It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Evolution courtesy of Darwin ... no longer works for me ... here's why !

page: 4
23
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:12 PM

Thats exactly it in a nutshell ... mathematical odds ... and there's no escaping them or bypassing them.

Good grief, man – still holding out?

What part of 'selection' don't you understand? Nature didn't have to roll the same four dice over and over again. She selected the combinations she 'wanted' in a cumulative process. Each roll of the dice increases the likelihood that the next roll will be the one she wants.

Evolution through natural selection isn't mathematically unlikely, it is inevitable.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
One acquaintance once told me he enjoys debunking Darwinism, when I asked him why?
He answered with "the math", what he was referring to is that math with biology can't support it.
One biological scientist once said the Darwin theory is so mathematically impossible it's odds of happening are like 1 out of the number that represents all the atoms in the universe. Nobody knows what that number actually is. But it's a hyperbole to make a point.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Looking at nothing but the mathematical odds logically defeats Darwinism quite handily as you continue to explain in this thread, that is if you are willing to explore, examine and inform yourself of them.
Denial is a fundamental trait that all humans display in all area's of life for various reasons.
The denial of factual math is quite sad to observe however. It's like saying 1+1 doesn't equal 2 because we don't want it to. It's an emotionally based perspective.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

. . .
So yes lets have the dialog, but don't try and prove it, with statistical variables plugged into a math formula's that are suspect to begin with.

You've got to be kidding.
My "comments" were showing that the article you were sourcing your figures from was "very debatable", but despite that still supported the case for evolution, rather than the case against it.

You presented the article, you said it discredited evolution because "by the time intelligent life evolves, the Star in their system makes life uninhabitable, and they would be killed off."

Now you've found you misunderstood the mathematical conclusions of your article you suddenly start questioning the math you've been crowing about in this thread.

Why don't you just open your eyes to the evidence instead of ditching it when it doesn't suit your cause?

Oh, congratulations on debunking the article YOU presented with your comments on the Drake equation.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:47 AM
TheWill

Originally posted by TheWill
You are still assuming that we HAD to have an insulin gene in the first place - we didn't.

My apologies if I gave the unintentional impression that "we HAD to have an insulin gene".
I "picked on" insulin purely because it was a convenient gene that with a length of 153 nucleotides, was not too small and not too big and would readily lend itself to probability analysis.

Originally posted by TheWill
You are making the assumption that the insulin gene arose from non-coding DNA. It is just as possible that it arose from coding DNA, a series of bases already coding for a protein which, by a few substitutions or perhaps just a single deletion/insertion, or even just a fortuitously placed crossover event, would have changed the amino acid sequence produced by the gene.

If we place an "artificial" limitation on nature and stating that there is only one correct sequence of 153 nucleotides that would result in insulin, then yes, the odds against are a whopping 10^92 (approx).
But as you have correctly pointed out, insulin is the end product of a degenerate coding system. So what happens to the odds now ? Do they plummet dramatically and thereby allowing nature to easily evolve insulin ? Lets take a look.

You've calculated, based on degeneration, that there are (approximately) 10^24 ways of stringing 153 nucleotides sequentially and produce insulin.
Ok, fine .... adjusting the original odds of 10^92 with your 10^24 degenerate alternatives gives us new odds of

10^68 AGAINST

Thats a 1 followed by 68 zero's !!

But the end result is that we've all we've achieved is to simply exchange or downgrade incredibly stupendous astronomical odds against ... to simply mind boggling astronomical odds against

Look, it's all fine to talk about high level activities such as degenerate coding, cross overs, substitutions, etc, etc ... but at the very basic level of evolution lies nothing more sophisticated than nature's equivalent of a crap shoot.
It's all about probabilities, chances and odds ... nothing more and nothing less.

What's the probability of any nucleotide being added or inserted ?
What's the probability of the added/inserted nucleotide being a specific one ?
What's the probability that the insertion is beneficial ? ... neutral ? ... harmful ? ... lethal ?
What's the probability of a nucleotide being added/inserted into a particular location as opposed to any other location ?
What's the probability of many nucleotides being added/inserted at a given location/time ?
What's the probability that a nucleotide sequence is created that codes for a viable protein ?
What's the probability that a number of seperate proteins can co-ordinate with each other to produce higher level activities e.g. Citric Acid cycle ?

Thain Esh Kelch

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

You clearly don't get how things work. You seem to think that mutations are a random insertion of a nucleotide somewhere?

Errr, basically yes, thats exactly how "things work" ... coupled with random changes to existing nucleotides.

Perhaps you'd care to educate me on the other ways that genomes increase in size over time if NOT by strictly random means.

So according to you ...

You seem to think that mutations are a random insertion ...

if insertions (mutations) are NOT random, then the logical implication must follow that there are times when insertions (mutations) are deliberate - in other words, there is deliberate design and planning attributable to at least some mutations ?

Really ???? I think not.

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

Without taking into account how many different ways mutations can be achieved, you should know that it is possible for entire chromosomes to be duplicated - Double the genome in the life span of a single celled organism, which can be down to a few minutes. So your way of looking at time is waaaaaaaaaaay off.

And just how complex can the genome of a "single celled" organism become and the organism still remain single celled relying on just mitosis ?

Mitosis is a type of cellular reproduction where a cell will produce an identical replica of itself with the same number and patterns of genes and chromosomes.

So according to the above quote, within a single-celled organism, mitosis is a very efficient and effective way of maintaining genetic stability.

In other words, your example of massive genetic growth in a single celled organism is therefore highly unlikely (there's that nasty probability sneaking in again) and consequently, significant genetic drift is minimal over very long periods of time.

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

During mitosis, it is estimated that a mutation occours 1 in 10.000.000 nucleotides with efficient DNA polymerases, while we are down to 1 to 1.000.000.000 in higher mammals, that have proof reading polymerases. That is *roughly* 3 mutations per germ cell in higher mammals, which is quite low.

That is *roughly* 3 mutations per germ cell in higher mammals, which is quite low.

the mutation rate decreases significantly over time as the organism evolves.

Which is my point exactly ... the observed average accumulation rate of 3.1 billion mutations over 3.8 billion years is inconsistent with expected lowered mutation rates as the organism evolves. Taking your observation into account, we would have to conclude that for some unknown reason early in evolutionary history, there must have been an incredibly accelerated rate of the initial mutation rate in order to compensate for the much later falling of or reduction in mutation rates in higher organisms.
If you disagree, then what in your opinion would the "average" yearly mutation rate have to be to result in the final human genome consisting of 3.1 billion nucleotides if you have at most a maximum of 3.8 billion years in which to "generate" those 3.1 billion mutations ?

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

The citric acid cycle ... is a series of enzyme-catalysed chemical reactions, which is of central importance in all living cells that use oxygen as part of cellular respiration.

In eucaryotes yes.

Irrelevant ... as long as the organism employs oxygen for cellular respiration, then it uses some version of the Citric Acid cycle.

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
The citric cycle is by no means perfect. It actually uses energy under some conditions, so again your argument is pointless.

Sorry but again your response is irrelevant.
Whether it's perfect or not, the Citric Acid cycle does exist and is very complex and incredibly dependent on it's constituent sub-processes working together as one system.
Therefore my original argument regarding the odds for/against it's evolution is perfectly valid.

By the way, I notice that you have not proposed a viable explanation for just how the independent proteins involved in the CA cycle came into being ... let alone how these many proteins found themselves co-opted into working so intimately together.

And the odds of this (protein creation + working together = CA cycle) happening purely randomly is ...... (feel free to fill in a number here).

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
This also tells that you don't *get* evolution. Even if insulin magically sprang into existence, it would not have an effect. You would also need some way to regulate its expression, you would need a receptor it could target, and it would also need downstream effects from this receptor.

Whether insulin is useful or not, whether it has an effect or not, is completely beyond the point.
We are discussing the nothing more than the possibility of the insulin nucleotide sequence coming into existence through purely random, probabilistic means i.e. mutations. As shown many times, the odds against insulin arising through hit and miss, trial and error means is nothing less than astronomical in value.

Now you're adding fuel to the fire by saying that not only did insulin evolve through random processes but now we have to also factor in the probabilities that additional structures such as regulators and receptors (all protein products) would also have to spring into existence through essentially random methods as well ... odds compounded upon odds ... compounded upon odds ...

rhinoceros

Originally posted by rhinoceros
It's so annoying when amateurs with no understanding whatsoever of genetics or microbiology in general make these ridiculous claims like the one you presented.

Just to show how little you know. You said:

And like the insulin process, the Citric Acid cycle MUST have come into existence very early in the evolutionary time scale as it is critical to, and used by all organisms that metabolize oxygen for respiration ... therefore giving nature very little time for trial and error.

This is just plain wrong. Ogygenic (oxygen generating) photosynthesis came about only about 2 billion years after life had started on our planet. Before that there was no oxygen that could act as terminal acceptor of electrons, and thus no citric acid cycle as it's today.

I'll start my response with "I take offense to your condescending attitude".

So where was I wrong ?

The CA cycle as far as I know is used by every organism that uses oxygen for cellular respiration.

... which is of central importance in all living cells that use oxygen as part of cellular respiration.

Source: Citric Acid cycle

Therefore ... logic implies that the CA cycle must predate, or have evolved no later than the 1st organism that evolved the capability of using oxygen for cellular respiration.

Anyway, here are the 3 possible scenarios ... by all means provide us with the wealth of your experience and knowledge.

Did the CA cycle evolve 1st and sit there waiting to be taken advantage of when the 1st oxygen metabolizing organism finally evolved ?
Or did the CA cycle evolve but only after the 1st organism capable of metabolizing oxygen had previously already evolved ?
Or did the CA cycle AND the 1st organism capable of oxygen metabolism evolve at the very same time in evolutionary history ?

Got to be one of the 3 above ... which one ?

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by tauristercus
Ok, I can just barely, barely, barely accept that nature may just have some how fluked it with insulin ... but how do you explain nature doing it another 25,000 times ... and some of those proteins are longer than insulin which means the odds against the longer ones is beyond imagination.

If you would actually read the posts in this thread you would know that this has already been explained. Paper on the Evolution of Insulin.

Ok, just finished reading the paper and unless I completely misunderstood the basis of the paper, there was NO mention whatsoever of an evolutionary explanation of the original and primary insulin type precursor gene.

Instead, the paper focused exclusively on the differences to be found within the insulin gene but only from the point of view of modern non-mammalian vertebrates. In other words, how the insulin gene has evolved between species but not HOW the insulin gene came into existence originally or WHAT mechanism was responsible for the original insulin gene creation.

MrXYZ

Originally posted by MrXYZ

No it doesn't.

Look, I had game theory at uni as part of my MSc in Real Estate. If there's one thing I learned, it's that if something can happen, it eventually will happen. To give you an example, winning the lottery is highly unlikely. In fact, depending on the type of lottery, you might only be likely to win once in 256 MILLION years if you play once a week. Other lotteries are "easier" and you're likely to win once out of 120 million tries.

However, now look at how many people win the lottery every single week. It should be an incredibly rare event, yet it still happens.

Your chances of getting hit by lightning are approximately 2.5mil to 1, which is still a lot higher than you winning the lottery...yet people say getting hit by lightning is super rare.

Unfortunately, in the above, you're using examples based on very small probabilistic ranges.
Lottery odds and your lightning example are both typically in the 10^6 possibility range.
In other words, the chances of selecting the correct sequence of numbers or being struck by lightning both have odds of just a few million to one against the player (or victim).

Again, take insulin which is a relatively simple sequence of 153 nucleotides.
The odds of randomly building the correct 153 sequence has odds against it in the range of 10^68.

Comparing your lottery odds of 10^6 against the insulin gene odds of 10^68 is like comparing a drop of water to an ocean.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Please enlighten us how you came up with that figure. Why at the power of 90? Why 8x10?

I'm actually pleased that you asked the above question as it's pointed out a very minor error in my original calculation (big fingers on the tiny calculator keyboard !). But having said that, this minor error in no way invalidates my original premise and in fact, continues to support it.

The calculation is easily done.

Lets start by using a simple variation of the classic 6 sided die but our version has only 4 sides representing the 4 possible nucleotides ... labeled A, C, G and T.

If we roll the die once, we have a 1 in 4 (0.25) chance of guessing the outcome. No big deal.

Now, lets say we will roll the die twice in succession and we are looking for an A followed by a C as the outcome.
To calculate the probability of actually getting the A and C is simply a matter of multiplying 0.25 x 0.25 which gives an overall probability of 0.0625 or 1 chance in 16 of getting it right.

Similarly, the odds of getting A followed by C followed by G sequentially is equivalent to
0.25 x 0.25 x 0.25 = 0.015625 ... or 1 chance in 64 of getting it right.

As you can hopefully see by now, there's a simple formula in play, namely
0.25 ^ S where S represents the number of correct selections.

Here's a simple table:

As can be readily seen, the odds of nature randomly selecting the 1st 10 correct bases are at most approximately 1 million to one against ... which over a long period of evolutionary time are darn good odds so no major problems so far.
But look what happens as we try to approximately double the number of correct bases from 10 to 25 ... the odds jump to a staggering 1 chance in 10^15.
And as we try for more and more correct bases, the odds go off the board when we try to get all 153 bases (insulin) with a truly mind bending odds of 1 chance in 10^92 !!!!

However, as TheWill pointed out, the insulin gene is a degenerate one, meaning that there are multiple ways of ending up still producing insulin but with different arrangements of the 153 bases ... in fact there are approximately 10^24 alternative arrangements (per TheWills calculation) that still result in insulin.

So using our original 10^92 calculation and reduce it by the 10^24 alternatives, we still end up with monstrously huge odds of approximately 10^68 against creating any variant of the insulin gene.

To put it in perspective, 10^68 is the number 1 followed by 68 zero's !!!

Astyanax

Originally posted by Astyanax

Thats exactly it in a nutshell ... mathematical odds ... and there's no escaping them or bypassing them.

Good grief, man – still holding out?

What part of 'selection' don't you understand? Nature didn't have to roll the same four dice over and over again. She selected the combinations she 'wanted' in a cumulative process. Each roll of the dice increases the likelihood that the next roll will be the one she wants.

Evolution through natural selection isn't mathematically unlikely, it is inevitable.

You're kidding me ? C'mon ... you've got to be !

Each roll of the dice increases the likelihood that the next roll will be the one she wants.

Each roll of the die is completely and utterly INDEPENDENT of any previous rolls if you're only interested in a single, one time outcome e.g. A or C or G or T and don't care about what came before or after.
But if you're looking at multiple outcomes such as A followed by T followed by G followed by C followed by C followed by A, etc, etc, etc then every previous outcome MUST be taken into account in the final overall probability calculation.

In the case of building the insulin gene from scratch, each and ever every roll of nature's 4 sided (A, C, G and T) die has exactly the same probability as any other roll ... but the CUMULATIVE probability is based on taking every previous outcome into consideration.

That probability is exactly one chance in 4 or if you prefer, P = 0.25.

It also makes no difference if somehow nature managed to get say, the 1st 15 nucleotides sequentially in place and then nothing further happened for 10 million years. The odds of adding the 16th nucleotide will still be
0.25^16 against or if you prefer, approximate chances of 1 in 10^9 against.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:02 AM

That's still not quite the point - none of the proteins that could be or are, had to occur. There are probably a great many genes that we could have had but don't, although the sheer number and reproductive speed of some single-celled organisms does suggest to me that every gene sequence possible is likely to have arisen in one of them.

Going off on a sidenote, did you know that a single tuatara chromosome has one mutation per base-pair per million years which is not picked up by DNA repair mechanisms? Now, imagine that there were half a million (diploid) tuataras on the planet - each base pair would receive one mutation every year, if you considered the population as a whole. And each mutation gets to stick around for eighty years, mixing and matching with others - the odds do stack up, both ways.

On top of which, you're still only calculating the odds of it occurring if there was only a single system in which it could, which is not the same as calculating the odds of it occurring on this planet, which has countless billions, if not more, of systems, and has had countless billions more.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:05 AM

Your argument seems to be that you don't believe that evolution happened because evolution happened too fast to have happened.

The soup was terrible, and there wasn't enough of it!

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:18 AM

Originally posted by tauristercus
Astyanax
You're kidding me ? C'mon ... you've got to be !

Each roll of the dice increases the likelihood that the next roll will be the one she wants.

Each roll of the die is completely and utterly INDEPENDENT of any previous rolls if you're only interested in a single, one time outcome e.g. A or C or G or T and don't care about what came before or after.
But if you're looking at multiple outcomes such as A followed by T followed by G followed by C followed by C followed by A, etc, etc, etc then every previous outcome MUST be taken into account in the final overall probability calculation.

In the case of building the insulin gene from scratch, each and ever every roll of nature's 4 sided (A, C, G and T) die has exactly the same probability as any other roll ... but the CUMULATIVE probability is based on taking every previous outcome into consideration.

That probability is exactly one chance in 4 or if you prefer, P = 0.25.

It also makes no difference if somehow nature managed to get say, the 1st 15 nucleotides sequentially in place and then nothing further happened for 10 million years. The odds of adding the 16th nucleotide will still be
0.25^16 against or if you prefer, approximate chances of 1 in 10^9 against.

The point Astyanax is making is that the game is not "random." Evolution does not start from scratch. If it did, there would have been equal odds that your mother would have given birth to a giant sequoia instead of you.

The dice metaphor is a poor one - unless the dice are loaded, and the goal of rolling them is to pick out which dice are best loaded in your favor. Which is exactly what the case is.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:25 AM

I dont think you understand how evolution works. Look at weasel applet here:

home.pacbell.net...

The probability of getting a phrase "Methinks it is like a weasel" randomly on the first time is 1 to 2,042,911,512,229,885,603,274,215,297,897,150,684,236,521,591,013,37.

Yet, we can evolve it in just a few hundred generations at worst. This would be impossible according to your logic, but it is not, because evolution, as was already said, is cumulative.
edit on 20/1/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:01 AM

Originally posted by TheWill

On top of which, you're still only calculating the odds of it occurring if there was only a single system in which it could, which is not the same as calculating the odds of it occurring on this planet, which has countless billions, if not more, of systems, and has had countless billions more.

Yes, you're correct in that I am assuming a single system ... or put another way, direct evolutionary descent being traced back through a continuous lineage from us all the way back to that very 1st instant of newly created proto-life ... through one and only one individual organism at a time.

What I'm trying to say is that I would think that the odds (there it is again
) of two organisms within a specie receiving the very same identical mutation(s) at the very same point in evolutionary time would be beyond improbable. Even more so as the level of complexity of the organism's specie evolves over time. So therefore only that single organism would potentially be able to pass on that particular mutation to its descendants.
This would, I assume, be the general basis for the generation of every conceivable protein ... only one individual organism (within the specie) at a time would accumulate the necessary final random mutations that result in a viable protein emerging.

Basically equivalent to humans acquiring a mutation that gives us an additional eye-colour, say purple background with yellow stripes ... yes ridiculous, I know ... but just for illustrative purposes.
So I'm sure that you'd agree that 2 or more humans receiving this very same mutation at the very same time would be nothing short of improbable. One person acquiring the mutation and then passing it on, sure, no probs ... but 2, 3, 10, 20 or more humans acquiring the mutation simultaneously ... not a chance in hell.

So any past mutation that resulted in a viable protein molecule would almost certainly have developed in just one single organism at a time ... and only then being passed on to multiple offspring within that specie, resulting in that new mutation (protein) being incorporated into the specie's genome.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:11 AM

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Your argument seems to be that you don't believe that evolution happened because evolution happened too fast to have happened.

The soup was terrible, and there wasn't enough of it!

Not at all ... and sorry if I gave that impression.

I firmly believe that evolution happens through random mutations and then the environment acting on the individuals carrying those mutations.
I most certainly am NOT a Creationist (does the word even deserve capitalization ?
); nor do I believe in alien intervention/manipulation or any other weird pseudo-scientific claptrap.

My entire point through this (and other threads) is that I cannot reconcile (all explanations suppled so far not withstanding) whatsoever the average mutational rate that had to occur for us to end up with 3.1 billion nucleotides in our genome over 3.8 billion years of time is in anyway consistent with the belief in "slow mutational accumulations over very long periods of time".

My personal opinion is that there's something lacking in our basic understanding of evolution based on mutational accumulations .. all the more so when you factor simple probability estimates into the mix which clearly indicate something unusual had to be happening and influencing mutational rates significantly.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:26 AM

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

The point Astyanax is making is that the game is not "random." Evolution does not start from scratch. If it did, there would have been equal odds that your mother would have given birth to a giant sequoia instead of you.

Respectfully, I have to disagree.

Evolution most certainly did start from scratch with the very 1st emergence of life.

And it's continued from scratch with the evolution of every protein currently in our genotype. It makes no difference if a new protein is based on part of the nucleotide sequence of another, existing protein ... go back far enough in time and the very original proteins had to evolve independently first before they could be used as partial templates further along the evolutionary time track.

Sooner or later you simply have to bite the bullet and admit that there must have been any number of primeval proteins coming into existence with no possible forebears to lean on. At that point probability estimates hit you directly between the eyes and you have to wonder how the astronomical odds against these early proteins were beaten by nature.

The dice metaphor is a poor one - unless the dice are loaded, and the goal of rolling them is to pick out which dice are best loaded in your favor. Which is exactly what the case is.

Not so, the die metaphor is a perfectly apt one to simulate random selection from only 4 basic nucleotides.

Surely by now I've more than explained clearly exactly how the probability calculations are derived ? There is no sleight of hand or hidden trick involved.

You want a brand new chromosome with a sequence of say, 200 specific nucleotides to be assembled in a specific location along a particular chromosome ? No probs...

The odds of getting that exact sequence is exactly 0.25^20

or

1 chance in 2.582249878086908589655919172003 x 10^120

You reckon there's much chance you'll get it before the universe winks out of existence ?

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:30 AM
Its possible a great majority of the evolution could have occured on another planet. Panspermia is another theory as to genetic varriation and the origin of life on earth.

Im supprised you couldnt think of it yourself.
edit on 20-1-2011 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:34 AM
Very interesting post by the OP and some great, well thought out responses.

Just out of interest; lets say the Sun is bombarding Earth with billions of forms of EM energy ( some we know about; others we dont) is this the "fuel" of mutation as we know many forms of radiation can cause changes in biomass?

I would also be interested to know whether a large, complex superorganism such as a mammal would be affected any less or more by this radiation than more simple forms of life ( such as bacteria and viruses).

The response advocating rapid change in simple cells seems to be the most sensible but I wonder if this is the connundrum....that simple life forms can adapt quicker therefore evoloution slows down relative to the complexity of the organism???

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:53 AM

Originally posted by Maslo

The probability of getting a phrase "Methinks it is like a weasel" randomly on the first time is 1 to 2,042,911,512,229,885,603,274,215,297,897,150,684,236,521,591,013,37.

I'll ignore spaces and capitalization and only use the 26 letters in the alphabet.

The probability of picking the 1st correct letter (M or m) is 1 in 26 or
P = 0.03846153846153846153846153846154
The probability of picking the next correct letter (e) is also
P = 0.03846153846153846153846153846154
The probability of picking the next correct letter (t) is also
P = 0.03846153846153846153846153846154

as it will be for all 23 letters making up the sentence.

But because we're interested in not just 1 letter alone where the INDIVIDUAL PROBABILITY is simply 1 in 26, but rather an entire sequence of letters, then we have no choice but to work out the CUMULATIVE PROBABILTY of all 23 letters being picked correctly. This cumulative probability is based on each and every letters individual probability.

So, the cumulative probability of successfully picking all 23 letters in the correct sequence is therefore:

P(c) = 0.03846153846153846153846153846154^23

which gives us a 1 in 3.5025714498220057526153130908058 x 10^32 chance of succeeding.

Yet, we can evolve it in just a few hundred generations at worst.

Really ????
The only way I could see that happening is by using a specifically written computer program utilizing millions of iterations per second ... and even then I wouldn't hold my breath.

This would be impossible according to your logic, but it is not, because evolution, as was already said, is cumulative.

Yes, the long term effect of the evolutionary process is cumulative in such much as we've accumulated all our existing proteins.

But we're not talking about that aspect of evolution.

We're talking about the cumulative effects on probability when we look at the odds of creating specific nucleotide sequences for one protein at a time.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:56 AM

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Its possible a great majority of the evolution could have occured on another planet. Panspermia is another theory as to genetic varriation and the origin of life on earth.

Im supprised you couldnt think of it yourself.

You're just passing the buck with that idea, unfortunately.

Whether you're looking at mutational evolution here on Earth or on Pandora or Tatooine, the laws of probability are exactly the same and the results would be consistent as well.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:59 AM

thats a horribly ignorant respose to a great explination for your confusion as to how life become complex so fast.

But i guess do what you got to do to keep your pitifull little delusions.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:05 AM

Originally posted by Wertdagf

thats a horribly ignorant respose to a great explination for your confusion as to how life become complex so fast.

But i guess do what you got to do to keep your pitifull little delusions.

WTF ??? where does THAT attitude come from ? Not impressed at all

You raised an alternative possibility for evolution on earth by originating it's beginnings not here on earth, but on another planet.

I have no probs with that possibility.

What I said was that evolution must be a constant even with other life forms on other planets .. and if that was so, then they would also be subject to forms of mutation over their evolutionary history. Therefore the laws of probability would most certainly also be applicable to their evolution just as it's applicable to our own earthly evolution.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:37 AM

....

which gives us a 1 in 3.5025714498220057526153130908058 x 10^32 chance of succeeding

You are just using different values for number of characters.

They are using 68 characters (uppercase, lowercase and some punctuation).
The sentence has 28 characters (including spaces).

The probability of getting it right on the first time, using the same equation like you used, is:

68 ^ 28 = 2,042,911,512,229,885,603,274,215,297,897,150,684,236,521,591,013,376

This agrees with what is written on the weasel site:

For instance, using Weasel's 68-character alphabet (all upper- and lower-case letters, plus digits and some punctuation), there are 2,042,911,512,229,885,603,274,215,297,897,150,684,236,521,591,013,376 possible phrases of the same length as the phrase "Methinks it is like a weasel" (that's about 2 million billion billion billion billion billion phrases).

Really ???? The only way I could see that happening is by using a specifically written computer program utilizing millions of iterations per second ... and even then I wouldn't hold my breath.

That is where you are wrong. The program did not use millions of iterations. It is possible to do it with just a few hundred of generations and about 50 000 tries ("organisms"). If you run the program, the log logs the number of tries and all generations:

Generation 264
Tries

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:37 AM

No, tauristercus, I'm not kidding.

Imagine a tree with eight million branch-tips. The tree looks like this: the trunk branches in two, each of these two branches again divides into two and so on, until, in the final division, four million branches become eight million branch-tips.

Say we want to compute the chances of reaching one particular branch-tip by climbing the tree. Just for fun, let's call this branch-tip 'Insulin'. From where we're standing, Insulin looks no different from any other branch-tip.

Well, as I stand looking up at the tree above me, I have a one in eight million chance of reaching the correct branch tip.

But as soon as I choose one of the two branches immediately above me, my chance of reaching Insulin has either dropped to zero, or increased to one in four million.

And as I come to each successive limb division, every right choice I make doubles my chances of getting to Insulin.

And that's the point. Each 'correct' choice (each viable mutation) makes the next viable mutation more likely. The odds keep getting better as evolution progresses.

And with billions of reproductive events happening all the time, there's more than enough time and activity to overcome the longest of odds. 'All the stars in the universe' sounds like a pretty big number but given the right procedures you can reach it pretty easily. Homeopaths achieve astronomical dilutions (one molecule of active ingredient in squillions of molecules of water) without too much trouble, don't they?

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:49 AM

Originally posted by tauristercus
In the case of building the insulin gene from scratch, each and ever every roll of nature's 4 sided (A, C, G and T) die has exactly the same probability as any other roll ... but the CUMULATIVE probability is based on taking every previous outcome into consideration.

That probability is exactly one chance in 4 or if you prefer, P = 0.25.

It also makes no difference if somehow nature managed to get say, the 1st 15 nucleotides sequentially in place and then nothing further happened for 10 million years. The odds of adding the 16th nucleotide will still be
0.25^16 against or if you prefer, approximate chances of 1 in 10^9 against.

You're being dealt playing cards, and there are only 4 types of card, ace, king, queen and jack.
You want 16 cards in a particular order.
You have 1 chance in 4294967296 of getting all the cards in the right order. This is the cumulative probability.

When you have the first 15 cards in place the odds of getting the queen you want are not 1 in 10^9, they are 1 in 4. The odds for getting any single correct card are 1 in 4. Your notion that the cumulative probabiliy should be applied to each card draw, and then all multiplied together, is just nonsense.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:09 AM

No, identical mutations aren't expected to occur simultaneously in two separate organisms.

But, and don't read this at the same time as your sister, once you get to a point in evolutionary history where sexual reproduction has arise, most organisms tend to breed largely in the genepool that they came from - largely because of dispersal distances, although if traits and preferences in sexual selection are both heritable, it can be down to choosiness.

So a mutation arises, is passed on to half the offspring, and then a combination of selective pressures and inbreeding brings a beneficial gene to fixation through the population. And that's that.

And, because sexual selection mixes and matches chromosomes like nobody's business, a large population has a greater probability of hitting a mutation:

If you roll one die, it has a 50% chance of landing on a prime number. If you roll it, then, you expect to get 1/2 a die landing on prime numbers (well, you know what I mean)

If you roll two dice, you expect to get one of them landing on a prime.

If you roll 6 billion dice, you expect to get 3 billion of them landing on brimes.

So the number of organisms within a system is VERY relevent when talking about the odds. One of them that receives a beneficial mutation in the germ line(and just so you know, most proteins are likely to have evolved in very rapidly-reproducing organisms, which produce hundreds or even thousands of babies at any one time, rather than slow reproducing tetrapods which rarely go over a couple of hundred in their lifetimes) would enjoy greater survival of their offspring which inherited the mutation, and so on and so on, until they outnumbered their conspecifics without the mutution, and were more likely to mate with a relative than a non-relative, until eventually the allele comes to fixation in the population.

If people found people with purple/yellow eyes attractive, i would very much expect it to be a fairly common trait after a few generations, even in slow-reproducing humans. Considering that my father doesn't even know who half his first cousins are, by the time it got down four generations, it would be perfectly plausible for two people with the same trait to meet without knowing that they were second cousins, and 1/4 of their babies would have nothing but the purple/yellow eye allele at that locus, 1/2 would have one copy of that allele, and one of an alternative eye colour, and 1/4 wouldn't have it at all.

I'm rambling now, but I really hope you get my point. There is not one system. There are billions. The odds of any mutation occurring somewhere in that are pretty high. Sexual reproduction - especially in mass spawning species such as many marine fish and invertebrates - means that a lot of different mutations from different individuals get to mix.

new topics

23