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
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #401[Replying to Difflugia in post #394]
I will back off of the lethal, and go to a more conservative mostly deleterious to lethal as is the case with all mutations.
Duplications cause genetic diseases like
1. Pallister Killian syndrome
2. Down syndrome
3. Edwards' syndrome have an extra chromosome 18 present in all cells. This is called full Edwards' syndrome. The effects of full Edward's syndrome are often more severe. Sadly, most babies with this form will die before they are born.
4. Patau's syndrome
5. trisomy 18
6. MECP2 duplication syndrome
7. Trisomy 13
Can you name any duplications that are beneficial that are not part of some phylogenetic story but based on actual observation?
The "paper" you referenced used "BlastP" to predict their results that is what the P stands for Predicts. The predicted means that there is no experimental evidence that the protein is produced by the isolate that was sequenced. Brian Thomas Foley Los Alamos National LaboratoryThat's wrong. Most of the time gene duplication is neutral, even if both copies are expressed. In fact, gene duplication events seem to increase organism robustness and life expectancy in the short term.
I will back off of the lethal, and go to a more conservative mostly deleterious to lethal as is the case with all mutations.
Duplications cause genetic diseases like
1. Pallister Killian syndrome
2. Down syndrome
3. Edwards' syndrome have an extra chromosome 18 present in all cells. This is called full Edwards' syndrome. The effects of full Edward's syndrome are often more severe. Sadly, most babies with this form will die before they are born.
4. Patau's syndrome
5. trisomy 18
6. MECP2 duplication syndrome
7. Trisomy 13
Can you name any duplications that are beneficial that are not part of some phylogenetic story but based on actual observation?
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #402[Replying to Difflugia in post #400]
That would be what we call in science a prediction based on a proposed hypothesis .That's what Jean Baptiste Lamarck thought. He was wrong, too. The Soviets demonstrated that rather ironically.
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3047
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3277 times
- Been thanked: 2023 times
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #403You unironically quote Answers in Genesis, but you put scare quotes around a "paper" published in PLOS Genetics?EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 4:05 pmThe "paper" you referenced used "BlastP" to predict their results that is what the P stands for Predicts.
That's really reaching and isn't a valid point pretty much no matter how one looks at it. The most charitable interpretation of your statement is that you're making a declaration that similar genes weren't produced by duplication events. That turns your entire argument into a circular one in which beneficial genes that evolutionary theory assigns to duplication events actually came about by some other means. However, if obvious homologs weren't actually the result of gene duplication, then your claim that gene duplications are primarily deleterious is meaningless and we need to focus on your unspecified mechanism instead. Does the finger of God produce primarily deleterious mutations (or whatever you call them)?EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 4:05 pmThe predicted means that there is no experimental evidence that the protein is produced by the isolate that was sequenced.
With one exception, those are duplications of entire chromosomes, which is not what gene duplication refers to. And yes, if a gene that serves a regulatory function based on concentration is duplicated, the result would likely be deleterious. In that one instance, nobody is surprised.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 4:05 pmI will back off of the lethal, and go to a more conservative mostly deleterious to lethal as is the case with all mutations.
Duplications cause genetic diseases like
1. Pallister Killian syndrome
2. Down syndrome
3. Edwards' syndrome have an extra chromosome 18 present in all cells. This is called full Edwards' syndrome. The effects of full Edward's syndrome are often more severe. Sadly, most babies with this form will die before they are born.
4. Patau's syndrome
5. trisomy 18
6. MECP2 duplication syndrome
7. Trisomy 13
In your mind, what does "actual observation" entail here if not a "phylogenetic story"? If the "actual observation" of a genome shows historical gene duplication events that were beneficial, but you deny that they were duplication events, then on what basis are you claiming that duplication events are deleterious? If you deny the validity of scientific observation, how would you identify a duplication event to claim that it's deleterious?EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 4:05 pmCan you name any duplications that are beneficial that are not part of some phylogenetic story but based on actual observation?
You scientists sure are a pedantic bunch.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 4:08 pmThat would be what we call in science a prediction based on a proposed hypothesis .
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- 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 #404No. As you learned, the HPAS1 allele maintains normal hemoglobin content even for people at very high altitudes. It does this by adding some functions to the cardiovascular and repiratory system to allow a normal amount of hemoglobin to carry sufficient oxygen.
No. It maintains normal hemoglobin concentrations, thereby avoiding high altitude sickness of those people lacking the new adaptation, who must increase their hemoglobin. You have it precisely backwards.That EPAS1 reduces the hemoglobin concentration in upper elevations.
Remember when I said that fitness counts only in terms of environment? That's what Darwin pointed out, too.Your quote says nothing about the new function that you say the Tibetans have. But it seems that there is definitely no selective advantage at lower altitudes.
You don't seem to know what evolutionary theory is. Explain to me how it would predict that everyone in at least China would have the same function. BTW, if it was deleterious at lower altitudes, that would be consistent with evolutionary theory, which again points out that fitness only counts in terms of environment. But there is no selective reason for a neutral mutation to spread through a population. I asked you several times what you think the scientific definition of biological evolution is. Perhaps that's the problem. But you seem unwilling to say.And it seems that this function must be deleterious at lower elevations otherwise evolutionary theory would predict that everyone in at least China would have the same function.
Not long ago, scientists discovered that a population of lizards, moved to a new environment, rapidly evolved a new digestive organ (among other things)
Examination of the lizard’s digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult-to-digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 112433.htm
This goes back to my point about you being unaware of what biological evolution actually is. Evolution produces nothing de novo; it's always a modification of something already there. So this new structure (a cecal valve has never been seen in these lizards before) evolved by modifying a portion of the digestive tract. That's how it always works. Would you be interested in a simple introduction to the theory, to make this easier on everyone?They are not new structures. They are enlarged structures that have already existed.
It's quite accessible, even to a non-biologist.
They just couldn't survive very well eating only plants. So when they were moved to a location without sufficient prey, they evolved new adaptation to survive on plants alone.The lizard could eat plants before they were released on the island.
If you think about it, the first heterotrophs had to be plant-eaters. Evolutionary theory would require that. However, creationism cannot support such a claim, since they insist that all animals were created as is, and did not evolve. So spiders obviously could not have been plant-eaters.This is also evidence of creationism and that all animals were once plant-eating.
For the same reason that Tibetans, if they moved to lower elevations, would eventually lose their new adaptation and evolve normal HPAS1 alleles; no selective purpose to the new version in lower elevations.If the lizards were taken back to their original habitat then these cecal valves would go away.
And how about telling us what you think the scientific definition of biological evolution is? It might clear up a lot of the difficulties.
- 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 #405The Soviets banned Darwinian theory because it was too much like capitalist economics. Soviet agriculture and biology are still recovering from that stupidity.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 4:08 pm [Replying to Difflugia in post #400]
That would be what we call in science a prediction based on a proposed hypothesis .That's what Jean Baptiste Lamarck thought. He was wrong, too. The Soviets demonstrated that rather ironically.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #406"Under evolutionary theory, this thing can't happen" does not exclude those many times it does.
Sure, footballs won't never be em too much good for the baseball playing. But the ability to produce viable, competitive offspring'll always be in vogue.
Sure, footballs won't never be em too much good for the baseball playing. But the ability to produce viable, competitive offspring'll always be in vogue.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #407[Replying to Difflugia in post #403]
So you are trying to use evolutionary principles to prove evolutionary principles, I would call that very circular.
Any beneficial duplications yet?
With one exception, those are duplications of entire chromosomes, which is not what gene duplication refers to. And yes, if a gene that serves a regulatory function based on concentration is duplicated, the result would likely be deleterious. In that one instance, nobody is surprised.
The evolutionary hypothesis needs entire genomes to be duplicated. How is that possible? Entire chromosomes would have to be duplicated.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:05 pm
Cancer can be caused by duplication do you call that beneficial?
Again how can a theory be validated if the computer program that is being used is based on the theory that is being validated?
Again, evolutionary theory has to have a mechanism to duplicate entire chromosomes and genomes. All observed evidence indicates that this is not possible. Therefore the evolution of molecules to man is nothing but a fabricated story.
How is this BlastP system looking back in the past? What framework is the program using?That's really reaching and isn't a valid point pretty much no matter how one looks at it. The most charitable interpretation of your statement is that you're making a declaration that similar genes weren't produced by duplication events. That turns your entire argument into a circular one in which beneficial genes that evolutionary theory assigns to duplication events actually came about by some other means. However, if obvious homologs weren't actually the result of gene duplication, then your claim that gene duplications are primarily deleterious is meaningless and we need to focus on your unspecified mechanism instead. Does the finger of God produce primarily deleterious mutations (or whatever you call them)?
So you are trying to use evolutionary principles to prove evolutionary principles, I would call that very circular.
Any beneficial duplications yet?
With one exception, those are duplications of entire chromosomes, which is not what gene duplication refers to. And yes, if a gene that serves a regulatory function based on concentration is duplicated, the result would likely be deleterious. In that one instance, nobody is surprised.
The evolutionary hypothesis needs entire genomes to be duplicated. How is that possible? Entire chromosomes would have to be duplicated.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:05 pm
I will take that as a no you cannot give me an example of a beneficial duplication.Can you name any duplications that are beneficial that are not part of some phylogenetic story but based on actual observation?
In your mind, what does "actual observation" entail here if not a "phylogenetic story"? If the "actual observation" of a genome shows historical gene duplication events that were beneficial, but you deny that they were duplication events, then on what basis are you claiming that duplication events are deleterious? If you deny the validity of scientific observation, how would you identify a duplication event to claim that it's deleterious?
Cancer can be caused by duplication do you call that beneficial?
Again how can a theory be validated if the computer program that is being used is based on the theory that is being validated?
Again, evolutionary theory has to have a mechanism to duplicate entire chromosomes and genomes. All observed evidence indicates that this is not possible. Therefore the evolution of molecules to man is nothing but a fabricated story.
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #408[Replying to The Barbarian in post #404]
Or do you not believe in Dollo's law? https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/science/29evol.html
Or is this another violation of Dollo's law?
You are speaking in generalities. Please either site your statement or be more specific.No. As you learned, the HPAS1 allele maintains normal hemoglobin content even for people at very high altitudes. It does this by adding some functions to the cardiovascular and repiratory system to allow a normal amount of hemoglobin to carry sufficient oxygen.
Yes, I know that is why the phrase "survival of the fittest" is a tautology.Remember when I said that fitness counts only in terms of environment? That's what Darwin pointed out, too.
So then why did you claim that this HPAS1 allele mutation was evolution?You don't seem to know what evolutionary theory is. Explain to me how it would predict that everyone in at least China would have the same function. BTW, if it was deleterious at lower altitudes, that would be consistent with evolutionary theory, which again points out that fitness only counts in terms of the environment. But there is no selective reason for a neutral mutation to spread through a population. I asked you several times what you think the scientific definition of biological evolution is. Perhaps that's the problem. But you seem unwilling to say.
Or do you not believe in Dollo's law? https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/science/29evol.html
Why don't you test that and move the lizards back to their original environment and see if these lizards lose this "new evolutionary structure."They just couldn't survive very well eating only plants. So when they were moved to a location without sufficient prey, they evolved new adaptations to survive on plants alone.
Or is this another violation of Dollo's law?
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3047
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3277 times
- Been thanked: 2023 times
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #409What framework? What do you even mean? They define their methodology:EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:24 amHow is this BlastP system looking back in the past? What framework is the program using?
BLAST is alignment software. Despite your incorrect assertion earlier, the "P" means that it's for protein amino acid sequences rather than nucleic acid nucleotides.Briefly, for each query sequence its closest human paralog was identified as the non-self hit which can be aligned over more than 80% of the length of both sequences.
I have no doubt that you would, but you shouldn't. It's no different than using some mathematical principles to prove others. Your contention wasn't that duplication events don't happen or that closely homologous genes aren't the result of duplication, but that duplication events are primarily deleterious. Since this paper is presented within a scientific framework in which gene duplication as a mechanism has been abundantly demonstrated, the paper doesn't need to reinvent that wheel. It doesn't matter how many wheel-denialists its authors passed on the way to work.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:24 amSo you are trying to use evolutionary principles to prove evolutionary principles, I would call that very circular.
Considering that the methods section of the linked paper includes the means to recreate the list of the 1600 or so genes used in the study and the study concluded that they were beneficial overall, your question is, if not disingenuous, at least myopic.
You're going to have to support that somehow.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:24 amThe evolutionary hypothesis needs entire genomes to be duplicated. How is that possible? Entire chromosomes would have to be duplicated.
Myopic.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:24 amI will take that as a no you cannot give me an example of a beneficial duplication.
No, of course not.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:24 amCancer can be caused by duplication do you call that beneficial?
It's not. The question is whether gene duplication is beneficial, not whether homologous genes are the result of duplication events. If you want to start your argument with the premise that established science is wrong in general, you'll need to state that or be guilty of the fallacy of the unstated major premise, which is itself a form of question-begging. Your argument is the circular one.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:24 amAgain how can a theory be validated if the computer program that is being used is based on the theory that is being validated?
So you've said, but not established in any way.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:24 amAgain, evolutionary theory has to have a mechanism to duplicate entire chromosomes and genomes.
I don't think you're right about this, but it doesn't really matter until you support the previous statement.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:24 amAll observed evidence indicates that this is not possible.
QED!EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:24 amTherefore the evolution of molecules to man is nothing but a fabricated story.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #410[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]
[Replying to Difflugia in post #409]
Humans to zebra fish
Humans to Red jungle fowl
Humans to house mouse
I give you actual diseases that are caused by duplication and you give me a fantasy story. To support your claim of beneficial mutations.
[Replying to Difflugia in post #409]
What framework? What do you even mean? They define their methodology:
The only thing this paper is good for, is a laugh.We obtained H. sapiens to D. rerio, H. sapiens to G. gallus, and H. sapiens to M. musculus orthology information as well as paralogous relationships within D. rerio, G. gallus, and M. musculus from the Ensembl database [27]. Ka and Ka/Ks values of all 1∶1 human-mouse orthologous pairs were calculated using the PAML package and obtained directly from the Ensembl database [27].
Humans to zebra fish
Humans to Red jungle fowl
Humans to house mouse
I give you actual diseases that are caused by duplication and you give me a fantasy story. To support your claim of beneficial mutations.
P probably stands for positively preposterous.BLAST is alignment software. Despite your incorrect assertion earlier, the "P" means that it's for protein amino acid sequences rather than nucleic acid nucleotides.
It is nothing like mathematical principles. If someone does not believe trigonometric identities are true. They can measure the angles and sides themselves and prove it themselves.I have no doubt that you would, but you shouldn't. It's no different than using some mathematical principles to prove others.
So you are admitting that this paper is using evolutionary theory to prove the evolutionary theory.Your contention wasn't that duplication events don't happen or that closely homologous genes aren't the result of duplication, but that duplication events are primarily deleterious. Since this paper is presented within a scientific framework in which gene duplication as a mechanism has been abundantly demonstrated, the paper doesn't need to reinvent that wheel.
Ok, I did not realize that I had to narrow my question down to just homo-sapiens. No mouse genome, no chicken genome, and no fish genome. If duplications are so common and needed for evolution or have humans stopped evolving.Considering that the methods section of the linked paper includes the means to recreate the list of the 1600 or so genes used in the study and the study concluded that they were beneficial overall, your question is, if not disingenuous, at least myopic.
The evolutionary hypothesis needs entire genomes to be duplicated. How is that possible? Entire chromosomes would have to be duplicated.
You're going to have to support that somehow.
Gene and genome duplications provide a source of genetic material for mutation, drift, and selection to act upon, making new evolutionary opportunities possible. As a result, many have argued that genome duplication is a dominant factor in the evolution of complexity and diversity.
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/23/5/887/1058364