The first issue is to define evolution. As you narrow the definition then almost everyone believes in it as mostly variation from reproduction.
What needs to be established to expand the theory is innovation through reproduction.
Calculating probabilities requires better knowledge in two areas:
-
In order to know all the possible outcomes, it is helpful to know how much of a genome is pure noise, and how much is already being used.
-
Not surprisingly, if one species has “x” amount of genome, and another species has “10 times x” in raw genome, more mutations can occur each generation.
-
If we don’t know how much of the genome is “almost ready” to become a gene with a specific use, how can we calculate a probability?
Probabilities work best when you know the universe of possibilities… like the heads and tails of a coin… or the number of possible sides a pair of dice have.
How do you calculate probabilities when someone gives you a pair of invisible dice, and only visible side is the one that is facing up? Your first task is to see how many sides there are … but as you slowly rotate the dice, the number keeps getting higher and higher … with no end in sight!
The logic of evolution becomes more important than the math:
Once one agrees that enough changes can aggregate in a population that makes them no longer reproductively compatible with another part of the population … all other things about evolution are possible!
[1] These changes could involve blood or ovarian chemistry;
[2] These changes could involve physical facilitation (if the male or female become so large or so small that many potential mating partners are physically unable to accomplish the deed);
[3] These changes could be changes in peripheral aspects of mating, like the song birds make to attract mates! In a single generation, a change can happen in a bird’s brain that triggers a different song … and the only ones willing to mate with it might be other descendants that share the same song change.
Once two groups of a single population no longer freely exchange genetic information, then one group will no longer experience the same set of mutations… and they will start traveling their own unique road of genotype and phenotype.
@colewd, I just read your post above… I hope you think my post touches on what you were describing.
That’s what mutations do.
2 Likes
Define a mutation.
Please, let’s not turn this into an endless cycle of definition games.
Assuming you are asking an honest question, a mutation is change in the DNA sequence of a genome.
1 Like
You would understand evolution better, if you didn’t try to pick it apart but instead treated it as a whole.
5 Likes
Why did it need to have an antifreeze gene? Lots of fish get by fine without one. Getting one might have enabled some fish to exploit a new ecological niche (or exploit it better), but if no such gene had emerged . . . what? We wouldn’t be sitting around wondering why one didn’t exist. Which is to say, evolution isn’t striving to achieve some target.
7 Likes
A change in genetic sequence.
1 Like
To be honest, reading books works much better than internet chat boards. This is not the sort of thing anyone will pick up in a few days over even a few weeks of investigation.
My questions mostly came from thinkig about this article, which I also found very helpful
Antifreeze protein evolution - creation.com
Yeah, that site is perhaps not the best, overall source for beginning your inquiries, given the ‘what we believe’ statements here. For example:
- Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
3 Likes
Need is a general term here to describe any advantage that can be rewarded by selection.
English is funny with the word “need”. Observe
-You Need to do x for me.
- I have no such need.
-Ok Please do x for me.
-Sure.
I do treat evolution as a whole. My set of questions describe the most important building block of evolution from beginning to end.
What you build from such basic blocks is then a whole other matter altogether. The important thing here is that if such building blocks exist, AND indeed are common, then evolution is possible.
Even among infinities there are countable and uncountable ones. The uncountable infinities are larger than the countable ones. Are you claiming, that this problem is somehow uncountable?
It sure does not look that way, especially when you emphasize building blocks.
Was it so hard?
I’m saying that there are only a few specialists in genetic probabilities… because for the most part, the kinds of probabilities you are asking about are only used to argue FOR or AGAINST evolution.
Someone who is already an Evolution scientist could care less about that debate.
Frankly, I think it is a loser for opening a discussion… though there is one application I would love to see take the center ring: nay-sayers love to talk about the odds of a specific genetic outcome being impossibly improbable:
The probability that enzyme A (as we know it) becomes enzyme B (as we know it) is 1 out of 99999999999. blah blah blah.
But this is like betting on the lottery: the probability that “Peter Derecskei” will win the Mega Ball would be a ridiculously speculative wager.
But if you had to use the probability that ANY single individual would win the Mega Ball… that becomes rather dull, right?
You’re right on the money here. I’ve seen some such calculations myself, but the way they did it lead me to believe that the ID way of calculating such odds was at best incomplete.
1 Like