How is there reality without God?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

How is there reality without God?

Post #1

Post by EarthScienceguy »

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #351

Post by Jose Fly »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 12:42 pm My argument is with how long this "evolution" took. If it took a year then that would be around 2000 generations for 3 mutations which means that it would take the 40 million mutation events between man and chimp. 530 billion years that is my argument.
Image

Still making the same fundamental errors (humans didn't evolve from chimps, and each nucleotide difference doesn't require it's own separate mutation).

You can lead a creationist to information, but you can't make them think.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #352

Post by The Barbarian »

Jose Fly wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:01 pm and each nucleotide difference doesn't require it's own separate mutation).
An important point that I should have mentioned. Thank you.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #353

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #347]
How's your progress on a theory of quantum gravity? Maybe cosmology does follow the mathematics of quantum mechanics, but so far no one has reconciled gravity as described by general relativity with quantum mechanics, so I think the jury is still out on your claim above.
I have been working on it but it is not quite right yet. Because maybe gravity is not a force like the other three fundamental forces. Maybe gravity is the product of inertia like Russ Humphreys's theory of gravity. My guess is that you will start to see the physics community start to turn to some type of theory like this. But this would not help the quantum problem it would only exacerbate it.
Again, quantum gravity is not sorted out, so either quantum mechanics is incomplete, or general relativity is incomplete (as we already know ... singularities are a problem), or some new physics is needed to explain things. There is still no "theory of everything" in physics (maybe in religion where the explanation is easy, but not in physics).
What do you think a theory of everything is going to solve? There will always be the problem of observations breaking the wave function.
I was at a restaurant for lunch yesterday and at the table next to mine all they were talking about was how their observation that the spring rolls were cold was breaking the wavefunction of the rolls. They were pretty concerned about this, but ate them anyway. Seriously, what materialist worries about whether observations are breaking a wavefunction or not? The idea that nature has purely naturalistic explanations without the need for gods or similar beings is very simple and does not require expertise in quantum mechanics, or cosmology.
That is a good one. I laughed out loud when I read it. :D :approve:

The point is that they do not have to worry about observations breaking the wave function because God already did. That is the point of my argument. Reality is the way it is because God already broke the wave function of every macro observable event. That is the way it would have to be according to current quantum theory. I am simply following the mathematics of quantum mechanics to their natural conclusion. Some type of observations has to break the wave function.
If "this" (every new observation that man makes is breaking the wave function of the particles) is why "reality as we understand it cannot exist without a creator God", then clearly we don't understand it yet. You're just substituting a creator god as an explanation for things science has yet to figure out ... same old god-of-the-gaps argument.
What new theory is going to get rid of the observation that matter needs some sort of conscious observer to break the wave function?

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #354

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]
Well, let's look at that. Each of us has about 100 mutations present in neither parent. Say a population of 1,000,000 individuals gives us 100,000,000 mutations per generation. So 40,000,000 doesn't look that daunting, does it? Suppose humans and chimps diverged from their common ancestor 3 million years ago. Let's suppose a generation is 20 years. About 15,000,000,000,000 mutations, then. If even one mutation in every 375,000 ended up fixed in the population, that would do it. And as you probably know, fixation happens more readily than that, even by chance. Try again?
Try Again, you have not solved the problem with this example.
  • 1st. How many of those 100 are deleterious for the environment in which the organism is in? Only a very few if any of these are actually beneficial. From your example above you are saying that each individual has 4 beneficial mutations out of the 100. So you are making the claim that 4% of all mutations that occur are beneficial. Seems a little high but have no worries there are more problems with your scenario than just this.

  • 2nd. You have not added in the cost of your mutations events. You might have a case if you would be talking about all dominant mutations. But there seem to be more recessive mutations than dominant mutations. Let's say that 1 was recessive. This is actually the main point of Haldane's research what was found was the following

    Starting occurrence of the gene________________Cost of a recessive gene
    500_____________________________________________1,006
    5,000-----------------------------------------------------------------10,008
    50,000---------------------------------------------------------------100,011
    500,000--------------------------------------------------------------1,000,013

    The chart above is giving what the cost would be if the frequency of the gene is one copy per population of 500, 5,000, 50,000, and 500,000. In your example, you are saying that you have a population of 1,00,000 which means that 2,000,000 individuals in the population must die before the allele becomes fixed in the population. So each recessive allele will have a cost of 2,000,000 deaths. And how many of those deaths will be part of you 40,000,000 mutations that are needed? How many generations would it take to have 2,000,000 deaths? As the population increases the number of deaths will also increase.
  • 3rd. None of your examples are consistent with the rate that you need.

    Human skin color even if I grant you that this is evolution as Haldane would. Does not help your argument but it hurts it. 2 mutations taking 20000 years to become fixed in a portion of the population is a real problem, that calculates out to 500 generations per mutation. At that rate, the 40 million mutations from a chimp to a human would take 400 billion years. I do not think there is enough time for that.

    How long did it take Hall to grow ecoli that he observed the mutations in? Let's say a year. Ecoli in a year can have anywhere from 2 to 3 thousand generations. Let's say it was 2000 generations. That means that each of the three mutations averaged 666 generations per mutation to occur. So then that means the the 40 million mutations that are needed to go from a chimp to human would take 530 billion years.

    Or let's take your nylon example. How long did it take the bacteria to produce this bacteria? 10 years? 2000 times 10= 20000 generations. If it took 10 mutations that means that each mutation would take 2000 generations per mutation. So the 40 million mutations between chimps and humans would take almost 2 trillion years.
Haldane also found that the selection coefficient can vary but it must stay less than 0.1. He also found that for higher vertebrate species have an average reproductive excess of 0.1. So if the cost of this mutation of yours is 2,000,000 then it will take 2,000,000/.1 = 20,000,000 generations. So in the case of apes and humans that means it would take 400,000,000 years for this one mutation.

The same chart as above if found in Haldane's paper that I cited earlier.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #355

Post by The Barbarian »

Well, let's look at that. Each of us has about 100 mutations present in neither parent. Say a population of 1,000,000 individuals gives us 100,000,000 mutations per generation. So 40,000,000 doesn't look that daunting, does it? Suppose humans and chimps diverged from their common ancestor 3 million years ago. Let's suppose a generation is 20 years. About 15,000,000,000,000 mutations, then. If even one mutation in every 375,000 ended up fixed in the population, that would do it. And as you probably know, fixation happens more readily than that, even by chance. Try again?
Try Again, you have not solved the problem with this example.
1st. How many of those 100 are deleterious for the environment in which the organism is in?
You could get a feel for that by asking yourself how many people you know, have a genetic mutation that harms them sufficiently to reduce their chances of living long enough to reproduce? My experience is less than 1%. Which makes sense; the data suggests that most mutations don't do much of anything to affect survival. Using the Hardy-Weinberg equation, it's possible to test this for alleles, and the result is that most of them don't have a measurable selective value.

And notice, since many of the differences between humans and chimps don't test out to have selective values, then we can't assume anything other than chance caused any of those fixations. BTW, for any given gene locus with more than one neutral allele, one of them will by chance become fixed over time. If you have some grasp of probability, you could probably figure out why.
2nd. You have not added in the cost of your mutations events. You might have a case if you would be talking about all dominant mutations. But there seem to be more recessive mutations than dominant mutations. Let's say that 1 was recessive. This is actually the main point of Haldane's research what was found was the following
This was the part that Haldane suggested was not right. And he was correct in that suggestion; Hall's bacteria, for example didn't experience that issue. Nor did human populations in Northern Europe when they evolved lactose tolerance. Again, reality beats anyone's reasoning.
Human skin color even if I grant you that this is evolution as Haldane would. Does not help your argument but it hurts it. 2 mutations taking 20000 years to become fixed in a portion of the population is a real problem, that calculates out to 500 generations per mutation. At that rate, the 40 million mutations from a chimp to a human would take 400 billion years. I do not think there is enough time for that.
You still have the mathematical problem to deal with:
Each of us has about 100 mutations present in neither parent. Say a population of 1,000,000 individuals gives us 100,000,000 mutations per generation. So 40,000,000 doesn't look that daunting, does it? Suppose humans and chimps diverged from their common ancestor 3 million years ago. Let's suppose a generation is 20 years. About 15,000,000,000,000 mutations, then. If even one mutation in every 375,000 ended up fixed in the population, that would do it. And as you probably know, fixation happens more readily than that, even by chance.

This is the wall you keep hitting. As geneticists have noted, it's just not a problem.
How long did it take Hall to grow ecoli that he observed the mutations in? Let's say a year. Ecoli in a year can have anywhere from 2 to 3 thousand generations. Let's say it was 2000 generations. That means that each of the three mutations averaged 666 generations per mutation to occur.
Per a mutation that would be useful in improving that particular enzyme. But that's not the total number of mutations per generation. As you learned, the total number of mutations in a human population since the divergence of humans and chimps is more like 15,000,000,000,000. So that's quite a doable result, isn't it?
So then that means the the 40 million mutations that are needed to go from a chimp to human would take 530 billion years.
Nope. See above. You were only counting mutations that had a benefit on one particular enzyme. And so you missed again.

And with the Nylon bug. Your calculations say that it would have been impossible. But the bacteria ignored all those numbers and just did it.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #356

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #355]
This was the part that Haldane suggested was not right. And he was correct in that suggestion; Hall's bacteria, for example didn't experience that issue. Nor did human populations in Northern Europe when they evolved lactose tolerance. Again, reality beats anyone's reasoning.
Both the bacteria and the human population in Northern Europe did as you have already learned. Both of these took longer than Haldanes 300 generations.
You still have the mathematical problem to deal with:
Each of us has about 100 mutations present in neither parent. Say a population of 1,000,000 individuals gives us 100,000,000 mutations per generation. So 40,000,000 doesn't look that daunting, does it? Suppose humans and chimps diverged from their common ancestor 3 million years ago. Let's suppose a generation is 20 years. About 15,000,000,000,000 mutations, then. If even one mutation in every 375,000 ended up fixed in the population, that would do it. And as you probably know, fixation happens more readily than that, even by chance.
No, you have not explained what the cost is of each mutation. Especially for a recessive gene. Haldane said that in your scenario that 2,000,000 would have to die and that each generation would have 0.1 excess per generation. For a recessive allele to become fixed it has to involve death in the population. How many generations does it take for a recessive allele to become fixed? You have yet to answer the following. And how many of those deaths will be part of you 40,000,000 mutations that are needed? How many generations would it take to have 2,000,000 deaths? Care to try to make a stab at these. Haldane calculated these but feel free to take a your best guess and defend your answer. Or not. I do not think you can that is why you skipped over them.
You still have the mathematical problem to deal with:
Each of us has about 100 mutations present in neither parent. Say a population of 1,000,000 individuals gives us 100,000,000 mutations per generation. So 40,000,000 doesn't look that daunting, does it? Suppose humans and chimps diverged from their common ancestor 3 million years ago. Let's suppose a generation is 20 years. About 15,000,000,000,000 mutations, then. If even one mutation in every 375,000 ended up fixed in the population, that would do it. And as you probably know, fixation happens more readily than that, even by chance.

This is the wall you keep hitting. As geneticists have noted, it's just not a problem.
I thought you were a proponent of survival of the fittest. That would mean that for a recessive allele to become fixed in the genome a lot death must occur. Again Haldane calculated that 2,000,000 individuals would have to die. How many in the population do you say would have to die in order to fix a recessive allele?
How long did it take Hall to grow ecoli that he observed the mutations in? Let's say a year. Ecoli in a year can have anywhere from 2 to 3 thousand generations. Let's say it was 2000 generations. That means that each of the three mutations averaged 666 generations per mutation to occur.

Per a mutation that would be useful in improving that particular enzyme. But that's not the total number of mutations per generation. As you learned, the total number of mutations in a human population since the divergence of humans and chimps is more like 15,000,000,000,000. So that's quite a doable result, isn't it?
I did not say it was a mutation per generation. The unit was generations/mutation for the allele to become fixed in the population. How many other mutations became fixed in that number of generations? That is what you are claiming. You are claiming that there can be more than one mutation can become fixed in concurrent generations.
So then that means the the 40 million mutations that are needed to go from a chimp to human would take 530 billion years.
Nope. See above. You were only counting mutations that had a benefit on one particular enzyme. And so you missed again.
What you are making no sense here!!
And with the Nylon bug. Your calculations say that it would have been impossible. But the bacteria ignored all those numbers and just did it.
I never said anything about the mutation of the Nylon bug being impossible. I simply calculated how many generations it took for each of the mutations. Which I calculated as 2000 generations/mutation.

You really are not addressing my argument. The argument is based on the cost, or death associated with a mutation becoming fixed in the population. And how much excess birth rate of the organism.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #357

Post by The Barbarian »

This was the part that Haldane suggested was not right. And he was correct in that suggestion; Hall's bacteria, for example didn't experience that issue. Nor did human populations in Northern Europe when they evolved lactose tolerance. Again, reality beats anyone's reasoning.
Both the bacteria and the human population in Northern Europe did as you have already learned. Both of these took longer than Haldanes 300 generations.
So it's not a problem then. That was the point. One of the things I think is holding you back, is you seem to assume that only one thing can evolve in a population at a time. But that's not the case.

You still have the mathematical problem to deal with:
Each of us has about 100 mutations present in neither parent. Say a population of 1,000,000 individuals gives us 100,000,000 mutations per generation. So 40,000,000 doesn't look that daunting, does it? Suppose humans and chimps diverged from their common ancestor 3 million years ago. Let's suppose a generation is 20 years. About 15,000,000,000,000 mutations, then. If even one mutation in every 375,000 ended up fixed in the population, that would do it. And as you probably know, fixation happens more readily than that, even by chance.
No, you have not explained what the cost is of each mutation.
And yet, humans in Europe, those bacteria, and many other things went on evolving in spite of the assumed costs. Which confirm's Haldane's idea that the numbers were not correct.
For a recessive allele to become fixed it has to involve death in the population.
As Darwin noted.
How many generations does it take for a recessive allele to become fixed?
Sometimes one. Look up "Founder Effect" and find out why. It's like asking how long it takes water to run down a mountain. Depends on a lot of things.

15,000,000,000,000 mutations, then. If even one mutation in every 375,000 ended up fixed in the population, that would do it. And as you probably know, fixation happens more readily than that, even by chance.

This is the wall you keep hitting. As geneticists have noted, it's just not a problem.
I thought you were a proponent of survival of the fittest.
Darwin pointed out that those with variations making it more likely for them to live long enough to reproduce will tend to have more descendants. "Survival of the fit." But notice "tend to." It's not a guarantee.
That would mean that for a recessive allele to become fixed in the genome a lot death must occur.
For any allele to become fixed. All those without it, have to die. That's what "fixation" is. And sometimes, allopatric speciation does that in just a few generations. Would you like to see why?
And how many of those deaths will be part of you 40,000,000 mutations that are needed?
Deaths aren't part of mutations. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
How many generations would it take to have 2,000,000 deaths?
In the case I mentioned, 2 to 4 for most animals. Remember a population of 1,000,000, will have 2 million deaths in about 2 generations.
I do not think you can that is why you skipped over them.
I'm more and more convinced that you aren't clear on what Haldane's numbers are actually about.
I did not say it was a mutation per generation. The unit was generations/mutation for the allele to become fixed in the population. How many other mutations became fixed in that number of generations?
Depends on the fitness of the population in the particular environment. The less fit it is, the higher the number. This is why you see speciation usually (but not always) being allopatric. That is, a relatively small population, isolated in a new environment. Founder effect plus selective pressure does that. Remember Hardy-Weinberg? If the change in allele frequencies does not come close to the predicted numbers, then selection is at work.
I simply calculated how many generations it took for each of the mutations. Which I calculated as 2000 generations/mutation.
You're still assuming one thing evolving at a time. But that's not what the evidence shows. And fixation isn't necessary for evolution of a population. Lactose tolerance is still not fixed in any human population, for example.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #358

Post by Jose Fly »

This is quite similar to a debate I had with ESG in another forum years ago. Both that one and this latest one basically follow the same pattern....

1) A scientist develops a model of evolution and notes that according to his model, X shouldn't or can't happen.

2) He also notes that since we actually do see X happen, his model is missing something, so he sets to work on figuring out what he missed.

A creationist like ESG grabs #1 and breathlessly declares "This scientist showed that X can't happen", completely ignoring the fuller context of #2 (and hoping no one will notice).

It's like if a physicist developed a model that said rocks can't roll downhill, then notes that since we see rocks roll downhill all the time the model must be wrong, and someone like ESG twists that into "This scientist showed that rocks can't roll downhill".

The fact is, we do see mutations produce new alleles that get fixed in populations...pretty much all the time. I watched it happen in a simple lab experiment we did as undergrads (watched antibiotic resistance become fixed in a population of bacteria in a matter of weeks). As Barbarian keeps pointing out, reality trumps models every time. That's why papers on the subject of fixation of alleles like THIS ONE are focused on getting the models to line up with actual reality, as described in this introductory paragraph....

The last several years have seen two key advances in this field. First, a number of important, and fascinating, theoretical advances have been made, each bringing us one step closer to theoretical predictions that might pertain in a ‘real’ laboratory population. Second, in parallel with this effort, experimental techniques in microbial evolution have advanced to the point where the fate of a novel mutant strain within a controlled population can be followed over many generations. Thus, these experiments are on the verge of being able to test our theoretical predictions of the fixation probability—predictions that have in many cases stood untested for 80 or 90 years. This is extremely exciting.

But as these debates show, creationists will cling to their talking points to the bitter end, no matter what. Heck, this particular one won't even bother to correct fundamental errors no matter how many times they're pointed out to him.

Such is the nature of creationism.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #359

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]
And yet, humans in Europe, those bacteria, and many other things went on evolving in spite of the assumed costs. Which confirm's Haldane's idea that the numbers were not correct.
Again no they did not. They followed Haldane's calculations.
for a recessive allele to become fixed it has to involve death in the population.

As Darwin noted.
What Darwin noted was genetic death.
How many generations does it take for a recessive allele to become fixed?
Sometimes one. Look up "Founder Effect" and find out why. It's like asking how long it takes water to run down a mountain. Depends on a lot of things.
How many small populations are you saying that there were?

So that means that these small populations were separated from the other mutations. For how many generations were these small populations separated?

Even if the population was a small as 500 that means that around 1000 genetic deaths would have to occur for the recessive allele to become fixed. So 1000/.1 is 10,000 generations or right around 20,000 years. Then whenever 2 groups come together again and let's say there are 500 in each group so that now there would be 1000 in the population that 2000 would have to suffer genetic death and that would take 20,000 generations or 400,000 years. If three groups come together 1500 there would have to be 3000 genetic deaths with on excess of 0.1 it would take 3000 generations so 600,000 years. 4 groups 2000 there would have to be 4000 genetic deaths 800,000 years. 5 groups 2500 = 1,000,000, 6 groups 3000 individuals = 1,200,000 years to reach. How long would it talk to combine half of these groups? 200,000,000 years
15,000,000,000,000 mutations, then. If even one mutation in every 375,000 ended up fixed in the population, that would do it. And as you probably know, fixation happens more readily than that, even by chance.
How many of those 1.5E13 mutations are going to end up in genetic death? If you are saying that 1 out of every 375,000 becomes fixed. Even if all 1,000,000 have offspring that would mean that each individual would have 4 of its mutations become fixed in the genome. We do not see this.

If you are saying that they are neutral mutations then how many of them are going to be lost? In a population of 1,000,000, each allele has a 1/2,000,000 chance of becoming fixed in the population. And the average time will be 4,000,000 generations or 80,000,000 years for each allele that is according to current genetics.
  • The probability that a new allele in a population will eventually become fixed is 1/2N, the frequency of the allele in the population at the time it arose. If the allele is to become fixed in the population, the average time to fixation is approximately 4N generations. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nu ... population.
For any allele to become fixed. All those without it, have to die. That's what "fixation" is. And sometimes, allopatric speciation does that in just a few generations. Would you like to see why?
It can if the population is very small. And it has a better probability of being selected. But as the population grows so does the length of time and increases and the probability decreases.
And how many of those deaths will be part of you 40,000,000 mutations that are needed?
Deaths aren't part of mutations. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
genetic deaths are part

How many generations would it take to have 2,000,000 deaths?

In the case I mentioned, 2 to 4 for most animals. Remember a population of 1,000,000, will have 2 million deaths in about 2 generations.

When we speak of death in genetics, it means genetic deaths I am sorry I assumed you would know that, but I was mistaken.

If we are talking about death in the genetic sense, if there were 2 million deaths in 2 generations then you are saying that species has become almost become extinct in two generations all of the mutations 1.5E13 mutations died with them. Genetic deaths are what Haldane was talking about deaths that occur with no offspring. He divided these deaths into 5 different categories, mutation deaths, segregation deaths, balancing deaths, substitution deaths, and random deaths.
Depends on the fitness of the population in the particular environment. The less fit it is, the higher the number. This is why you see speciation usually (but not always) being allopatric. That is, a relatively small population, isolated in a new environment. Founder effect plus selective pressure does that. Remember Hardy-Weinberg? If the change in allele frequencies does not come close to the predicted numbers, then selection is at work.
I am not sure that you remember him because I used his equation above and it also says that evolution cannot happen in your time frame.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: How is there reality without God?

Post #360

Post by The Barbarian »

And yet, humans in Europe, those bacteria, and many other things went on evolving in spite of the assumed costs. Which confirm's Haldane's idea that the numbers were not correct.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:15 pm [Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]
Again no they did not. They followed Haldane's calculations.


Hmm... If Haldane's Dilemma permits the widespread evolution of a new enzyme in human populations in a few thousand years, and permits the evolution of a new, irreducibly-compex enzyme system in a few months, it doesn't seem like much of a problem for evolution, does it?
for a recessive allele to become fixed it has to involve death in the population.
As Darwin noted.
What Darwin noted was genetic death.


No. Darwin didn't know about genes. He meant death of organisms. As Everette Dirkson observed, people are often down on things they aren't up on. It's one of Darwin's key points of evolutionary theory . Worth checking on.
How many generations does it take for a recessive allele to become fixed?
Sometimes one. Look up "Founder Effect" and find out why. It's like asking how long it takes water to run down a mountain. Depends on a lot of things.
How many small populations are you saying that there were?
How many mountains are you saying there are?
So that means that these small populations were separated from the other mutations. For how many generations were these small populations separated?
Hmmm... well, we could take the Hawaiian fruit fly example. The oldest islands in the group are about 65 million years old. So that puts a floor on the time the flies could have gone there. Best guess from genetics and geology is that the first flies got there about 25 million years ago. The genetic evidence says that several different species of fruit flies happened to be blown to the islands where they found no competition, and lots of food. They evolved quickly to fill niches held elsewhere by other insects. In 2022, 689 species had been identified, and entomologists think there are probably 1,000 native species of fruit fly there. So we see spectacular results in maybe 20 million years and an incredible number of useful mutations from that small population.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -9585-4_15
Even if the population was a small as 500 that means that around 1000 genetic deaths would have to occur for the recessive allele to become fixed. So 1000/.1 is 10,000 generations or right around 20,000 years. Then whenever 2 groups come together again and let's say there are 500 in each group so that now there would be 1000 in the population that 2000 would have to suffer genetic death and that would take 20,000 generations or 400,000 years. If three groups come together 1500 there would have to be 3000 genetic deaths with on excess of 0.1 it would take 3000 generations so 600,000 years. 4 groups 2000 there would have to be 4000 genetic deaths 800,000 years. 5 groups 2500 = 1,000,000, 6 groups 3000 individuals = 1,200,000 years to reach. How long would it talk to combine half of these groups? 200,000,000 years
The flies never got the word about Haldane's Dilemma. And so they ignorantly evolved and speciated anyway.
15,000,000,000,000 mutations, then. If even one mutation in every 375,000 ended up fixed in the population, that would do it. And as you probably know, fixation happens more readily than that, even by chance.
How many of those 1.5E13 mutations are going to end up in genetic death?


A lot less than 1.5E^13
If you are saying that 1 out of every 375,000 becomes fixed. Even if all 1,000,000 have offspring that would mean that each individual would have 4 of its mutations become fixed in the genome.
No. You're still confusing individuals and populations.
If you are saying that they are neutral mutations then how many of them are going to be lost?
Far fewer in those Hawaiian flies then in those hominids who gave rise to humans. Do you see why? And it looks like you're assuming that this is a deterministic process. It's not.

For any allele to become fixed. All those without it, have to die. That's what "fixation" is. And sometimes, allopatric speciation does that in just a few generations. Would you like to see why?
It can if the population is very small.


Mayr noted fairly early that the most evolved poplulations of a group of species, tended to be in small, isolated populations. But as the Hawaiian example shows, they don't necessarily stay that way.
And it has a better probability of being selected. But as the population grows so does the length of time and increases and the probability decreases.
So how exactly did the Hawaiian flies beat the odds? Well, they were in new environments with no immediate competitors, so the probability of a favorable mutation was much higher, and the competition for new niches was very small or absent entirely. Remember "beneficial" only counts in terms of environment.

This also has genetic consequences WRT Haldane's Dilemma:


Haldane pointed out that, with simultaneous selection in favour of a greater number of suitable alleles from various genes, the substitution cost for a particular population can attain unrealistically high values and the number of genetic deaths can easily exceed the reproduction potential of the population.

However, when we take into consideration that the individual alleles can be eliminated by soft selection, the situation looks rather different. The cost is constant in each generation, i.e. actually equal to zero. Natural selection always eliminates a constant percentage of individuals from the population without regard to the specific values of the average fitness of individuals in the population (Nunney 2003). On the other hand, it is apparent that selection can occur simultaneously in favour of only a limited number of traits; if selection occurs to the benefit of a great many traits, the viability of the population is not endangered (as it would be if hard selection were active), but the effectiveness of the selection of the individual traits would be proportionally reduced, and the Hill-Robertson effectwould be manifested. This effect is especially marked when there is a close genetic connection between the loci in which selection occurs, i.e., e.g., in asexually reproducing organisms or for loci in areas in which genetic recombination does not occur for some reason (Charlesworth & Charlesworth 2000). The reduced effectiveness of simultaneous selection for a greater number of traits can play a significant negative role in the evolutionary response of the population or species to a rapidly changing environment (Nunney 2003).

https://www.frozenevolution.com/haldane-s-dilemma
And how many of those deaths will be part of you 40,000,000 mutations that are needed?
Deaths aren't part of mutations. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
genetic deaths are part
Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary
ge·net·ic death
death of the bearer of a gene at any age before generating living offspring.

How many generations would it take to have 2,000,000 deaths?
In the case I mentioned, 2 to 4 for most animals. Remember a population of 1,000,000, will have 2 million deaths in about 2 generations.
When we speak of death in genetics, it means genetic deaths I am sorry I assumed you would know that, but I was mistaken.
See the definitions above. It's the death of an individual before reproducing. Mutations are not deaths.

Depends on the fitness of the population in the particular environment. The less fit it is, the higher the number. This is why you see speciation usually (but not always) being allopatric. That is, a relatively small population, isolated in a new environment. Founder effect plus selective pressure does that. Remember Hardy-Weinberg? If the change in allele frequencies does not come close to the predicted numbers, then selection is at work.
I am not sure that you remember him because I used his equation above and it also says that evolution cannot happen in your time frame.
As you see, the Hawaiian flies were ignorant of that issue, or perhaps just disagreed with it. At any rate, they proceeded to evolve rapidly and effectively. And as you know, Haldane himself figured his calculation were probably not accurate and in need of revision.

Post Reply