Does this go under “self fulfilling prophecy” or some other moniker?
Guy on TV News: People across the country are falling for false sales pitches where people lie about snake oil healing them.
@colewd: I believe snake oil is a cure-all because I heard people claim it made them feel better.
All except the verified one of evolutionary theory.
The only reason you ever offer is ignorance based personal incredulity.
Then when were the Biblical created “kinds” you keep arguing for POOFED into existence? At least try to keep your fantasies consistent.
You have articulated no reasons. You have made a few vague and cryptic pronouncements that you may have confused with articulated reasons.
But would you say that you are currently an old-earth creationist? That’s the question at hand.
Just to bring this back a bit from the wandering somewhat afield, we’re not gonna get an explanation/defense of Axe’s work, are we? Because we just kind of left that behind, and I really am genuinely curious what the defense of that piece is.
No. There is no defense of it. I think even most ID proponents who has seen the criticisms of Axe’s work actually understand many of the ways in which Axe’s work is flawed, even if they still think his conclusions are in the ballpark of correct.
I’ve brought it up and argued about it numerous times before on different websites, and what I usually get back when I point out (for example) that Axe only tested for one function, but no related functions for his enzyme, is something like “what evidence do you have that it has other functions?”. This is of course confused, because Axe is the one claiming to have shown the protein to be nonfunctional. He can’t conclude that by only testing for one function (does it support grown on substrate containing beta-lactam antibiotics?). Now since they’re asking me that question back, it implies they really do understand that if the enzyme supports other functions, Axe’s conclusion is unwarranted. Which implies it has to be tested for before he can make his claim about density of function.
And that’s just one of the many, many flaws with his study.
As I said before I am open to all models. From an evolution stand point I believe population genetics is well supported science.
So, you say population genetics is a science. Population genetics has been well studied mathematically.
Do you then agree with the mathematical results of population genetics, which proves that (given a reasonable population size), beneficial mutations have a reasonable chance of fixing, neutral mutations possibly fix, and deleterious mutations never fix?
As Professor of Mathematics and Population Genetics Joe Felsenstein wrote on the pandasthumb blog, where he compared the probability of fixation of a 1% advantageous, a neutral, and a 1% deleterious mutation,
Fortunately, we can turn to an equation seven pages later in Kimura and Ohta’s book, equation (10), which is Kimura’s famous 1962 formula for fixation probabilities. Using it we can compare three mutants, one advantageous (s = 0.01), one neutral (s = 0), and one disadvantageous (s = -0.01). Suppose that the population has size N = 1000,000. Using equation (10) we find that
The advantageous mutation has probability of fixation 0.0198013.
The neutral mutation has probability of fixation 0.0000005.
The disadvantageous mutation has probability of fixation 3.35818 x 10^-17374
A 1% fitness benefit in a population of 1000000 has a 2% chance of being fixed in the population.
A 1% fitness deleterious mutation effectively NEVER fixes in a population - it is “weeded out”.
For those more mathematically inclined, you can verify these numbers yourself;
Kimura’s fixation rate formula from a paper entitled “On the Probability of Fixation of Mutant Genes in a Population”
For a diploid population of size N, and deleterious mutation of selection coefficient - s, the probability of fixation is equal to
P fixation = (1 - e^(-2s))/(1 - e^(-4Ns))
(if s =/= 0. If s = 0, then we simply use his equation 6, where probability fixation = 1/2N).
Formula (10) from
If s = 0.01 and N = 1000000, (ie beneficial mutation with 1% fitness advantage and population 1000000), probability of fixation is
(1-e^(-0.02))/(1-e^(-40000)) = 0.01980132669
For a neutral mutation, s = 0, for which formula 6 states its probability fixation = 1/2N,
P fixation = 1/2000000 = 0.0000005
If - s = 0.01 (ie deleterious mutation of 1% fitness disadvantage) N = 1000 000, probability of fixation is
P fixation = (1-e^(0.02))/(1-e^(40000))
= 3.35818 x 10^-17374.
So - based on the above mathematics, it seems, given a reasonable population of replicating organisms, evolution is inevitable, and genetic entropy statistically impossible.
Or do you deny the above maths @colewd?
No you’re not Bill. You’re only open to stories which involve direct creation of life / species by God.
Bill, are you truly incapable of a straight answer to a simple question? Hint: population genetics is not relevant to that answer.
I think that the math is fine showing how mutations may change fitness in a population. It’s certainly a mathematical model. How well the parameters have been refined I don’t know. I am not sure what you mean by “evolution is inevitable”. If you mean populations will change over time I agree with you. If you say populations will improve fitness over the long term I am not sure. I am open to Sanfords arguments. I would enjoy seeing John and Joe debate. Both guys are very sharp.
If you say populations will improve fitness over the long term I am not sure. I am open to Sanfords arguments. I would enjoy seeing John and Joe debate. Both guys are very sharp.
But that is what Kimura’s maths shows.
You mean the one completely dependent on his YEC views all life was created “perfect” only 6000 years ago and has been degrading every generation ever since? I thought you weren’t a YEC? Oh, that was your view two posts ago. My bad.
Indeed, if @colewd was OEC, the age of the earth and life proves genetic entropy is bunk, as we obviously haven’t reached error catastrophe after billions of years.
He doesn’t think much about keeping any coherence to his Creationist arguments. It’s whatever sounds good at the time.
The problem is that mutations can initially improve fitness by disabling a function that has unnecessary overhead for current conditions but long term with other added mutations weaken fitness. Kimura’s theory is 50 years old. Certainly current empirical data can refine some of his assumptions. I think genetic recombination maybe the prime driver of genetic diversity in populations. This is an argument Nathaniel Jeanson makes.
What is wrong with removing overhead?
A statue is literally removal from a block of marble.
A car is trimmed plastic and metal.
Life can be natural selection chipping away at blocks of randomly mutating genetics.
Indeed, to increase information, natural selection is a requirement, as proved by William Dembski using information theory
Around minute 4:45 of
Pub Med.Gov search Cancer
4,240,868 results
Typical Bill useless non-sequitur used as a distraction.
Bill have you still not learned after all this time fitness is not some magical absolute value but is dependent on the local environment? And that when the environment changes a mutation which was previously neutral or even deleterious can become beneficial? Deleterious ones can also combine with later mutations to produce a beneficial effect too. Why do you always always forget the very basics of the science under discussion?
Could be, but I think that in Bill’s internal monolog this all makes perfect sense.