08 Nov 13
Originally posted by KellyJayActually we all know perfectly well that you only 'look to' anyone who supports your beliefs. If you were genuinely going to defer to experts on the matter you would defer to the real experts which we all know is biologists that specialise in either evolution or abiogenesis - and not engineers.
When it comes to building things I'd look to an engineer, when it comes
to issues in building things, I'd look to an engineer.
But there is no need to defer to expert opinion as the issues under discussion can be understood by anyone who cares to.
08 Nov 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobThank you. It is clear from reading that article and comparing it to KTs responses at the beginning of this thread that KT either did not understand the article in the slightest, or deliberately lied in his responses. (I suspect both).
I've sourced the article KT cites in his OP. It's called 'The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution', written by one of the founders of the Institute for Creation Research Henry Morris PhD.
It is also clear that the author of the original article is either really stupid, or lying as he totally ignores populations and natural selection (something KT also tried to avoid in his early posts) - yet the scenario being put forward clearly does involve populations and natural selection.
The articles author states that each mutation has a 50% probability of being beneficial. He then claims that the probability of 2 successive successful mutations is only 25% ie he multiplies the probability. But we all know that this is incorrect. If you have a reproducing population and it has a mutation that is beneficial, it will tend to spread throughout the population. If the mutation is detrimental it will tend to quickly die out and have no effect whatsoever. There is no scenario in which it is correct to multiply the probabilities of mutations being successful in order to obtain the probability of two successful mutations.
08 Nov 13
In addition to my above comments, if we have a population greater than 1, then the probabilities increase significantly. For example if we have a population of 100 cells and assume one mutation per generation then after one mutation in each cell, approximately half the cells should have a beneficial mutation. Its practically guaranteed that at least 1 will have a beneficial mutation - whereas the author incorrectly claims the probability is still only 1/2.
09 Nov 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is an accepted fact that the overwhelming majority of mutations do more harm than good. Even among those mutations that seem to help the organism survive under certain adverse conditions, there is no evidence that these mutations are beneficial in the absence of the adverse conditions. There is also no evidence of an increase in complexity caused by the mutation, so mutations do not prove evolution.
In addition to my above comments, if we have a population greater than 1, then the probabilities increase significantly. For example if we have a population of 100 cells and assume one mutation per generation then after one mutation in each cell, approximately half the cells should have a beneficial mutation. Its practically guaranteed that at least 1 wil ...[text shortened]... a beneficial mutation - whereas the author incorrectly claims the probability is still only 1/2.
The Instructor
09 Nov 13
Originally posted by RJHindsCorrect, but the OP states that it will assume a 50% ratio for the purposes of the probability calculation.
It is an accepted fact that the overwhelming majority of mutations do more harm than good.
Even among those mutations that seem to help the organism survive under certain adverse conditions, there is no evidence that these mutations are beneficial in the absence of the adverse conditions.
Irrrelevant.
There is also no evidence of an increase in complexity caused by the mutation, so mutations do not prove evolution.
Evolution does not require an increase in complexity.
However, it is a well known fact that mutations do frequently increase complexity. There are many types of mutations. Some of them involve the copying of stretches of DNA. This is an increase in the total amount of DNA and thus an increase in complexity (unless you have your own definition for 'complexity' in which case who cares?).
09 Nov 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, my definition of complexity is one that makes sense, which is more than I can say for yours.
Correct, but the OP states that it will assume a 50% ratio for the purposes of the probability calculation.
[b]Even among those mutations that seem to help the organism survive under certain adverse conditions, there is no evidence that these mutations are beneficial in the absence of the adverse conditions.
Irrrelevant.
There is also no evi ...[text shortened]... e in complexity (unless you have your own definition for 'complexity' in which case who cares?).
The Instructor
10 Nov 13
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knob"Since the LTEE takes place under aerobic conditions, this new ability, labeled “Cit+”, was very advantageous, since it allowed Cit+ bacteria to use a new food source in the culture medium that the rest of the culture could not. In very short order, the Cit+ bacteria nearly took over one of the twelve cultures. We have discussed this result as an evolutionary gain of information before, though the precise nature of the mutations that led to the Cit+ phenotype was not known at that time."
Here you go, the first of a five part article written by Christian scientists detailing the Lenski experiments.
http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-1
Well, this is something I will agree, but it doesn't appear to be something
new as much as it is an improved ability that it already had under other
conditions. I can think of more than a few examples in our lives were
we may not be able to do something well, but under certain conditions
we will be able too. Simple things like playing an instrument, put in a
place of where we are practicing we will improve over and over. Simply
being able to do something it could already do, in a more improved
fashion is not much difference than exercising you improve. Under
controlled conditions we could improve the conditions of the whole
human race. If held to one sex partner for life we would wipe out all the
STD or the vast majority of it in one or two generations, that would not
be evolution at work it would be placing us in an environment that
allowed such an improvement over time to happen.
Another possible reason would be that trait was always there, but it was
not the dominate one in that batch, over time it becomes more dominate
and survives where others cannot.
Kelly
10 Nov 13
Originally posted by KellyJayAnother possible reason would be that trait was always there, but it was
"Since the LTEE takes place under aerobic conditions, this new ability, labeled “Cit+”, was very advantageous, since it allowed Cit+ bacteria to use a new food source in the culture medium that the rest of the culture could not. In very short order, the Cit+ bacteria nearly took over one of the twelve cultures. We have discussed this result as an evolutiona ...[text shortened]... one in that batch, over time it becomes more dominate
and survives where others cannot.
Kelly
not the dominate one in that batch, over time it becomes more dominate
and survives where others cannot.
You don't seem to understand how this experiment works. But first of all, have you any evidence for this claim you made?
11 Nov 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobIts the same evidence you were looking at, I just gave you another possible
[b]Another possible reason would be that trait was always there, but it was
not the dominate one in that batch, over time it becomes more dominate
and survives where others cannot.
You don't seem to understand how this experiment works. But first of all, have you any evidence for this claim you made?[/b]
reason for the things they found.
Kelly
12 Nov 13
Originally posted by Proper Knob"While E. coli have the ability to import citrate and use it as a carbon source when oxygen is absent, they cannot do so when it is present"
The genome of the ancestral colony was sequenced, the genetic ability to process citric nitrate was not present.
You did read this too? The ability was there, it was just improved as I
said.
Kelly
14 Nov 13
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm understanding you now.
"While E. coli have the ability to import citrate and use it as a carbon source when oxygen is absent, they cannot do so when it is present"
You did read this too? The ability was there, it was just improved as I
said.
Kelly
That ability came about by a point mutation, meaning, two mutations happened which set up the organism for the third mutation which led to the ability of this colony of e.coli to import citrate under aerobic conditions. Whichever way you look at it it demonstrates that the premise from TK's cut and paste in the OP is wrong.