Marx, Math And Myth

OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
98,888
Reaction score
32,714
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Our next loon, Michael Behe, is a prime example of what can happen when loonery disguises itself as real science. Behe is one of the most ardent and influential creationist out there; covered in more detail here.

Behe himself claims to accept (for instance) common descent and an old (13+ Billion years) universe. However evidence shows that he is a straightforward creationist. He consistently argues that his purported evidence that evolutionary theory does not work is automatically evidence for ID. The shifting of goalposts is obvious when he tries to argue that his opponents are inconsistent in arguing that ID is unfalisifiable (e.g. Coyne) and empirically refuted (e.g. Doolittle). In refusing to admit that Doolittle’s experiments - which falsified his specific predictions concerning blood clotting - were a falsification of the testable claims he forwarded with respect to irreducible complexity, Behe spectacularly demonstrates that Coyne is right to deem ID unfalsifiable (insofar as its supporters continuously change the goalposts).

Behe is also a religious apologist in general, serving as an “expert witness” for several religion related court cases.

Diagnosis: Strongly under the spell of confirmation bias, dishonest and a crackpot. As perhaps the leading creationist today, Behe is very influential and dangerous.
We already saw your fake looney blogsite, so no need to repeat.

You have no evidence using mathematics or else show us something.

Why not look up Ronald Fisher in your looney website?

Ronald Fisher, a mathematician and one of the founding fathers of the Modern Theory of Evolution, proposed a Natural Law of Evolution that stated that given random chance induced changes (mutations), the fitness of an organism will always INCREASE over time due to natural selection. He derived that this evolutionary law assumes an equal number of beneficial mutations = number of harmful mutations and symmetrical distribution of beneficial vs harmful mutations.

However, extensive research has shown that the distribution of beneficial-vs-harmful mutations is NOT equal and symmetrical. Instead the distribution is very heavily biased towards HARMFUL mutations. (No surprise there as this is what creation scientists have been saying from the beginning.) Anyway, experimental measurements shows that 1) There are NO observed beneficial mutations at all, or 2) Beneficial mutations IF present are below detection limits of the experiments, or 3) Beneficial mutations IF present are less than one in a million mutations. The rest are majority HARMFUL along with some fraction that are neutral.

When we add in this experimentally determined distribution, the MATH shows that in biologically realistic situations (with asymmetric mutational distributions), the fitness of the species DECLINES over time in general. It means that mutations and natural selection do NOT work in reality.

You might as well add your name to your fake looney website haha.
As usual, you supply no source for your specious comments as your source is fundamentalist xtian websites. You really should learn the facts about biology rather than default to ICR nonsense.


Claim CB101:

Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).



What else can I help you with?
Haha. Still stuck in the 1980s. Fisher's theorem was disproved in 2018.

"January 2018: Fisher’s Famous Theorem Has Been “Flipped”

The 2014 edition of Genetic Entropy stated that a publication was in preparation that would disprove the historically pivotal “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection”, developed by Ronald Fisher. This key new paper has finally been published.

Ronald Fisher was one the great scientists of the last century, and his theorem, published in 1930, and was the foundational work that gave rise to neo-Darwinian theory and the field of population genetics. This new paper shows that Fisher’s mathematical formulation and his conclusion were wrong. Furthermore, the new paper corrects Fisher’s work — thus reversing Fisher’s thesis and establishing a new theorem. Fisher had claimed that his theorem was a mathematical proof of evolution — making the continuous increase in fitness a universal and mathematically certain natural law. The corrected theorem shows that just the opposite is true — fitness must very consistently degenerate — making macroevolution impossible. The new paper by Basener and Sanford, is in the Journal of Mathematical Biology (available here).

Fisher described his theorem as “fundamental”, because he believed he had discovered a mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution. He described his theorem as equivalent to a universal natural law — on the same level as the second law of thermodynamics. Fisher’s self-proclaimed new law of nature was that populations will always increase in fitness — without limit, as long as there is any genetic variation in the population. Therefore evolution is like gravity — a simple mathematical certainly. Over the years, a vast number of students of biology have been taught this mantra — that Fisher’s Theorem proves that evolution is a mathematical certainty.

The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change — it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.

In the early 1900s, Darwinian theory was in trouble scientifically. Darwin’s writings were primarily conceptual in nature, containing a great deal of philosophy and a great deal of speculation. Beyond simple observations of nature, Darwin’s books generally lacked genuine science (experimentation, data analysis, the formulation of testable hypotheses). Darwin had no understanding of genetics, and so he had no conception of how traits might be passed from one generation to the next. He only had a very vague notion of what natural selection might actually be acting upon. He simply pictured life as being inherently plastic and malleable, so evolution was inherently fluid and continuous (think Claymation). When Mendel’s genetic discoveries were eventually brought out of the closet, it could be seen that inheritance was largely based upon discrete and stable packets of information. That indicated that life and inheritance were not like Claymation, and that biological change over time was not based upon unlimited plasticity or fluidity. Mendel’s discrete units of information (later called genes), were clearly specific and finite, and so they only enabled specific and limited changes. At that time it was being said: “Mendelism has killed Darwinism”.

Fisher was the first to reconcile the apparent conflict between the ideas of Darwin and the experimental observations of Mendel. Fisher accomplished this by showing mathematically how natural selection could improve fitness by selecting for desirable genetic units (beneficial alleles), and simultaneously selecting against undesirable genetic units (deleterious alleles). He showed that given zero mutations, the more there are good/bad alleles in the population, the more natural selection can improve the fitness of the population. This is the essence of Fisher’s Theorem. This was foundational for neo-Darwinian theory — which now reigns supreme in modern academia.

Remarkably, Fisher’s theorem by itself illustrates a self-limiting process — once all the bad alleles are eliminated, and once all the individuals carry only good alleles, then there is nothing left to select, and so selective progress must stop. The end result is that the population improves slightly and then becomes locked in stasis (no further change). It is astounding that Fisher’s Theorem does not explicitly address this profound problem! Newly arising mutations are not even part of Fisher’s mathematical formulation. Instead, Fisher simply added an informal corollary (which was never proven), which involved extrapolation from his simple proof. He assumed that a continuous flow of new mutations would continuously replenish the population’s genetic variability, thereby allowing continuous and unlimited fitness increase."


Interesting and informative.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,842
Reaction score
3,832
Points
1,130
Our next loon, Michael Behe, is a prime example of what can happen when loonery disguises itself as real science. Behe is one of the most ardent and influential creationist out there; covered in more detail here.

Behe himself claims to accept (for instance) common descent and an old (13+ Billion years) universe. However evidence shows that he is a straightforward creationist. He consistently argues that his purported evidence that evolutionary theory does not work is automatically evidence for ID. The shifting of goalposts is obvious when he tries to argue that his opponents are inconsistent in arguing that ID is unfalisifiable (e.g. Coyne) and empirically refuted (e.g. Doolittle). In refusing to admit that Doolittle’s experiments - which falsified his specific predictions concerning blood clotting - were a falsification of the testable claims he forwarded with respect to irreducible complexity, Behe spectacularly demonstrates that Coyne is right to deem ID unfalsifiable (insofar as its supporters continuously change the goalposts).

Behe is also a religious apologist in general, serving as an “expert witness” for several religion related court cases.

Diagnosis: Strongly under the spell of confirmation bias, dishonest and a crackpot. As perhaps the leading creationist today, Behe is very influential and dangerous.
We already saw your fake looney blogsite, so no need to repeat.

You have no evidence using mathematics or else show us something.

Why not look up Ronald Fisher in your looney website?

Ronald Fisher, a mathematician and one of the founding fathers of the Modern Theory of Evolution, proposed a Natural Law of Evolution that stated that given random chance induced changes (mutations), the fitness of an organism will always INCREASE over time due to natural selection. He derived that this evolutionary law assumes an equal number of beneficial mutations = number of harmful mutations and symmetrical distribution of beneficial vs harmful mutations.

However, extensive research has shown that the distribution of beneficial-vs-harmful mutations is NOT equal and symmetrical. Instead the distribution is very heavily biased towards HARMFUL mutations. (No surprise there as this is what creation scientists have been saying from the beginning.) Anyway, experimental measurements shows that 1) There are NO observed beneficial mutations at all, or 2) Beneficial mutations IF present are below detection limits of the experiments, or 3) Beneficial mutations IF present are less than one in a million mutations. The rest are majority HARMFUL along with some fraction that are neutral.

When we add in this experimentally determined distribution, the MATH shows that in biologically realistic situations (with asymmetric mutational distributions), the fitness of the species DECLINES over time in general. It means that mutations and natural selection do NOT work in reality.

You might as well add your name to your fake looney website haha.
As usual, you supply no source for your specious comments as your source is fundamentalist xtian websites. You really should learn the facts about biology rather than default to ICR nonsense.


Claim CB101:

Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).



What else can I help you with?
Haha. Still stuck in the 1980s. Fisher's theorem was disproved in 2018.

"January 2018: Fisher’s Famous Theorem Has Been “Flipped”

The 2014 edition of Genetic Entropy stated that a publication was in preparation that would disprove the historically pivotal “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection”, developed by Ronald Fisher. This key new paper has finally been published.

Ronald Fisher was one the great scientists of the last century, and his theorem, published in 1930, and was the foundational work that gave rise to neo-Darwinian theory and the field of population genetics. This new paper shows that Fisher’s mathematical formulation and his conclusion were wrong. Furthermore, the new paper corrects Fisher’s work — thus reversing Fisher’s thesis and establishing a new theorem. Fisher had claimed that his theorem was a mathematical proof of evolution — making the continuous increase in fitness a universal and mathematically certain natural law. The corrected theorem shows that just the opposite is true — fitness must very consistently degenerate — making macroevolution impossible. The new paper by Basener and Sanford, is in the Journal of Mathematical Biology (available here).

Fisher described his theorem as “fundamental”, because he believed he had discovered a mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution. He described his theorem as equivalent to a universal natural law — on the same level as the second law of thermodynamics. Fisher’s self-proclaimed new law of nature was that populations will always increase in fitness — without limit, as long as there is any genetic variation in the population. Therefore evolution is like gravity — a simple mathematical certainly. Over the years, a vast number of students of biology have been taught this mantra — that Fisher’s Theorem proves that evolution is a mathematical certainty.

The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change — it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.

In the early 1900s, Darwinian theory was in trouble scientifically. Darwin’s writings were primarily conceptual in nature, containing a great deal of philosophy and a great deal of speculation. Beyond simple observations of nature, Darwin’s books generally lacked genuine science (experimentation, data analysis, the formulation of testable hypotheses). Darwin had no understanding of genetics, and so he had no conception of how traits might be passed from one generation to the next. He only had a very vague notion of what natural selection might actually be acting upon. He simply pictured life as being inherently plastic and malleable, so evolution was inherently fluid and continuous (think Claymation). When Mendel’s genetic discoveries were eventually brought out of the closet, it could be seen that inheritance was largely based upon discrete and stable packets of information. That indicated that life and inheritance were not like Claymation, and that biological change over time was not based upon unlimited plasticity or fluidity. Mendel’s discrete units of information (later called genes), were clearly specific and finite, and so they only enabled specific and limited changes. At that time it was being said: “Mendelism has killed Darwinism”.

Fisher was the first to reconcile the apparent conflict between the ideas of Darwin and the experimental observations of Mendel. Fisher accomplished this by showing mathematically how natural selection could improve fitness by selecting for desirable genetic units (beneficial alleles), and simultaneously selecting against undesirable genetic units (deleterious alleles). He showed that given zero mutations, the more there are good/bad alleles in the population, the more natural selection can improve the fitness of the population. This is the essence of Fisher’s Theorem. This was foundational for neo-Darwinian theory — which now reigns supreme in modern academia.

Remarkably, Fisher’s theorem by itself illustrates a self-limiting process — once all the bad alleles are eliminated, and once all the individuals carry only good alleles, then there is nothing left to select, and so selective progress must stop. The end result is that the population improves slightly and then becomes locked in stasis (no further change). It is astounding that Fisher’s Theorem does not explicitly address this profound problem! Newly arising mutations are not even part of Fisher’s mathematical formulation. Instead, Fisher simply added an informal corollary (which was never proven), which involved extrapolation from his simple proof. He assumed that a continuous flow of new mutations would continuously replenish the population’s genetic variability, thereby allowing continuous and unlimited fitness increase."


Interesting and informative.
More like predictable and ignorant.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,393
Reaction score
837
Points
155
Now that’s pretty darn funny.

There was a reference to something called “contested bones” in your long cut and paste.

What a surprise. Your cut and paste includes links to charlatans at the most dishonest and crank fundie ministries.
This has nothing to do with creation science. Ronald Fisher's theorem backed up Darwin after Mendel published his empirical findings. Darwin's explanation of ToE was just that an explanation or hypothesis. It grew to become a theory after Fisher's theorem. You didn't even read nor understand what the article said. It's from the Genetic Entropy group and they published in Mathematical Biology -- The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. I guess this is so mind blowing that their paper is free to view and download.

Furthermore, I keep talking about the period from 2007 - 2011 where evolution came under fire. I think this was the period that Gregor Mendel's experiments with pea plants were brought up to counter Darwinism -- Evolution: Library: What Darwin Didn't Know: Gregor Mendel and the Mechanism of Heredity. Darwin, like you, didn't have a clue about genetics.

You can read the history of the birth of genetics here -- Chromosomes, Mutation, and the Birth of Modern Genetics: Thomas Hunt Morgan.

It leads into Ronald Fisher and his theorem (it's on the next page of the website where I learned evolution) -- Random Mutations and Evolutionary Change: Ronald Fisher, JBS Haldane, & Sewall Wright
 
Last edited:

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,393
Reaction score
837
Points
155
Our next loon, Michael Behe, is a prime example of what can happen when loonery disguises itself as real science. Behe is one of the most ardent and influential creationist out there; covered in more detail here.

Behe himself claims to accept (for instance) common descent and an old (13+ Billion years) universe. However evidence shows that he is a straightforward creationist. He consistently argues that his purported evidence that evolutionary theory does not work is automatically evidence for ID. The shifting of goalposts is obvious when he tries to argue that his opponents are inconsistent in arguing that ID is unfalisifiable (e.g. Coyne) and empirically refuted (e.g. Doolittle). In refusing to admit that Doolittle’s experiments - which falsified his specific predictions concerning blood clotting - were a falsification of the testable claims he forwarded with respect to irreducible complexity, Behe spectacularly demonstrates that Coyne is right to deem ID unfalsifiable (insofar as its supporters continuously change the goalposts).

Behe is also a religious apologist in general, serving as an “expert witness” for several religion related court cases.

Diagnosis: Strongly under the spell of confirmation bias, dishonest and a crackpot. As perhaps the leading creationist today, Behe is very influential and dangerous.
We already saw your fake looney blogsite, so no need to repeat.

You have no evidence using mathematics or else show us something.

Why not look up Ronald Fisher in your looney website?

Ronald Fisher, a mathematician and one of the founding fathers of the Modern Theory of Evolution, proposed a Natural Law of Evolution that stated that given random chance induced changes (mutations), the fitness of an organism will always INCREASE over time due to natural selection. He derived that this evolutionary law assumes an equal number of beneficial mutations = number of harmful mutations and symmetrical distribution of beneficial vs harmful mutations.

However, extensive research has shown that the distribution of beneficial-vs-harmful mutations is NOT equal and symmetrical. Instead the distribution is very heavily biased towards HARMFUL mutations. (No surprise there as this is what creation scientists have been saying from the beginning.) Anyway, experimental measurements shows that 1) There are NO observed beneficial mutations at all, or 2) Beneficial mutations IF present are below detection limits of the experiments, or 3) Beneficial mutations IF present are less than one in a million mutations. The rest are majority HARMFUL along with some fraction that are neutral.

When we add in this experimentally determined distribution, the MATH shows that in biologically realistic situations (with asymmetric mutational distributions), the fitness of the species DECLINES over time in general. It means that mutations and natural selection do NOT work in reality.

You might as well add your name to your fake looney website haha.
As usual, you supply no source for your specious comments as your source is fundamentalist xtian websites. You really should learn the facts about biology rather than default to ICR nonsense.


Claim CB101:

Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).



What else can I help you with?
Haha. Still stuck in the 1980s. Fisher's theorem was disproved in 2018.

"January 2018: Fisher’s Famous Theorem Has Been “Flipped”

The 2014 edition of Genetic Entropy stated that a publication was in preparation that would disprove the historically pivotal “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection”, developed by Ronald Fisher. This key new paper has finally been published.

Ronald Fisher was one the great scientists of the last century, and his theorem, published in 1930, and was the foundational work that gave rise to neo-Darwinian theory and the field of population genetics. This new paper shows that Fisher’s mathematical formulation and his conclusion were wrong. Furthermore, the new paper corrects Fisher’s work — thus reversing Fisher’s thesis and establishing a new theorem. Fisher had claimed that his theorem was a mathematical proof of evolution — making the continuous increase in fitness a universal and mathematically certain natural law. The corrected theorem shows that just the opposite is true — fitness must very consistently degenerate — making macroevolution impossible. The new paper by Basener and Sanford, is in the Journal of Mathematical Biology (available here).

Fisher described his theorem as “fundamental”, because he believed he had discovered a mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution. He described his theorem as equivalent to a universal natural law — on the same level as the second law of thermodynamics. Fisher’s self-proclaimed new law of nature was that populations will always increase in fitness — without limit, as long as there is any genetic variation in the population. Therefore evolution is like gravity — a simple mathematical certainly. Over the years, a vast number of students of biology have been taught this mantra — that Fisher’s Theorem proves that evolution is a mathematical certainty.

The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change — it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.

In the early 1900s, Darwinian theory was in trouble scientifically. Darwin’s writings were primarily conceptual in nature, containing a great deal of philosophy and a great deal of speculation. Beyond simple observations of nature, Darwin’s books generally lacked genuine science (experimentation, data analysis, the formulation of testable hypotheses). Darwin had no understanding of genetics, and so he had no conception of how traits might be passed from one generation to the next. He only had a very vague notion of what natural selection might actually be acting upon. He simply pictured life as being inherently plastic and malleable, so evolution was inherently fluid and continuous (think Claymation). When Mendel’s genetic discoveries were eventually brought out of the closet, it could be seen that inheritance was largely based upon discrete and stable packets of information. That indicated that life and inheritance were not like Claymation, and that biological change over time was not based upon unlimited plasticity or fluidity. Mendel’s discrete units of information (later called genes), were clearly specific and finite, and so they only enabled specific and limited changes. At that time it was being said: “Mendelism has killed Darwinism”.

Fisher was the first to reconcile the apparent conflict between the ideas of Darwin and the experimental observations of Mendel. Fisher accomplished this by showing mathematically how natural selection could improve fitness by selecting for desirable genetic units (beneficial alleles), and simultaneously selecting against undesirable genetic units (deleterious alleles). He showed that given zero mutations, the more there are good/bad alleles in the population, the more natural selection can improve the fitness of the population. This is the essence of Fisher’s Theorem. This was foundational for neo-Darwinian theory — which now reigns supreme in modern academia.

Remarkably, Fisher’s theorem by itself illustrates a self-limiting process — once all the bad alleles are eliminated, and once all the individuals carry only good alleles, then there is nothing left to select, and so selective progress must stop. The end result is that the population improves slightly and then becomes locked in stasis (no further change). It is astounding that Fisher’s Theorem does not explicitly address this profound problem! Newly arising mutations are not even part of Fisher’s mathematical formulation. Instead, Fisher simply added an informal corollary (which was never proven), which involved extrapolation from his simple proof. He assumed that a continuous flow of new mutations would continuously replenish the population’s genetic variability, thereby allowing continuous and unlimited fitness increase."


Interesting and informative.
It's more than that. The new theorem disproves one of the foundations of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and its basis on Mathematical Biology and Genetics.

When genetics was discovered,

"Chromosomes Contain Genetic Material
Nineteenth century cell biologists discovered that animal and plant cells had a central compartment known as the nucleus. Each nucleus contained a set of rod-shaped structures, and when a typical cell divided, a new nucleus complete with a new set of rods was created. These rods were named chromosomes for the way they absorbed colored stains. But sperm and eggs contained only half the normal set of chromosomes. When a sperm fertilized an egg, the chromosomes combined to create a full complement.

Scientists realized that the chromosomes stored the information necessary for building an individual, and heredity consisted of the transfer of that information from generation to generation. Each chromosome contained information for many different traits, and scientists dubbed each chromosomal chunk that was responsible for a particular trait a “gene.“

Rediscovering Mendel
Dutch botanist Hugo DeVries and several other scientists carried out breeding experiments in the late 1890s and rediscovered Mendel’s three-to-one ratio. But this new generation could offer a clearer interpretation of what was happening in their experiments. We each carry two copies of the same gene, one from each parent, but in many cases only one copy produces a trait while the action of the other is masked. Here was the secret behind Mendel’s three-to-one ratio of smooth and wrinkled peas."

"Mutated Gene = New Species?
Perhaps, scientists speculated, evolution took place as genes were altered. DeVries claimed that if a gene changed—if it “mutated”—it would create a new species in a single jump. But no one could say for sure what mutations did until they could be studied up close. That became possible in the laboratory of a Columbia University biologist, Thomas Hunt Morgan (left).

Morgan bred fruit flies by the thousands, and his team tried to create mutant flies with x-rays, acids, and other toxic substances. Finally, in one unaltered lineage of flies, the researchers found a surprise. Every single fly in that line had been born with red eyes, until one day a fly emerged from its pupa with white eyes. Something had spontaneously changed in the white-eyed fly.

Mutation Does Not Equal Speciation
Morgan realized that one of its genes had been altered and it had produced a new kind of eye. Morgan bred the white-eyed fly with a red-eyed fly and got a generation of red-eyed hybrids. And when he bred the hybrids together, some of the grandchildren were white-eyed. Their ratio was three red to one white. Here was a mutation, but one that didn’t fit DeVries’s definition. DeVries thought that mutations created new species, but the fly that had acquired the white-eyed mutation remained a member of the same species. It could still mate with other fruit flies, and its gene could be passed down to later generations in proper Mendelian fashion.

Genetics Is Born
The work of scientists such as Morgan established a new science: genetics. It would not be until 1953 that the molecular structure of genes (DNA) would be discovered, and only later did scientists figure out how DNA’s code is used by cells to build proteins. But already by the 1920s, many of the paradoxes about genes that tormented previous biologists dissolved. Genes do not always come in simply two different versions, one dominant and one recessive. Mutations can create many different versions of the same gene (known as alleles). While a single mutation can sometimes create a drastic change to an organism, such as changing red eyes to white, most mutations cannot. That’s because most traits are based on many different genes working together. Mutating any one of those genes often only produces a subtle change, or none at all."

After DeVries, Ronald Fisher, JBS Haldane, and Sewall Wright came up laid the mathematical biology foundation to support evolution.

"But in the 1920s geneticists began to recognize that natural selection could indeed act on genes. For one thing, it became clear that any given trait was usually the product of many genes rather than a single one. A mutation to any one of the genes involved could create small changes to the trait rather than some drastic transformation. Just as importantly, several scientists — foremost among them Ronald Fisher (above left), JBS Haldane (above right), and Sewall Wright (below left) — showed how natural selection could operate in a Mendelian world. They carried out breeding experiments like previous geneticists, but they also did something new: they built sophisticated mathematical models of evolution."

The links are in my post #63.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,842
Reaction score
3,832
Points
1,130
Now that’s pretty darn funny.

There was a reference to something called “contested bones” in your long cut and paste.

What a surprise. Your cut and paste includes links to charlatans at the most dishonest and crank fundie ministries.
This has nothing to do with creation science. Ronald Fisher's theorem backed up Darwin after Mendel published his empirical findings. Darwin's explanation of ToE was just that an explanation or hypothesis. It grew to become a theory after Fisher's theorem. You didn't even read nor understand what the article said. It's from the Genetic Entropy group and they published in Mathematical Biology -- The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. I guess this is so mind blowing that their paper is free to view and download.

Furthermore, I keep talking about the period from 2007 - 2011 where evolution came under fire. I think this was the period that Gregor Mendel's experiments with pea plants were brought up to counter Darwinism -- Evolution: Library: What Darwin Didn't Know: Gregor Mendel and the Mechanism of Heredity. Darwin, like you, didn't have a clue about genetics.

You can read the history of the birth of genetics here -- Chromosomes, Mutation, and the Birth of Modern Genetics: Thomas Hunt Morgan.

It leads into Ronald Fisher and his theorem (it's on the next page of the website where I learned evolution) -- Random Mutations and Evolutionary Change: Ronald Fisher, JBS Haldane, & Sewall Wright
Evolution "came under fire"? That's all very melodramatic but such tirades don't reflect reality.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
57,566
Reaction score
1,702
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
11. Now, a quick lesson on the irreducible complexity of DNA, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.

DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’) DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



Quick example of what changing a single one of those 580,000 ‘letters,’ nucleotides, will do the genetic message:

The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein, and we’ll use a sentence with three letter words as though the letters were that nucleotide triplet:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."


Simple, easily understood.....

This sentence represents a gene....I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon, a triplet. The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.



So.... via a Darwinian random change, what we would call a mutation, would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, watch how it changes the ‘meaning’ of that sentence:

Drop the first letter, and watch what this sentence, "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."…..It becomes: "hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."

Then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst! And that is why nearly every single mutation is harmful at best, deadly at worst.



Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would not produce a new species.....it would destroy the organism.
Do you actually understand what you're posting or you just bow to authority?
She may just be a paid shill.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
98,888
Reaction score
32,714
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
11. Now, a quick lesson on the irreducible complexity of DNA, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.

DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’) DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



Quick example of what changing a single one of those 580,000 ‘letters,’ nucleotides, will do the genetic message:

The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein, and we’ll use a sentence with three letter words as though the letters were that nucleotide triplet:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."


Simple, easily understood.....

This sentence represents a gene....I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon, a triplet. The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.



So.... via a Darwinian random change, what we would call a mutation, would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, watch how it changes the ‘meaning’ of that sentence:

Drop the first letter, and watch what this sentence, "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."…..It becomes: "hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."

Then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst! And that is why nearly every single mutation is harmful at best, deadly at worst.



Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would not produce a new species.....it would destroy the organism.
Do you actually understand what you're posting or you just bow to authority?

In my Item #11 I explained why mutations nearly always result in non-functioning and/or lethal DNA or gene alteration.


I explained it in a way that would be clear to a child able to read simple three-letter words.


Clearly you have not yet reached that level.....
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
57,566
Reaction score
1,702
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
11. Now, a quick lesson on the irreducible complexity of DNA, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.

DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’) DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



Quick example of what changing a single one of those 580,000 ‘letters,’ nucleotides, will do the genetic message:

The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein, and we’ll use a sentence with three letter words as though the letters were that nucleotide triplet:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."


Simple, easily understood.....

This sentence represents a gene....I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon, a triplet. The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.



So.... via a Darwinian random change, what we would call a mutation, would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, watch how it changes the ‘meaning’ of that sentence:

Drop the first letter, and watch what this sentence, "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."…..It becomes: "hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."

Then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst! And that is why nearly every single mutation is harmful at best, deadly at worst.



Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would not produce a new species.....it would destroy the organism.
Do you actually understand what you're posting or you just bow to authority?

In my Item #11 I explained why mutations nearly always result in non-functioning and/or lethal DNA or gene alteration.


I explained it in a way that would be clear to a child able to read simple three-letter words.


Clearly you have not yet reached that level.....
Regardless. The right wing is not moral enough for God to exist or we would only need Ten simple Commandments not the Expense of Government and the Taxes required to run it, for Right Wingers to immorally complain about.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,393
Reaction score
837
Points
155
Now that’s pretty darn funny.

There was a reference to something called “contested bones” in your long cut and paste.

What a surprise. Your cut and paste includes links to charlatans at the most dishonest and crank fundie ministries.
This has nothing to do with creation science. Ronald Fisher's theorem backed up Darwin after Mendel published his empirical findings. Darwin's explanation of ToE was just that an explanation or hypothesis. It grew to become a theory after Fisher's theorem. You didn't even read nor understand what the article said. It's from the Genetic Entropy group and they published in Mathematical Biology -- The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. I guess this is so mind blowing that their paper is free to view and download.

Furthermore, I keep talking about the period from 2007 - 2011 where evolution came under fire. I think this was the period that Gregor Mendel's experiments with pea plants were brought up to counter Darwinism -- Evolution: Library: What Darwin Didn't Know: Gregor Mendel and the Mechanism of Heredity. Darwin, like you, didn't have a clue about genetics.

You can read the history of the birth of genetics here -- Chromosomes, Mutation, and the Birth of Modern Genetics: Thomas Hunt Morgan.

It leads into Ronald Fisher and his theorem (it's on the next page of the website where I learned evolution) -- Random Mutations and Evolutionary Change: Ronald Fisher, JBS Haldane, & Sewall Wright
Evolution "came under fire"? That's all very melodramatic but such tirades don't reflect reality.
The reality is evolution has been destroyed by the Mathematical Biology and the experiments on mutations that backed up the math. You have had your time from the 1850s to 2007 or so. That's a long enough time for a lie to be accepted and tried with the advent of genetics. Much of the experiments were based on circular reasoning and trying to make the results fit the theory. However, all that came tumbling down with the disproving of Fisher's theorem and the challenge to evolutionary biology. Much of Darwin's concepts, i.e. Darwinism was debunked by experiments during 2007 - 2011 timeframe. Now the mathematical biology foundations have been destroyed. You should ask yourself what you have left?
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,267
Reaction score
1,224
Points
245
Location
Virginia
While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.

“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””

Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective
The same posters here who ridicule you that "you're the old, ring in the new", have nothing to say about a world where Dancing With The Stars is ranked among the top shows that the world watches.
It seems humanity has dumbed down considerably in the last couple of thousand years.

Well....I must admit that I don't read the several posters to whom you refer....and I've never seen 'Dancing With The Stars.'

But I do so appreciate the educated and introspective, you, and always look forward to your posts.


From what I have seen, none of the Darwin supporters has been able to dispute the math I have applied and provided in this thread.
My aim is for those who simply accepted the false theory of evolution provided by the neo-Marxist government schools to see another perspective.....one with actual proof.


See ya' soon!
Let’s be honest. The “math” you presented is simply standard fundie ID’iot creationist “math” that doesn’t apply to biological systems.

It’s predictable that ID’iot creationers will use “what are the odds” arguments they copy and paste from xtian ministries to "support" their claims. It's always comical to see that, since ID’iot creationers can always find fundamentalist hacks who will agree with their viewpoint, and “quote” it mercilessly. Aren't selective “quoting” and argumentum ad verecundiam fun?

How strange that the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical, yet, there are winners. What are the odds? It's like rolling a die ten times and getting 1928373645 and saying "wow, the odds on that were 60 million to one, what a coincidence!!". (And note that rolling 8888888888 is no less likely; the probability of getting 1928373645 is exactly the same as the probability of getting 8888888888.) If you post facto single out some particular sequence as "special" (such as "8888888888" or "life arising") then of course that individual sequence is improbable, but that doesn't mean that the dice were rigged (i.e., there were various gods behind that sequence). It's exactly as probable or improbable as anything else.
There is a difference between improbable and impossible.
Evolution is impossible.
Evolution is a fundamental fact of nature, that is why almost everything evolves. It is true of biology, religion, science, art, warfare, politics, etc.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,267
Reaction score
1,224
Points
245
Location
Virginia
In my Item #11 I explained why mutations nearly always result in non-functioning and/or lethal DNA or gene alteration.


I explained it in a way that would be clear to a child able to read simple three-letter words.


Clearly you have not yet reached that level.....
Yes I have and to prove it, here's a children's story you may like then:
Once upon a time, there was a family of bacteria that lived together. They had cell membranes that had a very specific shaped hole that allowed into the cell only food molecules that matched that shape. One baby bacteria had a mutation in that cell wall that prevented that food from entering. Many bacteria before it had that mutation grew only very slowly and usually died. Then one day a poison came into their colony and killed by entering through that same shape in the cell membrane. All the bacteria were killed except for that poor mutated one. It thrived in the new environment and all its' offspring had that same, now beneficial, mutation, and they lived happily ever after.​
And that children, is the story of Penicillin. The moral is that sometimes a mutation is bad until it is good. The end.​
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,842
Reaction score
3,832
Points
1,130
Now that’s pretty darn funny.

There was a reference to something called “contested bones” in your long cut and paste.

What a surprise. Your cut and paste includes links to charlatans at the most dishonest and crank fundie ministries.
This has nothing to do with creation science. Ronald Fisher's theorem backed up Darwin after Mendel published his empirical findings. Darwin's explanation of ToE was just that an explanation or hypothesis. It grew to become a theory after Fisher's theorem. You didn't even read nor understand what the article said. It's from the Genetic Entropy group and they published in Mathematical Biology -- The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. I guess this is so mind blowing that their paper is free to view and download.

Furthermore, I keep talking about the period from 2007 - 2011 where evolution came under fire. I think this was the period that Gregor Mendel's experiments with pea plants were brought up to counter Darwinism -- Evolution: Library: What Darwin Didn't Know: Gregor Mendel and the Mechanism of Heredity. Darwin, like you, didn't have a clue about genetics.

You can read the history of the birth of genetics here -- Chromosomes, Mutation, and the Birth of Modern Genetics: Thomas Hunt Morgan.

It leads into Ronald Fisher and his theorem (it's on the next page of the website where I learned evolution) -- Random Mutations and Evolutionary Change: Ronald Fisher, JBS Haldane, & Sewall Wright
Evolution "came under fire"? That's all very melodramatic but such tirades don't reflect reality.
The reality is evolution has been destroyed by the Mathematical Biology and the experiments on mutations that backed up the math. You have had your time from the 1850s to 2007 or so. That's a long enough time for a lie to be accepted and tried with the advent of genetics. Much of the experiments were based on circular reasoning and trying to make the results fit the theory. However, all that came tumbling down with the disproving of Fisher's theorem and the challenge to evolutionary biology. Much of Darwin's concepts, i.e. Darwinism was debunked by experiments during 2007 - 2011 timeframe. Now the mathematical biology foundations have been destroyed. You should ask yourself what you have left?
The reality is that your notions of biology are skewed by your hyper-religious fanaticism.

Religionism has not debunked biological evolution.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,842
Reaction score
3,832
Points
1,130
11. Now, a quick lesson on the irreducible complexity of DNA, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.

DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’) DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



Quick example of what changing a single one of those 580,000 ‘letters,’ nucleotides, will do the genetic message:

The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein, and we’ll use a sentence with three letter words as though the letters were that nucleotide triplet:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."


Simple, easily understood.....

This sentence represents a gene....I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon, a triplet. The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.



So.... via a Darwinian random change, what we would call a mutation, would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, watch how it changes the ‘meaning’ of that sentence:

Drop the first letter, and watch what this sentence, "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."…..It becomes: "hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."

Then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst! And that is why nearly every single mutation is harmful at best, deadly at worst.



Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would not produce a new species.....it would destroy the organism.
Do you actually understand what you're posting or you just bow to authority?

In my Item #11 I explained why mutations nearly always result in non-functioning and/or lethal DNA or gene alteration.


I explained it in a way that would be clear to a child able to read simple three-letter words.


Clearly you have not yet reached that level.....
11. Curious how the facts refute your unsupported claims to mutations.

12. It’s as though you hyper-religious loons just have no clue.

13. Claim CB101:

Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).

Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).

Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).

In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).

 

Confounding

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2016
Messages
7,106
Reaction score
1,528
Points
280
Hi PC, I see you are still beating that same dog. Poor thing is really dead by now. You must realize most Americans and especially readers online are not interested in old stuff. BTW Any positive comments on Trump? Are you a cult follower too? Our nation appears to be getting dumber by the minute as so much nonsense comes out of the White House. I'm glad that some republicans see him as the threat he is to America. Have a great day, soon you can beat up on Biden/Harris.

Trump has hurt enough Americans and children. If there is a God I hope he / she is in favor of caging children, breaking up families, and taking healthcare away from his people. What say ye, God?


'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'



'We've got to do something': Republican rebels come together to take on Trump'



"What is patriotism? Let us begin with what patriotism is not. It is not patriotic to dodge the draft and to mock war heroes and their families. It is not patriotic to discriminate against active-duty members of the armed forces in one's companies, or to campaign to keep disabled veterans away from one's property. It is not patriotic to compare one's search for sexual partners in New York with the military service in Vietnam that one has dodged. It is not patriotic to avoid paying taxes, especially when American working families do pay. It is not patriotic to ask those working, taxpaying American families to finance one's own presidential campaign, and then to spend their contributions in one's own companies. It is not patriotic to admire foreign dictators. It is not patriotic to cultivate a relationship with Muammar Gaddafi; or to say that Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin are superior leaders. It is not patriotic to call upon Russia to intervene in an American presidential election. It is not patriotic to cite Russian propaganda at rallies." Timothy Snyder 'On Tyranny'

Excellent piece on current America.

I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump
I don't think I've ever seen her do anything but cut and paste walls of text on this forum. She'll never have a debate where she can't inundate her opponent with so much BS that they don't even bother.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
98,888
Reaction score
32,714
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.

“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””

Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective
The same posters here who ridicule you that "you're the old, ring in the new", have nothing to say about a world where Dancing With The Stars is ranked among the top shows that the world watches.
It seems humanity has dumbed down considerably in the last couple of thousand years.

Well....I must admit that I don't read the several posters to whom you refer....and I've never seen 'Dancing With The Stars.'

But I do so appreciate the educated and introspective, you, and always look forward to your posts.


From what I have seen, none of the Darwin supporters has been able to dispute the math I have applied and provided in this thread.
My aim is for those who simply accepted the false theory of evolution provided by the neo-Marxist government schools to see another perspective.....one with actual proof.


See ya' soon!
Let’s be honest. The “math” you presented is simply standard fundie ID’iot creationist “math” that doesn’t apply to biological systems.

It’s predictable that ID’iot creationers will use “what are the odds” arguments they copy and paste from xtian ministries to "support" their claims. It's always comical to see that, since ID’iot creationers can always find fundamentalist hacks who will agree with their viewpoint, and “quote” it mercilessly. Aren't selective “quoting” and argumentum ad verecundiam fun?

How strange that the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical, yet, there are winners. What are the odds? It's like rolling a die ten times and getting 1928373645 and saying "wow, the odds on that were 60 million to one, what a coincidence!!". (And note that rolling 8888888888 is no less likely; the probability of getting 1928373645 is exactly the same as the probability of getting 8888888888.) If you post facto single out some particular sequence as "special" (such as "8888888888" or "life arising") then of course that individual sequence is improbable, but that doesn't mean that the dice were rigged (i.e., there were various gods behind that sequence). It's exactly as probable or improbable as anything else.
There is a difference between improbable and impossible.
Evolution is impossible.
Evolution is a fundamental fact of nature, that is why almost everything evolves. It is true of biology, religion, science, art, warfare, politics, etc.

Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.

Or.....see if you can provide any proof, you dunce.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
98,888
Reaction score
32,714
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
In my Item #11 I explained why mutations nearly always result in non-functioning and/or lethal DNA or gene alteration.


I explained it in a way that would be clear to a child able to read simple three-letter words.


Clearly you have not yet reached that level.....
Yes I have and to prove it, here's a children's story you may like then:
Once upon a time, there was a family of bacteria that lived together. They had cell membranes that had a very specific shaped hole that allowed into the cell only food molecules that matched that shape. One baby bacteria had a mutation in that cell wall that prevented that food from entering. Many bacteria before it had that mutation grew only very slowly and usually died. Then one day a poison came into their colony and killed by entering through that same shape in the cell membrane. All the bacteria were killed except for that poor mutated one. It thrived in the new environment and all its' offspring had that same, now beneficial, mutation, and they lived happily ever after.​
And that children, is the story of Penicillin. The moral is that sometimes a mutation is bad until it is good. The end.​

Research the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.


"We must therefore believe in evolution or go to the madhouse, but what pre- cisely is it that we are required to believe? “Evolution” can mean anything from the uncontroversial statement that bacteria “evolve” resistance to antibiotics to the grand metaphysical claim that the universe and mankind “evolved” entirely by pur- poseless, mechanical forces. A word that elastic is likely to mislead, by implying that we know as much about the grand claim as we do about the small one. "

1600255956074.png
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,267
Reaction score
1,224
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Research the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation.

The proper scientific explanation of the connection was developed by the Chinese (I hope it is not too technical for you): A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
98,888
Reaction score
32,714
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.

Or.....see if you can provide any proof, you dunce.
There will never be proof, would you settle for overwhelming evidence?

I can short-circuit this easily enough.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,393
Reaction score
837
Points
155
Yes I have and to prove it, here's a children's story you may like then:
Once upon a time, there was a family of bacteria that lived together. They had cell membranes that had a very specific shaped hole that allowed into the cell only food molecules that matched that shape. One baby bacteria had a mutation in that cell wall that prevented that food from entering. Many bacteria before it had that mutation grew only very slowly and usually died. Then one day a poison came into their colony and killed by entering through that same shape in the cell membrane. All the bacteria were killed except for that poor mutated one. It thrived in the new environment and all its' offspring had that same, now beneficial, mutation, and they lived happily ever after.And that children, is the story of Penicillin. The moral is that sometimes a mutation is bad until it is good. The end.
What are you smoking? Haha, what a ridiculous and idiotic fairy tale you believe. The only thing you know about medicine is illegal drugs that warp your brain. What bugs the crap out of your evolutionary scientists is that evolutionary biology has been ignored in medicine.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top