Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is.

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 7 of 8
 [ 142 posts ] 
Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is.
Author Message
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

[off-topic]No problem, but I can recommend Groningen and Wageningen. Groningen also for the city, it's amazing! Wageningen has a great campus but the city sucks! I think I walked the same path that you will. I spent a few years at Saxion Hogeschool, here you are drilled as a lab rat, iets waar ik de vruchten van plukte op de universiteit. Anyway, best of luck! :) [/off-topic]
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:11 pm
WWW
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

Nesslig20 wrote:
Leroy wrote:Yes it is both a fact and an assumption, since you are clearly a disciple of Aronra, you think that “assumtions” and “facts” are mutually exclusive, but the truth is that an assumption can be an undisputed fact and still be an assumption.

Everyone, meet my master
Image
And yes, I do think facts and assumptions are mutually exclusive things.

Assumption
noun:
A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Fact
noun:
a thing that is known or proved to be true.



You do realize that this is all semantics right? Besides your master would tell you that “normal dictionaries” are not reliable sources if you what to define scientific terms.
“Assumption: An assumption is something we take for granted or presuppose. Usually it is something we previously learned and do not question. It is part of our system of beliefs. We assume our beliefs to be true and use them to interpret the world about us. If we believe that it is dangerous to walk late at night in big cities and we are staying in Chicago, we will infer that it is dangerous to go for a walk late at night. We take for granted our belief that it is dangerous to walk late at night in big cities. If our belief is a sound one, our assumption is sound. If our belief is not sound, our assumption is not sound. Beliefs, and hence assumptions, can be unjustified or justified, depending upon whether we do or do not have good reasons for them. Consider this example: “I heard a scratch at the door. I got up to let the cat in.” My inference was based on the assumption (my prior belief) that only the cat makes that noise, and that he makes it only when he wants to be let in.”
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/c ... ptions/484


This is what I meant when I used the term assumption, if a scientist proves today that “X” is true, scientists from the future would assume X in future experiments.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:29 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

Nesslig20 wrote:[Both the ruler and the walking wheel use the same methodology: Measuring distance, but on different scales.
Both paternity tests and the science that prove common universal common ancestry use the same methodology:
Confirming relatedness using DNA comparison, but on different scales. .


Ok, So paternity tests use restriction enzymes to cut DNA, and analyze the differences between father and son. The differences between you and a stranger are more less 1 base pair for every 1,000 that are being analyzed.

The differences between you and a close relative are obviously smaller than 1/1,000

The difference between you and your father is about 1/2000 so if the paternity shows a difference between you and an individual of 1 base pair for every 2,000 (or something close to that number) it would be said that “he is your father”


Can you please provide an article that proves “universal common ancestry” and that uses this methodology?

----------------

I accept your ruler and walking wheel analogy, my point is that proving that the ruler works doesn´t automatically prove that the walking wheel also works, these tools use a different methodology to measure distances.

It would be logically possible to say that the wheel doesn´t provide reliable results and steel accept the ruler as a reliable tool. For example the walking wheel assumes that PI = 3.14159…… but the ruler makes no such assumption, therefore if someone proves that PI has a different value, he would disprove that wheel as a reliable method but he could steel trust the ruler.

I know you would have problems with my use of the term “assumes” but I honestly don´t know what term should I use instead.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:54 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

Nesslig20
can't answer that question since I don't have the data to do that calculation. Although one error you made is considering natural selection as if it where to decrease the probability of the mutations persisting, in reality it is the opposite case, natural selection INCREASES the survivability of beneficial mutations as these 200.
But still I can't answer your question, because you would need:
1. The genome size of each lineage.
2. The population size of each lineage
3. The mutation rate per generation in each lineage.
4. The amount of generations after each lineage split.
5. The effect of natural selection on the survivability on the mutations.
6. The effect of genetic drift on the survivability on the mutations.


Ok but do you agree with the methodology that I am proposing? In order to determine the probability of 2 independent organisms suffering from the same mutations 200 times all I have to do is determine

A) The probability of 2 organisms having the same mutation in the same loci
B) The probability that the mutation would survive in future generations (considering the power of natural selection)
C) Multiply A*B*200

Do you agree with this methodology? Is there anything I should add or remove after showing my math?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:03 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

You can measure the circumference of a wheel directly without relying on calculations of Pi.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:06 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

SpecialFrog wrote:You can measure the circumference of a wheel directly without relying on calculations of Pi.


I we are working with analogies you can´t be so “neatpicky” lest assume that the engineers never measured the circumference of the wheel, lets pretend that THEY simply assumed that PI is = 3.14159
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:14 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

Nesslig20 wrote:(sigh) You know, if I said to someone that I could do the math, I do the math. Why won't you?
If you could do the math, then do the same math with this example I gave previously.
In the Lenksi experiment 12 separate populations of E.coli where grown and after 20.000 generations (10 years), the gene expressions of two populations where tested and compared to their ancestors. They found that 59 genes had changed in the same way independently in both populations. Here is the article
Now first show me the math that would prove that it is extremely unlikely for two lineages to suffer from the same 200 mutations across a period of 30,000,000 just like you said you could.
And then use the same calculations on this example and determine the likely hood for two lineages to suffer from the same 59 mutations across a period of 10 years. Don't worry, take your time. ;) .



Sure after you agree with the methodology we can you my math to test that example too.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:17 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

Rumraket wrote:You want a fucking lecture on consistency index? Then go here: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/teach ... istics.pdf

Download that, then go read how to do a Consistency Index. Have fun. .




Please stop sending random articles, I am asking for a method that would tell us if a discordance is significant or not

It is impossible to prove that it is impossible, since it is merely a matter of probability. Low odds aren't impossible, they're just low. This is so basic as to be unbelievable that a grown man doesn't know the difference between an unlikelihood and an impossibility



Ok with impossible I meant “extremely unlikely” let’s say something below a 1% chance after considering all the probabilistic resources.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:26 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

leroy wrote:Ok but do you agree with the methodology that I am proposing? In order to determine the probability of 2 independent organisms suffering from the same mutations 200 times all I have to do is determine

A) The probability of 2 organisms having the same mutation in the same loci
B) The probability that the mutation would survive in future generations (considering the power of natural selection)
C) Multiply A*B*200

Do you agree with this methodology? Is there anything I should add or remove after showing my math?

Surely if two mutations complement each other then the odds of each one persisting cannot be calculated independently? Related to this is the tendency for some gene variants to be "sticky" and usually be present together.

You claim to understand evolution yet are continually trying to oversimplify it.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:37 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 260Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

leroy wrote:You do realize that this is all semantics right? Besides your master would tell you that “normal dictionaries” are not reliable sources if you what to define scientific terms.
“Assumption: An assumption is something we take for granted or presuppose. Usually it is something we previously learned and do not question. It is part of our system of beliefs. We assume our beliefs to be true and use them to interpret the world about us. If we believe that it is dangerous to walk late at night in big cities and we are staying in Chicago, we will infer that it is dangerous to go for a walk late at night. We take for granted our belief that it is dangerous to walk late at night in big cities. If our belief is a sound one, our assumption is sound. If our belief is not sound, our assumption is not sound. Beliefs, and hence assumptions, can be unjustified or justified, depending upon whether we do or do not have good reasons for them. Consider this example: “I heard a scratch at the door. I got up to let the cat in.” My inference was based on the assumption (my prior belief) that only the cat makes that noise, and that he makes it only when he wants to be let in.”
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/c ... ptions/484


This is what I meant when I used the term assumption, if a scientist proves today that “X” is true, scientists from the future would assume X in future experiments.


I do realize that it is semantics. Words don't have intrinsic meanings, we give them meaning on how we use them. However I prefer to use the terms most people would use when it comes to words like fact and assumption. Generally when someone says X is a fact people will understand that different from someone saying X is an assumption.
But of course, words can have different meanings the way they are used. For example on Engage Learning, they defined facts and assumption in order to distinguish the two.

Facts: are objective, observable, and verifiable.
Assumptions: refer to things we believe to be true, which may or may not be proven but often are not.

So according to this, there is a distinction between the two, basically all facts can be assumptions but not all assumptions are necessarily facts, and that's why I objected the use of that the term assumption when we are clearly dealing with something that is a fact.
If you would agree that it is verifiable that we inhered DNA from our parents (fact) and we believe that to be true (assumption), then we are on the sam page here wether or not we agree on the terms fact and assumption.

Leroy wrote:Ok, So paternity tests use restriction enzymes to cut DNA, and analyze the differences between father and son. The differences between you and a stranger are more less 1 base pair for every 1,000 that are being analyzed.
The differences between you and a close relative are obviously smaller than 1/1,000
The difference between you and your father is about 1/2000 so if the paternity shows a difference between you and an individual of 1 base pair for every 2,000 (or something close to that number) it would be said that “he is your father”


That's not how a paternity test works. On a whole, our genomes are so similar that if we would do a the paternity test the way you described it, we must sequence the whole genome. But we don't have to do that. We only have to look at the sites where DNA varies between individuals, even those that are close related. This is where STR (short tandem repeats) come in. These are locations in the DNA where short sequences that can be 2 to 5 (micro satellites) or 10-60 (mini satellites) base pairs long are repeated ranging from 5 to 50 times.
There are 15 STR (also called VNTRs) locations I know of also called markers.
Image
And also remember that humans have for every chromosome 2 copies, thus you get of every STR 2 versions.
If your mother has for one VNTR with a length of 78 and another copy with a length of 127 then you will get one copy either 78 or 127.
If your father has for the same VNTR 99 and 39 you will get one of the two. And so on, eventually a paternity test looks like this.
Image
It is highly unlikely for two persons (except for identical twins) to have the same lengths of every VNTR. And this is why we use these genetic markers for paternity test. To determine common ancestry, you use genetic markers that don't vary much within groups like species, but do vary across them.

Leroy wrote:Can you please provide an article that proves “universal common ancestry” and that uses this methodology?


Not the methodology you described because one paternity cannot determine relatedness above its limit just like a ruler can't determine distance above its limit and two your method doesn't even describe a paternity test.

I can and I did cite an article about confirming common ancestry.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2409108/
However this one is particularly about the common ancestry between humans and the other apes as well as other close relatives. Do you already agree that humans and chimps are related? This one here is about universal common ancestry, which is less solid as the case for human chimp relatedness because one the universal common ancestor would have lived billions of years ago and the chimp/human ancestor just 6 million years and two, horizontal gene transfer in microbes makes determining phylogenetic relationship harder, but still UCA is still well supported.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3314578/

Leroy wrote:I accept your ruler and walking wheel analogy, my point is that proving that the ruler works doesn´t automatically prove that the walking wheel also works, these tools use a different methodology to measure distances.


...Actually, no. The walking wheel is like a long circular ruler. Both use something which the length is already known of use it to measure distance of something.

Leroy wrote:It would be logically possible to say that the wheel doesn´t provide reliable results and steel accept the ruler as a reliable tool. For example the walking wheel assumes that PI = 3.14159…… but the ruler makes no such assumption, therefore if someone proves that PI has a different value, he would disprove that wheel as a reliable method but he could steel trust the ruler.


Now you are using "assumption" differently. You say PI = 3.1415 is an assumption as if it isn't a fact and would make the method unreliable.
PI = 3.1415 etc is mathematically necessary thus it is a fact. This is exactly what I was afraid of using the word assumption in these cases that are perfectly describable with the word fact.
Thus the FACT that pi = 3.1415 makes the method no less reliable. And also the ruler may more accurately at small distances but what if you want to measure miles? Which would be more accurate, using the ruler or the wheel?

Leroy wrote:I know you would have problems with my use of the term “assumes” but I honestly don´t know what term should I use instead.


In the cases with pi = 3.1415..... and with we inheriting DNA from our parents. A better word would be fact cause these things are not just things we believe to be true (=assumption), we also can verify that these are true (fact).

Leroy wrote:Ok but do you agree with the methodology that I am proposing? In order to determine the probability of 2 independent organisms suffering from the same mutations 200 times all I have to do is determine
A) The probability of 2 organisms having the same mutation in the same loci
B) The probability that the mutation would survive in future generations (considering the power of natural selection)
C) Multiply A*B*200
Do you agree with this methodology? Is there anything I should add or remove after showing my math?


:facepalm: First you said this:
Leroy wrote:If you need any help, I can do the math for you, and prove that it is impossible (or extremely unlikely) for 2 organisms to suffer from them same 200 mutations.

Now you want my help to do the math you said you could help me to do.
Alright, I will help you. There are problems with your method, because bats and dolphins didn't acquire the same mutations at once in one organism separately. They acquired the same mutations during their separate lineages which includes many individuals and many generations. This increases the likely hood of the same mutation happening.
Explaining the math: Let's say the likely hood of a one mutation happening in one organism is 1/100 thus this happening twice in two organisms is 1/100 X 1/100 = 1/10.000 or 0,01% and this happening 200 times is
(1/10.000)^200 = 1 in 1.0x10^800 Ridiculously small
But what if I had instead of two individual organisms, I had two separate populations each with 100 individuals, that would increase the chance. But the mathematics becomes complicated. The formula for calculating the chance of throwing a six after six throws isn't 100%, it's actually this.
P = 1 - (M)^N
N = amount of throws
M = the likely hood of NOT throwing a six in ONE throw which is 1 - 1/6 = 5/6 Thus
P = 1 - (5/6)^6 = 11/36 or 30%
Now we can apply this to our mutation. The likely hood of a mutation (that has a likely hood of 1/100 happening in one individual) happening in a population of 100 individuals is:
M = 1 - 1/100 = 99/100
N = the population = 100 (having many individuals increases the likely hood of the mutation happening)
P = 1 - (99/100)^100 = 0,63 or 63% likely.
This happening in two populations is 0,63^2 = 0,4 or 40% and this happening 200 times is
0,4^200= 1 in 6 x 10^80
But what if you have instead of just two populations each with 100 individuals, you have 1.500.000 generations in each population.
Now value N changes from 100 to 100 x 1.500.000 = 150.000.000
Redo the calculation.
P = 1 - (99/100)^150.000.000 = 0,999999 or 99,9999%
This happening in two populations is 0,999999^2 = 0,999998 and this happening 200 times is
0,9999986^200= 0,9996 or 99,96%

See that the likely hood shoots up when you take population size and many generations into account.
Just to put the entire calculation in one formula:

P = ( 1 - (M)^(NxG) )^(L+T)

M = 1 - chance of mutation (example is 1/100 thus M is 99/100)
N = population size (example is 100)
G = generations (example is 150.000.000)
L = number of lineages (example is 2)
T = number of identical mutations (example is 200)

Although this doesn't include natural selection or genetic drift. I can't calculate the survivability of the mutations, but I can calculate the chance of 200 mutations happening in 2 lineages if you can give me the actual population size and the number of generations and the likely hood of a particular mutation happening, which I don't have and I don't think you can determine that.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:48 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

leroy wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:[Both the ruler and the walking wheel use the same methodology: Measuring distance, but on different scales.
Both paternity tests and the science that prove common universal common ancestry use the same methodology:
Confirming relatedness using DNA comparison, but on different scales. .


Ok, So paternity tests use restriction enzymes to cut DNA, and analyze the differences between father and son. The differences between you and a stranger are more less 1 base pair for every 1,000 that are being analyzed.

The differences between you and a close relative are obviously smaller than 1/1,000

The difference between you and your father is about 1/2000 so if the paternity shows a difference between you and an individual of 1 base pair for every 2,000 (or something close to that number) it would be said that “he is your father”


Can you please provide an article that proves “universal common ancestry” and that uses this methodology?


:facepalm:

Nesslig20 wrote:That's not the point of why I brought paternity test. A paternity test is a test that compares genetic homologs or in often cases STRs (short tandem repeats), and can only demonstrate relatedness at a small scale (paternity scale).
Of course you cannot use a paternity test to prove that humans and chimps are related, in that case you use many genetic orthologs.

[Emphasis added.]


Why do you insist on asking questions that have already been answered?

SpecialFrog wrote:You claim to understand evolution yet are continually trying to oversimplify it.


Well, leroy has claimed this several times, but when he showed us his understanding, leroy demonstrated that he does not understand evolution.

Nesslig20 wrote:
Leroy wrote:It would be logically possible to say that the wheel doesn´t provide reliable results and steel accept the ruler as a reliable tool. For example the walking wheel assumes that PI = 3.14159…… but the ruler makes no such assumption, therefore if someone proves that PI has a different value, he would disprove that wheel as a reliable method but he could steel trust the ruler.


Now you are using "assumption" differently. You say PI = 3.1415 is an assumption as if it isn't a fact and would make the method unreliable.
PI = 3.1415 etc is mathematically necessary thus it is a fact. This is exactly what I was afraid of using the word assumption in these cases that are perfectly describable with the word fact.
Thus the FACT that pi = 3.1415 makes the method no less reliable. And also the ruler may more accurately at small distances but what if you want to measure miles? Which would be more accurate, using the ruler or the wheel?


Semantics, the last bastion of creationism. Leroy spent all this time setting up this equivocation in the hopes that the person he is talking to would not see right through it. Leroy, if all your arguments rely on semantics, what does that say about your position?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat Mar 26, 2016 9:31 pm
YIM WWW
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 260Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

Joebob5 wrote:I haven't taken the time to figure out the keystrokes for inserting scanned photos yet, but perhaps soon I can show you some of Werner's photos of the actual fossils that Gingerich had and compare them to the photos of the plaster cast that Gingerich made, and then presented to the public. The cast is a fraud. The whale predecessor blow-hole was fraudulently created. That's not science - that's fraud.
Werner has photos of the sigmoid process on auditory bulla for the alleged pakicetus whale predecessor and for 2 different whales and a dolphin and the pakicetus sigmoid process is obviously different. But somehow - the glorious evolutions made it appear the same. That is a fraud.
Werner also has photos of Gingerich's 1980 plaster cast skull that was presented to the public in 2009 for the TV show documentary. The plaster cast was created from just a few fragments. Werner shows that subsequent finding showed that Gingerich's 1980 skull was wrong - the creature had a nose not a blowhole, and the creature had eyes on the top of it's head - not the side like a whale. Despite the fact that 2001 skull showed that Gingerich was wrong - Gingerich still showed his 1980 skull for the TV audience - and that is a fraud.


Hey Joe, will you come back and give the evidence you promised you would"
And also back up Berlinski's claim of 50.000 chances that you actually believe to be legit, by giving the list of 50.000 changes or admit that Berlinksi is full of shit and you have been an idiot by believing his crap.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:19 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

Nesslig20 wrote:

...Actually, no. The walking wheel is like a long circular ruler. Both use something which the length is already known of use it to measure distance of something. [


The difference between a ruler and a Wheel is not just the scale; the mechanism is completely different, If the engineer that created the wheel did´t know the value of PI, the Wheel wouldn´t be reliable, if the mesh in the wheel doesn’t work properly the wheel would not work, if the mechanism doesn’t do the conversion (Revolution VS Meters) properly the wheel would not work, there are many things that would affect the proper functioning of the wheel and that would not affect the ruler.

In other words proving that the ruler works doesn’t automatically prove that the wheel also works, there is a possible world where rules work and wheels don´t.

The same is true with paternity test and common ancestry; the mechanism that would tell you that someone is your father is independent from the supposed evidence for common ancestry. Proving that paternity test work doesn’t automatically prove that universal common ancestry is true.

There is a possible world where paternity test work and universal common ancestry is wrong, for example in a hypothetical world where “a designer” created each specie independently, paternity test would work and universal common ancestry would be wrong.............. agree with this last statement?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:24 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

Nesslig20 wrote:
See that the likely hood shoots up when you take population size and many generations into account.
Just to put the entire calculation in one formula:

P = ( 1 - (M)^(NxG) )^(L+T)

M = 1 - chance of mutation (example is 1/100 thus M is 99/100)
N = population size (example is 100)
G = generations (example is 150.000.000)
L = number of lineages (example is 2)
T = number of identical mutations (example is 200)

.


I would agree with you mathematical reasoning, but you seem to ignore a very important factor “if an organism suffers from a mutation there is no guaranty that this mutation would survive (even if the mutation is positive)

In a large population even beneficial mutations are very unlikely to survive. Since genetic drift will leak-out most mutations.

“The larger the population, the less likely it is for a mutation to survive” do you agree with this statement?

Aronra would agree with this statement…
aronra“The fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.”
theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=12235&p=159935


But We don´t need to trust Aronra, It can be proven mathematically that mutations are less likely to survive in large population than in small populatios

For neutral mutations the probability of fixation is given by 1/2N
N = Size of the population
For positive mutation you would have to multiply (1/2N)(1+2S)
S = selective coefficient of a mutation.
For example if a mutation makes the organism 10% more likely to survive and reproduce it could be said that S = 0.1
So as can be proven with the equation the larger the population (N) the smaller the propability of fixation.
Before I continue I what to know if you agree with this particular point “Mutation are less likely to survive in large populations than in small populations” this is true for Both neutral and positive mutations.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:46 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

leroy wrote:In other words proving that the ruler works doesn’t automatically prove that the wheel also works, there is a possible world where rules work and wheels don´t.

...

There is a possible world where paternity test work and universal common ancestry is wrong, for example in a hypothetical world where “a designer” created each specie independently, paternity test would work and universal common ancestry would be wrong.............. agree with this last statement?


:docpalm:

Counterfactual conditional. Why not deal with the real world, instead of supposing possible worlds where things are different?

leroy wrote:“The larger the population, the less likely it is for a mutation to survive” do you agree with this statement?

Aronra would agree with this statement…
aronra“The fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.”
theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=12235&p=159935


:lol:

That quote from AronRa does not agree with your statement. As if we needed more examples of your poor reading comprehension.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:16 am
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
That quote from AronRa does not agree with your statement. As if we needed more examples of your poor reading comprehension.




You are just a troll, deep inside you agree with my statement, you won´tp admit it because you are too arrogant to do so.

You agree with my statement, you agree that mutations are less likely to survive in large population (regardless is these mutations are positive or not)

Even if I misunderstood Aronra (I did not) it is still and uncontroversial fact of science that in large populations mutations are less likely to survive in large populations ..........you agree with this statement, but you won´t admit it
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Apr 05, 2016 2:45 pm
Steelmage99Posts: 174Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 9:43 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
That quote from AronRa does not agree with your statement. As if we needed more examples of your poor reading comprehension.




You are just a troll, deep inside you agree with my statement, you won´tp admit it because you are too arrogant to do so.

You agree with my statement, you agree that mutations are less likely to survive in large population (regardless is these mutations are positive or not)

Even if I misunderstood Aronra (I did not) it is still and uncontroversial fact of science that in large populations mutations are less likely to survive in large populations ..........you agree with this statement, but you won´t admit it


With mind-reading skills like that you ought to be in Vegas.
Blunder that theists make all the time;

Pretending to know what other people think.
Tue Apr 05, 2016 6:48 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1187Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

leroy wrote:You agree with my statement, you agree that mutations are less likely to survive in large population (regardless is these mutations are positive or not)

Clearly, unambigously, provably false.

The strength of selection increases with population size. Meaning if the mutation is "positive" (which I take to mean it confers the carrier increased reproductive success, a "positive effect on fitness"), then the larger the population size the better. This has been proven by almost a century of population genetics.

Image
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Tue Apr 05, 2016 7:45 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
That quote from AronRa does not agree with your statement. As if we needed more examples of your poor reading comprehension.




You are just a troll, deep inside you agree with my statement, you won´tp admit it because you are too arrogant to do so.

You agree with my statement, you agree that mutations are less likely to survive in large population (regardless is these mutations are positive or not)

Even if I misunderstood Aronra (I did not) it is still and uncontroversial fact of science that in large populations mutations are less likely to survive in large populations ..........you agree with this statement, but you won´t admit it


:lol: :facepalm:

Wherein my comment did I disagree with you? Oh, that is right, nowhere. Thanks for once again exposing that you have the worst reading comprehension of anyone on this forum.

To spell this out, since you appear unable to read for comprehension; you are right that in a large population, mutations have a much harder time reaching fixation in a population (i.e. assuming fixation is actually what you mean by "survive"). However, the quote you used from AronRa is not talking about that. That is to say, one can accept your statement as true while pointing out that a quote you used to support it does not support said quote. Honestly, it is kind of funny, because I bet you could find a quote of AronRa actually supporting that if you knew how to research.

Steelmage99 wrote:With mind-reading skills like that you ought to be in Vegas.


I am betting presuppositionalism has a lot to do with this comment from dandan leroy.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Apr 05, 2016 8:06 pm
YIM WWW
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 260Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

leroy wrote:The difference between a ruler and a Wheel is not just the scale; the mechanism is completely different,


In both cases, your are measuring the length of something by compering it's length to something of which you already know the length of. The ruler isn't as useful to measure distances in terms of miles, unlike the wheel.

leroy wrote:If the engineer that created the wheel did´t know the value of PI, the Wheel wouldn´t be reliable,


What engineer wouldn't be aware of the value of PI???
Answer: No engineer.

leroy wrote:if the mesh in the wheel doesn’t work properly the wheel would not work, if the mechanism doesn’t do the conversion (Revolution VS Meters) properly the wheel would not work,


If the ruler isn't perfectly straight, the ruler would not work.
If the lines on the ruler that tell the inches are not perfectly alignment, the ruler would not work.
If the ruler is measuring the length of something that is curved, the ruler would not work.
If you were correct about this then nothing works, which is an absurd standard.

leroy wrote:there are many things that would affect the proper functioning of the wheel and that would not affect the ruler.


Those things you mentioned can all be checked and demonstrate to work properly.
If the engineer doesn't know the value of PI, fire him and hire one that does.
If the mesh in the wheel doesn't work properly, then fix it until it does.
If the mechanism doesn't do the conversion properly, fix that too.
After that you can also test the wheel to measure something that you already know the length of. If it is accurate then it works and you can also measure the margin of error with this and keep it at a minimum. Yes, there is always going to be a margin of error. That's why paternity tests are at maximum 99,9% accurate.

leroy wrote:In other words proving that the ruler works doesn’t automatically prove that the wheel also works, there is a possible world where rules work and wheels don´t.


Yes it does. The way the ruler works is again, comparing its length agains the length of something you want to measure.
If you know the length of circumference of the wheel, then you can use that too to measure the length of something too.

Your objections to the wheel is basically:
"If the engineers made a mistake somewhere then it doesn't work"
Yeah, the same can be said for the ruler. However, let's say that (just in reality) both do work and the engineers did a good job making both and checking the accuracy of both the ruler and the wheel.

Then the wheel does work on the same principle as the ruler:
In both cases, your are measuring the length of something by compering it's length to something of which you already know the length of.

leroy wrote:The same is true with paternity test and common ancestry; the mechanism that would tell you that someone is your father is independent from the supposed evidence for common ancestry. Proving that paternity test work doesn’t automatically prove that universal common ancestry is true.


Once more, paternity test can only prove relatedness between paternal relationship! How many times do I have to say that.

However paternity test proves this principle does work.
You can use DNA comparison to confirm relatedness.
THIS principle is the same with both paternity tests and the supposed genetic evidence for common ancestry.

Paternity tests use genetic markers that vary allot from person to person like STR's.
On the larger scale across species, markers that vary allot from species to species but not within species are used like genetic orthologs but also other things like ERV's are very good example.
Image

leroy wrote:There is a possible world where paternity test work and universal common ancestry is wrong for example in a hypothetical world where “a designer” created each specie independently, paternity test would work and universal common ancestry would be wrong.............. agree with this last statement?


Sure, if I accept the big IF, then yes.
In your hypothetical world where all humans are related to each other but not to any other animal then paternity test would work and other tests based on the same principle (DNA comparison can confirm relatedness) won't work with confirming common ancestry between humans and other animals.

However, that's not the world we live in.

leroy wrote:I would agree with you mathematical reasoning, but you seem to ignore a very important factor “if an organism suffers from a mutation there is no guaranty that this mutation would survive (even if the mutation is positive)


If you closely read right after the comment you quoted, I did not ignore that part:
ME wrote:Although this doesn't include natural selection or genetic drift. I can't calculate the survivability of the mutations,


leroy wrote:In a large population even beneficial mutations are very unlikely to survive. Since genetic drift will leak-out most mutations.
“The larger the population, the less likely it is for a mutation to survive” do you agree with this statement?


Actually, no I would not. Genetic drift has a stronger influence on smaller populations, thus mutations (if neutral) get lost or fixed much much more quickly in smaller populations then in larger ones.
A very large population tends to maintain the same genetic frequency of a particular mutation, thus the larger the population the more likely a neutral mutation will be maintained.

leroy wrote:Aronra would agree with this statement…
aronra“The fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.”
theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=12235&p=159935


Actually by that statement he wouldn't. This statement is basically the same as I said earlier here.
The change in allele frequency in genetically isolated groups are accelerated thus mutations can be lost or fixed much quickly then in larger populations.
You misunderstood that statement.

leroy wrote:But We don´t need to trust Aronra, It can be proven mathematically that mutations are less likely to survive in large population than in small populations.

For neutral mutations the probability of fixation is given by 1/2N
N = Size of the population
For positive mutation you would have to multiply (1/2N)(1+2S)
S = selective coefficient of a mutation.
For example if a mutation makes the organism 10% more likely to survive and reproduce it could be said that S = 0.1
So as can be proven with the equation the larger the population (N) the smaller the propability of fixation.
Before I continue I what to know if you agree with this particular point “Mutation are less likely to survive in large populations than in small populations” this is true for Both neutral and positive mutations.
[/quote]

No as I said, I don't agree.
If you said: Mutations are less likely to get fixated in large populations then in small ones due to genetic drift, I would agree.

I think you confuse the terms fixed and survivability of mutations, they are not the same.
Mutations can survive pretty good even though they aren't fixated in a populations. For example not every human being has the mutation that enables them to digest milk sugar, in fact most humans on the planet are lactose intolerant. Yet the mutation has survived for thousands of years.

But examining your math I don't agree that for neutral mutations the probability of fixation is 1/2N where N is population.
For fixation of neutral mutations to occur, you also have to consider the number of generations.

For example if we assume that we have a population size of 10 (for simplicity) and one of them has neutral mutation X and the population size remains constant and if we assume that each individual can have a max of 2 offspring, and the chance of each offspring to reproduce in the next generation is 1/2.
(it doesn't particularly matter how much offspring or how likely it is for them to survive, as long as it is equal).

Then according to your formula 1/2N
The chance is 1/(2 x 10) = 1 in 100 but after how many generation? After 1? That is not possible since the maximum amount of offspring one individual can have is 2 and the population size is 10.

The math is much more complicated. If we had a population of 100 and 1 with a neutral mutation and each individual can have at max two offspring. Then at a minimum it must take 99 generations for the mutation to reach fixation.
However it can, and probably will, take more generations since the frequency of this mutation occurring within the population can also stay the same or at some point go up and down after each generation. And if the frequency of the mutation just happen to hit 50% at chance then it also can get lost or fixated in later generations with a 50% chance. Thus the chance of fixation is also influence by the frequency of the mutation within the population which changes constantly, thus it is difficult to calculate this with one simple equation. The best way to do this is by a simulation which simulates the allele frequency change within a given population.
Like this one here you can access yourself.

I put in population size 100 and frequency 0.01 (just one individual got allele A1) 5 populations and fitness was untouched (neutral)
The result was most of the time the allele got lost due random chance, but some times the allele frequency of allele A1 got above 50%, but rarely does it ever get fixed. Although I set the simulation to stop after 200 generation, maybe it gets fixed after a few hundred after that or lost.

Now I put in:
Population size 100
Frequency 0.01
Fitness A1A1 1.00
Fitness A1A2 0.95
Fitness A2A2 0.90

Now the black line says what would happen if genetic drift was not a factor, it would always go up due to selection.
The populations either lose the beneficial mutation due to chance or get fixed due to selection. I did this simulation several times and most population lose their mutation but some like 1 out of 4 get fixed very quickly.

Now if I chance the fitness again, but much more extreme
Fitness A1A1 1.00
Fitness A1A2 0.90
Fitness A2A2 0.80

Then most or at least half the time the mutation gets fixed due to selective advantage.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Tue Apr 05, 2016 8:42 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 7 of 8
 [ 142 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests