Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mutational Problem
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 1 of 20 (599220)
01-05-2011 4:54 PM


The author of the following webpage (hereafter referred to as "Plaisted" in reference to the email address given in the first full paragraph on the webpage) has made the argument that the theory of evolution has been falsified because the rate of mutation can not produce the changes we see. The webpage can be found here:
The Mutation Problem
Plaisted concludes:
quote:
The general situation is that rates of mutation high enough to account for the ape-human split would lead to the rapid death of the species. Even rates of mutation often quoted by biologists would do the same. A lower rate of mutation would make the assumed evolution of apes and humans from a common ancestor impossible. If the rate of mutation really is high, then the human race must be very young and on the way to extinction.
Is Plaisted right?
Note to moderators:
I would like to notify Plaisted once this thread is approved, assuming that the listed email is still valid.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-05-2011 9:00 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-06-2011 12:51 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 01-06-2011 3:49 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 12 by sfs, posted 01-06-2011 4:02 PM Taq has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 20 (599230)
01-05-2011 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taq
01-05-2011 4:54 PM


You're citing a 1998 article from a computer science professor
From your cite:
quote:
June 7, 1998
and
quote:
These problems with mutation rates do not seem to be appreciated by most biologists, and even the creationist sources I have read do not seem to comprehend the seriousness of the problems posed for the theory of evolution by the rates of mutation observed and assumed for evolution.
But the problem does seem to be appreciated by a computer science professor.
I just don't see what you have presented as being a legitimate topic launching point. Perhaps you could add more to convince me otherwise?
Input from other admins certainly welcome.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taq, posted 01-05-2011 4:54 PM Taq has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 20 (599246)
01-06-2011 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taq
01-05-2011 4:54 PM


OK, don't like it but it does seem to need to be released
It was brought to my attention that the topic has its roots in another topic (see here and downthread).
We shall see what happens.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taq, posted 01-05-2011 4:54 PM Taq has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 4 of 20 (599248)
01-06-2011 12:52 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Mutational Problem thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 20 (599255)
01-06-2011 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taq
01-05-2011 4:54 PM


Irrelevant Argument
Let's put aside Plastered's Plaisted's obvious ignorance of all things anthropological and biological and assume that there is some problems with the rates of mutations producing certain changes. Even if true, this does not falsify the theory of evolution, despite drawing our proposed models for that evolution into question.
If we found evidence that humans were descended of T-rexes and that flies were are closing living relative, the theory of evolution would still not be falsified.
This should be sufficient to refute Plaistedhis argument is irrelevant.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taq, posted 01-05-2011 4:54 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-06-2011 4:31 AM Jon has replied
 Message 7 by slevesque, posted 01-06-2011 4:45 AM Jon has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 6 of 20 (599258)
01-06-2011 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Jon
01-06-2011 3:49 AM


Re: Irrelevant Argument
Even if true, this does not falsify the theory of evolution, despite drawing our proposed models for that evolution into question.
The model (genetics) is the theory. And something would be falsified. Either the theory would be wrong or the dating methods.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 01-06-2011 3:49 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Jon, posted 01-06-2011 11:01 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 7 of 20 (599261)
01-06-2011 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Jon
01-06-2011 3:49 AM


Re: Irrelevant Argument
I guess what you are trying to say is that it would not falsify the 'fact' of evolution.
But if he was right it would certainly falsify the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. In other words, their would need to have another mechanism (or simply an add-on) to Mutations+NS = Evolution.
So no, his argument isn't irrelevant. It is simply saying: ''Yeah, I know you say this evolved into that, but the mechanism you are proposing couldn't have done it''.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 01-06-2011 3:49 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 01-06-2011 11:15 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 20 (599280)
01-06-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dr Adequate
01-06-2011 4:31 AM


Re: Irrelevant Argument
The model (genetics) is the theory. And something would be falsified. Either the theory would be wrong or the dating methods.
Obviously something would be falsified. But don't mistake the specific model for the general theory.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-06-2011 4:31 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 20 (599282)
01-06-2011 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by slevesque
01-06-2011 4:45 AM


Re: Irrelevant Argument
But if he was right it would certainly falsify the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. In other words, their would need to have another mechanism (or simply an add-on) to Mutations+NS = Evolution.
But is this the claim he's making? If he's a Creo, then his primary goal is to 'salvage', in his mind, the reputation of humans being descended from 'lesser' beasts. In that, he must undertake the task of disproving evolution, not just certain schools of thought or models/mechanisms related to evolution.
Even if we found out that the mechanisms we believe to be behind evolution were false, it would only have bearing on the mechanisms. Evolutionwhat we see as separate species are derived from common ancestral species, and they from others, etc.is true.
To support his position he must do far differently than discredit some timelines; and until he gets to what is necessary to support his position, any other arguments he makes along the way are simply irrelevant.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by slevesque, posted 01-06-2011 4:45 AM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-06-2011 11:35 AM Jon has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 10 of 20 (599288)
01-06-2011 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jon
01-06-2011 11:15 AM


Re: Irrelevant Argument
In the first place, the absence of any plausible mechanism by which evolution could take place would cast at least some doubt on the proposition that it actually has.
In the second place, if we don't have a mechanism, where is the predictive power of the theory? Given common descent plus the theory of evolution, we can predict the sorts of things that we should see in (for example) the fossil record, or in molecular phylogeny, and then we can say: "Look, see how reality matches the predictions".
Remove the theory (mutation, recombination, lateral gene transfer, natural selection, genetic drift, etc) and where is the predictive power? With no known mechanism --- no constraints --- the history of life could have begun with an aardvark giving birth to an aardwolf ... and so on in alphabetical order until a zebra gave birth to a zebu; or any other scheme you care to dream up --- and where, then, is the predictive power? The evidence can only confirm something sufficiently definite to be tested.
---
However, this is all rather by-the-by in that (as I have explained on another thread) Plaisted's article is nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 01-06-2011 11:15 AM Jon has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 11 of 20 (599307)
01-06-2011 1:15 PM


I was hoping for a more technical discussion of the claims. For instance:
"Equilibrium is defined as the state at which the fraction of the population having harmful mutations is constant. This state should eventually be reached if conditions are more or less unchanging."
Obviously, this doesn't apply to the human population. Humans have been moving across the globe into different environments. Also, the human population is not constant nor is there free gene flow between populations. Therefore, the recent history of the human population is anything but "more or less unchanging".

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-06-2011 4:20 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 16 by barbara, posted 01-08-2011 10:51 AM Taq has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 12 of 20 (599344)
01-06-2011 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taq
01-05-2011 4:54 PM


The cited web page displays great confusion about the question it addresses. If I understand it correctly, it assumes that successful organisms have to be carrying zero copies of deleterious mutations. This is quite wrong: the average human carries roughly 1000 deleterious alleles just in coding sequence, and probably many more in functional noncoding regions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taq, posted 01-05-2011 4:54 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Taq, posted 01-06-2011 6:08 PM sfs has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 20 (599352)
01-06-2011 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Taq
01-06-2011 1:15 PM


I was hoping for a more technical discussion of the claims.
Well I did that on the other thread.
Insofar as it is possible to follow his largely inarticulate ramblings, his reasoning (and I use the term loosely) implicitly assumes that the proportion of mutations that occur in the gene pool and are harmful is equal to the proportion of mutations that are fixed in the gene pool and are harmful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Taq, posted 01-06-2011 1:15 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 14 of 20 (599366)
01-06-2011 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by sfs
01-06-2011 4:02 PM


The cited web page displays great confusion about the question it addresses. If I understand it correctly, it assumes that successful organisms have to be carrying zero copies of deleterious mutations. This is quite wrong: the average human carries roughly 1000 deleterious alleles just in coding sequence, and probably many more in functional noncoding regions.
The author does seem to assume that deleterious is synonymous with lethal (or infertile). I think we can all agree that there is a whole range of deleterious effects, from so slight as to not affect reproductive success to spontaneous abortion at an early stage in embryonic development.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by sfs, posted 01-06-2011 4:02 PM sfs has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 15 of 20 (599413)
01-07-2011 11:13 AM


Plaisted is all over the map and his entire essay is riddled with unsupported and in many cases, just plain silly, assertions that he then uses as foundational 'jump off points' for even more assertion based nonsense.
For example, he writes:
"Counting both parents, this gives 24 mutations per zygote, with a chance of only 1/(2.718 12 ) (less than 1 in 100,000) that a zygote will survive and be able to have offspring at equilibrium. Of course, this is ridiculous."
Yes, it is ridiculous. It is ridiculous because direct estimates have indicated that each viable zygote has about 10 times that number of mutations. He assumes that all deleterious mutations accumulate and are not expunged in any way.
He uses that assertion to derive that the 'functional' genome could only be about 10,000 genes, but then refutes that by claiming:
"So this is too few to specify a complete human being. It also conflicts with estimates that humans have 100,000 genes."
The first part is simply an unsupported opinion premised on humancentrism. The second part is just wrong, based on counterfactual material (even in 1998, that estimate was on its way out).
Short answer - ignore Plaisted's decade old folly. Longer answer, if any creationist brings it up, point out the obvious errors.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024