL of the structures in the limb are altered by that single point mutation. All of those structures that you cut and pasted from some anatomy book and claiming that each one required a 'pinpointed mutation' to change - all are changed by that one mutation. I thus refuted your repeated claim regarding some huge number of 'pinpointed mutations' being required to alter limb morphology.By the way - a flipper is just a limb with 'webbed' digits and altered proportions. But you knew that... Also by the way, there is quite a bit of information in the literature regarding the fin-limb transition: Chiu CH, Nonaka D, Xue L, Amemiya CT, Wagner GP.Evolution of Hoxa-11 in lineages phylogenetically positioned along the fin-limb transition. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2000 Nov;17(2):305-16. Kondo T, Herault Y, Zakany J, Duboule D.Genetic control of murine limb morphogenesis: relationships with human syndromes and evolutionary relevance. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 1998 May 25;140(1-2):3-8. Review. Sordino P, van der Hoeven F, Duboule D. Related ArticlesHox gene expression in teleost fins and the origin of vertebrate digits. Nature. 1995 Jun 22;375(6533):678-81. quote: It was an analogy, Karl. It was noit meant to be an explicit treatise on evolution. Of course, it amply demonstrates that what you say has little to do with evolution, as I emulated your logic. quote: Your point? quote: There you go again with your repeated (but wholly unsupported) assertions. You STILL don't get it. Changing developmental genes or genes that influence morphology can alter phenotype WITHOUT being 'directed at the DNA stand'. You still have not answered my earlier question - what do you mean by "DNA strand"? The only thing that is obvious is that you are relying on your shallow grasp of the science to prop up your belief. quote: That 'ignorance' follows directly from your logic re: repeated mutations in the 'DNA strand' being so unlikely that evolution fails. Just following your lead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ksc writes: Karl, you're contradicting yourself here. First you say it has to be the winner's offspring, then you say it only has to be a descendent, which is precisely what *I* said. Though you quoted what I said, you either didn't read it or didn't understand it. How else would a positive mutation spread through a population if not through descendents?
This is the fallacy of post facto reasoning again. If it is your requirement is that those in the line of descent eventually win the Oklahoma state lottery 100 times, then that is not as likely as the actual situation for evolution. But it's always unlikely when you preordain the outcome. It's the same reasoning presented by SLP about the unlikelihood of producing Karl, which you also didn't appear to understand. When the outcome is not preordained, when the only goal is to produce a better adapted organism no matter through what combination of state lotteries and no matter in what state the eventual descendent ends up in, then the likelihood is much greater. Here's another example of the same kind of false reasoning that you're engaging in. What are the odds that you will have a son, and that your son will have a son, and that your son's son will have a son, and so forth forward for 1000 generations? Pretty tiny, right? Well, guess what. Every male on this earth is the product of thousands of generations of sons producing sons. Why is the first scenario unlikely while the second is inevitable? It's the fallacy of post facto reasoning again. When you preordain the outcome, namely that it is you and only you that must have a son, and then it must be that son and only that son that must have a son, and so forth for a thousand generations, then it's very unlikely. But when all you care about is that at least some in each generation produce sons for a thousand generations then it isn't unlikely at all.
This is a content-free argument from personal skepticism. Why not address what was said? --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024