[_ Old Earth _] Permutation Problem for Evolution

[felix]

Hi Folks,

After some hibernation and enlightment of genetics, and repeated failure of evolutionary biologist to answer/address my questions, I finally opened by questions to public and ready to offer 1000$ if anyone can prove evolution scientifically.

1000$ Evolution Competition

 

[Barbarian]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

I can save you a thousand dollars right now. Your question:

If natural selection which is non-random depends on mutations which are random, and considering the evidences for observable natural selection, why is the timescale used for “observable natural selection†does not fit the “non-observable grand-scale evolutionâ€. To explain better, humans differ by 0.1% of genome with each other which is 3 million base-pairs. However, chimpanzees differ by 5% which is 150 million base-pairs. If we had a common ancestor with Chimpanzee 8 million years back, that is around 400000 generations back (20 years/generation), the winning answer must explain how the 150 million base-pairs got themselves in order to form the human species in just 400000 generations, yet the permutations for it (that is, if 2 values Adenine-Thymine and Guanine-Cytosine – AT, GC for each base-pair it is 2150000000).

Both 25000000 and 2150000000 exceeds the number of electrons on the visible universe (~ 1080) and if every electron is mutated every nanosecond (just for the sake of data-set explanation), that would exceed the age of universe (3.1536 x 1023 nanoseconds) and yet, it would have not covered the lowest possible fraction that can be calculated by a computer. The answer must clearly explain how natural selection which still depends on these random mutations was able to defy science and mathematics to successfully pick a needle in a haystack for a new species to be formed.

Since we've directly observed the evolution of new species, probability of it happening is 1.0, a certainty. But let me explain what's wrong with your assumption.

Take a deck of cards and shuffle well. The deal them out one at a time, noting the order. The result you get has a probability of 1/52! or about 1.2397999308571485923950341988946e-68 (roughly 1, with 67 zeros in front of it.)
Every time you do it, you get an equally improbable result.

Even more compelling is the case of your genome, given the genomes of your great, great, great grandparents. You are so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. Yet both you and poker hands are possible.

If you understand why, then you know what's wrong with your challenge. Good luck.

If you're puzzled as to how random mutations and natural selection can so effectively increase fitness, I can show you a simple simulation that will make it clear. Would you like to learn about it.

 

[felix]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

Since we've directly observed the evolution of new species, probability of it happening is 1.0, a certainty. But let me explain what's wrong with your assumption.

The question is not probability but why "observed evolution" doesn't fit fossils according to the law of permutations of randomness. Read the competition properly.

Take a deck of cards and shuffle well. The deal them out one at a time, noting the order. The result you get has a probability of 1/52! or about 1.2397999308571485923950341988946e-68 (roughly 1, with 67 zeros in front of it.)
Every time you do it, you get an equally improbable result.

As I said, the question is not about probability but permutations. The different ways a 52 deck card can be arranged is pairs is 2^52 and yet you are required to select just 1 out of this massive number.

If you're puzzled as to how random mutations and natural selection can so effectively increase fitness, I can show you a simple simulation that will make it clear. Would you like to learn about it.

Please explain. Happy to listen. This time, please answer my question for permutation "not probability!" and you can win 1000$.

 

[Barbarian]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

Two major errors. First, you assumed that evolution is random. But natural selection is the antithesis of randomness. Second, you're assuming that the order of cards you got from shuffling a deck was the only possible outcome.

If you had predicted that outcome in advance, that would have been something properly improbable. But your ideas of randomness with biological molecules is pretty much like finding an arrow sticking in a tree and drawing a bulls-eye around it. Highly improbable things happen all the time. That's not remarkable. Predicting them beforehand, that's another issue.

So your challenge is based on a mathematical misconception. I would suggest tightening up your challenge, and finding a statistician to help you with the numbers.

Now, let's do that simulation.
For simplicity, we'll assume an organism with only one chromosome, and six genes, reproducing asexually.

Take 2 six-sided dice. Roll one die six times, recording (graph paper works well) the outcome for each. Each roll will be one gene on a chromosome. Draw the chromosome with the genes in order. Do this eight times.

Now let's let natural selection work on it. We need some rules for our selection. These should do fine:
1. one point of fitness for each odd number.
2. three points of fitness for each "4"
3. -3 points of fitness for two adjacent "4"s.
4. six points of fitness for each "6" at the first position of the chromosome.

Now add up the fitness for each organism. Pick the highest two, rolling dice to break any ties. Then let each one reproduce four new chromosomes:
1. roll 2 dice.
2. the first die is the number of the gene that will be mutated.
3. the second die is the new gene. If the number is the same, that organism had no mutation.

Repeat the selection process. Add up the fitness of each and then save the top two to reproduce again.

Graph the average fitness of the 8 organisms for each generation.

What you'll find is instructive. If you want to simulate a change in environment, change the selection rules slightly, and watch what happens to fitness over time.

Again, instructive.

Enjoy

 

[felix]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

Two major errors. First, you assumed that evolution is random. But natural selection is the antithesis of randomness. Second, you're assuming that the order of cards you got from shuffling a deck was the only possible outcome.

If you think you can explain all, please go ahead and win the prize.

Firstly, In the competition I never said "evolution is random", but Mutation which evolution depends on is random. Please read carefully.
Secondly, there is only one possible way base-pairs must be arranged to get a species. not multiple ways - Do you know what happens if mutations happens like that? Cancer - not a new species.

 

[felix]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

Now, let's do that simulation.
For simplicity, we'll assume an organism with only one chromosome, and six genes, reproducing asexually.

For simplicity, let's take the simplest organism with half-a-million base-pairs.. now can you complete the rest?

 

[Barbarian]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

If you think you can explain all, please go ahead and win the prize.

Too many weasel words in that set of rules. And you need an unbiased set of judges. This looks too much like Kent Hovind's scam. And you need to ask scientists to demonstrate evolution as evolutionary theory predicts it, not your particular idea of it.

Firstly, In the competition I never said "evolution is random", but Mutation which evolution depends on is random.

And as you see, random processes, plus non-random processes, are not random.

Secondly, there is only one possible way base-pairs must be arranged to get a species. not multiple ways

Every human on Earth is genetically different than anyone but an identical twin. So there are (at the least) billions of possible ways that base-pairs can be arranged to get a human. Same with other species. You're going to have to revise that, too.

Do you know what happens if mutations happens like that?

Usually, very little. All of us have a few mutations that weren't in either of our parents. A few mutations are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts them out. Every generation, we get a few new ones that are useful, like some HIV-resistant mutants, heavier bones that don't break so easily, resistance to arteriosclerosis, a new mutant hemoglobin that provides resistance to malaria without the sometimes-harmful effects of HbS.

Stuff like that.

Cancer - not a new species.

You've been misled about that. And speciation is even admitted by many creationists.

 

[Barbarian]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

For simplicity, let's take the simplest organism with half-a-million base-pairs.. now can you complete the rest?

If you think six genes are too few, use as many genes as you want. It will work the same way. Let me know how it turns out.

 

[felix]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

For simplicity, let's take the simplest organism with half-a-million base-pairs.. now can you complete the rest?

If you think six genes are too few, use as many genes as you want. It will work the same way. Let me know how it turns out.

Mutations is on base pairs when an allele changes - inserted modified or deleted. So, please use base pairs.

~ Felix

 

[felix]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

Too many weasel words in that set of rules. And you need an unbiased set of judges. This looks too much like Kent Hovind's scam. And you need to ask scientists to demonstrate evolution as evolutionary theory predicts it, not your particular idea of it.



And as you see, random processes, plus non-random processes, are not random.



Every human on Earth is genetically different than anyone but an identical twin. So there are (at the least) billions of possible ways that base-pairs can be arranged to get a human. Same with other species. You're going to have to revise that, too.

Do you know what happens if mutations happens like that?

Usually, very little. All of us have a few mutations that weren't in either of our parents. A few mutations are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts them out. Every generation, we get a few new ones that are useful, like some HIV-resistant mutants, heavier bones that don't break so easily, resistance to arteriosclerosis, a new mutant hemoglobin that provides resistance to malaria without the sometimes-harmful effects of HbS.

Stuff like that.

Cancer - not a new species.

You've been misled about that. And speciation is even admitted by many creationists.

You haven't proved that random and non-random can produce non-random. Neither you have addressed the permutation problem for Evolution.

~ Felix

 

[Barbarian]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

Mutations is on base pairs when an allele changes - inserted modified or deleted. So, please use base pairs.

That won't work for you, because only genes affect heredity. But you can do this:

For each of the six genes, simulate a base pair map, by making the gene number into a map. Each map will have five zeros in it, and then a 1 at a specific spot in the map, to simulate the base pair differences. So instead of rolling the die to find a gene, you roll to find which base pair mutation it is, and then convert that to the proper gene number.

You will, if you do this, discover that it won't change anything; you'll just be doing more work. But it will properly simulate a change in base pairs.

 

[Barbarian]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

You haven't proved that random and non-random can produce non-random.

You don't seem to want to do the natural selection simulation, which shows that to be a fact, so here's an easier way;

Flip a hundred pennies, and then line them up in order. (random process)

Then check every odd penny. If it's "heads", turn it over to tails. (non-random process)

Then check the number of heads and tails. If it's not close to 50% heads and 50% tails, then a random process plus a non-random process, is a non-random process.

Neither you have addressed the permutation problem for Evolution.

As you saw, such a problem doesn't exist. For the same reason you exist, even though the number of permutations of possible alleles in your genome, given your great, great grandparents, is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.

If you exist, then the "permutation problem" does not.

 

[felix]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

You haven't proved that random and non-random can produce non-random.

You don't seem to want to do the natural selection simulation, which shows that to be a fact, so here's an easier way;

Flip a hundred pennies, and then line them up in order. (random process)

Then check every odd penny. If it's "heads", turn it over to tails. (non-random process)

Then check the number of heads and tails. If it's not close to 50% heads and 50% tails, then a random process plus a non-random process, is a non-random process.

Neither you have addressed the permutation problem for Evolution.

As you saw, such a problem doesn't exist. For the same reason you exist, even though the number of permutations of possible alleles in your genome, given your great, great grandparents, is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.

If you exist, then the "permutation problem" does not.

When you flip a coin 100 times and put them in order, it is 2^100.
When you flip every odd penny, that's 50 times and if you put them in order, it is 2^50.

You see, that's not 50:50 but rather, 2^50:1, which is: 1125899906842624 : 1 or 99.99999999999991% vs 8.89 x 10^-14%

You still haven't understood the permutation problem.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

Oh, its one of these scams. Other than the money, why should anyone really enter this competition? My question is because the competition is set up that you can change the rules and redefine perimeters easily so no one can really win this competition. Those that do have the knowledge to do said challenge are probably working scientists in their respected fields of study and would probably be busy doing research of their own. So most likely you will get laymen who have a casual knowledge of the criteria but not enough to see that your main problem is not one that is of actual concern to Biology, but just one you are making up.

Considering this, why should anyone take your competition seriously? Do you think its a good tactic to use dishonesty and to manipulated people to get them to abandon ideas you don't agree with?

 

[felix]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

Oh, its one of these scams. Other than the money, why should anyone really enter this competition? My question is because the competition is set up that you can change the rules and redefine perimeters easily so no one can really win this competition. Those that do have the knowledge to do said challenge are probably working scientists in their respected fields of study and would probably be busy doing research of their own. So most likely you will get laymen who have a casual knowledge of the criteria but not enough to see that your main problem is not one that is of actual concern to Biology, but just one you are making up.

Considering this, why should anyone take your competition seriously? Do you think its a good tactic to use dishonesty and to manipulated people to get them to abandon ideas you don't agree with?

Because you took it seriously and replied for it. Anyway, most biologist are ignorant of laws of mathematics. They need to learn what is permutation, probability, properties of randomness etc before including them in their theories. Before going to my competition, you must understand only a few truly realize the problem.

Once such is:
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Evolution_by_Accident.html

(I don't agree with all but Prof Laurence A. Moran of University of Toronto seems to understand the true problem of randomness which I raised esp. evolution by accident). - This would give you a kick start.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

Because you took it seriously and replied for it.

No no, I was asking why people in general should take your question seriously. Also, I'm not taking you question seriously due to some holes. I'm just asking you because this has the appearance of a common type of scam. Bait and switch.

Anyway, most biologist are ignorant of laws of mathematics.

I would say that biologists aren't necessarily ignorant of the laws of mathematics, but it is not their field of study. What your question is posing is actually more of something a grad student could bring up for study and to make their own case. What I'm saying is the contest seems absurd because it won't either show the theory of evolution as wrong or demonstrate whatever theory you're promoting. Its like I said, those that have the resources and knowledge to challenge your competition will see it for what it is. A bait and switch. A thousand dollars is nice, but when you consider the researching man hours, the software needed, the running of experiements, and the fact that this type of research would actually be better for a university or lab, its then obvious that the reward isn't worth the time. Especially since the game is already rigged where you can just say " nuh uh" to anyone who meets the vague criteria anyway. So why should anyone care?

They need to learn what is permutation, probability, properties of randomness etc before including them in their theories. Before going to my competition, you must understand only a few truly realize the problem.

This is what I meant by bait and switch. You are asking biologists and geneticists to answer a math question in disguise as a biology question. You haven't even provided context as to why this math problem is a problem. That is why I'm calling this dishonest and a waste of time. The game is rigged like carnival game.

Once such is:
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Evolution_by_Accident.html

(I don't agree with all but Prof Laurence A. Moran of University of Toronto seems to understand the true problem of randomness which I raised esp. evolution by accident). - This would give you a kick start.

No thank you, I scanned the page and it seems to be built off of a semantics argument about the concept of Randomness and not really about the theory itself. There doesn't seem to be a real problem.

 

[felix]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

No thank you, I scanned the page and it seems to be built off of a semantics argument about the concept of Randomness and not really about the theory itself. There doesn't seem to be a real problem.

Then, I will conclude you neither know evolution nor it's dependence on randomness. Which is why I think you reply a lot unrelated here rather than answering the questions asked about evolution.

 

[Sparkey]

Re: 1000$ Evolution Competition!

Closing this thread for further Moderator discussion.

 

[Sparkey]

After discussion with OP and upon request of other Members of Christianity & Science this thread is reopened for discussion.

It has been retitled: Permutation Problem for Evolution

 

[felix]

Hi all,

The offer in the OP is completely apart from ChristianForums.net who disapprove upon such contests. So, below are the questions for permutation problem for evolution.

Prove Speciation or Evolution on grand scale using the following rules based on science:

1. All scientific methods like geological columns which can be tested and calibrated using fossil evidences and radiometric dating can be used and are allowed. Observed and documented evolution in short run can also be used in calculations.
2. Non-scientific methods or any scientist’s opinions are not allowed.
3. There are strict rules on what contributes an evidences and explanation. Fossils are observations. However, these fossils are not evidences for Evolution but rather, evolution is an explanation for those fossils. Any evidence that support evolution using random mutations and natural selection, must also not be an evidence for other methods like artificial selection that can produce the same results. This is to make sure the evidence is strictly for evolution and to rule out other possibilities.
4. The scientific process must be able to be simulated using a computer model to confirm if the explanation provided is indeed correct. In today’s computing power of the cloud, we have the ability to simulate theories and ideas which we cannot test or experiment directly.
5. Since evolution including the natural selection entirely depends on mutations which are random, the number of possible mutations required in each generation and the number of times the mutations had to be naturally selected by the environment and how they agree with fossil evidence in order to prove evolution must be clearly explained.
6. Unexplained repeated favorable-ness from randomness is strictly not allowed. While random events are allowed, repeated random events that are favorable for a particular event to occur which is artificially simulated, will be declared artificial and not random. The level of random occurrences must be in agreement with all laws of Mathematics including probability, and permutations and combinations.
7. The below permutation problem for evolution must be addressed properly and scientifically.
8. The randomness used to prove evolution using “random mutations†will be tested against Kolmogorov randomness (or algorithmic randomness) which states, a string (usually of bits) as being random if and only if it is shorter than any computer program that can produce that string. This rule is strictly for “random mutations†not “natural selectionâ€.
9. The properties of randomness like uniformity (i.e. equally probable every where) and independence (i.e. current value of a random variable has no relation with the previous value), will be tested where ever random events/values are used in proving evolution.

Permutation Problem

• Take any two genomes of single celled organisms (the lowest single celled genome is half-a-million base-pairs) in which one must be an ancestor of another. You must be able to explain how evolution was able to defy permutations (possible mutations from one species) using random mutations and natural selection. The actual level of possible mutations that can occur (that is, if 2 values Adenine-Thymine and Guanine-Cytosine – AT, GC for each base-pair it is 2^5000000) and how natural selection was able to pick a needle in a haystack from that massive data-set must be properly explained.
• If natural selection which is non-random depends on mutations which are random, and considering the evidences for observable natural selection, why is the timescale used for “observable natural selection†does not fit the “non-observable grand-scale evolutionâ€. To explain better, humans differ by 0.1% of genome with each other which is 3 million base-pairs. However, chimpanzees differ by 5% which is 150 million base-pairs. If we had a common ancestor with Chimpanzee 8 million years back, that is around 400000 generations back (20 years/generation), you must explain how the 150 million base-pairs (or half of it say, 75 million base-pairs considering that we don’t have the exact genome of common ancestor but have the closest relative) got themselves in order to form the human species in just 400000 generations, yet the permutations for it (that is, if 2 values Adenine-Thymine and Guanine-Cytosine – AT, GC for each base-pair it is 2^150000000).
• Both 2^5000000 and 2^150000000 (or 2^75000000) exceeds the number of electrons on the visible universe (~ 10^80) and if every electron is mutated every nanosecond (just for the sake of data-set explanation), that would exceed the age of universe (3.1536 x 10^23 nanoseconds) and yet, it would have not covered the lowest possible fraction that can be calculated by a computer. Please explain how natural selection which still depends on these random mutations was able to defy science and mathematics to successfully pick a needle in a haystack for a new species to be formed.