Conundrum Regarding Evolution Probability

In summary, a 900 base-pair gene has a probability of 1.4x10exp-50 of coming together correctly, which is absurdly low.
  • #1
Greylorn
Gold Member
48
0
I'm trying to get some real numbers for the probability of evolution occurring by random mutations, but cannot find anything helpful in the literature--- except that a single base-pair genome mutation occurs once in every 10exp-6 DNA replications.

So I'm trying to use this meager information to calculate the probability for the evolution of the 2.9 billion base-pair human genome. My approximations for the entire genome produce horrid numbers. To simply the calculations, I'm trying to figure out the evolution probability for a single 900 base-pair gene.

Since there are only four possible base-pairs, the problem appears simple. (To keep it simple, I assume that the probability of a new base-pair addition needed to build a gene is the same as that for a mutation.) The sequence of base-pairs is critical.

Let's define a "correct" base-pair as one that continues the sequence for a particular gene.

When a new base-pair appears, the probability that it will be "correct" is simply 0.25. It looks like the probability for a complete, correctly sequenced gene is then, 0.25exp900, which I calculated as 1.4x10exp-50.

This seems unreasonably low. Given that there are about 23,000 functional genes in the human genome, the probability for all of them coming together right is a downright ugly (1.4x10exp-50)exp23000. That number chokes my calculator, might keep a Cray minicomputer busy for a few milliseconds, and seems too tiny to even be worth figuring.

I'm only trying for reasonable approximations, but these numbers are absurd. In their face, random mutations cannot have produced a single small gene. (By comparison, there are only 10exp80 atoms in the known universe.) And I've yet to attempt to use the base-pair mutation probability to calculate the number of generations required to produce a human body.

Why bother, when the anticipated result looks like we need more generations than the number of microseconds elapsed since the Big Bang?

Where have I gone wrong?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
i think you ought to consider a large population as the starting point and not a single organism. so, you start with a large variation and the organisms with a sequence that is closer to the "correct sequence" will survive with a higher probability in each time step (maybe it is appropriate to consider evolution as a markov process).
however, it is unjustified to assume that there is only one correct sequence, as variation of sequences corresponding to the same protein are large in different species, often proteins with the same function share less than 50% sequence homology.
lastly, i think you have to consider other pathways of DNA evolution, e.g. sexual recombination etc.
 
  • #3
omg! said:
i think you ought to consider a large population as the starting point and not a single organism. so, you start with a large variation and the organisms with a sequence that is closer to the "correct sequence" will survive with a higher probability in each time step (maybe it is appropriate to consider evolution as a markov process).

Thank you for your reply.

There are a few problems with your first suggestion.
1.) I'm trying to keep things simple and clear. Assuming a large population muddies the water.

2.) There does not exist sufficient data for even a professional evolutionist to establish boundary conditions for a solution of the large-population problem.

3.) If there were, it would not help. I'm no good at statistical math.

4.) Surely, Darwinists with a particular interest in performing these calculations, have tried and failed. Else their Nobel prizes would be well known, for they'd have driven a railroad spike through the heart of Creationist ideology.

5.) A given base-pair mutation is surely Markovian if it is also random. But the next step is selection, and that would appear to be memory dependent.

omg! said:
however, it is unjustified to assume that there is only one correct sequence, as variation of sequences corresponding to the same protein are large in different species, often proteins with the same function share less than 50% sequence homology.

That is useful information. Makes it tough to simplify the calculations though.

I'll need to research that further. Can you offer a starting source? (It'll have to be via computer or books I can find, since I have no access to a university library.)

Might not the sequence variations produce proteins with the same amino acid sequence, but, folded differently? That would cause them to function differently. Do the analytical techniques used to identify the proteins differentiate between various folding patterns?

omg! said:
lastly, i think you have to consider other pathways of DNA evolution, e.g. sexual recombination etc.

Oh, I did! Believe me when I say that I'm trying to reduce the problem to a simple, therefore soluble form. My understanding of sexual recombination is that it determines which variation of a particular gene is inherited, but would not change the inherited gene unless a random mutation occurred during fertilization or perhaps early development. That would be subject to the 10exp-6 mutation rate.

I do not know enough to evaluate the "etc." category. Is there anything in it that would simplify the calculation?
 
  • #4
Greylorn said:
4.) Surely, Darwinists with a particular interest in performing these calculations, have tried and failed. Else their Nobel prizes would be well known, for they'd have driven a railroad spike through the heart of Creationist ideology.

:rofl:
 
  • #5
i understand your desire to keep things as simple as possible. what I'm proposing is that perhaps certain things that are not considered simple have to be introduced for this highly complex process.
i suggested to check the markov property with regards to transitions from one population state to the next in a discrete (verly large) time step, under the assumption that the environment stays constant. after some finite number of time steps, you should get to a stable state with some distribution of organisms in the "correct sequence" states. the selection information is contained in the transition probabilities, so i see no reason why there should be any memory of states other than the current one.
the source that i learned about sequence homology in homologous proteins is biochemistry by stryer et al. I'm sorry that i can't provide you with page numbers, i don't have the book at my disposal right now. but if i remember correctly, there is one chapter dedicated to evolution although a lot of useful information is also scattered in the other chapters. if you are really interested in life sciences, i think it is a good point to start.
proteins with the same amino acid might not originate from the same DNA sequence, since the map from genetic code triplets to amino acid via tRNA&tRNA transferase is not injective. that's one point that i forgot to consider. what i was trying to say was that there are proteins for the same task that do not share the same primary sequence of amino acids. what makes proteins work are usually specific patterns of amino acids, e.g. containing charged groups or reactive groups that determine their functionality (or structure for cis residues), along with secondary structure elements e.g. alpha helices etc. that determine the geometrical configuration of the protein (which is important e.g. in a key-lock type of situation, note that many amino acids sequences can lead to the same secondary strcuture element). most amino acid replacements do not concern the functional groups nor the secondary elements, so that the state of a fully functional protein is not unique in terms of amino acids sequence.

my knowledge on sexual recombination is sketchy at best, but I think you are right in that the DNA sequence is not actually changed but that complete libraries of the human genome are recombined meaning that every such organism has two possibly slighty different versions of the same gene (emphasizing even more that there does not exist one correct sequence). many mechanisms exist that cut and paste large chunks of DNA between different locations of the same of different chromosome (this is usually how multimers, complexes of many domains of the same kind were created). there is an unbelievable variety of other mechanism that might play a role in evolution: alternative splicing, epigenetics, post-transcriptional chemical modification of bases.

to summarize: i think a simple model of evolution does not exist. you have to be prepared to deal with complexity if you really want to begin to understand evolution. as a last word: i really have no good grasp of this topic, everything i said should be taken with a grain of salt. please do check my statements in textbooks (e.g. stryer)
 
  • #6
2.) There does not exist sufficient data for even a professional evolutionist to establish boundary conditions for a solution of the large-population problem.

4.) Surely, Darwinists with a particular interest in performing these calculations, have tried and failed. Else their Nobel prizes would be well known, for they'd have driven a railroad spike through the heart of Creationist ideology.

im my opinion, you are underestimating the scientific community. there must be some efforts to model a large population, googling turned up many results, also wrt to regarding evolution as a markov process. i haven't acutally looked at this, but you can if you want to http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFQQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbustamantelab.cb.bscb.cornell.edu%2Fdocs%2FBustamante_05.pdf&ei=IistTPWxF6eIOK2v8MUB&usg=AFQjCNFvn5odnP2yv4ho_MEkChHg3wGnqA&sig2=5J63-HXc4e8B1B6AkNxW8A" [Broken]
keywords: population evolution markov chain

i don't think creationist will ever be impressed by our reasoning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
Actually genetic recombination happens quite often during meiosis where it is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover" [Broken]. During this process homologous regions of one maternal and one paternal chromosome overlap and exchange certain parts of DNA. So in fact sexual reproduction is not just imparting a certain subsets of ones maternal chromosomes and a complimentary subset of ones paternal chromosomes but also some chromosomes bearing information from both the maternal and the paternal one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
omg! said:
i understand your desire to keep things as simple as possible. what I'm proposing is that perhaps certain things that are not considered simple have to be introduced for this highly complex process.
...

to summarize: i think a simple model of evolution does not exist. you have to be prepared to deal with complexity if you really want to begin to understand evolution. as a last word: i really have no good grasp of this topic, everything i said should be taken with a grain of salt. please do check my statements in textbooks (e.g. stryer)

Now I understand why, shortly after my offspring asked a "Why" question with respect to some aspect of the world, their eyes would soon glaze over!

I certainly appreciate your trying to help. But lacking doctorates in either biology or probability theory, there's not a darn thing I can do with that information. Sorry, but I really did try to make it clear what I'm looking for---

Just a quick and dirty way to APPROXIMATE the probability of a gene coming into existence thanks to the single force of random chance.

I did not request a simple model of evolution. I've read Darwin and a dozen aftermarket books on the subject, including Behe. I requested nothing more than a way to estimate a simple probability.

Astronomers are masters at estimates, because that's all they can do. They don't always get it right, but at least they put out the numbers. And they are limited by their inability to perform experiments on the objects of their interest-- all they can do is observe.

I am beginning to fear that evolutionary biology is not actually a science.

You are right about creationists, but I'm beginning to understand why. My OP was part of a bet between me and a very bright creationist, who predicted that I would NEVER get a straight answer to my query. She compared your reply to a presidential obfuscation, and I have to admit that she's right. And I've no doubt that you gave this your best shot.

Before posting anything on this subject I tried to locate probability estimates in the literature and internet with zero success. So far, this attempt has been a failure on many fronts.

I've already lost the first of several bets, and now must take her to an expensive dinner at a chick restaurant with snooty kids pretending at being waiters, instead of a steak house with friendly waitresses. During this dinner she will know better than to talk to me about her almighty God, but she's already made some good points against Darwinism, and this obfuscation is not helping my case.

Nonetheless, thanks for trying.
 
  • #9
Pere Callahan said:
Actually genetic recombination happens quite often during meiosis where it is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover" [Broken]. During this process homologous regions of one maternal and one paternal chromosome overlap and exchange certain parts of DNA. So in fact sexual reproduction is not just imparting a certain subsets of ones maternal chromosomes and a complimentary subset of ones paternal chromosomes but also some chromosomes bearing information from both the maternal and the paternal one.

Good information, thank you!

Does a "homologous region" mean a gene of the same type, or something else entirely?

Suppose we have a gene in a male chromosome which codes for a specific protein. Will its female counterpart merge with that gene in meiosis in such a manner as to create an entirely new version of the gene which codes for a different or modified protein? If so, how often does this occur?

You obviously know more about this than I ever will, so I have another question. I've been trying to figure out how DNA codes for structure, but cannot find any information on that subject. Can you point me in a useful direction, preferably via the internet?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Greylorn said:
Just a quick and dirty way to APPROXIMATE the probability of a gene coming into existence thanks to the single force of random chance.

many processes are inherently complex and if studied with simple approximations yield conundrums as you described in your first post. Please have a look at Levinthal's paradox of protein folding. An approximation qualitatively similar to your own, leads to the paradox that a single protein folding into its native structure would require a time that exceeds to age of the universe.

if you are unwilling to dig (much) deeper into this subject, I'm afraid you are going to lose your bet. Enjoy the dinner with the lady.
 
  • #11
I saw a car today with the license plate GXF132.

Of all the license plates, what was the odds that I would see that one?
26*26*26*10*10*10=17,576,000. My oh my, that sure was an unlikely event!
 
  • #12
alxm said:
I saw a car today with the license plate GXF132.

Of all the license plates, what was the odds that I would see that one?
26*26*26*10*10*10=17,576,000. My oh my, that sure was an unlikely event!

Were you to pick a plate number at random, or program your computer to do so, and select the GXF132 plate, then set out on a drive and find that plate, it would be more unlikely.

By your need to be condescending and fatuous, I conclude that you are a liberal progressive Darwinist. Was that a lucky guess, or what?
 
  • #13
Greylorn said:
Good information, thank you!

Does a "homologous region" mean a gene of the same type, or something else entirely?
As I understand it homology for chromosomes is defined by phenotypes, not genotypes. So there is a certain region on chromosome A(maternal) coding for blue eyes, and a homologous region on chromosome A(paternal) coding for green eyes. They are two alleles of the same gene, and they are located in the same locus of their respective chromosome.

Greylorn said:
Suppose we have a gene in a male chromosome which codes for a specific protein. Will its female counterpart merge with that gene in meiosis in such a manner as to create an entirely new version of the gene which codes for a different or modified protein? If so, how often does this occur?
Usually, crossovers do not result in "new" proteins only in a recombination of existing proteins. So assume you have again chromosome A(maternal) coding for blue eyes and black hair and chromosome A(paternal) coding for green eyes and blond hair. The whole point of crossover is that there might be sperm cells which contain a chromosome A coding for blue eyes and blond hair.
I don't know how often this occurs.

Greylorn said:
You obviously know more about this than I ever will, so I have another question. I've been trying to figure out how DNA codes for structure, but cannot find any information on that subject. Can you point me in a useful direction, preferably via the internet?

I have to admit that my knowledge on this subject is fairly limited. DNA codes for amino acid sequences and those determine the structure of the proteins. How exactly proteins know how to fold is subject of current research and far from well understood. I suggest you read wikipedia:smile:
 
  • #14
omg! said:
many processes are inherently complex and if studied with simple approximations yield conundrums as you described in your first post. Please have a look at Levinthal's paradox of protein folding. An approximation qualitatively similar to your own, leads to the paradox that a single protein folding into its native structure would require a time that exceeds to age of the universe.

if you are unwilling to dig (much) deeper into this subject, I'm afraid you are going to lose your bet. Enjoy the dinner with the lady.

No argument with you on complexity. However, working in several fields has taught me the importance of finding a simplification. That is how physics got its start--- Galileo didn't try to work out how the cosmos operated. He found a problem he could deal with, and ended up developing what became known as Newton's 2nd (have I confused the number?) Law by rolling wooden balls down inclined planes.

I never enjoy losing a bet, but will enjoy dinner and company, thank you!

I won't have to check into the Levinthal paradox right yet, because upon reading this, she is wondering if it might contain more munitions for creationism. (Thanks a lot!) I'm sure that she will explain it at the sissy restaurant. If not, count on it that I will check it out. And thanks for tip! Really. I'd never heard of the Levinthal paradox before. I will be digging as deeply as I am capable of digging, and scrounging when necessary. Problem is, I want to figure this out before I die, and I've seen the reaper lurking in the woods.
 
  • #15
Pere Callahan said:
I have to admit that my knowledge on this subject is fairly limited. DNA codes for amino acid sequences and those determine the structure of the proteins. How exactly proteins know how to fold is subject of current research and far from well understood. I suggest you read wikipedia:smile:

Thanks for your replies. On this one, however, I didn't clarify my question properly. I'm aware that protein folding is a mystery, but my question was with respect to the overall structure of an organism.

So genes make proteins, but what determines where they go? Why are our fingers at the ends of our hands, instead of our feet--- or already pre-inserted into some orifice? Why do our eyes generally end up on our face, instead of the back of our head, which would offer a shorter interconnect? Etc.

Organisms are clearly more than protein soup. The proteins are carefully arranged. There must be some code which does this. Wikipedia, my favorite source of cross-referenced information, offers nary a clue. Any thoughts about where to go? Does the information I'm looking for exist?
 
  • #16
Greylorn said:
By your need to be condescending and fatuous, I conclude that you are a liberal progressive Darwinist. Was that a lucky guess, or what?
I understand from your posts that you are in the creationist/Intelligent Design Camp, but you're treading a fine line with violating our guidelines for insults.
 
  • #17
You might want to read up on the distinction between ontogeny and phylogeny (in case you're not yet familiar with it)

The development of an individual from a fertilized egg (ontogeny) is a superbly controlled process, also in my opinion far from well understood. The main feature certainly is that in different cells, at different times different genes are expressed (which means translated into proteins) and thus functionally different cells develop. Often there is a complex interplay between different cells, one structure inducing expression of certain genes in another structure. For example the development of the eye in mammalian embryos is induced by the optical nerve growing towards what will be the face. If that optical nerve structure is transplanted somewhere else, the eye will grow there. (In principal at least , I am not a biologist, nor an embryologist).

So I think it is fair to say that genes encode structure by encoding a certain time-line for ontogeny and a sophisticated interaction between developing structures.

How that time-line came into being is a different question which is addressed by phylogeny.
 
  • #18
Evo said:
I understand from your posts that you are in the creationist/Intelligent Design Camp, but you're treading a fine line with violating our guidelines for insults.

I shall consider myself suitably chastised and be more careful when responding to snide insults in the future. I'll also assume that such insults are strictly the prerogative of posters with titles, although I'd have expected better of a "science adviser." Thank you.

I am not in the creationist/Intelligent Design camp as you have assumed. That would require believing in the irrational concept of an omnipotent God, which I gave up decades ago. After having been falsely taught as a child, I've chosen not to fill any holes in my understanding of things with a different set of irrational beliefs.

I've not paid much attention to Darwinism until recently, and these replies to my query have been enlightening. I've heard that it operates more like a belief system than a science, dogmatically intolerant of contrary views, but had dismissed those complaints until my experience here. As a result I have just moved to the "None of the Above Camp," and will devise a better alternative.

I confess surprise, and considerable dismay, at discovering, as your assumptive statement implies, that this is a politically correct forum.
 
  • #19
"I am beginning to fear that evolutionary biology is not actually a science. "

Perhaps you should ask some biologists who do research in this area, and stay away from the highly dishonest creationist camp (by the way, there is no need to write creationism/Intelligent Design, as they are one in the same.
 
  • #20
statdad said:
"I am beginning to fear that evolutionary biology is not actually a science. "

Perhaps you should ask some biologists who do research in this area, and stay away from the highly dishonest creationist camp (by the way, there is no need to write creationism/Intelligent Design, as they are one in the same.

You are the 2nd person to accuse me of, or imply that I'm a creationist. Kindly work up enough integrity to actually read my posts before labeling me. And why do you need to do that anyhow?

I started this thread to gain information and perhaps ideas, not to become the target of individuals with personal problems. I notice that while you freely hand out implicit insults, you did not contribute to the question.

I tried the evolutionary biology literature and could not find estimates for the probability of the evolution of so much as an amoeba. The question of whether or not Darwinism is an adequate broad-scale explanation for biological evolution has been dismissed. So I performed my own basic calculation on the probability of one small human gene coming into existence by random mutation or addition of DNA base pairs, and came up with a probability of 1.4 x 10e-542. That's for one of the 23,000 genes in the human genome, and that's a conservative calculation.

Such numbers render Darwinist explanations of evolution just as absurd as those of religionists.
 
  • #21
Greylorn said:
I tried the evolutionary biology literature and could not find estimates for the probability of the evolution of so much as an amoeba. The question of whether or not Darwinism is an adequate broad-scale explanation for biological evolution has been dismissed. So I performed my own basic calculation on the probability of one small human gene coming into existence by random mutation or addition of DNA base pairs, and came up with a probability of 1.4 x 10e-542. That's for one of the 23,000 genes in the human genome, and that's a conservative calculation.

It's an absurd calculation. It's like calculating the chance of a hurricane based on the chance that each molecule in the area happens to move in the appropriate direction.

Also, it would imply that human genes sprang into existence in toto, which no one thinks happened.
 
  • #22
CRGreathouse said:
It's an absurd calculation. It's like calculating the chance of a hurricane based on the chance that each molecule in the area happens to move in the appropriate direction.

Also, it would imply that human genes sprang into existence in toto, which no one thinks happened.

While you may not like the absurd result, the calculation was based on simple probability theory and biological fact.

It involves several simplifications, but all are in favor of Darwinian theory.

One of these simplifications, for example, is that the addition of a new base-pair is equally probable (0.25) as the mutation of an existing base-pair, despite the fact that before the addition can be made, other processes must open a "hole" in the chromosome which contains a gene to be extended and insert a new base-pair into it. This is less probable than mutation of an existing base-pair.

My calculation also assumes that all mutations are useful, favorable to the development of the gene in question. Since this is known to not be the case, this assumption is highly in favor of the Darwinian explanation.

The hurricane analogy does not seem appropriate, not simply because the number of molecules involved would make a probability calculation impossible and irrelevant, but because a number of known Newtonian forces are involved in moving atmospheric molecules hither and yon.

The actual forces involved in the mutation of DNA can be guessed at, but are not known. (High energy solar radiation, for example, has been proposed as a cause for the "Cambrian Explosion", never mind that every evolutionary development took place under water, well protected from all but neutrinos and possibly high-energy alpha.) Experiments with fruit fly irradiation, last I read, produced only useless variations, soon corrected by the fruit fly DNA in subsequent interbred generations.

Obviously there are forces which cause mutation and development of DNA, but they are lumped under the Darwinian "random" label, there to be fairly treated according to theories which deal which such things.

Incidentally, I'll be gone for a few days, so if you reply to this, that will give you plenty of time to develop your own probability calculation for a 900 base-pair gene.
 
  • #23
Greylorn, you'll find that honesty is the best policy here. It's very obvious that you hold in disdain normal people that believe in evolution, calling them "liberal progressive Darwinists". We that believe in evolution do not call ourselves Darwinists, creationsist do. Your questions, based on your stated beliefs, are of the type we often see from creationists. Same old arguments, sugar coated, throw in a bit about "some creationist I talked to" banter. chuckle chuckle

In other words, people that come here without a religious agenda, never bring up religion.
 
  • #24
"While you may not like the absurd result, the calculation was based on simple probability theory and biological fact. "

No it wasn't - the assumption that every combination is equally likely, or possible, is wrong.

Look at something else.

"Perhaps you should ask some biologists who do research in this area, and stay away from the highly dishonest creationist camp (by the way, there is no need to write creationism/Intelligent Design, as they are one in the same."

Nothing here refers to you as a creationist - the "camp" part refers to the creationist with whom you claim you had the original conversation. You protest too hard.

But, with phrases like "darwinism" and "darwinist" you seem to be using creationist terms all too easily. The reason creationists use those phrases is to imply that anyone who understands evolution does so on faith because there is no substance to it - they are trying, just as you seem to be doing, to present it as nothing more than a pseudo-religion. it is one tactic on part of a very dishonest framing on their part.

"I tried the evolutionary biology literature and could not find estimates for the probability of the evolution of so much as an amoeba."

I don't know whether you did or did not (I have my suspicions). but, let me ask again: did you actually speak with any researchers for advice? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that question.

"Such numbers render Darwinist explanations of evolution just as absurd as those of religionists."

Such a statement is as foolish as the people who post here saying essentially the same thing about relativity that you are about evolution: "I don't understand how this works, so it must be wrong, and the thousands of scientists who have published tens, if not hundreds of thousands of research papers supporting this, aren't being honest."

I almost expect the "Work like mine would be published if the evil empire (or name your own conspiracy) didn't suppress contradictory viewpoints."

I didn't refer to you as a creationist tool before, even though I suspected it to be the case. You've just bolstered that suspicion.
 
  • #25
Greylorn said:
While you may not like the absurd result, the calculation was based on simple probability theory and biological fact.

No, it's really not. I pointed out some of the more obvious deficiencies above; if you seemed to be acting in good faith to correct those I'm sure other posters would be willing to point out more.

Greylorn said:
My calculation also assumes that all mutations are useful, favorable to the development of the gene in question. Since this is known to not be the case, this assumption is highly in favor of the Darwinian explanation.

No, it doesn't. If they were, the probability would approach 100% -- mutations could be made sequentially rather than simultaneously. Of course this is much closer to reality than your model, but it's not accurate either.

Greylorn said:
The hurricane analogy does not seem appropriate, not simply because the number of molecules involved would make a probability calculation impossible and irrelevant, but because a number of known Newtonian forces are involved in moving atmospheric molecules hither and yon.

If you'll reflect on that paragraph, you may see where we're coming from.
 
  • #26
Pere Callahan said:
You might want to read up on the distinction between ontogeny and phylogeny (in case you're not yet familiar with it)

The development of an individual from a fertilized egg (ontogeny) is a superbly controlled process, also in my opinion far from well understood. The main feature certainly is that in different cells, at different times different genes are expressed (which means translated into proteins) and thus functionally different cells develop. Often there is a complex interplay between different cells, one structure inducing expression of certain genes in another structure. For example the development of the eye in mammalian embryos is induced by the optical nerve growing towards what will be the face. If that optical nerve structure is transplanted somewhere else, the eye will grow there. (In principal at least , I am not a biologist, nor an embryologist).

So I think it is fair to say that genes encode structure by encoding a certain time-line for ontogeny and a sophisticated interaction between developing structures.

How that time-line came into being is a different question which is addressed by phylogeny.

I would love to check out the research on the effects of transplanting a developing optic nerve elsewhere in a developing mammal. Such experimental information would be so much more useful than theories and categories. Can you tell me where to find these research results? Thanks!
 
  • #27
CRGreathouse said:
No, it's really not. I pointed out some of the more obvious deficiencies above; if you seemed to be acting in good faith to correct those I'm sure other posters would be willing to point out more.

Other posters seem to have a similar bias to yours. I can't correct deficiencies in Darwinian theory.

CRGreathouse said:
No, it doesn't. If they were, the probability would approach 100% -- mutations could be made sequentially rather than simultaneously. Of course this is much closer to reality than your model, but it's not accurate either.

My calculation is based upon sequential mutations.

I do not propose that it is accurate. I propose that errors in my calculation that the probability for the random formation of a single 900 base-pair gene are entirely in the favor of Darwinian theory. That is because all the simplifications I made in the calculation were biased accordingly.

Moreover, I based my calculation upon sequential mutations. It would be absurd to propose that more than 3 useful simultaneous mutations could occur, because the scientifically determined probability for such an event is 10exp-18. (Although, my calculation is time-independent, so it allows for such a possibility while regarding it as irrelevant.)

Your statement, "No, it doesn't. If they were, the probability would approach 100%..." suggests that you have not made such a calculation yourself, and, moreover, are not referencing calculations performed by evolutionary biologists, but instead are simply coming from your belief in Darwinism. From your perspective, Darwinism must be true, and therefore all valid probability calculations must result in probability 1.00.

That's the kind of reply I'd expect from a Jehovah's Witness or any common religionist.

Show me your calculations.

CRGreathouse said:
If you'll reflect on that paragraph, you may see where we're coming from.

I did, and I don't. Except that the "we" you seem to represent is simply another belief system with no more factual data to back up its beliefs than Christianity, Islam, etc. That doesn't make where you're coming from wrong, it simply puts it into the category of another belief system.
 
  • #28
statdad said:
"While you may not like the absurd result, the calculation was based on simple probability theory and biological fact. "

No it wasn't - the assumption that every combination is equally likely, or possible, is wrong.

Your entire post consists of unsupported assertions. Let's start at your first. Tell me why this assumption is wrong. It would be wrong if there were non-random forces involved in the production of a gene, but Darwinists assume otherwise. Kindly explain the forces that would exclude certain base-pair sequences.

Natural selection does not count, since it is, by definition, a selection operator, not a cause of DNA modifications.

statdad said:
Look at something else.

"Perhaps you should ask some biologists who do research in this area, and stay away from the highly dishonest creationist camp (by the way, there is no need to write creationism/Intelligent Design, as they are one in the same."

Academic experience (and common sense) says, talk to an expert after you've done your homework. My education is in physics, and I'm self-studying in biology. I'm focusing upon the logic involved in making evolutionary biology work, and I'm posting on PF as part of my self-imposed homework.

That is because when I went to biology looking for the kinds of numbers, theories, empirical data, and very serious experiments which I'd come to expect in hard science, I found none. Zero, zip, nada.

Evidently no biologists are actually doing (experimental) work in this area. That makes it tough to find one who might answer pertinent questions. If you know of one who has experimented upon, or calculated evolution probabilities, and published his results, I will follow up.

statdad said:
Nothing here refers to you as a creationist - the "camp" part refers to the creationist with whom you claim you had the original conversation. You protest too hard.

You might want to apply for a job as a Robert Gibbs stand-in.

statdad said:
But, with phrases like "darwinism" and "darwinist" you seem to be using creationist terms all too easily. The reason creationists use those phrases is to imply that anyone who understands evolution does so on faith because there is no substance to it - they are trying, just as you seem to be doing, to present it as nothing more than a pseudo-religion. it is one tactic on part of a very dishonest framing on their part.

Do creationists use the term, "Darwinist?" I honestly do not know, nor do I care. I've read Michael Behe, who has serious microbiological credentials. He didn't use the word.

Since I've gotten onto this subject, I've discovered that lots of people with measurable I.Q.'s do not make a distinction between the biological evolution of life forms, and "Darwinism," which is a belief system intended to explain the biological evolution of life forms, and which is about as logical and consistent with evidence and common sense as Christianity. In a word, illogical and inconsistent with evidence.

I use the word, "Darwinism," to make the distinction between "biological evolution," for which there is an enormous body of solid evidence, and an absurd, unproven, and illogical theory developed by C. Darwin and subsequently extended by his followers (just like Christian theorists have extended J.C.'s coherent social teachings to all sorts of nonsensical beliefs).

Biological evolution is as real as gravity. Darwinism is as real as Genesis. I have chosen to make the distinction, even if you are not yet ready to grasp it.

And returning to your first point, IMO, Darwinist theories and creationist theories belong in the same bucket, one labeled, "Unsupported Beliefs."

statdad said:
"I tried the evolutionary biology literature and could not find estimates for the probability of the evolution of so much as an amoeba."

I don't know whether you did or did not (I have my suspicions). but, let me ask again: did you actually speak with any researchers for advice? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that question.

Well, thank you for the smarmy innuendo.

My experience with academics suggests that the time to speak with a professional is after data gathering, and after data and theory ingesting.

If the last 150 years of post-Darwin biological research has failed to yield a single calculation for the probability of the evolution of an amoeba, what is the point of talking to anyone? If I want to listen to nonsense, I can tune in a presidential speech. Or if my TV is dead, I can re-read your post.

I've requested data and intelligent insights. What I've gotten back from this forum is mostly innuendo, unsupported assertions, and miscellaneous claptrap, not to mention general disapproval. There are a few exceptions, and you are not one. If I wanted mindless dogmatic reactions, I'd have looked for an evolutionist forum.

I've posted my queries to a Physics Forum, in the statistical math section. For God's sake, whether such an entity exists or not, from what corner of the Darwinist woodwork did you crawl from? (Notice: no smarmy innuendo. Just a direct insult. To wit: You have offered no useful suggestions to my queries, no cogent refutations to anything I've written (plenty of assertions, though) and implied that I am a liar, and a creationist. In return, I suggest that you investigate the concept of intellectual integrity.

I've requested information. You've accused me, by implication and innuendo, of being a creationist. You've offered nothing of value, unless you consider whining a value. You are the religionist.

statdad said:
"Such numbers render Darwinist explanations of evolution just as absurd as those of religionists."

Such a statement is as foolish as the people who post here saying essentially the same thing about relativity that you are about evolution: "I don't understand how this works, so it must be wrong, and the thousands of scientists who have published tens, if not hundreds of thousands of research papers supporting this, aren't being honest."

Have you ever heard the remark, stick that where the sun won't shine? Probably not, and I can't imagine why that notion came to mind. I know Darwinism. I've read Darwin's two great books on evolution and know them for what they are. Have you? I'll wager, not.

Of the thousands of Darwinist papers to which you allude, can you please direct me to one which calculates the probability of any given organism, or component of an organism, coming into existence by random forces?

When you've finished that assignment, kindly direct me (and other potentially interested readers) to papers and experiments explaining how the first cell came into existence by random forces of nature.

statdad said:
I almost expect the "Work like mine would be published if the evil empire (or name your own conspiracy) didn't suppress contradictory viewpoints."

I didn't refer to you as a creationist tool before, even though I suspected it to be the case. You've just bolstered that suspicion.

Those smarmy innuendos reek of the stench of dogma, the words of a camp follower.
 
  • #29
Evo said:
Greylorn, you'll find that honesty is the best policy here. It's very obvious that you hold in disdain normal people that believe in evolution, calling them "liberal progressive Darwinists". We that believe in evolution do not call ourselves Darwinists, creationsist do. Your questions, based on your stated beliefs, are of the type we often see from creationists. Same old arguments, sugar coated, throw in a bit about "some creationist I talked to" banter. chuckle chuckle

In other words, people that come here without a religious agenda, never bring up religion.

Guess what, Evo. I didn't bring up religion. I was accused of being a religionist by the people posting to this site, and by you. I defended myself, and am continuing the process, against unwarranted assumptions. It is clear that on this supposedly objective (Physics) forum, belief rules. Here, it is the unsupported belief of Darwinists.

I hold in disdain "normal people." By that, I mean the mindless individuals, however well or poorly educated, who believe what they've been told to believe. IMO Darwinists, religionists, and you fit within that category. Kindly do not consider the statement that you are normal as a personal insult. It is a general categorization. You have decided, without cause, but with plenty of personal prejudice, to categorize me. Fair is fair.

Are you a Darwinist? I'll bet yes.

Am I a Creationist? Well, if you have a category called, "Creationist who does not believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God who wills the universe into existence with an act of will, and who created the laws of physics, and who thinks that Christians are as dogmatic as Darwinists," yes, you can put me in there.

That was a long sentence. Shall I break it down for you in another post? I've noticed that you have difficulty actually reading what I've written, but have no problem interpreting, in substandard English, what you think I've written.

(Standard high school English would suggest, instead of, "We that believe in evolution...",
'We who believe...')

I do not like you. I find your comments to be personal, unwarranted, and insulting. How you got a job as "Mentor" I can imagine but will not mention. If you are indeed a "mentor," I suggest that you are a mentor of the mindless, unimaginative, educated masses. Pretty much like the Pope is the mentor of falsely educated masses.

One reason why I dislike you is because you distort facts. Consider your statement, "It's very obvious that you hold in disdain normal people that believe in evolution, calling them "liberal progressive Darwinists".

I applied that label to one, and only one, insulting poster. You distorted that into your personal conclusion that I think similarly of all who believe in Darwinism. You may apologize, openly, for that blatantly false conclusion, unless you are too arrogant, as "Mentor," to admit a mistake.

Let me try, best as I can, to explain something very simple to you.

I hold in disdain those people who believe, period. People like you who believe in Darwinism are, in my frame of reference, intellectually identical to Christians who believe in the resurrection of the dead.

A serious thinker will come from one set of false beliefs, to doubt, to question, and then to consideration of alternatives. There are few such serious thinkers.

You are obviously not among them. Your statement, "We that believe in evolution..." pretty much says it all. You believe in evolution. Christians believe that Jesus was God.

Your statement was not even correct. You don't believe in evolution. Only a nitwit would need to express "belief" in something which was an obvious fact, and however biased you might be, you are not a nitwit. What you believe in is Darwinism, the unproven theoretical explanation for the facts of evolution.

Most who consider ideas in an objective manner will be able to recognize that the existing belief systems have problems, and that they are personally unable to find a better solution. A few of those try for better solutions. The rest look for another line of work.

Those of us who seek better solutions are continually confronted with people, often in a position of unwarranted authority, thanks to their ability to memorize and suck up, who have adopted the existing belief system.

Galileo had the same difficulties with the stupid Pope that I'm having with you, and for the same reasons. Dogma rules.

IMO you might relinquish the Title of Mentor, study some material about things you don't believe in, and let me know when the job opens up. I've had real mentors in my life. They all had doctorates and open minds.
 
  • #30
I think these are the numbers your after

0.25^900= 1.4*10^(-542)

and (0.25^(900))^23000= 1.5* 10^(-12462642)

didnt need a cray computer; it is not actually a difficult calculation, your calculator probably can't deal with such small numbers!

hope that helps
 
  • #31
Locked pending moderation.
 

What is the "Conundrum Regarding Evolution Probability"?

The "Conundrum Regarding Evolution Probability" refers to the ongoing debate about the likelihood of evolution occurring and the role of chance in the process.

What evidence supports the theory of evolution?

There is a vast amount of evidence from various fields of science, including genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy, that supports the theory of evolution. This evidence includes the fossil record, DNA sequencing, and observed patterns of natural selection.

Can evolution and creationism coexist?

Many people believe that evolution and creationism can coexist, as they address different aspects of the natural world. Evolution explains the development of species over time, while creationism focuses on the origin of life. However, this is a controversial topic and is still widely debated.

Is evolution just a theory?

The term "theory" in science does not mean a guess or a hunch, but rather a well-supported explanation for a phenomenon. Evolution is considered a scientific theory because it is supported by a vast amount of evidence and has been rigorously tested and confirmed by multiple experiments and observations.

Can evolution be proven or disproven?

Science does not aim to prove or disprove theories, but rather to gather evidence and make conclusions based on that evidence. Evolution has been supported by a vast amount of evidence, but it is always possible for new evidence to emerge that may challenge or refine our understanding of the process.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
2
Replies
63
Views
8K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top