Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are evolution simulations accurate?
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 16 of 22 (263415)
11-26-2005 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Christian7
11-26-2005 10:24 AM


guidosoft writes:
Trying to explain how the first cell came into being is like explaining how the steam engine assembled itself.
Three questions:
1. Why do you think that the first steam engine assembled itself?
2. Why do you think that the first cell assembled itself?
3. When did you last read a book?
Mick
ps. this is off topic so you needn't reply. But there is a probably a book in the big-boy's library about where the steam engine came from, if you're actually interested. You will find that the steam engine arose through a process of descent with modification. It involved the cooption of previously-existing parts (i.e. the boiler engine initially used to power static motors, and the train tracks which were designed and built for steam trains, but which are still used by electric trains).
This message has been edited by mick, 11-26-2005 08:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Christian7, posted 11-26-2005 10:24 AM Christian7 has not replied

  
mrjeremy
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 22 (263437)
11-26-2005 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by nwr
11-26-2005 2:44 PM


Re: Not realistic, but that's okay
If I am understanding correctly you are saying that one shortcoming of lab experiments is that you cannot have as wide a variety of enviromnental conditions to test mutations in as occures naturally in the wild. Is that basically what you are saying?
Sorry but I am unfumiliar with the term IC change. What does IC stand for?
Also, you sound a little self concious about the possibility of making a mistake. I am also not a biologist. Feel free to share whatever angles you come up with, and who cares whether the ideas are dead on or not. Theorizing and then testing is what science is all about!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 11-26-2005 2:44 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by nwr, posted 11-27-2005 12:24 AM mrjeremy has not replied

  
mrjeremy
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 22 (263442)
11-27-2005 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Nuggin
11-26-2005 7:21 PM


Re: Not realistic, but that's okay
yes, lab simulations are not reality, but rather simulations of it, so to what extent are the accuracy of simulation results to be trusted?
Can you get into some of the ways you think that they can be used to teach us more about mutation, and any specific limitations that simulations might have?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Nuggin, posted 11-26-2005 7:21 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 11-27-2005 1:33 PM mrjeremy has not replied
 Message 21 by Mammuthus, posted 11-28-2005 8:57 AM mrjeremy has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 19 of 22 (263443)
11-27-2005 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by mrjeremy
11-26-2005 11:58 PM


Re: Not realistic, but that's okay
If I am understanding correctly you are saying that one shortcoming of lab experiments is that you cannot have as wide a variety of enviromnental conditions to test mutations in as occures naturally in the wild.
That's part of it.
My father used to say "the wheels of time grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine." What we do in our labs won't "grind" as finely.
What does IC stand for?
Sorry about that. It's short for "irreducible complexity", a term that Behe used, and has since been picked up by creationists and ID proponents. (ID = Intelligent Design; just playing it safe and defining my acronyms). According to Behe, evolution cannot create irreducible complexity.
Also, you sound a little self concious about the possibility of making a mistake.
Not really self-conscious. I sometimes write with what seems to be an authoritative tone, and I didn't want to mislead people into thinking I had any expertise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mrjeremy, posted 11-26-2005 11:58 PM mrjeremy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 20 of 22 (263500)
11-27-2005 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mrjeremy
11-27-2005 12:18 AM


Re: Not realistic, but that's okay
yes, lab simulations are not reality, but rather simulations of it, so to what extent are the accuracy of simulation results to be trusted?
Do the laws of physics change when you walk into the lab?
Lab simulations are reality; they're the reality of being in a lab. That's different than being in the wild, but it's not fundamentally different. It's just a way to limit the degrees of freedom of your experiment, and also, to work indoors and have a safe place to store your expensive research tools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mrjeremy, posted 11-27-2005 12:18 AM mrjeremy has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 21 of 22 (263706)
11-28-2005 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by mrjeremy
11-27-2005 12:18 AM


Re: Not realistic, but that's okay
Lab simulations are reality...however, they are necessarily simplified. Take bacterial evolution experiments. For the most part they involve testing for mutations involving some kind of resistance or tolerance i.e. antibiotics, heat, substrate utilization. All other variables are controlled and do not vary (or don't vary much). Also, the amount of genetic variation in the starting population is often controlled so that you know what you started with so that down the line you can observe what has changed directly. This allows the outcomes to occur more rapidly because the evolution is directed in a sense i.e. you are selecting for resistance etc. and seeing how the bacteria get there. In nature, there is not a homogeneous gene pool starting point and different selective pressures are acting on the population simultaneously such that overall the gene pool will go towards whatever is the best consensus for its environment..if the environment changes, it may completely shift in another direction. Though people do study such natural populations, it is a hell of a lot harder because you have many more variables. That does not mean that the lab experiments tell us nothing about what happens in nature.
Think of it like Mendels pea experiments. He picked traits that demonstrated the principles of single gene inheritance patterns. They are hardly representative since most phenotypes are quantiative and controlled by multiple genes..but again, that is much harder to measure than the traits mendel picked. He studiously avoided the harder traits. However, his simplified "lab" experiments yielded results that are still relevant for quantitative genetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mrjeremy, posted 11-27-2005 12:18 AM mrjeremy has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 22 of 22 (263727)
11-28-2005 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by mrjeremy
11-26-2005 12:42 PM


What you are describing here doesn't sound like any sort of simulation of evolution, it sounds like a mutagenesis screen for genes with interesting phenotypes. Of course in a mutagenesis screen embryonic lethal genes are often just as interesting as those that leave the organism viable but otherwise phenotypically distinct.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mrjeremy, posted 11-26-2005 12:42 PM mrjeremy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024