Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9170 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Happy Birthday: ameliajack
Post Volume: Total: 917,267 Year: 4,524/9,624 Month: 299/1,096 Week: 4/119 Day: 4/22 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionists improbable becoming probable argument
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 46 of 98 (907796)
02-28-2023 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by PaulK
02-28-2023 1:18 PM


And what have you produced?
Easy to ignore what you don't understand, isn't it? You should learn about probability space. Then read again what I wrote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 02-28-2023 1:18 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 02-28-2023 1:35 PM sensei has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17831
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 47 of 98 (907798)
02-28-2023 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by sensei
02-28-2023 1:26 PM


quote:
And what have you produced?
A challenge that you seem incapable of meeting - despite your confident assertion.
quote:
Easy to ignore what you don't understand, isn't it?
I don’t find it to be so, but you seem to.
quote:
You should learn about probability space. Then read again what I wrote
I’m sure that I know at least as much as you. Enough to see that you haven’t produced any argument that could even lead to relevant calculations.
Are you going to try? Or are you just going to stick with empty bluster?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by sensei, posted 02-28-2023 1:26 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 3:32 AM PaulK has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10119
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 48 of 98 (907816)
02-28-2023 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by sensei
02-28-2023 1:11 PM


sensei writes:
Do you have any reason or evidence to support the idea of more useful sequences at greater lengths, compared to the total number of possible arrangements?
I see no reason why length would have anything to do with it. It is entirely possible for the active site of a protein to be restricted to a small portion of the protein while the rest of the sequence can change quite a bit without losing function. In fact, from my experience with proteins I wouldn't be surprised if short proteins were more restrictive than large proteins.
I also have no way of calculating how probable functional sequences are. ID/creationists seem to think they know, but are incapable of producing any relevant calculations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by sensei, posted 02-28-2023 1:11 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 3:31 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10119
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 49 of 98 (907817)
02-28-2023 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by sensei
02-28-2023 1:13 PM


sensei writes:
I know better than you, how probabilities work.
You have yet to demonstrate this claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by sensei, posted 02-28-2023 1:13 PM sensei has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22555
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 50 of 98 (907820)
02-28-2023 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by sensei
02-28-2023 1:11 PM


sensei writes:
If you put random characters on paper, with five characters, it may happen once so often that you get a meaningful word or short sentence. With twenty characters, it's generally less likely to get a full meaningful sentence.
Yes, of course.
Do you have any reason or evidence to support the idea of more useful sequences at greater lengths, compared to the total number of possible arrangements?
It's self-evidently true that the greater the number of permutations the least likely any particular one is, including ones that make sense in English, but from following the discussion it seems that everyone understands this already. The difference of opinion lies in how to properly apply this information.
I think your main point is that it's more likely for a change to be in a deleterious direction than beneficial. In essence you're arguing that the sheer unlikelihood of a beneficial mutation means that evolution isn't possible.
But as I pointed out to mike the wiz in Message 4, there are around 1016 SARS-Cov-2 viruses in the world at any given point in time, and they replicate approximately every 10 hours. With 2.4 × 1016 replications per day and 10-6 mutations per replication, that's 2.4 × 1010 mutations daily. If the odds of a beneficial mutation are 10-9 (one in a billion) then that's in the neighborhood of 24 beneficial mutations every day. Day after day. With viruses with beneficial mutations being selected for.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by sensei, posted 02-28-2023 1:11 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 3:46 AM Percy has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 51 of 98 (907836)
03-01-2023 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Taq
02-28-2023 4:14 PM


So if 10% of all sequences of lenghth 200 would be useful, you would also expect that 10% of all sequences of length 200000 are useful?
Because that is what it means if the number of useful gene sequenes grows as fast as the space of all possible sequences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 02-28-2023 4:14 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Taq, posted 03-01-2023 11:02 AM sensei has not replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 52 of 98 (907837)
03-01-2023 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by PaulK
02-28-2023 1:35 PM


Empty claims from the arrogant evolutionist who produced not a single useful argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 02-28-2023 1:35 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 03-01-2023 4:11 AM sensei has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 53 of 98 (907838)
03-01-2023 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
02-28-2023 4:37 PM


Well, it does not appear to be self-evident to Taq. But he thinks he understands probability better. Little does he know.
Suppose we see usefull sentences of a few dozens of characters. And we also see a book of a few hundreds of thousands of characters.
We would want to determine how this book formed. Does it consist of shorter stories that exist seperately or have existed in the past and for whatever reason stopped existing? Can we find possible paths along which this book developed from random changes of shorter stories?
What model are you proposing for this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 02-28-2023 4:37 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 03-01-2023 8:54 AM sensei has not replied
 Message 61 by Taq, posted 03-01-2023 11:09 AM sensei has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17831
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 54 of 98 (907844)
03-01-2023 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by sensei
03-01-2023 3:32 AM


quote:
Empty claims from the arrogant evolutionist who produced not a single useful argument.
Of course, all I am doing is seeing if you can back up your claims with something more than arrogant bluster.
You talk about probability spaces, but you haven’t defined one, let alone a relevant probability space. So we still haven’t seen any relevant math from you at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 3:32 AM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 4:18 AM PaulK has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 55 of 98 (907846)
03-01-2023 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by PaulK
03-01-2023 4:11 AM


I done so multiple times. Your ignorance and amateuristic level is your problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 03-01-2023 4:11 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 03-01-2023 4:44 AM sensei has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17831
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 56 of 98 (907848)
03-01-2023 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by sensei
03-01-2023 4:18 AM


quote:
I done so multiple times
No, you have not. You haven’t clearly defined even one of the three parameters of a probability space.
quote:
Your ignorance and amateuristic level is your problem.
The problem is your “ignorance and amateuristic level” - and that is not my problem at all. If you actually manage to define a probability space you will find that I am quite able to discuss it. And it’s relevance to the question of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 4:18 AM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 6:51 AM PaulK has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 57 of 98 (907850)
03-01-2023 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
03-01-2023 4:44 AM


I specified the length of gene sequences to be a few hundred upto 2 million. What part of that do you not understand? In other examples, I specified lengths as well.
Do you know which bases a gene consists of? Do you need people to spell everything out for you?
So no, you are not capable of discussing these things you so poorly understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 03-01-2023 4:44 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 03-01-2023 7:29 AM sensei has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17831
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 58 of 98 (907854)
03-01-2023 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by sensei
03-01-2023 6:51 AM


quote:
I specified the length of gene sequences to be a few hundred upto 2 million. What part of that do you not understand? In other examples, I specified lengths as well.
And? Even if that is going to be your sample space - and I think it a bad choice - there are still the event space and the probability function to define,
To explain why gene sequence is a bad choice for sample space, consider this: Why would specific gene sequences matter? Surely the issue is what they do - and that is dependent on the context provided by other genes and the environment, and can be realised in multiple different sequences. Dembski’s concept of specification may be flawed but it is far better than looking at raw events as others have pointed out,
quote:
Do you know which bases a gene consists of? Do you need people to spell everything out for you?
I need you to explain your argument - since you seem incredibly reluctant to actually do it - and if it involves a probability space you need to define that - which you still haven’t come close to doing.
quote:
So no, you are not capable of discussing these things you so poorly understand.
Apparently I understand them better than you, and that is another problem for you. You can’t baffle me with bullshit if I know enough to see that you are bullshitting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 6:51 AM sensei has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22555
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 59 of 98 (907857)
03-01-2023 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by sensei
03-01-2023 3:46 AM


sensei writes:
Well, it does not appear to be self-evident to Taq. But he thinks he understands probability better. Little does he know.
I think you're placing greater trust in errors in words and sentences as an accurate analogy to mutations in a gene than anyone else here. The analogy might serve as a helpful introduction to the concept of mutations but shouldn't be carried too far. Taq has experience as a molecular biologist, and he echoed my thought (or maybe I echoed his, I forget who said it first) that longer genes might be more tolerant of random mutations than short ones.
Here's an example. Take the sentence, "I found a watch," and assume it's an analogy to a gene with the nucleotide sequence "CAG...TAC" Now introduce a random mutation so that the sentence becomes, "I found a wmtch," and that analogically the nucleotide sequence becomes "CAG...AAC". In your opinion is the sentence destroyed, or would most people make the right supposition anyway. I certainly don't know. And for the nucleotide sequence where TAC becomes AAC, in terms of what the protein does in the organism does it matter that the last amino acid is now asparagine instead of tyrosine? I don't know that either.
But you are in effect claiming you know while at the same time are apparently unable to communicate that knowledge to anyone else. Hence the skepticism everyone's expressing. At least in this sub-discussion with me, your belief that errors in words and sentences are an accurate analogy to the occurrence and selection of mutations is a barrier to developing a common understanding. The analogy could be improved if you added the creation of copies of the sentence and a selection mechanism.
What we do know is that nearly every reproductive event includes mutations. Reproduction is imperfect. Someone mentioned that each human averages about 50 mutations. I thought the figure was around 100, but 50 is fine, too. The key point is that despite the mutations the human race continues. It is, in fact, evolving faster than ever, because the more babies born every year the more mutations introduced into the world population. It's also worth pointing out that zygotes and fetuses with sufficiently deleterious mutations are often spontaneously aborted, so early that many women never suspect they were pregnant.
Writing about this made me curious about what percent of the world population has genetic disorders. This is according to Genetic disorder - Wikipedia:
Wikipedia:
Around 65% of people have some kind of health problem as a result of congenital genetic mutations.
That's much higher than I would have suspected, and if this is accurate then the majority of these health problems must be minor. The article also says that about 600 genetic orders are treatable. For example, LVH (left ventricular hypertrophy - thickened heart muscle around the left ventricle that prevents the heart from efficiently pumping high volumes) has a strong genetic component but little practical effect (in most cases) unless you want to become an elite athlete, and it's treatable with medication. Are conditions like that included in the 65%? I suspect that they are including minor conditions like this. The prevalence of life-impacting genetic disorders must be much less, and looking up just one, muscular dystrophy, for example, I see that it occurs at a .03% rate.
Realize that if it were true that deleterious mutations win out over neutral and beneficial ones that all life would have come to an end long ago. You have to keep in mind that evolution includes mutation *and* selection. Disadvantageous mutations are selected against and tend to be removed from populations or at least become uncommon, while beneficial mutations spread rapidly through populations, and if they're sufficiently beneficial then their alleles becomes fixed (means every individual has them).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 3:46 AM sensei has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10119
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 60 of 98 (907866)
03-01-2023 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by sensei
03-01-2023 3:31 AM


sensei writes:
So if 10% of all sequences of lenghth 200 would be useful, you would also expect that 10% of all sequences of length 200000 are useful?
It is unknown how many sequences are useful. What is known is that relatively short peptides can be useful. This would mean that a longer protein has more sequence to find function. If anything, I would suspect that longer proteins have a better chance of being functional than short ones.
I think you are under the false assumption that the entire length of a protein has to contribute to function. This just isn't the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by sensei, posted 03-01-2023 3:31 AM sensei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by ChemEngineer, posted 04-09-2024 5:54 PM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024