[_ Old Earth _] A new start [Topic:Evolution]

[Blazin Bones]

Can I except the ThinkerMan's definition as one to work with then?

I still don't see why you are not considering the allele a part of an organism? Is it not in the gene, which is part of the creature?

 

[keebs]

I never said the allele wasn't part of the organism...

 

[ThinkerMan]

In reviewing my post as well as keeb's excellent points, I would be remiss if I didn't correct it to state that mutation alone is not the sole cause of evolution, which I certainly inferred.

Changes in allele frequency certaintly is involved. However, from a speciation point of view (the major difference between YEC and evolutionists), I would estimate that mutation over time is the largest factor in the creation of new species.

 

[Blazin Bones]

The change in allele frequency is not adaptation.

This is what you said and I am sorry that I worded my response in a way that does not reflect that. However, what I still ask, hopefully I'll say what I intended to in the first place, why do you not consider the change of the allele adaptation ?

 

[keebs]

Yes, as far as the development of new species, mutation, and the magnitude thereof, are extremely important. In today's human society, in order for humans to develop into a new species, it would require a mutation/mutations that would not prohibit producing offspring, and would most likely be spread throughout a population by genetic drift (of course, the population would have to be isolated). Natural selection would most likely not be the cause of the frequency change, as today's society tends to help those less fortunate (unless the gene directly affects ones health negatively or one's ability to reproduce).

 

[keebs]

The change in allele frequency is not adaptation.

This is what you said and I am sorry that I worded my response in a way that does not reflect that. However, what I still ask, hopefully I'll say what I intended to in the first place, why do you not consider the change of the allele adaptation ?

Well, the change in allele frequency can be caused by much more than just adaptation to the enviroment. As I have previously noted, genetic drift, mutation, and migration are also important factors in the change of allele frequency, but they are--and should not be considered--adaptation.

 

[Blazin Bones]

... As I have previously noted, genetic drift, mutation, and migration are also important factors in the change of allele frequency, but they are--and should not be considered--adaptation.

May I draw you attention to your last word's in that post. Please clarify what you mean by the words after your last comma. This will help me respond to what you said in the proper context.

 

[keebs]

I'm sorry, that was a typo. It sould say "... as I have previously noted, genetic drift, mutation, and migration are also important factors in the change of allele frequency, but they are not--and should not be considered--adaptation."

 

[Blazin Bones]

Now that you've clarified that for me, would you be willing to expand on why you feel that they are not the same? I understand what you are saying, in that [by your opinion] evolution entails so many more aspects than just adaptation, but as I said I'm learning about your views, and I'm still not clear on this point and why you feel this way.

 

[keebs]

Because genetic drift and mutation are random processes, and migration can be considered a random process, depending on the situation. But, mutation can also be harmful, neutral, or positive, and when it is positive it is usually not anything that has to do with adaptation. As an example, let's just say that a mutation appears that slowly kills of the organism that has this specific mutation. Now, if this mutation is magnified in the population by the mechanism of genetic drift, it is considered evolution, although it is definitley not adaptation.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Both. God created life on this Earth through the process of evolution.

If you don't mind me asking, Why do you feel this way? Evolution is a completely diffferent theory than creation, at least the way I look at it. Please explain your point further.

God has given us two ways to know about him. He inspired men to compose the Bible and he has left his finger on the created world, which bears witness to his existence. We must take the testimonies of these two witnesses together to form an accurate picture of God.

We know from Genesis that God is the Creator of everything. There's no question about that. We also know that the firsts several chapters of Genesis address essential spiritual matters regarding man's relationship to God, and that they have the same feel of other mythological stories of ancient people. We could accept the stories as literal fact, but before we do so, we must consult the created world.

However, when we explore the world around us, we can see clearly that it is more than 6000 years old. There is an abundance of evidence from all fields of science that point to a very old age for the Earth. And there is also overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution. Once again, a variety of scientific discplines support the TOE, and literally millions of knowledgable scientists accept evolution as true. Studying the facts honestly and without preconceptions leads me only to believe in the truth of the TOE.

So, taking the Bible and the natural world into consideration, I can only conclude that God created the universe, and that he did so consistent with the accepted views of science. While science assumes the process was random, it was of course guided by God the whole time, with humanity as his end goal. And I believe that it was only our physical bodies which evolved, and that it was the special creation of our spiritual selves, which truly set us apart from other animals, which the account of Genesis potrays.

[to b3]Very clear response. Have you ever heard of the math known as Quantom Algebra? If not, I will explain it further for you all later. In it is an equation in support of the Earth actually being between 6-10 thousand years old. That is the only part of your post I will address for now.

[to keebs]Fair enough,but I'm not finished yet on this Point. Let's move on to Mutation, as I will agree that has noting to do with adaptation. Would you mind answering this question first: How often [a statistic would be appreciated] does a mutation actually benefit the Organism?

 

[cubedbee]

No, I haven't heard of quantum algebra. I would be very interested to hear an explanation.

 

[B]

Quantum algebra? What the hell? I wish I had stayed awake in maths.

 

[ThinkerMan]

How often [a statistic would be appreciated] does a mutation actually benefit the Organism?

I don't think this is quantifyable. As keebs said sometimes it is beneficial, sometimes neutral, sometimes bad.

What is the largest factor in the "goodness" of a mutation is the surrounding environment. For example, if a genetic mutation gives a certain person more body fat, is that good?

If you live in Alaska 5,000 years ago, you bet it is. If you lived in Africa at the same time, probably a negative mutation. In the case of the Alaskan, the person with that mutation is more likely to survive, more likely to pass along his genes.

Thus, because people carrying that mutation are more likely to survive, the frequency of that allele increases over time. There still might be skinny alaskans, but the probability of their survival would slightly lower. Over scores of generations that slight advantage will make fatter alaskans more predominant.

In Africa, those carrying the "fat" gene, would be statistically less likely to survive and recreate, thus that "negative" mutation is lost as the alelle frequency moves towards zero.

My buddy is an example of a "neutral" mutation. He has only three fingers on his right hand. He has no pinky, but otherwise his hand looks normal.

Some mutations are neutral, or even negative until a change in environment. Through changing weather (ice ages for example) or migration, those mutations could become beneficial.

As a percentage, "good" mutations "take" better to a population at a higher rate than "bad" over time. This is because "bad" mutations tend to kill off the organism, or decrease the chances of reproduction. Thus, that mutation is lost. "Good" mutations tend to survive, thus their frequency increases.

 

[keebs]

Have you ever heard of the math known as Quantom Algebra?

Quantum algebra? I believe you are talking about quantum logic, which was first implemented by Von Neumann in his attempts to give quantum mechanics a firm mathematical basis. Of course, quantum logic says nothing about the age of the universe. However, examing red shift has allowed astronomers to calculate hubble's constant, which leads us to the age of the universe being around 12 billion years old. Of course, if the 25 or so quantum mechanics and quantum field theory textbooks I have sitting on my bookshelf (and alot of them are recent, such as Zee's QFT book) forgot to mention any notion of quantum algebra, then it may exist. But, algebra (assuming you know what an algebra is, such as a Lie algebra or a sigma algebra) alone cannot determine the age of the universe. That is a creationist myth.

 

[keebs]

If you could provide any reliable source for this "quantum algebra", it would be helpful. As for your question on the probability of a beneficial mutation, around every 1 in 1000 mutations are beneficial. But, couple that with all of the mutations and our 6 billion population, add in the 50% chance of the mutation being passed down, and you have a fairly reasonable chance of the mutation being transmitted througout the population given enough generations.

 

[Blazin Bones]

If you could provide any reliable source for this "quantum algebra", it would be helpful. As for your question on the probability of a beneficial mutation, around every 1 in 1000 mutations are beneficial. But, couple that with all of the mutations and our 6 billion population, add in the 50% chance of the mutation being passed down, and you have a fairly reasonable chance of the mutation being transmitted througout the population given enough generations.

Source:A paper:
The quantic monoid and degenerate quantized enveloping algebras, by Markus Reineke.

Abstract: We study a monoid associated to complex semisimple Lie algebras, called the quantic monoid. Its monoid ring is shown to be isomorphic to a degenerate quantized enveloping algebra. Moreover, we provide normal forms and a straightening algorithm for this monoid. All these results are proved by a realization in terms of representations of quivers, namely as the monoid of generic extensions of a quiver with automorphism.

Quantum algebra is real enough. I'll be completely honest in saying that this form of mathematics is way out there and I barely understand why anyone would work so hard on some of their equations. If you were to do a Yahoo search on quantum algebra,. you would find several refences to it's existence.

About mutation, I will respond to your point later tonight, since my female friends will be exspecting me to watch their soccer game. The game starts in a half hour. 8-)

 

[Highlander]

How fascinating to watch the setup, if only the delivery is as interesting. :smt075

 

[keebs]

Abstract: We study a monoid associated to complex semisimple Lie algebras, called the quantic monoid. Its monoid ring is shown to be isomorphic to a degenerate quantized enveloping algebra. Moreover, we provide normal forms and a straightening algorithm for this monoid. All these results are proved by a realization in terms of representations of quivers, namely as the monoid of generic extensions of a quiver with automorphism.

HAHAHAHA...I've read this paper before. It does not discuss anything called "quantum algebra", but instead it discusses things like Lie algebras and fiber bundles and such. The thing is, the algebra they discuss in the paper you presented can be applied to quantum cosmology, but it there is no result that the age of the univers is 6-10 thousand years old. I'm assuming you don't actually know any of it, but you took someone else's word?

 

[Blazin Bones]

As I stated, I'm not extremely well versed in this topic. In response to the laughter, am I to take that personally. I will not except such childish behavior in a polite discussion. Also, You are welcome to search Yahoo to learn more on that topic, as will I. Now, Keebs, we were talking about mutation, will you please expand further?