Random mutations cannot explain evolution of humans

[wogoga]

The question at issue is not whether gradual transitions are conceivable (and existent), but whether they can be explained by the assumption that they are caused by random mutations.

Take the case of humans after their separation from chimps some million years ago. An upper limit to the number of individuals having been born since then is 10^16 (i.e. 10^9 newborns per year for 10^7 years).

10^16 is an extremely small number when compared with the number of possible mutations in the genetic code. Let us assume that the number of relevant base pairs (i.e. without junk DNA) is 100'000'000 pairs per chromosome set. This results in three hundred million possible point-replacement mutations (because every base pair can be replaced by three alternatives).

The number of possible combinations of two such point mutations is already 10^17, i.e. higher than the number of all "humans" ever born since our separation from chimps. The number of all possible single-step mutations is even much higher than the number of point-replacement mutations.

So evolutionary advantages depending on two or more single-step mutations cannot have had a relevant impact (at least for human evolution). If we believe in neo-Darwinism we must assume that every innovation is produced by a sequence of single-step mutations, each of which alone responsible for a relevant increase in fitness.

Let us assume that three factors must be affected for an increase in fitness to emerge. So even if the probability of a beneficial mutation in a newborn were as high as 10^-5 for each factor, the probability that beneficial mutations occur for all three factors is 10^-15, i.e. extremely improbable.

So neo-Darwinism requires essentially this hypothesis:

Every evolutionary innovation can produced by a sequence of single-step mutations, each of which alone responsible for a relevant increase in fitness.

Because this hypothesis is obviously wrong, neo-Darwinism is refuted.

If we take into account that many properties depending each on more than one single genetic factor must evolve at the same time, it becomes even more obvious that the neo-Darwinian explanation of evolution is simply untenable.

The upright gait was only one of many traits which had to evolve in us after our separation from chimps. For that to happen, the structures of bones, of muscles and of tendons had to gradually change. Let us ignore that in fact the bone structure (involved in the upright-gait evolution) alone consists of several bones with each several traits.

So let us make the completely unrealistic assumption that one 'progressive' single-step mutation in the genetic factor of each (i.e. bone, muscle and tendon) structure is enough to entail a relevant increase in fitness.

Let us further assume that the probability of such progressive mutations in newborns is each as high as 10^-5. So we conclude that among 10^15 newborns (i.e. a billion newborns of a million generations), only one individual will carry all three necessary mutations.

Because a change in only one or two of the three involved structures cannot lead to a relevant increase in fitness (rather the contrary), it becomes obvious that the upright gait cannot have evolved in a neo-Darwinian way.

Cheeers, Wolfgang

The above is a composition of extracts from posts to talk.origins from November 2000

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by wogoga

The question at issue is not whether gradual transitions are conceivable (and existent), but whether they can be explained by the assumption that they are caused by random mutations.

Nope. Random mutations + selection.

[Gevaudan]

Actually, no. The upright gait was present before the split with chimps for one thing, and even an obligatory quadroped can manage an upright gait (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01vp5ivt3d4).

People make these sorts of arguments about probability all the time, and it usually reveals a lack of understanding. It's not "one mutation = one change in one part of the anatomy".

[zosima]

Are you trying to cause trouble, wogoga?

1st The soul juice thread
2nd The "Dawkins favorite homosexual" thread
3rd Now this, after a huge awful thread on this topic just died down, like 1 day ago.

Wogoga, why didn't you contribute to that thread?

Also, I'm waiting for your response to my spaghetti monster theory of demographics. If you don't answer soon the spaghetti monster might eat all your soul juice!

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by wogoga

If we believe in neo-Darwinism we must assume that every innovation is produced by a sequence of single-step mutations, each of which alone responsible for a relevant increase in fitness.

Poor assumptions lead to bad conclusions and this is just absurdly wrong.

[GreedyAlgorithm]

Mangling probability won't convince anyone you would have missed if you had simply left the "probability" out of your story.

Except that it will, and that makes me sad.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by wogoga

Because a change in only one or two of the three involved structures cannot lead to a relevant increase in fitness (rather the contrary), it becomes obvious that the upright gait cannot have evolved in a neo-Darwinian way.

Cheeers, Wolfgang

hmmm...

Gorilla.jpg

From Here

[zosima]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

hmmm...

Attachment 10620

From Here

Awwwww, he's soooo cute.

[plumjam]

could apes go on a 20 mile sponsored walk in aid of Comic Relief?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by plumjam

could apes go on a 20 mile sponsored walk in aid of Comic Relief?

Only if they had read The Secret and really, really, really, really wanted to.

With respect to the OP -- don't be silly.

[fls]

This ties in (nicely) with KingMerv00's thread about overcoming confirmation bias. I think wasting time addressing some of the lamer arguments against Evolution Through Natural Selection, such as the one presented in the OP, goes a long way toward giving us the impression that they are all lame. Admitedly this impression has yet to be disconfirmed, but still....

Linda

[Dancing David]

uM, an argument from incredulity that uses a posetiori statistics is not much of an arguemnt



Is the trait for upright gait possible in the critter that led to bot humans and chims?

yes.

It could either be gradual or drastic as far as joint and bone changes to encourage upright posture. The main trairt that makes an ape different from a monkey is that apes hang from branches (braciations) and monkeys walk an top. So you can have the development of upright gait from already existing potential through gradual shifting or drastic shifting, as long as there is a reason that it doesn't harm reproduction and it improves reproduction.

that is all it takes.

Then you have the usuall strawman logic

Quote:

So evolutionary advantages depending on two or more single-step mutations cannot have had a relevant impact (at least for human evolution). If we believe in neo-Darwinism we must assume that every innovation is produced by a sequence of single-step mutations, each of which alone responsible for a relevant increase in fitness.

Np you do not have to have mutation at all, just bariability in the expression of the genome, some people have very tight ligaments, some have very loose ligaments and some people have a range in between. Just like skin tone, so you have variation in the expression of traits in the genome.

And guess what you can have natural selection from just that, no need for mutation at all, take white foxes and black squirrels, they are not like albinos there are expresses double reccesive (white fox) and double dominant (black squirell) of existing traits. Variation in expression of traits is enough for natural selection to occur.

Ah, a posteriori statistics

Quote:

Let us assume that three factors must be affected for an increase in fitness to emerge. So even if the probability of a beneficial mutation in a newborn were as high as 10^-5 for each factor, the probability that beneficial mutations occur for all three factors is 10^-15, i.e. extremely improbable.

First off you need variation in the expression of traits not mutations. Secondly this is like saying that a straight royal flush of hearts is impossible. Well it isn't. This is like saying that the density of people in the Netherlands is 20/KM, and so it would be impossible for a city to arise.

here is more straw to throw on your fire

Quote:

Every evolutionary innovation can produced by a sequence of single-step mutations, each of which alone responsible for a relevant increase in fitness.

That is not at all what neo darwinism is, which is a foolish dodge to avoid saying the theory of natural selection through reproductive success.

You have variation in expression of traits, you do also have random changes in the genome for a huge variety of reasons, most mutations will be neutral to the repoduction of the individual. It is only when the trait impacts reproduction that it will be selected for or against.

Nuetral traits may remian un-impactfull until there is a change in the enviroment.

Quote:

The upright gait was only one of many traits which had to evolve in us after our separation from chimps. For that to happen, the structures of bones, of muscles and of tendons had to gradually change. Let us ignore that in fact the bone structure (involved in the upright-gait evolution) alone consists of several bones with each several traits.

Okay, right i forgot all members of the species are exactly the same like little robots, geesh, how could I have missed that.

I mean really the fact that some have longer legs than others is just impossible! Or that animals have variations in the amount of bend in thier joints is just preposterous, and quite impossible, every creature in a species is exactly like every other.


then there is your further incorrect use of statistics:

Quote:

Let us further assume that the probability of such progressive mutations in newborns is each as high as 10^-5. So we conclude that among 10^15 newborns (i.e. a billion newborns of a million generations), only one individual will carry all three necessary mutations.

Now lets look at the truth, in any trait that is expressed in development can have variation, now some traits have greater variation than others say 35% to 1%. And then we just give an organism ten traits that they can express, and to make it easy each trait only has five variations, how many combinations and permutations is that?

Sorry my brain is not working so I will just pull numbers out of the air!

_nC_r=n!/(r!(n-r)!) is that what, my brain is tired.

It could also be that it is 5¹⁰


So lets say that the combinations are a big number 1000 and that the combinations we want are a value of -1- for variable *1 and *2 to have a tendency towards an upright gait. So the combiantions that we want are like 40 out of 1000, so what are the chances of 40/1000 expressed over 10,000 individuals? 400?

So out of ten thousand individuals 400 of them will find it easier to have an upright gait?

(Something like that, gosh i love it when the weather gets nice and the tree bloom, the day is sunny but my allergies have me all fogged up.)

It is probably more like 40/10000 any way, I can tell you in a few days. Or 2¹⁰

So with either 4, 40, 400 individuals with the tendency to an upright gait, the natural selection happens if there is a reproductive benefit to the upright gait.

Even with just 4 individuals in the population with a small increase in reproduction you will eventually have a population that expresses the trait more than not.

[sol invictus]

Your numbers are wildly wrong. I'll do them correctly for you.

The human genome differs from the chimpanzee genome by only 35 million base pairs, of which about 5 million are thought to be active. Compare that to the total genome of around 3 billion base pairs.

So disregarding the inactive mutations, there needs to have been time for about 5 10^6 beneficial point mutations to take place. That's all.

The rate of point mutations is roughly 100 per birth. After a few hundred generations, any beneficial mutation will spread throughout the genome. So if it has been 5 10^6 years = 2 10^5 generations since humans and chimps diverged, 2 10^5 * 100 * N mutations have occurred, where N is the population size (taken to be constant for simplicity). You took N = 10^9, which is obviously too high - let's take it to be 10^7. Then we have a total of 2*10^14 mutations total in the human genome since the time we diverged from chimps.

Of those, 5 10^6 active ones remain. So in order to explain the divergence we need that the rate of beneficial mutations in humans/chimps be around 1 in ten million. That is very low, but it might be about right.

This may also allow us to estimate the rate of neutral (inactive) mutations - naively very roughly 1 in a million (all the rest being harmful). However the logic applied to neutral mutations is a bit slippery.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Your numbers are wildly wrong. I'll do them correctly for you.

Was i that far off, or wogaga?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by wogoga

Random mutations cannot explain evolution of humans

Then what can?

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Was i that far off, or wogaga?

Sorry - that was aimed at wogaga. Forgot to quote and snip.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Then what can?

That's a question you might consider not asking when dealing with wogoga.

[a_unique_person]

Human beings are sentient and actively aid evolution. According to Darwin, this was a part of the reason for racial features. People activel chose those that they thought were desirable in their culture. People could also better judge what people were healthy and successful.

[Dancing David]

I am sort of thinking for now, I can be very wrong, but I think that the formulat i was to use is _rP_n=n!/(n-r)!

So then a set of ten places with five values is 10!/5! or 10x9x8x7x6=30,240

and if we say that to have an easier time with upright giat that there has to be a value of -1- in places *1 and *2 (the first two) then that set is 8!/5!=8x7x6=336


so the ratio is a lot lower than in my made up numbers 336/30240 but the effect is still the same because if you have 112 out of 10,080 that is still a significant portion of the population for natural slelction to imapct.

And then there is the whole issue of "the genetic information came from 10,000" individuals, now this does not mean that there were only ten thousand humans at some point, what this does mean , is that out of an unknown population there were at some point ten thousand who ultimately went on to contribute to the gene pool, you can have millions and millions of potential contributors in some sets, as long as only ten thousand eventualy have survivors in the gene pool.

It does not mean that the human race started with ten thousan proto humans!

[I Ratant]

In another thread I was informed that Adam and Eve were the most perfect specimens of humans, ever, considering where they came from!
I guess that perfection didn't get passed down to their descendants in the 6000 years since.

[zosima]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

In another thread I was informed that Adam and Eve were the most perfect specimens of humans, ever, considering where they came from!
I guess that perfection didn't get passed down to their descendants in the 6000 years since.

Really? R u serious? True believer or troll? Either way, you would probably do better to take your comments over to the religion subforum.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

hmmm...

Attachment 10620

From Here

As Dr Johnson said, remarkable not because it's done well but because it's done at all. The good doctor was referring to a dog walking on its hind legs; I'm referring to the OP .

[wogoga]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

...

The human genome differs from the chimpanzee genome by only 35 million base pairs, of which about 5 million are thought to be active. Compare that to the total genome of around 3 billion base pairs.

This means: 5 million base pairs corresponding to 10 million bits or 1.25 megabyte are assumed to explain all the progress from chimp-like apes to humans, including human language and intelligence. See Missing genetic information refutes neo-Darwinism.

So disregarding the inactive mutations, there needs to have been time for about 5*10^6 beneficial point mutations to take place. That's all.

We agree on the facts, but the question is whether this change of 5 million base pairs (or a similar number) can explain human evolution from chimp-like apes.

The rate of point mutations is roughly 100 per birth.

In my argument I assumed "that the number of relevant base pairs (i.e. without junk DNA) is 100'000'000 pairs per chromosome set". Using a point-mutation rate of 10^-6, we get your roughly 100 relevant point-mutations per birth. 100'000'000 * 10^-6 = 100.

Or do you mean roughly three relevant point-mutations in the around 10^8 relevant base pairs and a point-mutation rate of around 3*10^-8?

In any case, if mutations are purely random then the probability of detrimental effects is substantially higher than of useful effects. One cannot deny this fact. So on average, the genetic disposition of the child with these 100 mutations is obviously worse than without these mutations.

After a few hundred generations, any beneficial mutation will spread throughout the genome.

I do not deny the fact that such "beneficial" mutations have spread in the human genome. But I'm sure that this spread cannot be explained by random mutation and selection.

So if it has been 5*10^6 years = 2*10^5 generations since humans and chimps diverged, 2*10^5 * 100 * N mutations have occurred, where N is the population size (taken to be constant for simplicity). You took N = 10^9, which is obviously too high - let's take it to be 10^7. Then we have a total of 2*10^14 mutations total in the human genome since the time we diverged from chimps.

Very interesting calculation: 2*10^14 (relevant) mutations in a genome of 10^8 or 3*10^9 base pairs. This means: many thousand mutations per base pair.

Only in the process of answering your post, I realised that in the same way as post #12, your post could only aim at obfuscation because it has almost nothing to do with my argument.

Cheers, Wolfgang

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by wogoga

We agree on the facts, but the question is whether this change of 5 million base pairs (or a similar number) can explain human evolution from chimp-like apes.

Eh? I think you mean the other way around, unless you're even more of a woo than I thought.

Quote:

In any case, if mutations are purely random then the probability of detrimental effects is substantially higher than of useful effects.

Yes, that probability is one of the things of the things I estimated in my post. Did yuo understand what I said?

Quote:

One cannot deny this fact. So on average, the genetic disposition of the child with these 100 mutations is obviously worse than without these mutations.

Obviously. But ALL children have them, so it's not a very interesting thing to say.

Quote:

I do not deny the fact that such "beneficial" mutations have spread in the human genome. But I'm sure that this spread cannot be explained by random mutation and selection.

You're not sure the spread of beneficial mutations can be explained by mutation?

Quote:

Very interesting calculation: 2*10^14 (relevant) mutations in a genome of 10^8 or 3*10^9 base pairs. This means: many thousand mutations per base pair.

Across millions of years and the genome of the entire population, yes. There is no contradiction - did you forget what we are estimating here?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by wogoga

The human genome differs from the chimpanzee genome by only 35 million base pairs, of which about 5 million are thought to be active. Compare that to the total genome of around 3 billion base pairs.

This means: 5 million base pairs corresponding to 10 million bits or 1.25 megabyte are assumed to explain all the progress

Progress? Progress? What kind of idea is that is biology? It has about a much meaning as dianetics. Do you really understand what you are talking about? The proto chimp/human was most likely as adapted to it's enviroment as we are.

Progress, you mean like having chlorophyll in our skin and being able to make our own food?

Quote:

from chimp-like apes to humans, including human language and intelligence. See Missing genetic information refutes neo-Darwinism.

So disregarding the inactive mutations, there needs to have been time for about 5*10^6 beneficial point mutations to take place. That's all.

We agree on the facts, but the question is whether this change of 5 million base pairs (or a similar number) can explain human evolution from chimp-like apes.

Yeah right, what if it just happens to include the right million pairs?

Quote:

The rate of point mutations is roughly 100 per birth.

In my argument I assumed "that the number of relevant base pairs (i.e. without junk DNA) is 100'000'000 pairs per chromosome set". Using a point-mutation rate of 10^-6, we get your roughly 100 relevant point-mutations per birth. 100'000'000 * 10^-6 = 100.

Or do you mean roughly three relevant point-mutations in the around 10^8 relevant base pairs and a point-mutation rate of around 3*10^-8?

In any case, if mutations are purely random then the probability of detrimental effects is substantially higher than of useful effects. One cannot deny this fact. So on average, the genetic disposition of the child with these 100 mutations is obviously worse than without these mutations.

WOW!

That is an unsupported assertion. Can you show why? Really?

Or just assert that it must be true. You do know that the error rate is already high don't you?

Assert away, you sure don't need evidence.

Quote:

After a few hundred generations, any beneficial mutation will spread throughout the genome.

I do not deny the fact that such "beneficial" mutations have spread in the human genome. But I'm sure that this spread cannot be explained by random mutation and selection.

Funny, you just ignored my point which is that variation in expression of traits is enough to do it, you don't need the mutations at all.

Here I will bold it for you:

You don't need mutations, variation in the expression of traits is sufficient!

And what don't you like about selection as a mechanism?

Say that you have a population where each individual has an average number of N ratio of children that live to be reproductive and then you have a reproductive benefit where B is the number of extra children that will survive to reproduce.

So after one generation we have Pop. 1 P(1)[2]=N², pop(1)[3]=N³ so we have general case where in Pop 910 where for a succesive generation S the
Population 1=N^S

But for Pop.2 P(2)[2]=N(N+B) P(2)[3]=N(N²+BN+B) P(2)[4]=N(N³+BN²+BN+B)

Now I did not do the iterative notation correctly but the idea is to see that for each succesive generation in Pop. 2 you will have the extra factor of the B addition but you will also have the exponential growth of the prior B successors, which will lead to an increase of Pop. 2 over Pop.1

[zosima]

Are you proposing that evolution is incorrect, Wogoga?
If not evolution, what? If you believe evolution, but think
there is an alternative source of variation, what is that
source?

I'm also curious if anyone reading this agrees with Wogoga
or is this more one man against the universe?

[Wowbagger]

Quote:

Random mutations cannot explain evolution of humans

I agree with that!

Fortunately, The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is NOT a theory that really depends on random mutations. Your sources got the theory wrong!

For one thing, a variety of events could cause changes in the genome, besides mutations. Some of them are: duplications, inversions, transpositions, recombination, etc.

And, even if changes in the genome were all random (which they are not, but assuming they were), it is important to note that the act of selection is NOT random. Selection among the varieties of genes depends on enviornmental conditions, and other factors that are part of the fitness landscape.

If Evolution was a theory that relied on random mutations, you would be right in calling it ridiculous! But, your sources got some fundamental factors about it all wrong. Evolution is better than mere randomness!

[zosima]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

I agree with that!

Fortunately, The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is NOT a theory that really depends on random mutations. Your sources got the theory wrong!

For one thing, a variety of events could cause changes in the genome, besides mutations. Some of them are: duplications, inversions, transpositions, recombination, etc.

And, even if changes in the genome were all random (which they are not, but assuming they were), it is important to note that the act of selection is NOT random. Selection among the varieties of genes depends on enviornmental conditions, and other factors that are part of the fitness landscape.

If Evolution was a theory that relied on random mutations, you would be right in calling it ridiculous! But, your sources got some fundamental factors about it all wrong. Evolution is better than mere randomness!

But,of course, that implies evolution would still be fundamentally random.




....




j/k



We don't want to do that again do we? Or at least not so soon....

[wogoga]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Progress? Progress? What kind of idea is that is biology? ... The proto chimp/human was most likely as adapted to it's enviroment as we are.

It is difficult to discuss with persons who, if necessary, deny the obvious in order to defend their dogmatic beliefs. Do you also deny a progress in telecommunication over the last decades? And if you do not deny such a progress, why should an increase in complexity of human communication skills not qualify for being considered real progress?

I understand your logic: If there is no progress, then no genetic information corresponding to biological innovations must be explained by random errors and subsequent selection and trivial probability arguments showing the impossibility of an information increase by such a mechanism can be dismissed.

Even if we take into account that random mutations include also duplications, inversions, transpositions, recombination, etc., single-step mutations (affecting only two bit = 0.25 byte) are the most frequent form of genetic change. And it at least contradicts common sense to explain the emergence of human language and intelligence primarily by a sequence of such 0.25 byte (!) changes, each of which must imply such a strong increase in fitness that it spreads to the whole population. Not to forget that the majority of such random 0.25 byte changes have negative effects.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

You don't need mutations, variation in the expression of traits is sufficient!

I'm actually astonished! So you agree with the title of the thread: If random mutations are not needed in the evolution of humans, then it is obvious that random mutations cannot explain human evolution.

Your claim however entails that all the genetic information concerning humans was already somehow present in the population of our proto-chimp/human ancestors. This does not resolve the problem of the emergence of the information needed for humans, it only shifts the problem further into the past.

Cheers, Wolfgang

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by wogoga

It is difficult to discuss with persons who, if necessary, deny the obvious in order to defend their dogmatic beliefs. Do you also deny a progress in telecommunication over the last decades? And if you do not deny such a progress, why should an increase in complexity of human communication skills not qualify for being considered real progress?

I understand your logic: If there is no progress, then no genetic information corresponding to biological innovations must be explained by random errors and subsequent selection and trivial probability arguments showing the impossibility of an information increase by such a mechanism can be dismissed.

Even if we take into account that random mutations include also duplications, inversions, transpositions, recombination, etc., single-step mutations (affecting only two bit = 0.25 byte) are the most frequent form of genetic change. And it at least contradicts common sense to explain the emergence of human language and intelligence primarily by a sequence of such 0.25 byte (!) changes, each of which must imply such a strong increase in fitness that it spreads to the whole population. Not to forget that the majority of such random 0.25 byte changes have negative effects.





I'm actually astonished! So you agree with the title of the thread: If random mutations are not needed in the evolution of humans, then it is obvious that random mutations cannot explain human evolution.

Your claim however entails that all the genetic information concerning humans was already somehow present in the population of our proto-chimp/human ancestors. This does not resolve the problem of the emergence of the information needed for humans, it only shifts the problem further into the past.

Cheers, Wolfgang

Hi Wolfgang, The original topic uses logic like: "The color blue cannot explain rainbows. Therefore rainbows do not exist." Replace "blue" with "random mutations" and "rainbows" with "evolution of humans".
With that logic the title of the topic is correct and rainbows do not exist.

The inheritance of variation and natural selection explain the evolution of humans. Random mutation has a small role to play in variation.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by wogoga

I understand your logic: If there is no progress, then no genetic information corresponding to biological innovations must be explained by random errors and subsequent selection and trivial probability arguments showing the impossibility of an information increase by such a mechanism can be dismissed.

No, they can be dismissed because they are wrong.

You know, it's rather easy to check those arguments. For one thing you can write a computer program that simulates evolution and see how fast it goes. Guess what the results are?

[Dancing David]

Thanks for the response.

Originally Posted by wogoga

It is difficult to discuss with persons who, if necessary, deny the obvious in order to defend their dogmatic beliefs.

It is even more difficult to debate people who just use words but don't defend the definition that they use and just assert stuff without evidence.

How are you measuring progress, you just leave that out don't you? Progress towards what?

Quote:

Do you also deny a progress in telecommunication over the last decades? And if you do not deny such a progress, why should an increase in complexity of human communication skills not qualify for being considered real progress?

Um, how do you define the complexity of human communication?

What standard are you using? What can we talk about that has meaning? And human communication skills, regards what, the ability to talk, the ability to play music, the ability to use a cell phone.

Vague assertions are still use vague assertions.

So what area are you talking about.

A lion is very progressed as well, so what standard are you using as a goal of 'progress'?

Quote:

I understand your logic: If there is no progress, then no genetic information corresponding to biological innovations must be explained by random errors and subsequent selection and trivial probability arguments showing the impossibility of an information increase by such a mechanism can be dismissed.

No, you don't understand my argument at all.

Why not address your false contention that there is only one mechanism by which variation can occur and natural selection can act upon it.

Or do you just attack straw men?

Here I will bold it for you again:

[b] There are multiple ways that there can be variation amongst members of a species, one of which is mutation, but natural selection just needs the variation. The mechanism for variation is not important[b]

Quote:

Even if we take into account that random mutations include also duplications, inversions, transpositions, recombination, etc., single-step mutations (affecting only two bit = 0.25 byte) are the most frequent form of genetic change. And it at least contradicts common sense

Common sense, like the world is flat, that is a great argument!

Quote:

to explain the emergence of human language and intelligence primarily by a sequence of such 0.25 byte (!) changes, each of which must imply such a strong increase in fitness that it spreads to the whole population. Not to forget that the majority of such random 0.25 byte changes have negative effects.

You still just like to state things you have already stated and then pat yourself on the back.

You don't need mutation to have variation, any mechanism will do.

Fitness is only fitness to reproduce.

I directly gave you a mathematical model for how natural selection through reproduction works.

You ignored it, hmm, maybe because you can't actual argue except by attacking straw men.

And you still have shown anything to demonstrate why a change (mutation in this case) is detrimental. Not even part of the time. You just assert it.

Quote:

I'm actually astonished! So you agree with the title of the thread: If random mutations are not needed in the evolution of humans, then it is obvious that random mutations cannot explain human evolution.

that is just bad logic , I don't even need the Boolean to explain that.

The set of variation that leads to natural selection is larger than the set of mutation that leads to natural selection.

So apparently your grasp of logic is equal to your grasp of evolution.

Quote:

Your claim however entails that all the genetic information concerning humans was already somehow present in the population of our proto-chimp/human ancestors. This does not resolve the problem of the emergence of the information needed for humans, it only shifts the problem further into the past.

More straw. i said that variation in traits is enough to produce something for natural selection through reproductive success to act upon.

You do not need information prepackaged.

Quote:

Cheers, Wolfgang

So to date you get a 'F' for your essays: address the points and stop attacking you own mistaken ideas.

Here I will recap for you.

1. There are multiple mechanism by which variation between individuals may occur in a population, that is all natural selection needs.

2. I showed you a mathematical demonstration , albeit simplified, where it is shown how natural selection might increase a trait in a population.

3. You have not demonstrated in the least why genetic miscopies would always be detrimental.

4, You show mistaken logic by saying that since there are other mechanisms through which variation can occur, mutations can not lead to variation that natural selecti9on can act upon.

So far you can't pass high school rhetoric, you have an 'F+' because you do at least use proper grammar and spelling.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

For one thing, a variety of events could cause changes in the genome, besides mutations. Some of them are: duplications, inversions, transpositions ...

Those are mutations.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by wogoga

This means: 5 million base pairs corresponding to 10 million bits or 1.25 megabyte are assumed to explain all the progress from chimp-like apes to humans, including human language and intelligence. See Missing genetic information refutes neo-Darwinism.

The article seems to rest on asserting as "fact" that "the information of the genetic make-up of a human is a far cry from what is needed in order to transform a fertilized egg only into a human body, let alone into a person with intelligence and consciousness."

But you provide no proof for this, it is mere assertion, and one, I might add, that no geneticist in the world agrees with.

I know, of course, that you are not a geneticist, because of this incredible blunder:

"If it is true that out of these 20,000 genes "we probably make at least 10 times that number of different proteins", then the genetic information per protein reduces to less than 100 bytes."

You may want to look up alternative gene splicing and find out what is actually going on.

Here's an SW article on [swiki]Splicing[/swiki] that you may find useful.

Don't you think it would have been a good idea to learn some basic genetics before you started talking about it?

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Those are mutations.

They were not single-point mutations.

When Creationists talk about "random mutations", they tend to mean single-point ones. I was giving other examples of genomic variation events beyond what they usually talk about.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by wogoga

See Missing genetic information refutes neo-Darwinism.

The article has a couple of fatal problems:

1. It starts with an assertion of fact with no evidence or citation to evidence.
   
   Quote:

   It is a fact that the information of the genetic make-up of a human is a far cry from what is needed in order to transform a fertilized egg only into a human body, let alone into a person with intelligence and consciousness.
2. It ignores the fact that a fertilized egg does not transform itself into a human being. There is a womb involved.

[wogoga]

Originally Posted by wogoga

This means: 5 million base pairs corresponding to 10 million bits or 1.25 megabyte are assumed to explain all the progress from chimp-like apes to humans, including human language and intelligence. See Missing genetic information refutes neo-Darwinism.

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

The article seems to rest on asserting as "fact" that "the information of the genetic make-up of a human is a far cry from what is needed in order to transform a fertilized egg only into a human body, let alone into a person with intelligence and consciousness."

But you provide no proof for this, it is mere assertion, and one, I might add, that no geneticist in the world agrees with.

A further example of the missing genetic information (quote from Wikipedia):

"The human brain has a huge number of synapses. Each of the 10^11 (one hundred billion) neurons has on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 10^15 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood."

I hope you agree that if the vast majority of this huge number of synaptic connections were built up randomly, a normal human behaviour could not emerge. On the one hand we a relevant genetic information of 10^7 or 10^8 byte for the total ontogenetic development, and on the other hand only in the brain an architecture involving 10^15 synaptic connections. This results in less than 10^-7 or 10^-8 byte genetic information per synapse.

So whereas the genetic information of a human only constitutes a small fraction of the storage capacity of a DVD disc of 4.7 Gigabyte, in order to store all the synaptic connections of a three-year-old child, around a million DVD discs are needed.

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

I know, of course, that you are not a geneticist, because of this incredible blunder:

If it is true that out of these 20,000 genes "we probably make at least 10 times that number of different proteins", then the genetic information per protein reduces to less than 100 bytes.

My statement is correct, at least according to my interpretation. If DNA corresponding to 1000 bytes is used to code for 10 proteins, then the (non-redundant) genetic information (coding for independent degrees of freedom) reduces to 100 bytes per protein.

Cheers, Wolfgang

[wollery]

Originally Posted by wogoga

A further example of the missing genetic information (quote from Wikipedia):

"The human brain has a huge number of synapses. Each of the 10^11 (one hundred billion) neurons has on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 10^15 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood."

I hope you agree that if the vast majority of this huge number of synaptic connections were built up randomly, a normal human behaviour could not emerge. On the one hand we a relevant genetic information of 10^7 or 10^8 byte for the total ontogenetic development, and on the other hand only in the brain an architecture involving 10^15 synaptic connections. This results in less than 10^-7 or 10^-8 byte genetic information per synapse.

So whereas the genetic information of a human only constitutes a small fraction of the storage capacity of a DVD disc of 4.7 Gigabyte, in order to store all the synaptic connections of a three-year-old child, around a million DVD discs are needed.





My statement is correct, at least according to my interpretation. If DNA corresponding to 1000 bytes is used to code for 10 proteins, then the (non-redundant) genetic information (coding for independent degrees of freedom) reduces to 100 bytes per protein.

Cheers, Wolfgang

Study chaos theory, fractal mathematics and data compression.

We covered this in the other thread Wolfgang. If data compression weren't possible then we wouldn't be able to have this conversation, as the internet wouldn't exist.

[Complexity]

wogoga - you aren't competent to have an opinion on this subject.

Please refrain from discussing things about which you know nothing.

[Zep]

Originally Posted by Complexity

wogoga - you aren't competent to have an opinion on this subject.

Please refrain from discussing things about which you know nothing.

Respectfully I disagree. Let him stand as an example of how "competent" the arguments are so far against evolution trying to use genetics. That is, laughably pompous and weak.