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

[Blazin Bones]

There is only a 50/50 chance that each individual inherits the gene, but given the number of people who could possibly inherit, there is a very good chance that the prevalence of the gene will grow from generation to generation.

The mutated man in the first generation has 2 children. There is a 25% chance that neither inherit the mutation, and that's the end of the story. However, there is a 75% chance that at least 1 did inherit. We're also assuming that each subsequent generation has 3 children each. In this scenario, the 75% of the time that the mutation is passed on to the second generation, we have the following probabilities for the number of mutants in the third generation.

3rd Generation

0                       8.9%
1                       28.1%
2                       32.8%
3                       18.8%
4                       7.8%
5                       3.1%
6                       0.5%

63% of the time, the population has at least two mutants in the third generation. Going one further,

4th Generation

0                       12.9%	
1                       14.0%	
2                       18.6%	
3                       17.2%	
4                       13.4%	
5                       9.5%	
6                       5.9%	
7                       3.5%	
8                       2.0%	
9                       1.0%	
10+                       2.1%

Here, 55% of the time there is 3 or more mutants in the 4th generation. It can clearly be seen that there is a significant probability that the genetic mutation, which is dominant, is not going to be wiped out. For the 5th generation, you need to start taking into account the fact that it is becoming possible for two mutants to mate, especially in a smaller population.

Your numbers still indicate the Genetic decay that will result in the mutation breading out. As well, we only ran the numbers with the limit of three children. Then, the possibility of one child being mutated is not 3/4
but 2/4. Like I said to keebs, when begining with a 1/2 chance, the chance remains 1/2. It's basic genetics.

 

[keebs]

Like I said to keebs, when begining with a 1/2 chance, the chance remains 1/2. It's basic genetics.

Yes, but, as I have said before, we are talking about the probability of the whole population. You are only talking about certain members of the population. It's not even basic genetics, it is basic logic. If there is a probability of 1/2 of passing down the allele, and the allele frequency increases as time increases, then the probability of the gene being passed down increases. Your mistake comes in because you are not taking into account the increasing allele frequency. Now, to requote:

It's basic genetics.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Like I said to keebs, when begining with a 1/2 chance, the chance remains 1/2. It's basic genetics.

Yes, but, as I have said before, we are talking about the probability of the whole population. You are only talking about certain members of the population. It's not even basic genetics, it is basic logic. If there is a probability of 1/2 of passing down the allele, and the allele frequency increases as time increases, then the probability of the gene being passed down increases. Your mistake comes in because you are not taking into account the increasing allele frequency. Now, to requote:

[quote:c38f1]It's basic genetics.

[/quote:c38f1]

As I have said before, you can't start with a population if your discussing a start of a new mutation or genetic shift, everything starts somewhere. It's pure logic. Next, a requote,

It's not even basic genetics, it is basic logic. If there is a probability of 1/2 of passing down the allele, and the allele frequency increases as time increases, then the probability of the gene being passed down increases.

This logic [as you say] is incorrect because of the example I gave.

Begining:

Aa=male dominant, original mutation/ wife has aa allele
possibilites for offspring: 1/2 will possess the mutation
1/2 will not posses the mutation
Multiply the possibility by itself to represent two mutated offspring= 1/4

If this were to occur these offspring would each have 3 of their own.

These offspring each have a 1/8 chance of having three offspring with the mutation.

The chances of both of the second generation having three mutated offspring is 1/64

The third generation being six offspring, then attempt to bread three with the mutation

Each of these six has a 1/8 chance of producing three more offspring that possess the mutated gene.

The possibility of all six offspring of the third generation producing three more mutated offspring is 1/262144

Even if this logic were still correct you still need to provide for your Isolation and "cousin lovin". Now allow me to quote myself,

I note your points of isolation and "cousin lovin" but would you mind providing a source to support isolationism in early evolution. I only ask this because isolation of a geneticly shifted species is exetremly impossible in today's world, let alone a prehistoric society.

Again I ask, because these two components are key if evolution is to stand on it's own two legs. Also I have one more quote,

...migration are also important factors in the change of allele frequency, but they are not--and should not be considered--adaptation."

Why was migration so important to a change in the allele frequency, if it must be Isolated first?

Lastly, you haven't told me how you are doing today. I hope all is well.

 

[keebs]

As I have said before, you can't start with a population if your discussing a start of a new mutation or genetic shift, everything starts somewhere. It's pure logic. Next, a requote,

What are you talking about? You don't start the population, it is already there. We are dealing with the way the allele frequency propagates through the population.

This logic [as you say] is incorrect because of the example I gave.

You never gave an example. You gave a critique (a false one, I might add) of my example.

Again I ask, because these two components are key if evolution is to stand on it's own two legs. Also I have one more quote,

I answered your isolation question in a previous post. Read.

Why was migration so important to a change in the allele frequency, if it must be Isolated first?

I was discussing evolution in general, not the evolution of a closed population. Evolution works in a population whether it is isolated or not, but isolation is required for the same species to branch of and evolve into two seperate species. And migration is important because it allows new alleles to be introduced into a population.

And, on a side note, I'm doing quite well today (applebutter festival at church, quite fun). Thanks for asking!

 

[Blazin Bones]

As I have said before, you can't start with a population if your discussing a start of a new mutation or genetic shift, everything starts somewhere. It's pure logic. Next, a requote,

What are you talking about? You don't start the population, it is already there. We are dealing with the way the allele frequency propagates through the population.

[quote:238f1]This logic [as you say] is incorrect because of the example I gave.

You never gave an example. You gave a critique (a false one, I might add) of my example.

Again I ask, because these two components are key if evolution is to stand on it's own two legs. Also I have one more quote,

I answered your isolation question in a previous post. Read.

Why was migration so important to a change in the allele frequency, if it must be Isolated first?

I was discussing evolution in general, not the evolution of a closed population. Evolution works in a population whether it is isolated or not, but isolation is required for the same species to branch of and evolve into two seperate species. And migration is important because it allows new alleles to be introduced into a population.

And, on a side note, I'm doing quite well today (applebutter festival at church, quite fun). Thanks for asking![/quote:238f1]

Allow me to clarify about the reason why you have to start at one and not an entire population. I'm discussing on the fact that we are are looking at a single mutation, he [she if you'd like] can interact with the current population of his original species, but he is still the first mutation of his kind in the population.

I note your points of isolation and "cousin lovin" but would you mind providing a source to support isolationism in early evolution. I only ask this because isolation of a geneticly shifted species is exetremly impossible in today's world, let alone a prehistoric society.

You still need to Isolate the Mutated population to allow for a chance of positive genetic shift. If there is no source to prove it was possible in early evolution, then just say so.

Finally, the "critique" is accurate and was just confirmed by my biology professor. Now, he is teaching at a christian school if that seems biased to you.

Good afternoon ThinkerMan, how are you today?

 

[keebs]

Allow me to clarify about the reason why you have to start at one and not an entire population. I'm discussing on the fact that we are are looking at a single mutation, he [she if you'd like] can interact with the current population of his original species, but he is still the first mutation of his kind in the population.

Yes, but analyzing the origin of the mutation only takes you to the second generation. Allowing for a considerably large population, the allele frequency in the second generation is negligible. We are discussing the allele frequency over tens, hundreds, and thousands of years.

You still need to Isolate the Mutated population to allow for a chance of positive genetic shift. If there is no source to prove it was possible in early evolution, then just say so.

Paleontologist Yves Coppens has theorized that the formation of the Rift Valley was the cause of isolation.

Now...going back to one of your earlier posts, you said:

As I have said before, you can't start with a population if your discussing a start of a new mutation or genetic shift, everything starts somewhere. It's pure logic.

You can assume a population exists, you just can't assume that everyone in the population has the mutation. I didn't. I assumed that only one person in the entire population (the "somewhere" that the mutation started) had the mutation, and I showed, using basic population genetics, how the mutation can spread throughout the population (assuming it is a neutral mutation--a benefical mutation would spread faster, while a negative mutation would spread slower, if at all. A negative mutation will most likely die out).

 

[Blazin Bones]

Allowing for a considerably large population, the allele frequency in the second generation is negligible. We are discussing the allele frequency over tens, hundreds, and thousands of years.

Since we have not agreed on this point, it's really not valid. I believe the earth is a lot younger than what you believe.

Paleontologist Yves Coppens has theorized that the formation of the Rift Valley was the cause of isolation.

Since were discussing a theory, I don't think that a theory should be used as a support of this discussion. I asked for something that proved isolation was possible.

You can assume a population exists, you just can't assume that everyone in the population has the mutation. I didn't. I assumed that only one person in the entire population (the "somewhere" that the mutation started) had the mutation, and I showed, using basic population genetics, how the mutation can spread throughout the population.

I will agree with the first sentence. As for the second sentence, I showed you the possibilities of the species multiplying at a rate that would allow for the mutation to survive the genetic decay. The possibilities are just too small for it to increase so fast. Genetic decay would either breed out the gene or the gene would never even reproduce itself fast enough to survive through out several generations. Even if the gene did survive long enough to begin interbreeding without side effects, the gene carrying creature still has the choice not to breed with someone with the mutation. The possibilities are too small to allow for a positive genetic shift.

 

[keebs]

Since we have not agreed on this point, it's really not valid. I believe the earth is a lot younger than what you believe.

I said nothing about the age of the earth. I said we were discussing the allele frequency over tens, hundreds, and thousands of years. It is quite possible for us to be discussing a mutation that occured back in the days of Jesus (assuming you believe the earth is atleast as old as Jesus ;-)).

Since were discussing a theory, I don't think that a theory should be used as a support of this discussion. I asked for something that proved isolation was possible.

Oh, I thought you meant an idea of how a population of our conjectured ancestors became isolated and allowed them to evolve into humans. If you just want something to prove isolation is possible, than you can consider the native americans. Native americans came to our continent back when Asia and North America was connected by the Bering Strait, and they became an isolated population when the two continents eventually seperated due to continental drift.

I will agree with the first sentence. As for the second sentence, I showed you the possibilities of the species multiplying at a rate that would allow for the mutation to survive the genetic decay. The possibilities are just too small for it to increase so fast. Genetic decay would either breed out the gene or the gene would never even reproduce itself fast enough to survive through out several generations. Even if the gene did survive long enough to begin interbreeding without side effects, the gene carrying creature still has the choice not to breed with someone with the mutation. The possibilities are too small to allow for a positive genetic shift.

The possibilities are not too small for the high increase. In fact, the increase was directly derived from the possibilities. Your other problems in your quote are caused by the fact that you are taking the interpretation too literally. The growth model I have shown is an expectation of the allele propagation, it is not exact. And, I specifically stated in a previous post that I excluded interbreeding, meaning that there is not discrepency between your statment that the "creature still has the choice not to breed with someone with the mutation" and my model. As for your statement that the possibilities are too small, I have shown in a previous post how you begin with a 1/2 probability, and that the probability increases through the generations.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Since we have not agreed on this point, it's really not valid. I believe the earth is a lot younger than what you believe.

I said nothing about the age of the earth. I said we were discussing the allele frequency over tens, hundreds, and thousands of years. It is quite possible for us to be discussing a mutation that occured back in the days of Jesus (assuming you believe the earth is atleast as old as Jesus ;-)).

[quote:01515]Since were discussing a theory, I don't think that a theory should be used as a support of this discussion. I asked for something that proved isolation was possible.

Oh, I thought you meant an idea of how a population of our conjectured ancestors became isolated and allowed them to evolve into humans. If you just want something to prove isolation is possible, than you can consider the native americans. Native americans came to our continent back when Asia and North America was connected by the Bering Strait, and they became an isolated population when the two continents eventually seperated due to continental drift.

I will agree with the first sentence. As for the second sentence, I showed you the possibilities of the species multiplying at a rate that would allow for the mutation to survive the genetic decay. The possibilities are just too small for it to increase so fast. Genetic decay would either breed out the gene or the gene would never even reproduce itself fast enough to survive through out several generations. Even if the gene did survive long enough to begin interbreeding without side effects, the gene carrying creature still has the choice not to breed with someone with the mutation. The possibilities are too small to allow for a positive genetic shift.

The possibilities are not too small for the high increase. In fact, the increase was directly derived from the possibilities. Your other problems in your quote are caused by the fact that you are taking the interpretation too literally. The growth model I have shown is an expectation of the allele propagation, it is not exact. And, I specifically stated in a previous post that I excluded interbreeding, meaning that there is not discrepency between your statment that the "creature still has the choice not to breed with someone with the mutation" and my model. As for your statement that the possibilities are too small, I have shown in a previous post how you begin with a 1/2 probability, and that the probability increases through the generations.[/quote:01515]

1. I merely stated the disagreement on the earth's age because I as a christian believe that the human race started with Adam, and that I believe that the earth is only six thousand years old. Since that's where I'm starting from, there has been no evidence of the human race(granted only one race) Evolving.

2. I go back to my original question.

... would you mind providing a source to support isolationism in [size=large]early evolution.[/size]

First, the native americans [in an evolutionist's perspective] are consider recent history. Second, they aren't a great recent example of Isolation. They could have been alone for as much as 5000 years [even in a creationist's perspective] and yet there is not one evident difference in their g-nome as compared to any other human g-nome. Please give an early historic example as quoted by a source.

3. You must take evolution literally, because it's still just a theory that has not been proven. Additionally, as I stated, a 1/2 possibility does not allow for a fast enough growth to allow for the survival of the mutated species. Also, as the mutated population attempts to out breed the original, they still are battling genetic decay of the new gene. Thus, they have no real chance of becoming a dominant species which is the ultimate goal of evolution.

 

[keebs]

1. I merely stated the disagreement on the earth's age because I as a christian believe that the human race started with Adam, and that I believe that the earth is only six thousand years old. Since that's where I'm starting from, there has been no evidence of the human race(granted only one race) Evolving.

Really? No evolution since Adam and Eve? Think about it for a second. Let's say that Adam has x colored eyes and Eve had y colored eyes. That's only two eye colors, yet there are more than two eye colors evident today, showing that if you bible is correct, then there has been not only a change in the allele frequency of the certain eye colors, but there has also been mutation. Wow, so the human race has evolved!

First, the native americans [in an evolutionist's perspective] are consider recent history. Second, they aren't a great recent example of Isolation. They could have been alone for as much as 5000 years [even in a creationist's perspective] and yet there is not one evident difference in their g-nome as compared to any other human g-nome. Please give an early historic example as quoted by a source.

Continental drift shows that Asia and North America have been seperated by water for atleast 12,000 years, so Native Americans could have been alone for 12,000 years. As for my example not being sufficient, you asked for an example of isolation, and I provided. You did not ask for an example of isolation that resulted in speciation (as your reply implies that originally wanted.) The reason there is no evident difference in the Native American genome and the rest of the human population genome is because 5000 years is not sufficiant for human speciation. As for an example of isolation that resulted in speciation with a source, here ya go:

Five new species of cichlid fishes have formed since they were isolated in Lake Nagubago some 4000 years ago.
Source: Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

3. You must take evolution literally, because it's still just a theory that has not been proven. Additionally, as I stated, a 1/2 possibility does not allow for a fast enough growth to allow for the survival of the mutated species. Also, as the mutated population attempts to out breed the original, they still are battling genetic decay of the new gene. Thus, they have no real chance of becoming a dominant species which is the ultimate goal of evolution.

I didn't mean that you shouldn't evolution literally, but that you shouldn't take the results of my model as absolute. There WILL be variations. But, as for your statement that evolution is still just a theory with no proof, you are just plain wrong. Evolution has earned the title of theory because it fits the data better than anything else we have. GIVE ME ONE PREDICTION OF EVOLUTION THAT DOES NOT HAVE EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT! Your ignorance of science is starting to irritate me. As for the rest of the quote, I have shown you how my model is derived based on accurate and accepted population genetics. You have shown me a false proof of how my model isn't correct (and it is false, you do not just multiply the probabilitys as time goes on, you multiply the probabilities and the population together). If you do not believe the accuracy of my proof, go look up some population algorithms and run the data. Or, you could just go here: http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/simulations/selection-drift.html. Notice the exponential trend in the data.

 

[keebs]

I just created a ran a qbasic program to run the data and prove that the allele growth is exponential. My program uses random numbers instead of predicted numbers, and it allows for a carrier to have 0-6 offspring, with the random numbers chosen for the number of offspring being weighted and centered around 3. I ran the program for 10 generations for a thousand times, storing the data into a file each time. Then I used a stats program I previously wrote to show that the growth is expontential 96% of the time. Great fun.

The code for the program (so you can run and verify it yourself) is:

DECLARE FUNCTION hasAllele! (kids!)
CLS
INPUT "Number of generations: ", genx
CLS
SCREEN 12
top:
CLS
WINDOW (0, 0)-(genx, genx * 5)
LINE (0, 0)-(genx, 0)
LINE (0, 0)-(0, genx * 5)
pop = 1
FOR gen0 = 1 TO genx
gen = 0
FOR x = 1 TO pop
KWA = 0
kd = INT(RND * 12)
IF kd = 0 THEN numkids = 0
IF 1 <= kd <= 2 THEN numkids = 1
IF 3 <= kd <= 5 THEN numkids = 2
IF 6 <= kd <= 8 THEN numkids = 3
IF kd = 12 THEN numkids = 6
IF 8 <= kd <= 10 THEN numkids = 4
IF 10 <= kd <= 11 THEN numkids = 5
FOR y = 1 TO numkids
KWA = KWA + hasAllele(numkids)
NEXT y
gen = gen + KWA
NEXT x
LINE (gen0 - 1, pop)-(gen0, gen), 4
pop = gen
NEXT gen0
DO
IF INP(96) = 2 THEN
FOR c = 1 TO 1000000: NEXT c
GOTO top:
END IF
LOOP UNTIL (INP(96) = 1)
PRINT gen

FUNCTION hasAllele (kids)
test = INT(RND * 4)
hasAllele = 1
IF (test = 0 OR test = 1) THEN hasAllele = 0
END FUNCTION

 

[keebs]

I just ran the data for a variety of ranges, here are the results:

1000 trials show approx. 95.8% of the data is exponential
5000 trials show approx. 96.2% of the data is exponential
10000 trials show approx. 96.4% of the data is exponential

The percentages are extremely consistent, giving major credence to my model over yours.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Keebs, you really must learn to have a discussion without losing your temper. As I stated before, when this discussion becomes like a debate I will no longer post in this Topic. Keebs your actions have lost you, your opportunity to teach and learn. This will be my last post in this particular thread. I look forward to seeing you all in some of the less polite threads.

1.

And I also excluded it because if it did happen, then my expectation would just be an underestimate (if it would cause it to be an overestimate, then I would've added it in).

You hid and ignored evidence that weakens evolution's case. Even a true scientist who supports evolution does not hide negative evidence. That's really where this thread became a debate.

2. I asked one simple question.

I note your points of isolation and "cousin lovin" but would you mind providing a source to support isolationism in early evolution.

I asked this question several times, yet I never recieved a direct answer.

3. Here is a clear indication that you lost your temper.

GIVE ME ONE PREDICTION OF EVOLUTION THAT DOES NOT HAVE EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT!

To respond to your point, some experiments support evolution, not one has proven evolution. If they had it would no longer be a theory.

4. Next you insult my intellect.

Your ignorance of science is starting to irritate me.

Which was really irritating you, my knowledge or the clear, logical, strength of my points.

Keebs, you have remarkable potential to become an important figure in this wolrd. Unfortunatly, right now you only except logic that supports your opinions. I look forward to seeing you in the other threads of these forums.

To ThinkerMan, Cubedbee, and the others who discussed in this thread, I hope to see you all in the other threads. I'm sure we will all meet as we critque the upcoming debate.

Lastly, here is a small piece of why I believe in God's perfect Creation. You may take this paragraph however you choose. I too have researched science, and this next point is what seems so remarkable about my God. When scientists split the atom, the energy is dispersed in a pattern similar to that of a decayed sound wave. In Genesis chapters one and two, it tells of how God spoke everything into existence. Here's the cool part. What if the reason why atom's diperse energy in the way the do is because they are actually 6,000-10,000 year old containers of God's voice that were formed to sustain what God had wanted to exist.

To believe in God is not hard. Even to have faith in his supreme diety isn't that difficult. All it takes is a tiny step of faith to go from science to God. It's your choice my friends. 8-)

 

[keebs]

1.
keebs wrote:
And I also excluded it because if it did happen, then my expectation would just be an underestimate (if it would cause it to be an overestimate, then I would've added it in).


You hid and ignored evidence that weakens evolution's case. Even a true scientist who supports evolution does not hide negative evidence. That's really where this thread became a debate.

No, I ignored evidence that strengthen's evolution's case. I guess not everyone has the mental capacity for the word "overestimate".

2. I asked one simple question.

brutus wrote:
I note your points of isolation and "cousin lovin" but would you mind providing a source to support isolationism in early evolution.


I asked this question several times, yet I never recieved a direct answer.

3. Here is a clear indication that you lost your temper.

If you would read my posts, I gave you an answer:

Five new species of cichlid fishes have formed since they were isolated in Lake Nagubago some 4000 years ago.
Source: Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

3. Here is a clear indication that you lost your temper.

keebs wrote:
GIVE ME ONE PREDICTION OF EVOLUTION THAT DOES NOT HAVE EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT!


To respond to your point, some experiments support evolution, not one has proven evolution. If they had it would no longer be a theory.

Nothing can be definitely proven, I though you would've known that. But, you repeatedly show a misuse and misunderstanding of the word theory. A theory is something that science knows is, to the best of it's abilities, a fact.

4. Next you insult my intellect.

keebs wrote:
Your ignorance of science is starting to irritate me.


Which was really irritating you, my knowledge or the clear, logical, strength of my points.

The fact that you were arguing against me and calling me wrong based on wrong logic and knowledge was what was irritating me. Everything you gave as "logical" and based on "basic genetics" was neither logical nor based on basic genetics.

To believe in God is not hard.

Yes it is. You can't just wake up one morning and decide to believe in God, no matter what logic tells you. You have to feel it. Believe me, I've tried.

 

[Guest]

8-) keebs,that temper of yours is keeping you down.
Brutus is correct and he makes perfect sense. You don't.
You just hope that God isn't real which suggest an agenda.
No,you seek God first before you get your answers,you don't
just say well,today I'll believe in God.
If thats what you did,not wonder you missed him,amen.
Brutus is clear,calm and full of knowledge. You will all learn
a great deal from him,so please pay attention next time.

 

[keebs]

You don't even understand the basic concepts of evolution, much less mendelian genetics and populations genetics. Don't tell me I'm wrong if you don't comprehend what we are talking about.

 

[Guest]

:D Don't tell me that I am wrong if you don't understand what I am
talking about! And you know that you don't. Brutus clearly knows alot
more than you do,and he's easy to understand,unlike the babel you
spew out. You could learn from a wise man,so why not just close your
mouth and listen to him? DNA is proof that you lie bro,and thats alot of
the evidence right there in a nuttshell.Thats why some people call what
you are into a conspiracy because no sane person will believe it.
[/b]

 

[keebs]

Look up a few papers on population genetics. Compare my methods with their methods. You will find I am right. Just because you are not able to comprehend anything beyond the bible (suprise, suprise), does not mean others share your limitations.

 

[Guest]

Look up a few papers on population genetics. Compare my methods with their methods. You will find I am right. Just because you are not able to comprehend anything beyond the bible (suprise, suprise), does not mean others share your limitations.

:wink: I'm not limited,thats just it,amen.
I am free and I can study with the best.
Thats what I always have done and what I still do,
I just prefer the christian gangs and gentlemen.
So long,bye,bye...

 

[Asimov]

Look up a few papers on population genetics. Compare my methods with their methods. You will find I am right. Just because you are not able to comprehend anything beyond the bible (suprise, suprise), does not mean others share your limitations.

:wink: I'm not limited,thats just it,amen.
I am free and I can study with the best.
Thats what I always have done and what I still do,
I just prefer the christian gangs and gentlemen.
So long,bye,bye...

Christian gangs, eh?? So you're a hardcore gangbanger now. Do you have a special symbol, and walk around with your gang, actin all cool. Packin heat, and givin anyone the hard eye.