I'm creating a new thread here to continue debate on a post made by EarthScience guy on another thread (Science and Religion > Artificial life: can it be created?, post 17). This post challenged probability calculations in an old Talkorigins article that I had linked in that thread:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Are the arguments (on creationist views) and probabilities presented reasonable in the Talkorigins article? If not, why not?
Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Moderator: Moderators
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #1In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:32 am
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #451Nope. The dominant gene expression by far outways any environmental pressures.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 11:14 am
Sorry, you're wrong. For example there is a large population of people in the United States descended from people whose ancestors lived in malaria-endemic areas of Africa. Would you think that over hundreds of years, the incidence of sickle cell genes in that population might have changed? Turns out, it has, which as you know is predicted by evolutionary theory. Would you like to see the Punnett squares for these?
https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/a ... 019-4682-5
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/sicklecell/f ... trait.html
The resources you quoted aren't helping much; for example the study done in south Sudan says the prevelence rates or SCA is more common in Albaraga tribe (not sure i got that correct). Anything associated with a certain community definately means their cultural practice plays a big role. Example; marriage within the same community/tribe or a brother inheriting the wife of a brother and so on.
The Somali comunity has so many cases of diabetes not because of their life style but because they marry within the community. The gene is getring weaker and weaker, just hereditary science, not evolution.
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:32 am
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #452I have no trouble decoding your language because i learnt it from knowledgeable sources; nothing whatsoever to do with mutations and natural selection.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 11:26 am
https://www.thehealthboard.com/how-do-d ... -aloud.htm
You've confused making sounds with language. The sounds are just ways to code the words for others. Notice that you're (probably) having no trouble with the words you're reading right now, even though there is no sound whatever. I'm just coding them into symbols and then you're decoding them back into sounds. Or if you're a really good reader, you're bypassing sounds entirely and just using the symbols to get the meaning.
Again, human language is acquired externally through a process called LEARNING and not mutations and natural selection. You can go back in time and there'll be no mutations resulting into a language, yet it's an intra species communication method.
The resources you quoted are of no help.
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:32 am
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #453Not true.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 11:50 amDifflugia wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 9:33 am I think you have at least one fundamental misunderstanding of the sickle cell allele and its relation to genetics, so your rhetorical questions mean something completely different to you than they do to everyone else. Instead of relying on rhetorical questions, maybe you could just explain in detail what you think is happening and why it's inconsistent with natural selection.No. It is expected that it will reach an equilibrium. Unless malaria and sickle cell disease, takes every vulnerable person, and kills or disables everyone infected or with the mutation, there will be an expected ratio of normal homozygotes, heterozygotes, and sickle cell homozygotes in the population. Would you like me to show you a simple simulation, given a specific level of malaria?
Only if malaria incidence in normals is 100 percent and all of the infected people are disabled or killed.So whatever study you are quoting should clearly show an increase in one and a decrease in another.
It varies by the local prevalence of malaria. And yes, when control programs or other factors change infection rates, the ratios change.My point is, even in malaria endemic areas, there's no increase in people with the trait,
Let's suppose that everyone without a certain recessive gene dies. That means everyone in the population will be either heterozygous or homozygous for the recessive gene. A heterozygote and an heterozygote (H,h),if they mate, have a 25% chance of their offspring dying. On the other hand, homozygotes (h,h) have a 0 percent chance of offspring dying from this, even if they mate with a heterozygote (H,h). As a result, heterozygotes are only 75% as likely to leave viable offspring.there can never be an increase in frequency because it is a recessive gene.
Which means that the proportion of homozygotes for the recessive trait will continue to increase in the population. At some point, it is very likely to reach fixation, and to be the only allele in the population. You could simulate this with decimal dice, and see for yourself.
No. See above.An increase will only be attributed to population increase and not natural selection.
Again, the expression of the dominat gene by far outways any external pressures.
- The Barbarian
- Sage
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 586 times
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #454No. It is expected that it will reach an equilibrium. Unless malaria and sickle cell disease, takes every vulnerable person, and kills or disables everyone infected or with the mutation, there will be an expected ratio of normal homozygotes, heterozygotes, and sickle cell homozygotes in the population. Would you like me to show you a simple simulation, given a specific level of malaria?
Only if malaria incidence in normals is 100 percent and all of the infected people are disabled or killed.So whatever study you are quoting should clearly show an increase in one and a decrease in another.
It varies by the local prevalence of malaria. And yes, when control programs or other factors change infection rates, the ratios change.My point is, even in malaria endemic areas, there's no increase in people with the trait,
Let's suppose that everyone without a certain recessive gene dies. That means everyone in the population will be either heterozygous or homozygous for the recessive gene. A heterozygote and an heterozygote (H,h),if they mate, have a 25% chance of their offspring dying. On the other hand, homozygotes (h,h) have a 0 percent chance of offspring dying from this, even if they mate with a heterozygote (H,h). As a result, heterozygotes are only 75% as likely to leave viable offspring.there can never be an increase in frequency because it is a recessive gene.
Which means that the proportion of homozygotes for the recessive trait will continue to increase in the population. At some point, it is very likely to reach fixation, and to be the only allele in the population. You could simulate this with decimal dice, and see for yourself.
No. See above.An increase will only be attributed to population increase and not natural selection.
[/quote]
Not true.
Again, the expression of the dominat gene by far outways any external pressures.
[/quote]
I just showed you the numbers. That's how it works. There is an expected equilibrium for every case, where the rate of death or disability from malaria is known. You've confused recessive genes with natural selection.
- The Barbarian
- Sage
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 586 times
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #455The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 11:26 am https://www.thehealthboard.com/how-do-d ... -aloud.htm
As you see, deaf peoplecan speak. But there's a bigger problem. You've confused making sounds with language. The sounds are just ways to code the words for others. Notice that you're (probably) having no trouble with the words you're reading right now, even though there is no sound whatever. I'm just coding them into symbols and then you're decoding them back into sounds. Or if you're a really good reader, you're bypassing sounds entirely and just using the symbols to get the meaning.
Which is how deaf people and apes learn sign language. That's human language, too. Do you now understand how speech is only part of language?
(goal posts being frantically repositioned)
In fact, genes do code for the nervous system, including Broca's and Warenke's areas, which are critical for language.nothing whatsoever to do with mutations and natural selection.
As you learned, brain structures mediated by genes, are essential to language.Again, human language is acquired externally through a process called LEARNING and not mutations and natural selection.
Unless you can show that Koko the gorilla is human, you're wrong about that, too.You can go back in time and there'll be no mutations resulting into a language, yet it's an intra species communication method.
I don't know how to make it more simple for you.The resources you quoted are of no help.
- The Barbarian
- Sage
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 586 times
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #456In an area with endemic malaria, the first family will likely have half of their children immune to malaria. The second family will have none of their children immune to malaria. Which family will leave the most viable offspring, who can reproduce before dying? Right. The two heterozygotes. So the recessive gene will increase in the population to an equilibrium where the likelihood of having one recessive gene is maximized.Noose001 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 12:05 pm A rough statistical hypothesis about hereditary science:
Imagine 2 familiies each with 4 children representing a population. Both parents from 1 family are heterozygous (sickle cell) and the other are both homozygous on the dominant gene.
Statistically, there's a 25% chance of having a homozygous dominant gene from family 1 and 100% chance feom family 2.
Here, half of a population is homozygous for normal (HH), and half is heterozygous (Hh) The Hardy-Weinberg equillibrium would be, in the next generation, 25% HH, 50% Hh, and 25% hh. This, assuming there was no selective pressures, and mating is random . But of course, neither of these hold. Both HH and hh are likely to die or be invalids before mating, and of course, a severely ill person is lnot likely to be chosen as a mate. But even without those factors, your guess is way off.
No. The frequency of H in the population is 75%. The frequency of h in the population is 25%. So the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium would be (HxH) HH, 2(Hxh)Hh, and (hxh)hh.The chances (of homozygous dominant) to heterygozous individuals within this population are 5:2.
HH 0.5625 Hh 0.375 hh 0.0625 The ratio would be 1.5. This assuming we neglect deaths from malaria and sickle cell disease, and suppose mating is entirely random.
This would continue to move to an equilibrium, unless survival likelihoods changed. This is what we see in human populations where malaria is endemic.
[quiote] Even with highest prevelence and virulence, there'l be no equilibrium. [/quote]
See above. Keep in mind, even without selective pressure, your guess won't hold. Would you like to see how selective pressure changes these numbers?
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9370
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 900 times
- Been thanked: 1258 times
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #457I believe it is due to the fact that putting in the work to understand such things takes a lot of effort. Well, compared to just accepting one of the available god concepts and the explanations that come with them, I mean.Difflugia wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:43 am What is it with creationists expecting everyone else to do their homework for them?
When there are 2 choices and one involves much effort, some humans will pick the easy route. For such people, the gods are explanation enough.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb