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.
4 posts were split to a new topic: Difference Between Beneficial and Innovative Mutations
4 posts were merged into an existing topic: Difference Between Beneficial and Innovative Mutations
A post was merged into an existing topic: Difference Between Beneficial and Innovative Mutations
A change in genetic sequence.
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.
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.
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.
It’s a misleading term, since it suggests that the organism will be incomplete if it doesn’t get what it needs. It directs thought in the wrong direction, toward thinking in terms of the probability of a particular trait evolving, rather than of any beneficial trait evolving. The latter is a lot larger than the former.
Not that we can calculate any of these probabilities. We don’t know nearly enough about the space of possible proteins or possible traits to do such calculations. What we can do is observe overwhelming evidence that different species are related to each other by common descent, and strong evidence that the differences between them are the result of mutations and that new features (including new genes) arise by known processes from existing features.
This kind of calculation Used to be impossible, but with the arrival of big data that is about to change soon.
Incomplete, or intentionally misleading!
It is probably unwise to get mired down in a dispute about what kind of probability calculations will be possible next month or next year.
How big does big data have to become to make up for the fact we just don’t know very much about the role of every pair in a genome ?
Depends on how detailed your assumptions are. My intuition tells me that a rough estimate should be calculable on the back of a napkin. If I’m ready I’ll post it on peacefulscience.
But don’t hold your breath.