Spirituality
15 Sep 05
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by telerionLOL.
Page 2.
Already there are signs along the trail that the target has suffered many wounds. It is no wonder that large predators have come ahead of me. I should not be surprised to find only a gleaming carcass at the end of the chase.
Page 3
What is this? Some small game has crossed the path. Other hunters have been diverted. But lo! I see from ...[text shortened]... ny meat left on its bones.
Page 5
Awaiting new signs. Must rest. Recover and prepare.
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseI'll dispute it. You made it up. A random number pulled out of your butt is not a reasonable basis for a statistical analysis.
Since noone has disputed my figure of 0.01 % for (2), I'm moving on.
I've rounded (1) off to a mutation rate of 10^-10 as bacteria exibit a substantially higher rate of mutation compared to say animals. I'll also yield on the notion that mutations add information to the genome.
For (3) I'm going to use 500 steps proposed by the late G.Lebyard Stebbins*.
*Stebbins, 1966
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseIs this the number taken from the sample problem which discusses a single gene only? The one that is intended to train students how to use a particular equation as opposed to one that actually reflects real research?
For (1) I'd suggest the rate on the following googled site:
http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/mutations/fluctuation.html
1.7 X 10^-9
Why don't you try the figure of one mutation per 300 chromosome replications? That seems more reasonable for this sort of calculation. You artificially lower the rate by calculating the rate of mutation for one gene instead of for one organism. In addition, the sample problem that led to this number has no actual referenced data. For all we know, the authors made up that number. What's relevant for the purposes of that site is that enough info is included so students can practice using an equation, not whether the numbers are in any way legitimate.
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by RatXDude, don't be such a pansy. Use your real account. Why do you need to hide from your reputation?
[b]Evidence? you drink beer made from one and eat bread made from the other
You've obviously been drinking way too much Hordeum vulgare that it makes your reasoning vulgare... 10000yrs? Elegant, yet misguided - we don't have that much recorded history. Speculation by some inebriated evolutionist I say![/b]
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhy don't you try the figure of one mutation per 300 chromosome replications?
Is this the number taken from the sample problem which discusses a single gene only? The one that is intended to train students how to use a particular equation as opposed to one that actually reflects real research?
Why don't you try the figure of one mutation per 300 chromosome replications? That seems more reasonable for this sort of calculati ...[text shortened]... d so students can practice using an equation, not whether the numbers are in any way legitimate.
Now its your turn to show your hand. Where do you get these numbers?
19 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Halitoseone of the things you posted about about tar buildup in test tubes, is more because it is a test tube and not a complete eco-system.
[b]Why don't you try the figure of one mutation per 300 chromosome replications?
Now its your turn to show your hand. Where do you get these numbers?[/b]
You are presupposing a static environment and it didn't have to be, in fact it probably was extremely dynamic.
Also you are postulating a chemical breakdown everytime boy don't meet girl (so to speak).
The process had the entire earth for a testtube and also a lot of time. What started in one place might have been finished on the other side of the earth 1,000,000 years later.
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by frogstompSure, but wouldn't the tar be uniformly distributed within this ecosystem? Methinks, everywhich way you look at it, there seems to be some sorting mechanism involved, which just don't work when calculating random chance. Either it was random chance, or there was some intelligent sorting going on.
one of the things you posted about about tar buildup in test tubes, is more because it is a test tube and not a complete eco-system.
You are presupposing a static environment and it didn't have to be, in fact it probably was extremely dynamic.
Also you are postulating a chemical breakdown everytime boy don't mee ...[text shortened]... ne place might have been finished on the other side of the earth 1,000,000 years later.
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseThe same article you got yours from. Did you read it?
[b]Why don't you try the figure of one mutation per 300 chromosome replications?
Now its your turn to show your hand. Where do you get these numbers?[/b]
What is the typical rate of spontaneous mutations?
...Bacteria, Archae, and Eukaryotic microbes produce about one mutation per 300 chromosome replications.
http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/mutations/fluctuation.html
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by Halitosethe third way is more likely tho. and that's that it had no other way to form due to its chemical makeup.
Sure, but wouldn't the tar be uniformly distributed within this ecosystem? Methinks, everywhich way you look at it, there seems to be some sorting mechanism involved, which just don't work when calculating random chance. Either it was random chance, or there was some intelligent sorting going on.
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes. That is indeed the rate with some bacterium, however as I pointed out, bacteria show a vastly higher mutation rate. If humans showed the same mutation rate we would have been extinct by now.
The same article you got yours from. Did you read it?
[b]What is the typical rate of spontaneous mutations?
...Bacteria, Archae, and Eukaryotic microbes produce about one mutation per 300 chromosome replications.
http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/mutations/fluctuation.html[/b]
I concede that I didn't read the site through carefully and just jumped to the end where it gave the mutation rate per gene per generation for E.coli.
Okay. I'll be googling for another more suitable rate.