Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 349 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #1

Post by DrNoGods »

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?
In 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

Noose001
Apprentice
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:32 am
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #451

Post by Noose001 »

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
Nope. The dominant gene expression by far outways any environmental pressures.

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.

Noose001
Apprentice
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:32 am
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #452

Post by Noose001 »

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.
I have no trouble decoding your language because i learnt it from knowledgeable sources; nothing whatsoever to do with mutations and natural selection.

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.

Noose001
Apprentice
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:32 am
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #453

Post by Noose001 »

The Barbarian wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 11:50 am
Difflugia 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.
Noose001 wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:00 amWe are on natural selection & beneficial mutation (evolution) using sickle cell anaemia/malaria to explain.

It is expected that in areas with high levels of malaria, the population with sickle cell trait will INCREASE and those without will DIMINISH.
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?
So whatever study you are quoting should clearly show an increase in one and a decrease in another.
Only if malaria incidence in normals is 100 percent and all of the infected people are disabled or killed.
My point is, even in malaria endemic areas, there's no increase in people with the trait,
It varies by the local prevalence of malaria. And yes, when control programs or other factors change infection rates, the ratios change.
there can never be an increase in frequency because it is a recessive gene.
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.

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.
An increase will only be attributed to population increase and not natural selection.
No. See above.
Not true.
Again, the expression of the dominat gene by far outways any external pressures.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #454

Post by The Barbarian »

Noose001 wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:00 amWe are on natural selection & beneficial mutation (evolution) using sickle cell anaemia/malaria to explain.

It is expected that in areas with high levels of malaria, the population with sickle cell trait will INCREASE and those without will DIMINISH.
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?
So whatever study you are quoting should clearly show an increase in one and a decrease in another.
Only if malaria incidence in normals is 100 percent and all of the infected people are disabled or killed.
My point is, even in malaria endemic areas, there's no increase in people with the trait,
It varies by the local prevalence of malaria. And yes, when control programs or other factors change infection rates, the ratios change.
there can never be an increase in frequency because it is a recessive gene.
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.

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.
An increase will only be attributed to population increase and not natural selection.
No. See above.
[/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.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #455

Post by The Barbarian »

The 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.
Noose001 wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 1:52 am I have no trouble decoding your language because i learnt it from knowledgeable sources;
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)
nothing whatsoever to do with mutations and natural selection.
In fact, genes do code for the nervous system, including Broca's and Warenke's areas, which are critical for language.
Again, human language is acquired externally through a process called LEARNING and not mutations and natural selection.
As you learned, brain structures mediated by genes, are essential to language.
You can go back in time and there'll be no mutations resulting into a language, yet it's an intra species communication method.
Unless you can show that Koko the gorilla is human, you're wrong about that, too.
The resources you quoted are of no help.
I don't know how to make it more simple for you.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #456

Post by The Barbarian »

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.
In 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.

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.
The chances (of homozygous dominant) to heterygozous individuals within this population are 5:2.
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.

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?

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 8139
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 142 times
Been thanked: 309 times

Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #457

Post by Clownboat »

Difflugia wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:43 am What is it with creationists expecting everyone else to do their homework for them?
I 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.

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

Post Reply