á simple math. We have to break it, otherwise it's a proof 8(
dmitry shilo
- the difference (btw how have they measured it, by weighting?) between
chimp and human DNA is 1%
- the probability of emergence of the human DNA randomly "evolved" from the
chimp DNA is 1/(4^(3*10^9 * 0.01)) = 1/(4^(3*10^7)), omitting that changes
also occur in other 99%
- there are a certain percent of repetitions in the DNA, so we cut this
number say by three orders, now P = 1/(4^(3*10^7 - 6))
- say we've luckily reached the human DNA sequence randomly taken the 1/16
of all combinations, then N = 4^(3*10^7 - 8)
- now let's say one wasted chimp takes 1 cubic centimeter as a fossil, then
the total volume of all transitional chimps would be about 4^(3*10^7 - 14)
cubic meters
- the radius of the Earth would be now about 4^((3*10^7 - 14)/3) which is
about 10^(10^3) meters, this is wrong, the radius of the visible universe is
10^23 meters, where is the trick, besides there are 2*10^6 more species
around
the above is wrong in the part of calculation of the probability, there are
some recently discovered effects in the molecular biology which help to
significantly reduce the required number, but could someone please tell how
much could they actually reduce the number.
regards,
denis
Andrew Glasgow
"dmitry shilo" <sp...@spam.org> wrote:
imple math must be some new form of math that
> - there are 3*10^9 nucleotides in human DNA
Roughly.
> - the difference (btw how have they measured it, by weighting?) between
> chimp and human DNA is 1%
~2% actually, and it wasn't by weighting, it was by DNA hybridization.
> - the probability of emergence of the human DNA randomly "evolved" from the
> chimp DNA is 1/(4^(3*10^9 * 0.01)) = 1/(4^(3*10^7)), omitting that changes
> also occur in other 99%
Evolution is not a random single-step process, so this statment has no
bearing on reality.
As a result, all the rest is meaningless.
> - there are a certain percent of repetitions in the DNA, so we cut this
> number say by three orders, now P = 1/(4^(3*10^7 - 6))
> - say we've luckily reached the human DNA sequence randomly taken the 1/16
> of all combinations, then N = 4^(3*10^7 - 8)
> - now let's say one wasted chimp takes 1 cubic centimeter as a fossil, then
> the total volume of all transitional chimps would be about 4^(3*10^7 - 14)
> cubic meters
This is absurd because only a tiny fraction of all organisms that ever
lived are fossilized, and chimps live in environments that make them
less likely to be fossilized. No non-human-ancestor chimp fossils are
known.
> - the radius of the Earth would be now about 4^((3*10^7 - 14)/3) which is
> about 10^(10^3) meters, this is wrong, the radius of the visible universe is
> 10^23 meters, where is the trick, besides there are 2*10^6 more species
> around
>
>
> the above is wrong in the part of calculation of the probability, there are
> some recently discovered effects in the molecular biology which help to
> significantly reduce the required number, but could someone please tell how
> much could they actually reduce the number.
They don't need to reduce the number. The number has no bearing on
reality and can be safely ignored.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| "It's the rational things we do which worry me the most." |
| -- Phil Woch in talk.origins |
Bart
news:9sjup4$rr1$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> - the probability of emergence of the human DNA randomly "evolved" from the
> chimp DNA is 1/(4^(3*10^9 * 0.01)) = 1/(4^(3*10^7)), omitting that changes
> also occur in other 99%
The probability that humans evolved from chimps is essentially zero. And no
evolutionist believes that, BTW. Early primates evolved into chimps and humans.
These calculations don't make any sense because it assumes that creating humans
was a goal. It was not. Pre-human primates mutated and the mutations created
new species. One of them just happened to be humans. The calculations above
would be akin to someone winning the lottery and claiming that it was a miracle.
So, the real number would be 6^(10^7) mutated bases needed ( 3*10^9 *
2*10^-2 -it's 2% not 1%). And mutations don't tend to happen to base pairs one
at a time - they come in largish batches. So, 6^(10^7) is the *largest* possible
number of mutations required. In reality, that number would be orders of
magnitude smaller.
> - now let's say one wasted chimp takes 1 cubic centimeter as a fossil, then
> the total volume of all transitional chimps would be about 4^(3*10^7 - 14)
> cubic meters
Aside from the basic problem with the numbers provided, the vast majority of
animals don't create fossils. A centimeter would be an extremely high estimate.
A fossil requires very rare conditions to form - an organism essentially has to
win the lottery. Not to mention the fact that the Earth's crust erodes and
melts...
> - t
he radius of the Earth would be now about 4^((3*10^7 - 14)/3) which is
> about 10^(10^3) meters, this is wrong, the radius of the visible universe is
> 10^23 meters, where is the trick, besides there are 2*10^6 more species
> around
Providing a gigantic clue that this reasoning is horribly flawed...
Bart
Aron-Ra
ignorance, since I know nothing of genetics nor evolution. But I can claim
(with no justification at all) that my numeric non-sense proves that the
universe was created by magic, and not anything observed by science!
I is un intellictul.
Aron-Ra
dmitry shilo <sp...@spam.org> wrote in message
news:9sjup4$rr1$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
Frank J
> This is absurd because only a tiny fraction of all organisms that ever
> lived are fossilized, and chimps live in environments that make them
> less likely to be fossilized. No non-human-ancestor chimp fossils are
> known.
>
<snip>
This is the part that continues to amaze me. Imagine what a field day
creationists would have if it were our branch that was left virtually fossil
free!
Andrew Glasgow
"Frank J" <FN...@home.com> wrote:
Luckily, we like to live in places other than tropical rain forests.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| "The barbarian is the man who regards his passions as their own excuse |
| for being; who does not domesticate them either by understanding their |
| cause or by conceiving their ideal goal." -- George Santayana |
David Cox
In regards to the earth diameter, I think one conceptual error here
has something to do with conservation of mass.
Another conceptual error is that there should be a chimp-human
transitional.
That's just the beginning.....
TomS
"Bart" stated..."
>
>"dmitry shilo" <sp...@spam.org> wrote in message
>news:9sjup4$rr1$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>> - the probability of emergence of the human DNA randomly "evolved" from the
>> chimp DNA is 1/(4^(3*10^9 * 0.01)) = 1/(4^(3*10^7)), omitting that changes
>> also occur in other 99%
>
>
>The probability that humans evolved from chimps is essentially zero. And no
>evolutionist believes that, BTW. Early primates evolved into chimps and humans.
>These calculations don't make any sense because it assumes that creating humans
>was a goal. It was not. Pre-human primates mutated and the mutations created
>new species. One of them just happened to be humans. The calculations above
>would be akin to someone winning the lottery and claiming that it was a miracle.
Here's another way of looking at it.
Suppose we set out to examine the probability that a given person,
some one individual now living, would actually exist. Let's take the
example of Queen Elizabeth of the UK. What is the probability that
she would have been born?
What is the probability that the random mixing of genes from her
mother and father would have produced her? Well, there are a lot of
events that had to occur. For example, that she would have had the
XX chromosomes (to make her a female, rather than the XY for a male).
That alone is a 50% probability. If we then ask about her parents,
we get the same 50% chance, times the probability that both of them
had survived to maturity. And then we go back, generation before
generation, making some very simple and generous estimates on the
probabilities. People in the olden days often died young. What
is the probability that each of her ancestors lived to maturity.
(Aside from natural causes of death, royal families had some other
problems with premature death.)
If we assume that each generation is 25 years (4 per century),
and we ask about the probabilities for each ancestor in each
generation, back (let's say) 4000 years. That's 160 generations.
And how many ancestors per generation? 2 for the 1st generation,
4 for the 2nd, and so on. There has to be some intermarriage, of
course, but it seems to be conservative to estimate 100 ancestors
per generation, once we go back a few hundred years. That means
that QE of UK had a grand total of something like 100x160=16,000
ancestors (back to 2000 BCE), with a probability that each of
them survive to maturity of 1/2. That means that the probability,
on this *very* conservative estimate, that QE of UK would be born,
as something like .5 ^ 16,000 ... approximately 1 chance in
10^480.
And, as a final flourish, this extremely slim probability is
true of each of the 6 billion people on earth today.
Each one of us, simply by virtue of being born, is the winner
of a mammothly improbable lottery.
Tom S.
Bart
"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9skik...@drn.newsguy.com...
<snip>
Good analogy. Plus, each gene has a ~50% chance of being selected. And gobs of
sperm compete to fertilize the egg.
I think that I must not actually exist - it's just too improbable!
Bart
Bobby D. Bryant
> the above is wrong in the part of calculation of the probability,
> there are some recently discovered effects in the molecular biology
> which help to significantly reduce the required number, but could
> someone please tell how much could they actually reduce the number.
The probability is completely irrelevant. Evolution wasn't "looking
for" humanity, so there's no needle in the haystack problem.
Shuffle a deck of cards and you get a result that has about 1 chance in
52! of occuring. If you try to get a specific ordering out of the
shuffle then yes, you're going to have trouble getting it. But if you
don't care what ordering you get there's no problem -- because you
*will* get something, however unlikely that *particular* something is.
Evolution doesn't care what it turns up.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
dmitry shilo
> that QE of UK had a grand total of something like 100x160=16,000
> ancestors (back to 2000 BCE), with a probability that each of
> them survive to maturity of 1/2. That means that the probability,
> on this *very* conservative estimate, that QE of UK would be born,
> as something like .5 ^ 16,000 ... approximately 1 chance in
> 10^480.
>
> And, as a final flourish, this extremely slim probability is
> true of each of the 6 billion people on earth today.
>
> Each one of us, simply by virtue of being born, is the winner
> of a mammothly improbable lottery.
>
> Tom S.
>
You are right.
But isn't it strange in that case that all of 6 billion are actually 100%
humans outside and inside,
and their DNA replication facilities, which are common to other species,
takes every possible step to preserve the original vital code intact. It
seems that evolutionists just fighting with creationists trying to turn them
to the science, instead of the greatest misleading story of "god". Yes,
Darwin have done a great job to figure out that all species were "evolved"
gradually, but this is the way things are developed usually, especially with
that enormous complexity. There are some species, which have obvious
superfluous and complicated design features, like a fish which compensate a
light falling on it from top by lighting a photophores at the bottom, and
has a reflecting surfaces on it's sides, so it stays completely invisible
all the time (BBC "Blue Planet"). So the next step would be finding of
"developers", i suppose 8)
TomS
"Bart" stated..."
Thank you.
This analogy is just one application of a rule that I use in
talking about anti-evolution-ism. Take the argument about the
abstractions like "kinds" or about the "long ago and far away",
and bring the argument to the specific reality of the origins of
the individual.
If it is "so improbable as to be impossible" for "life" (that
abstraction, long ago and far away) to "arise by chance", what
about the "probability" of any one individual human being?
If "the origin of the immune system" is what makes God
important, what about those individual humans who are born with
a defective immune system? Are blind people, or people without
an effective blood-clotting system, not also creatures of God?
If one believes that there is a personal, one-on-one
relationship with one's Creator, isn't that more significant to
the physical development of our bodies from a fertilized egg,
developmental biology ... more significant than the origins of
that abstraction, "humanity"?
If people have souls, or something non-material about them,
which accounts for values like truth and beauty and love, isn't
that a matter for the individual person, at least as much as
about whatever physical features distinguish us, as a "kind", from
other "kinds"? Or is that character of each of us individuals
something of material inheritance for "human-kind"?
To be a touch less serious about it. With respect to the
king or queen of the United Kingdom, one of their titles is,
"by the Grace of God, king (queen) of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Are those Americans who
deny that, atheists?
Tom S.
TomS
<9slu74$psc$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>, "dmitry stated..."[...snip...]
>> Each one of us, simply by virtue of being born, is the winner
>> of a mammothly improbable lottery.
>>
>> Tom S.
>>
>
>You are right.
>But isn't it strange in that case that all of 6 billion are actually 100%
>humans outside and inside,
Well, actually, I wonder ...
According to the things that I've seen "creationists" of various
stripes talk about; what it means for them to be a creature of God,
or what it means to be intelligently designed; they seem to think
that "to be 100% human outside and inside" means that we have some
characteristics like these:
* That we have a fully functioning immune system
* That we have fully functioning copies of "The Eye"
* That we have a fully functioning blood-clotting system
* That we are able to know, and to know that we know
* That we have human emotions
But there are people who lack some of these features. There
are autistic people, there are paranoid schizophrenics, there are
people with hemophilia, there are people with various degrees of
impaired vision, there are people with faulty immune systems. And
these may be present from birth. I still count them as humans.
Tom S.
Bob Pease
Ge-schnippers
> To be a touch less serious about it. With respect to the
> king or queen of the United Kingdom, one of their titles is,
> "by the Grace of God, king (queen) of the United Kingdom of
> Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Are those Americans who
> deny that, atheists?
>
> Tom S.
You can still deny this and be a Theist.
Here's how.
God allows to Kink/Queen to rule just the territories mentioned.
He does not allow the disease to spread.
Seriously, I bet that in Australia, if you asked the question..
"do you have a duty under God to Obey the king/queen ?"
you would get a reaction from laughter to disgust.
RJ Pease
denis shilo
> In article <9sjup4$rr1$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> "dmitry shilo" <sp...@spam.org> wrote:
>
> imple math must be some new form of math that
>
> > - there are 3*10^9 nucleotides in human DNA
>
> Roughly.
>
> > - the difference (btw how have they measured it, by weighting?) between
> > chimp and human DNA is 1%
>
> ~2% actually, and it wasn't by weighting, it was by DNA hybridization.
>
> > - the probability of emergence of the human DNA randomly "evolved" from the
> > chimp DNA is 1/(4^(3*10^9 * 0.01)) = 1/(4^(3*10^7)), omitting that changes
> > also occur in other 99%
>
> Evolution is not a random single-step process, so this statment has no
> bearing on reality.
>
> As a result, all the rest is meaningless.
why, there are many random steps each accompanied by selection
afterward...
and mutation rate nowadays is about 30 nucleotides per every dna
duplicated for human afaik, which moreover would just enormously
increase that number...
>
> > - there are a certain percent of repetitions in the DNA, so we cut this
> > number say by three orders, now P = 1/(4^(3*10^7 - 6))
> > - say we've luckily reached the human DNA sequence randomly taken the 1/16
> > of all combinations, then N = 4^(3*10^7 - 8)
> > - now let's say one wasted chimp takes 1 cubic centimeter as a fossil, then
> > the total volume of all transitional chimps would be about 4^(3*10^7 - 14)
> > cubic meters
>
> This is absurd because only a tiny fraction of all organisms that ever
> lived are fossilized, and chimps live in environments that make them
> less likely to be fossilized. No non-human-ancestor chimp fossils are
> known.
> [...]
completely agree, but the time needed to produce this amount still
seems improbable...
i know that there is somewhere a branch of science called "statistical
something" which deals with it, if you could just point me to some
similar calculations elsewhere...
Regards
denis shilo
that "something" would have been mostly non-benefical mutations,
uncapable to survive.
afaik it is not know yet, how little thouthands of percent of the
genes determine how we look outside, but inside all functional parts
like ears for instance must have identical and "correct" sequence in
all humans in order to hear,
btw maybe you or someone knows the estimation of this number already ?
so i mean that this "something" must have been quite a determined
sequence in order to be a human and differed by at least say 0.1% from
those in ancestors, just to have different bone structure. so most of
the "somethings" would not do.
and don't forget about other 20 millions species, which are successful
mutation. that should have happened for all of them as well
denis shilo
> "dmitry shilo" <sp...@spam.org> wrote in message
> news:9sjup4$rr1$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> > - the probability of emergence of the human DNA randomly "evolved" from the
> > chimp DNA is 1/(4^(3*10^9 * 0.01)) = 1/(4^(3*10^7)), omitting that changes
> > also occur in other 99%
>
>
> The probability that humans evolved from chimps is essentially zero. And no
> evolutionist believes that, BTW. Early primates evolved into chimps and humans.
> These calculations don't make any sense because it assumes that creating humans
> was a goal. It was not. Pre-human primates mutated and the mutations created
> new species. One of them just happened to be humans. The calculations above
> would be akin to someone winning the lottery and claiming that it was a miracle.
>
> So, the real number would be 6^(10^7) mutated bases needed ( 3*10^9 *
> 2*10^-2 -it's 2% not 1%). And mutations don't tend to happen to base pairs one
> at a time - they come in largish batches. So, 6^(10^7) is the *largest* possible
> number of mutations required. In reality, that number would be orders of
> magnitude smaller.
>
hm, the fact that just a little part of the sequence get changed or
inserted only increase that number, as we are dealing with
"conditional probability" then, which counts the successful happening
of the precedent event...
the largest number imho just means that at the average in all 20*10^3
species it would have happened after getting of a half of that
number...
>
>
> > - now let's say one wasted chimp takes 1 cubic centimeter as a fossil, then
> > the total volume of all transitional chimps would be about 4^(3*10^7 - 14)
> > cubic meters
>
> Aside from the basic problem with the numbers provided, the vast majority of
> animals don't create fossils. A centimeter would be an extremely high estimate.
> A fossil requires very rare conditions to form - an organism essentially has to
> win the lottery. Not to mention the fact that the Earth's crust erodes and
> melts...
>
true...
>
> > - t
> he radius of the Earth would be now about 4^((3*10^7 - 14)/3) which is
> > about 10^(10^3) meters, this is wrong, the radius of the visible universe is
> > 10^23 meters, where is the trick, besides there are 2*10^6 more species
> > around
>
> Providing a gigantic clue that this reasoning is horribly flawed...
>
8), but it still seems to me that it more likely shows that attempts
to calculate it and bring it into the theory are flawed...
Bart
"denis shilo" <dsh...@medchat.com> wrote in message
news:2b06aa4a.01111...@posting.google.com...
What makes you think that "functional parts" vary any less than "outside"
parts - because you can't see them? Do you think the skin has no function? And
variation in the way people look is extremely small when measured in an
objective way and compared to other species.
And human organs are not identical. Normal people have organs that vary in
shape, size and position from one another. You can ask any surgeon, if you
doubt it. Also, genetic defects can and have crippled human organs. Any genes
that produced severe variation in the functionality of any organ would be weeded
out.
> so i mean that this "something" must have been quite a determined
> sequence in order to be a human and differed by at least say 0.1% from
> those in ancestors, just to have different bone structure. so most of
> the "somethings" would not do.
You're not listening. This entire line of reasoning is not valid. You're
assuming that human was a goal. Or that human genes was a goal. Neither is the
case. Either a mutation in a pre-human ancestor was beneficial or it was not.
If it was beneficial, then it is likely to have been kept in the pre-human set
of genes. The vast majority of mutations were not beneficial and produced
non-viable embryos that would died long before the female would even have know
she was pregnant.
But it does not matter which genes made it into humans. You're trying to take a
particular outcome after_the_fact and make it into something that is somehow
improbable. This is a very elementary no-no in statistics.
> and don't forget about other 20 millions species, which are successful
> mutation. that should have happened for all of them as well
Your calculations are far too flawed for this to matter.
Bart
dmitry shilo
> "On 11 Nov 2001 08:24:56 -0500, in article
> <9slu74$psc$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>, "dmitry stated..."
> >
> >
> >"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >news:9skik...@drn.newsguy.com...
> [...snip...]
> >> Each one of us, simply by virtue of being born, is the winner
> >> of a mammothly improbable lottery.
> >>
> >> Tom S.
> >>
> >
> >You are right.
> >But isn't it strange in that case that all of 6 billion are actually 100%
> >humans outside and inside,
> [...snip...]
>
> Well, actually, I wonder ...
>
> According to the things that I've seen "creationists" of various
> stripes talk about; what it means for them to be a creature of God,
> or what it means to be intelligently designed; they seem to think
> that "to be 100% human outside and inside" means that we have some
> characteristics like these:
>
> * That we have a fully functioning immune system
> * That we have fully functioning copies of "The Eye"
> * That we have a fully functioning blood-clotting system
> * That we are able to know, and to know that we know
> * That we have human emotions
>
8))), 10 points!
> But there are people who lack some of these features. There
> are autistic people, there are paranoid schizophrenics, there are
> people with hemophilia, there are people with various degrees of
> impaired vision, there are people with faulty immune systems. And
> these may be present from birth. I still count them as humans.
>
as they just have only one gene broken, just one base pair in vital part of
the DNA...
Bart
There is no conditional probability. There is a certain number of mutations
needed to get from pre-human to human. You were originally talking about
each base getting changed individually - having multiple changes occur at once
will only decrease the number of mutations needed.
You can't pretend that you're calculating probabilities of coming up with humans
before the fact. You're not (obviously - you're here). You're calculating them
after the fact - which means that you cannot pretend that humans were a goal of
evolution and base your calculations on humans being the goal.
> the largest number imho just means that at the average in all 20*10^3
> species it would have happened after getting of a half of that
> number...
Huh?
> > > - t
> > he radius of the Earth would be now about 4^((3*10^7 - 14)/3) which is
> > > about 10^(10^3) meters, this is wrong, the radius of the visible universe
is
> > > 10^23 meters, where is the trick, besides there are 2*10^6 more species
> > > around
> >
> > Providing a gigantic clue that this reasoning is horribly flawed...
> >
>
> 8), but it still seems to me that it more likely shows that attempts
> to calculate it and bring it into the theory are flawed...
If you mean that the calculations you posted are bad, then yes. But I don't
know what theory you're trying to "bring it into". Evolution? It doesn't have
anything to do with evolutionary theory - it's just a bunch of equations pasted
together with inaccurate assumptions.
Bart
Andrew Glasgow
dsh...@medchat.com (denis shilo) wrote:
> Andrew Glasgow <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote in
> message
> news:<amg39.REMOVETHIS-70...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu
> >...
> > In article <9sjup4$rr1$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> > "dmitry shilo" <sp...@spam.org> wrote:
> >
> > imple math must be some new form of math that
> >
> > > - there are 3*10^9 nucleotides in human DNA
> >
> > Roughly.
> >
> > > - the difference (btw how have they measured it, by weighting?)
> > > between chimp and human DNA is 1%
> >
> > ~2% actually, and it wasn't by weighting, it was by DNA
> > hybridization.
> >
> > > - the probability of emergence of the human DNA randomly
> > > "evolved" from the chimp DNA is 1/(4^(3*10^9 * 0.01)) =
> > > 1/(4^(3*10^7)), omitting that changes also occur in other 99%
> >
> > Evolution is not a random single-step process, so this statment has
> > no bearing on reality.
> >
> > As a result, all the rest is meaningless. [...]
>
> why, there are many random steps each accompanied by selection
> afterward...
Exactly. Which means it is not a random single-step process.
> and mutation rate nowadays is about 30 nucleotides per every dna
> duplicated for human afaik, which moreover would just enormously
> increase that number...
Which number?
> > > - there are a certain percent of repetitions in the DNA, so we
> > > cut this number say by three orders, now P = 1/(4^(3*10^7 - 6))
> > > - say we've luckily reached the human DNA sequence randomly taken
> > > the 1/16 of all combinations, then N = 4^(3*10^7 - 8) - now let's
> > > say one wasted chimp takes 1 cubic centimeter as a fossil, then
> > > the total volume of all transitional chimps would be about
> > > 4^(3*10^7 - 14) cubic meters
> >
> > This is absurd because only a tiny fraction of all organisms that
> > ever lived are fossilized, and chimps live in environments that
> > make them less likely to be fossilized. No non-human-ancestor
> > chimp fossils are known. [...]
>
> completely agree, but the time needed to produce this amount still
> seems improbable...
Based on what?
> i know that there is somewhere a branch of
> science called "statistical something" which deals with it, if you
> could just point me to some similar calculations elsewhere...
I don't know of any offhand. I'll do some searches and get back to you.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make |
| my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." -- Voltaire |
Robt Gotschall
dsh...@medchat.com says...
> that "something" would have been mostly non-benefical mutations,
> uncapable to survive.
Correct, and they died with fewer offspring then the more successful
"somethings". It's called natural selection.
> afaik it is not know yet, how little thouthands of percent of the
> genes determine how we look outside, but inside all functional parts
> like ears for instance must have identical and "correct" sequence in
> all humans in order to hear,
> btw maybe you or someone knows the estimation of this number already ?
You seem to be ignoring the fact that we share something like 98.5%
of our "inside" with chimpanzees already and that we as humans
are variable by a couple tenths of percent and are all still humans.
Most of us just accept a given amount of genetic variability _as_ human
and go from there. Some others accept an arbitrarily smaller amount
of variability, but they have problems of their own.
> so i mean that this "something" must have been quite a determined
> sequence in order to be a human and differed by at least say 0.1% from
> those in ancestors, just to have different bone structure.
While the bones are shaped a little differently, we have most of
the same bones and basically the same bone structure as our more recent
ancestors.
> so most of
> the "somethings" would not do.
> and don't forget about other 20 millions species, which are successful
> mutation. that should have happened for all of them as well
Can you even comprehend how much time is available? Try to imagine a
mountain, growing far more slowly then any tree, rising upward 6 miles.
This can take place in a much shorter time then evolution took.
rg
Robt Gotschall
>
> To be a touch less serious about it. With respect to the
> king or queen of the United Kingdom, one of their titles is,
> "by the Grace of God, king (queen) of the United Kingdom of
> Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Are those Americans who
> deny that, atheists?
>
> Tom S.
>
Hey wait!!!!! We only denied that He/She was King/Queen of the U.S. of
A. Between Bush and Gates we have more then enough Kings/Queens already.
rg
Bobby D. Bryant
Gotschall" <resta...@theend.com> wrote:
> Hey wait!!!!! We only denied that He/She was King/Queen of the U.S.
> of A. Between Bush and Gates we have more then enough Kings/Queens
> already.
Really? I had assumed they were both straight.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Alan Morgan
>- the difference (btw how have they measured it, by weighting?) between
>chimp and human DNA is 1%
If you know so little about DNA that you don't know how this comparison is
done then how can I expect that you have anything helpful to say about the
probabilities of it emerging?
By analogy - If I wanted to produce a list of the greatest movies ever made
and I started off by suggested that Citizen Kane, directed by Stanley Kubrick,
didn't belong on the list, I don't think you'd be very interested in hearing
what else I had to say.
Alan
TomS
"Bobby stated..."
They are flush, but not royal.
John Wilkins
Andrew Glasgow
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
What a pair you two are.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
rossum
[snip]
>
>completely agree, but the time needed to produce this amount still
>seems improbable...
>i know that there is somewhere a branch of science called "statistical
>something" which deals with it, if you could just point me to some
>similar calculations elsewhere...
>
>Regards
>
I have posted a similar calculation before, yes folks, it's boojumase
again. This is a slightly changed version which incorporates the
results of some computer modelling I did, see section 7. The
modelling indicate that my calculations are pessimistic by less than
2%.
rossum
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Evolution of Boojmase
=========================
The standard naive "protein probability" calculation uses a very crude
model of evolution, basically it assumes the evolution of the whole
protein in a single step. This gives a chance of one in 20 ^ 100 for
a protein with 100 amino acids. 20 ^ 100 comes to 1.27 x 10^131 so
the chance of the protein appearing in one step is 1 in 1.27 x 10^131.
The usual calculation is then to halve this number and say that in a
species that reproduces annually the protein is only likely to appear
after 6.35 x 10^130 years at 50% probability, which is far longer than
the age of the earth.
The model implied in the naive calculation is not the model used by
Darwinian evolution. Under Darwinian evolution changes arise
randomly, and may be beneficial or deleterious. Once arisen they are
selected very non-randomly with the deleterious changes disappearing
and the beneficial changes spreading through population. Using a
better model gives a time to evolve a protein with 100 amino acids of
just over 2 million years. The Darwinian model given below for the
evolution of boojumase is fairly complex, so it will need some complex
calculations.
1 The Scenario
==============
Momerathius vulgaris, the common Mome Rath, is a sessile marine filter
feeder. It lives for one year, reproduces and dies. Its normal food
is a protist, Snarkius snarkius, the snark. However a proportion of
snarks are actually boojums, Snarkius boojum. Boojums have a
different cell wall, so are indigestible, passing through the Mome
Rath's gut undigested. Indeed if there are too many boojums in the
Mome Rath's diet then it will softly and suddenly vanish away.
Mome Raths posses an enzyme to digest the cell walls of snarks:
snarkase. The gene for snarkase is duplicated in the Mome Rath's
genome. This means that the second copy of the snarkase gene, called
"snk2", is available to evolve into a new gene to code for boojumase,
which will allow the Mome Rath to digest boojums as well. Any Mome
Rath possessing even a partially effective boojumase will have an
advantage in that it will have more food available and will have a
reduced chance of softly and suddenly vanishing away.
I will calculate the likely time to evolve a gene for boojumase from
the second copy of the snarkase gene. The answer turns out to be
2,096,000 years, a long time but certainly not impossible. This
figure is confirmed to within 2% by computer modelling.
2 Assumptions
=============
1 The population of Mome Raths is stable at about 10 million
individuals. Predation limits the population so the effectiveness of
boojumase is not a factor.
2 Both snarkase and boojumase contain 100 amino acids.
3 In a boojumase there is only one effective amino acid allowed in
each of the 100 positions, any of the nineteen other amino acids is
ineffective in that position.
4 Snarkase and boojumase are very different so their initial match is
just 5% (1 in 20). This is the level of matching expected from any
two random series of 100 amino acids.
5 I will only deal with mutations that have a real effect on the snk2
gene, called "significant mutations". This effect may be good or bad,
but there must be a real effect. Neutral mutations are ignored,
including replacing one ineffective amino acid with a different, but
still ineffective amino acid in a given position. Mutations affecting
other genes are also ignored.
6 Every four thousand years there is a significant mutation in the
snk2 gene. The resulting change is random and may be good or bad. In
each of the 100 positions replacing an ineffective amino acid with an
effective amino acid is good. Replacing an effective amino acid with
an ineffective one is bad.
7 The effectiveness of a boojumase at digesting boojums is equal to
the percentage of effective amino acids it contains. Thus since
normal snarkase has 5% effective amino acids it can digest 5% of
boojums during their passage through the gut. A boojumase with 20
effective amino acids would be 20% effective and would digest 20% of
boojums and so forth.
8 Each 1% of increased effectiveness of boojumase gives a Mome Rath a
1% advantage in reproduction. Similarly a 1% decrease in
effectiveness will give a 1% decrease in the effectiveness of
reproduction.
3 Preliminary Calculations
==========================
3.1 Beneficial Mutations
------------------------
First I will look at the spread of beneficial mutations. On average
each Mome Rath will reproduce exactly one mature Mome Rath - this
keeps the population stable. A Mome Rath with a single mutation for a
better boojumase will reproduce 1.01 Mome Raths (1% better than
average), while one with a mutation for a worse boojumase will only
reproduce 0.99 Mome Raths (1% worse than average). Better and worse
will be relative, since the population will stay at 10 million Mome
Raths as the improved boojumase evolves.
How long will it take a single beneficial mutation to spread through
the population?
Initially the number of Mome Raths with the beneficial mutation will
increase as the powers of 1.01. After 1551 years they will form half
of the population, about 5 million (1.01 ^ 1551 = 5,040,234). From
this point they will be the normal population while those without the
mutation will be the minority. The minority will decrease as the
powers of 0.99. After a further 1604 years those without the mutation
will be extinct, less than half an individual in the population
(5,000,000 x 0.99 ^ 1604 = 0.4986802).
This means that it will take about 3155 years to replace a population
with the previous snk2 gene with a new population with the new
improved snk2 gene.
3.2 Deleterious Mutations
-------------------------
If a deleterious mutation occurs then it will decrease as powers of
0.99 since it will be 1% less efficient at reproducing. From an
initial population of 1 it will fall below 0.5 in 69 years (1 x 0.99 ^
69 = 0.499837). The deleterious mutation will be eliminated by
natural selection in less than 100 years.
4 Mutate!
=========
4.1 The First Three Mutations
-----------------------------
Every four thousand years there is a significant mutation in the snk2
gene. Since the initial snarkase has 5% effective amino acids, the
first significant mutation will have a 95% chance of being beneficial;
switching an ineffective amino acid to an effective one. It will have
a 5% chance of being deleterious; switching an effective amino acid to
an ineffective one.
Deleterious mutations will disappear in 69 years, so they will be gone
before the next significant mutation in 4,000 years. Beneficial
mutations spread through the entire population in 3,155 years, so the
entire population will have the improved boojumase before the next
significant mutation. This means that significant mutations will not
overlap.
Deleterious mutation will disappear and so will not change the
probabilities for the next mutation in 4,000 years; the boojumase will
be unchanged. Beneficial mutations will be preserved and so will
increase the probability of a subsequent deleterious mutation by 1%
and reduce the probability of a beneficial mutation in 4,000 years
time. Boojumase will now be 1% more effective than before.
Drawing up the first three mutations in tables:
Mutation 1 (Year 4000) Mutation 2 (8000) Mutation 3 (12000)
D = 5% DD = 5% x 5% DDD = 5% x 5% x 5%
B = 95% DB = 5% x 95% DDB = 5% x 5% x 95%
BD = 95% x 6% DBD = 5% x 95% x 6%
BB = 95% x 94% DBB = 5% x 95% x 94%
BDD = 95% x 6% x 6%
BDB = 95% x 6% x 94%
BBD = 95% x 94% x 7%
BBB = 95% x 94% x 93%
Here D is a deleterious mutation and B is a beneficial mutation.
Taking an example, BBD in the third table, there is a beneficial
mutation followed by another beneficial mutation followed by a
deleterious mutation. The first beneficial mutation has a probability
of 95%, the second beneficial mutation only has a probability of 94%
since the boojumase now has 6 effective amino acids and 94 ineffective
ones as it was improved by the first beneficial mutation. The
probability of the final deleterious mutation is 7% since there are
now seven effective amino acids in the boojumase after two beneficial
mutations.
4.2 Average Expected Effectiveness
----------------------------------
Tracing this through many mutations will result in huge tables: 2 ^
100 rows after 100 mutations. In order to proceed I am going to
simplify the calculation by working out a single "average expected
effectiveness" for the effectiveness of the boojumase. Doing some more
calculations on the table for the third mutation gives:
Prob. Effect. P x E
DDD 0.0125% 5% 0.000625%
DDB 0.2375% 6% 0.014250%
DBD 0.2850% 6% 0.017100%
DBB 4.4650% 7% 0.312550%
BDD 0.3420% 6% 0.020520%
BDB 5.3580% 7% 0.375060%
BBD 6.2510% 7% 0.437570%
BBB 83.0490% 8% 6.643920%
-------- ---------
100.0000% 7.821595% = AEE
Here the "Prob." column is the probability of that particular outcome
for the three mutations; for example the probability of DBD is 5% x
95% x 6% = 0.2850%. The sum of the probabilities is 100% as a check
on the calculation. The "Effect." column is the effectiveness of the
boojumase after the mutations; start at 5% and add 1% for each B, so
DDD is still at 5% effectiveness while BBB is at the maximum possible
8% effectiveness after three mutations. The "P x E" column is the
previous two columns multiplied together and adjusted to a percentage.
Each entry is the proportion of the effectiveness that this row
contributes to the overall expected effectiveness of the boojumase.
Imagine repeating the first three mutations many times, these values
represent the proportion of the repetitions that happen to have that
combination of mutations: DDD, BDB or whatever. The sum of this
column is the "average expected effectiveness" (AEE) that I wish to
calculate: 7.82 to two decimal places.
4.3 The Fourth Mutation
-----------------------
Coming into the fourth mutation the average expected effectiveness
(AEE) is 7.82. This gives a 7.82% chance of a deleterious mutation
and a (100.00 - 7.82) = 92.18% chance of a beneficial mutation. The
table looks like:
Mutation 4 (16000) Initial AEE = 7.82%
Prob. Effect. P x E
D 7.82% 7.82% 0.61%
B 92.18% 8.82% 8.13%
------- -----
100.00% 8.74% = new AEE
The probability of a deleterious mutation, D, is the AEE, 7.82. The
probability of a beneficial mutation, B, is (100 - AEE), 92.18%. The
effectiveness of the boojumase after a deleterious mutation is
unchanged, the AEE, 7.82%. The effectiveness of the boojumase after a
beneficial mutation is increased by 1%, (AEE + 1), 8.82%. The P x E
column has AEE x AEE / 100 in the D row and (100 - AEE) x (AEE + 1) /
100 in the B row. In each case the "/ 100" is to get the P x E column
back into a percentage. The new AEE is the sum of these two values:
(AEE x AEE / 100) + ((100 - AEE) x (AEE + 1) / 100). This is the new
value of the AEE to go forward to the next mutation.
4.4 The Fifth Mutation
----------------------
From the discussion of the fourth mutation there is a formula for
calculating the AEE after fifth mutation. The formula is:
New AEE = (AEE x AEE / 100) + ((100 - AEE) x (AEE + 1) / 100)
This can be simplified to:
New AEE = ((99 x AEE) + 100) / 100
Putting the AEE of 8.74 coming into the fifth mutation into the
formula gives 9.65 to two decimal places for the AEE after the fifth
mutation.
4.5 And so on...
----------------
The simplified formula from section 4.4 can be used to step from
mutation to mutation. The calculation is best shown in a table. Rows
are missed out purely for reasons of space. It is simple to set up
the whole thing on a spreadsheet.
Year Mutation AEE after
12000 3 7.82%
16000 4 8.74%
20000 5 9.65%
40000 10 14.08%
80000 20 22.30%
100000 25 26.11%
200000 50 42.52%
500000 125 72.95%
800000 200 87.27%
1000000 250 92.30%
2000000 500 99.38%
2096000 524 99.51%
This shows that after a million years of evolution and 250 significant
mutations M. vulgaris has a snk2 gene that codes for a boojumase that
is on average 92% effective. 92 of the hundred amino acids in the
boojumase are effective, only eight are ineffective. After two
million years 99 of the hundred amino acids are effective with only
one ineffective.
5 Result
========
After 2,096,000 years and 524 significant mutations the Mome Raths
have evolved the most effective boojumase possible as there is less
than half an amino acid that is ineffective on average. The Mome
Raths have adapted to an environment containing boojums and will not
softly and suddenly vanish away.
This figure of 2,096,000 years to evolve a protein with 100 amino
acids compares with the 6.35 x 10^130 years calculated from the less
realistic naive model.
6 Computer Modelling
====================
Putting this model into a computer program and running it through to
the evolution of 100% effective boojumase a million times gave the
results:
Mean Mutations Std Deviation
513.74 125.97
Repeating this three more times, each with a million repetitions gave:
Mean Mutations Std Deviation
513.65 125.89
513.71 125.79
513.70 125.86
This seems to indicate that the calculations above are a little
pessimistic, and the answer should be 514 mutations, taking 2,056,000
years instead of 524 mutations taking 2,096,000 years. The error is
less than two percent. No doubt a better mathematician or
statistician than me could explain the discrepancy.
7 The Boojumase Model
=====================
This is a simple model, deliberately so in order to simplify the
calculations. However it is more complex and closer to the real
situation than the model implied by the naive probability calculation.
The naive model covers the random nature of mutations but it does not
include the highly non-random process of natural selection and so
gives a misleading result. The boojumase model includes both random
mutations and the non-random element of natural selection hence giving
a less misleading result.
The boojumase model is intended as a learning aid. For that reason it
is simplified to remove all calculus and more advanced mathematics.
It is intended for an interested lay audience, not for publication in
Science or Nature.
I have also deliberately made life difficult for the model by starting
with the 5% random match between snarkase and boojumase and by
allowing only one amino acid to be effective at each position. This
is to avoid criticism that the model is biased in favour of a short
time to evolve the protein. If anything the model is biased towards a
long time to evolve the protein. This makes it a stronger basis for
discussion and easier to defend in argument.
The model is by no means perfect. Possible improvements to it are:
- To improve the calculation of the time taken to spread a beneficial
mutation through the whole population. I tried this myself and got a
figure of 3293 years; not different enough to warrant the extra
complexity and with no effect on the overall result as it is still
less than 4,000 years.
- To take into account sexual reproduction in the spreading of
beneficial mutations.
- Run the exact calculation of tables for more than three mutations
before switching to the AEE.
- Explain the transition from the exact tables to the AEE better than
I have in section 4.2.
- Allow mutations to overlap so a second significant mutation might
occur before the previous mutation has spread through the whole
population.
- Look at mutation rates in real life and make a better assumption
for the interval between significant mutations. I picked 4000 years
purely to avoid complications with overlapping mutations.
Feel free to take up this model, clean it up and make it a better
reflection of reality. If you do so please bear in mind its purpose
and do not complicate it too much; remember the target audience.
8 Bibliography
==============
Lewis Carroll: Jabberwocky
Lewis Carroll: The Hunting of the Snark
Richard Clayton
> In article <9speg...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > "On 12 Nov 2001 15:07:25 -0500, in article
> > <9spa5u$945$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> > "Bobby stated..."
> > >
> > >In article <MPG.1659a3fdd...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, "Robt
> > >Gotschall" <resta...@theend.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hey wait!!!!! We only denied that He/She was King/Queen of the U.S.
> > >> of A. Between Bush and Gates we have more then enough Kings/Queens
> > >> already.
> > >
> > >Really? I had assumed they were both straight.
> >
> > They are flush, but not royal.
>
> What a pair you two are.
If you don't cut the silly puns, I'm going to deck you.
--
Richard Clayton (for...@earthlink.net)
"Why are you such an ass!?"
"Because I hate you, and I'm smarter than you."
-- Acts of Gord
Nantko Schanssema
>In article <9slu9...@drn.newsguy.com>, TomS_...@newsguy.com says...
>> To be a touch less serious about it. With respect to the
>> king or queen of the United Kingdom, one of their titles is,
>> "by the Grace of God, king (queen) of the United Kingdom of
>> Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Are those Americans who
>> deny that, atheists?
>Hey wait!!!!! We only denied that He/She was King/Queen of the U.S. of
>A. Between Bush and Gates we have more then enough Kings/Queens already.
That condition can be cured.
Forward children of the fatherland...
regards,
Nantko
--
Yield to temptation; it may not pass your way again.
(Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love)
dmitry shilo
[...]
> > hm, the fact that just a little part of the sequence get changed or
> > inserted only increase that number, as we are dealing with
> > "conditional probability" then, which counts the successful happening
> > of the precedent event...
>
> There is no conditional probability. There is a certain number of
mutations
> needed to get from pre-human to human. You were originally talking about
> each base getting changed individually - having multiple changes occur at
once
> will only decrease the number of mutations needed.
>
but if changes occur one by one - the actual difference matters - imagine if
all the bases have to be inverted; if changes happens randomly all at once -
the difference between source and target sequence doesn't matter...
> You can't pretend that you're calculating probabilities of coming up with
humans
> before the fact. You're not (obviously - you're here). You're
calculating them
> after the fact - which means that you cannot pretend that humans were a
goal of
> evolution and base your calculations on humans being the goal.
>
yeah, but i still can't cope with other 20 millions sometimes completely
different species which perfectly fit for completelly different
environments, is it a coincidence or what?;
why not only one cell-one fish-one something still unknown-one chimp
predecessor-one human?
the bird could think as well - why am i here and why are useless turtles and
humans also here;
then try to imagine unnecessity of all those extremely complicated and
extremely different species and that negligible chance of them to appear
_all together at one planet_ and you would understand that it is not a
coincidence and you would not count that "post factum argument" as an
argument. oh no, i'm speaking like a religious creationist :(
dmitry shilo
"Andrew Glasgow" <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote in message
> > > > - the probability of emergence of the human DNA randomly
> > > > "evolved" from the chimp DNA is 1/(4^(3*10^9 * 0.01)) =
> > > > 1/(4^(3*10^7)), omitting that changes also occur in other 99%
> > >
> > > Evolution is not a random single-step process, so this statment has
> > > no bearing on reality.
> > >
> > > As a result, all the rest is meaningless. [...]
> >
> > why, there are many random steps each accompanied by selection
> > afterward...
>
> Exactly. Which means it is not a random single-step process.
>
assumption that differing part of dna changes all at once, even not
partially just ~250 (actually) bases at a time - as it is with today's rate
of mutations.
> > completely agree, but the time needed to produce this amount still
> > seems improbable...
>
> Based on what?
>
well, hm, just dividing that number of individuals on number of years and an
area of the earth surface, they could not be there together (only in case of
that big number of course).
> > i know that there is somewhere a branch of
> > science called "statistical something" which deals with it, if you
> > could just point me to some similar calculations elsewhere...
>
> I don't know of any offhand. I'll do some searches and get back to you.
>
i would greatly appreciate that.
dmitry shilo
"Robt Gotschall" <resta...@theend.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1659ab5f1...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> > afaik it is not know yet, how little thouthands of percent of the
> > genes determine how we look outside, but inside all functional parts
> > like ears for instance must have identical and "correct" sequence in
> > all humans in order to hear,
> > btw maybe you or someone knows the estimation of this number already ?
>
> You seem to be ignoring the fact that we share something like 98.5%
> of our "inside" with chimpanzees already and that we as humans
i don't think that would be true about the brain, no one knows yet
> are variable by a couple tenths of percent and are all still humans.
and even if so none of 6 billions has any of distinctive chimpanzees
features
> Most of us just accept a given amount of genetic variability _as_ human
> and go from there. Some others accept an arbitrarily smaller amount
> of variability, but they have problems of their own.
>
but aren't those cases different, and mutations mostly lead to diseases
> > so i mean that this "something" must have been quite a determined
> > sequence in order to be a human and differed by at least say 0.1% from
> > those in ancestors, just to have different bone structure.
>
> While the bones are shaped a little differently, we have most of
> the same bones and basically the same bone structure as our more recent
> ancestors.
>
> > so most of
> > the "somethings" would not do.
> > and don't forget about other 20 millions species, which are successful
> > mutation. that should have happened for all of them as well
>
>
> Can you even comprehend how much time is available? Try to imagine a
> mountain, growing far more slowly then any tree, rising upward 6 miles.
>
everything is countable eventually
dmitry shilo
> > > Evolution doesn't care what it turns up.
> > >
> > that "something" would have been mostly non-benefical mutations,
> > uncapable to survive.
> > afaik it is not know yet, how little thouthands of percent of the
> > genes determine how we look outside, but inside all functional parts
> > like ears for instance must have identical and "correct" sequence in
> > all humans in order to hear,
> > btw maybe you or someone knows the estimation of this number already ?
>
> What makes you think that "functional parts" vary any less than "outside"
> parts - because you can't see them? Do you think the skin has no
function? And
> variation in the way people look is extremely small when measured in an
> objective way and compared to other species.
>
> And human organs are not identical. Normal people have organs that vary
in
> shape, size and position from one another. You can ask any surgeon, if
you
> doubt it. Also, genetic defects can and have crippled human organs. Any
genes
> that produced severe variation in the functionality of any organ would be
weeded
> out.
>
grow - cells find their ways between others, and a lack of vitamins also
matters. so, as you said, any anormalities except of bone structure and
appearance, would not continue.
>
> > so i mean that this "something" must have been quite a determined
> > sequence in order to be a human and differed by at least say 0.1% from
> > those in ancestors, just to have different bone structure. so most of
> > the "somethings" would not do.
>
> You're not listening. This entire line of reasoning is not valid. You're
> assuming that human was a goal. Or that human genes was a goal. Neither
is the
> case. Either a mutation in a pre-human ancestor was beneficial or it was
not.
> If it was beneficial, then it is likely to have been kept in the pre-human
set
> of genes. The vast majority of mutations were not beneficial and produced
> non-viable embryos that would died long before the female would even have
know
> she was pregnant.
>
it's close to what i'm trying to bring this to - there were some
developments in labs...
June
> Andrew Glasgow wrote:
>
> > In article <9speg...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> > TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "On 12 Nov 2001 15:07:25 -0500, in article
> > > <9spa5u$945$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> > > "Bobby stated..."
> > > >
> > > >In article <MPG.1659a3fdd...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, "Robt
> > > >Gotschall" <resta...@theend.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hey wait!!!!! We only denied that He/She was King/Queen of the U.S.
> > > >> of A. Between Bush and Gates we have more then enough Kings/Queens
> > > >> already.
> > > >
> > > >Really? I had assumed they were both straight.
> > >
> > > They are flush, but not royal.
> >
> > What a pair you two are.
>
> If you don't cut the silly puns, I'm going to deck you.
>
You're all such cards.
--
June
Bart
> > You can't pretend that you're calculating probabilities of coming up with
> humans
> > before the fact. You're not (obviously - you're here). You're
> calculating them
> > after the fact - which means that you cannot pretend that humans were a
> goal of
> > evolution and base your calculations on humans being the goal.
> >
>
> yeah, but i still can't cope with other 20 millions sometimes completely
> different species which perfectly fit for completelly different
> environments, is it a coincidence or what?
No - they evolved to take advantage of available niches. That's the whole point
of evolution!
> why not only one cell-one fish-one something still unknown-one chimp
> predecessor-one human?
This is completely indecipherable to me!
> the bird could think as well - why am i here
Your mother and father probably decided that they wanted offspring. Or they
just got horny one night, bonked each other, and you were the result.
>and why are useless turtles
What on earth makes you think that turtles are "useless"? And what the heck
does "useless" mean, anyway? Not useful to *you*?
>and
> humans also here;
> then try to imagine unnecessity of all those extremely complicated and
> extremely different species and that negligible chance of them to appear
> _all together at one planet_ and you would understand that it is not a
> coincidence
Of course it's not. Species competed against each other for niches. Those that
were successful survived and mutated, occasionally producing new species better
at filling a niche than competing species.
> and you would not count that "post factum argument" as an
> argument.
Yes, I certainly would. There is no reason that the Earth has to be populated
with the organisms it is populated with today. If you replayed the history of
the Earth with an Earth clone, you would be extremely unlikely to get the same
species again. But the species on that planet would fit together just as well
as ours do.
This is exactly the same type of argument you presented in your original
equation and it's wrong for exactly_the_same_reason.
>oh no, i'm speaking like a religious creationist
Still pretending that you aren't a creationist? I really think you can drop
that...
Bart
John Wilkins
You have to hand it to them, though.
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally having fun for over 46 years...
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 10 Nov 2001 14:22:12 -0500, "dmitry shilo" <sp...@spam.org> wrote:
>- there are 3*10^9 nucleotides in human DNA
>- the difference (btw how have they measured it, by weighting?)
Ahh, if you don't know this, do you think the rest of your critique
would hold up?
It is measured both indirectly (by assays that measure how well
fragnments of chimp and human DNA stick together, and indirect measure
of their sequence) or directly by sequencing the genes. Not all chimp
genes have been sequenced, but the direct and indirect measures
largely agree.
>between chimp and human DNA is 1%
>- the probability of emergence of the human DNA randomly "evolved" from the
>chimp DNA is 1/(4^(3*10^9 * 0.01)) = 1/(4^(3*10^7)),
>omitting that changes also occur in other 99%
Okay here's where everything goes off the rails.
1) Humans didn't evolve from chimps. They had a common ancestor. We
don't have the common ancestors DNA sequence, but it would be as
similar to Chimp DNA as it was to human DNA, since chimps and humans
have been evolving the same amount of time since the common ancestor.
2) Taking 1) into account, let's assume your question is "what is the
probability the sequence differences accumulated by chimps and humans
since they split would have occured in _exactly_ the positions we see
them?". This is a more tractable question, but even then your
probability equation is way off base (you are expressing the _number_
of nucleotides different as a porbability, which is just plain wrong).
Even worse, you are assuming that the current nucleotide differences
are the _only_possible_ nucleotide differences. This changes the maths
entirely. The vast majority of the sequence differences between humans
and chimps are _neutral_, that is they have no effect on the fitness
or function of humans or chimps. This is mostly due to the fact that a
large proportion of the human and chimp genome is junk, and a mutation
in junk DNA has no effect. It is also partly due to the fact that, in
a given coding gene, you can change bewteen 40-60% of the gene's
sequence without affecting its function.
So, take the case of a given 300 nucleotide streach of DNA, the human
sequence differs from the chimp by one nucleotide at position 234. The
probability of that you will get _exactly_ this sequence from the
chimp sequence by random substitutions is around one in 3x10^7. Which
is pretty small. But this assumes that this is the _only_ allowable
sequence. If this was a strech of junk DNA, the mutation could have
been anywhere, and its probability is effectively one.
Also, for function affecting benefical mutations, again, thete is
_more_ than one sequence, usually very menay sequences, that will be
eqivalent.
>- there are a certain percent of repetitions in the DNA, so we cut this
>number say by three orders, now P = 1/(4^(3*10^7 - 6))
>- say we've luckily reached the human DNA sequence randomly taken the 1/16
>of all combinations, then N = 4^(3*10^7 - 8)
>- now let's say one wasted chimp takes 1 cubic centimeter as a fossil, then
>the total volume of all transitional chimps would be about 4^(3*10^7 - 14)
>cubic meters
Three points here.
1) not all organisms fossilize
2) most "deaths" from selection occur at the fertilized egg or early
embryo stage
3) You are allowing only one mutation per ancestor (not a chimp),
there are in fact many more. ANd you are ignoring the spread of
muations via sexual recombination
And, as shown above you don't need to go through _every_ single
permuation of the common ancestor genome to get to the human genome,
so yopu don't need anywhere near that population.
>- the radius of the Earth would be now about 4^((3*10^7 - 14)/3) which is
>about 10^(10^3) meters, this is wrong, the radius of the visible universe is
>10^23 meters, where is the trick, besides there are 2*10^6 more species
>around
>
>
>the above is wrong in the part of calculation of the probability, there are
>some recently discovered effects in the molecular biology which help to
>significantly reduce the required number, but could someone please tell how
>much could they actually reduce the number.
Neutral muations, mostly.
Cheers! Ian
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
Christopher Peters
With all of this hearty laughter, you all should form a club.
>--
>June
>
--
Chris Peters (cpe...@TheWorld.com)
"Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer." -- Voltaire
("If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.")
Richard Harter
wrote:
Hey Ace, put your dues on the tray to pay for five sexes savin'
Haight-Ashbury nigh on the tin jakes and the quince kin.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, http://www.varinoma.com
I have a rock garden. Last week three of them died.
- Richard Diran
June
> On 12 Nov 2001 22:51:00 -0500, junego...@earthlink.net (June)
> wrote:
>
> >Richard Clayton <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew Glasgow wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <9speg...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> >> > TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > "On 12 Nov 2001 15:07:25 -0500, in article
> >> > > <9spa5u$945$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> >> > > "Bobby stated..."
> >> > > >
> >> > > >In article <MPG.1659a3fdd...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> >> > > >"Robt Gotschall" <resta...@theend.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Hey wait!!!!! We only denied that He/She was King/Queen of the
> >> > > >> U.S. of A. Between Bush and Gates we have more then enough
> >> > > >> Kings/Queens already.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Really? I had assumed they were both straight.
> >> > >
> >> > > They are flush, but not royal.
> >> >
> >> > What a pair you two are.
> >>
> >> If you don't cut the silly puns, I'm going to deck you.
> >>
> >You're all such cards.
>
> Hey Ace, put your dues on the tray to pay for five sexes savin'
> Haight-Ashbury nigh on the tin jakes and the quince kin.
>
>
That ante even possible!
--
June
Richard Harter
wrote:
It is for the Joker.
One evening quite some time ago I was playing Bridge with Mark
Anthony, Brutus, and Julius Caesar. In one hand Brutus and I were
partners and Julius (Big Julie to his friends) was dealing. Julius
was somewhat of a card sharp and was stacking the cards. After he had
done a few fast shuffles he was about to deal when Brutus demanded to
cut the cards. It was then that Big Julie uttered those famous words,
"That was the unkindest cut of all."
Many people don't know this (perhaps because it isn't so) but there
was a secret cult of ritual cannibals in Rome in those days. After
Big Julie was cut down the cultists captured his body. They were
about to roast him and dine on him when Mark Anthony came to the
rescue, uttering those equally famous words, "I come to bury Caesar
and not to braise him."
Ferrous Patella
It was a good straight line.
--
Ferrous Patella
Please note all spellings are corrected to Oxford & Webster Solar Dictionary,
3rd ed, (c)MMCCXII
dmitry shilo
> > > evolution and base your calculations on humans being the goal.
> > >
> >
> > yeah, but i still can't cope with other 20 millions sometimes completely
> > different species which perfectly fit for completelly different
> > environments, is it a coincidence or what?
>
> No - they evolved to take advantage of available niches. That's the whole
point
> of evolution!
>
lets bring some logic here.
the evolution is *not substantial*.
there are just *prosaic mutations and extinctions*.
using the prosaic mutations and extinctions only those would live now:
one cell -> one fish -> one something still unknown -> one chimp
predecessor -> one human
and some plants as a food.
no other linages and branches at all.
all mutated junk has already extincted.
no birds or insects or whatever, whose emergence probability is as low as
human's, and too low to coinscide with emergence of human.
pretty dark and grey view.
now look around - they are *all* here.
- *every possible* place in our environment is actually taken,
- *every possible* feature of this basis of life is actually implemented in
plants and animals,
- *every possible* sense in our set of chemical elements, sound,
electrycity, magnetic waves of all kinds is used.
quite surprising, huh
what is possibility of *all* of those emerge at this timespan - none -
because *everithing possible has been implemented*,
which is not just concerns the dna -
it is a *possibility of having* say 10^50 atoms located at 10^10
*predefined* positions
in order to *take all advantages of this world*
ok, *what are those predefined positions* ?
this is a *key question* -
those positions *must have been designed intelligently*
because *there are no other ways to taking advantages of this world by
"living organisms"*
the rest of positions would just collapse
it seams more like a big game of home-made-bio-robots is going on here.
> > and you would not count that "post factum argument" as an
> > argument.
>
> Yes, I certainly would. There is no reason that the Earth has to be
populated
> with the organisms it is populated with today. If you replayed the
history of
> the Earth with an Earth clone, you would be extremely unlikely to get the
same
> species again. But the species on that planet would fit together just as
well
> as ours do.
>
no, because of the above
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 12 Nov 2001 22:29:12 -0500, "dmitry shilo" <sp...@spam.org> wrote:
>"Bart" <ba...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:tuu2hta...@corp.supernews.com...
[snip]
>yeah, but i still can't cope with other 20 millions sometimes completely
>different species which perfectly fit for completelly different
>environments, is it a coincidence or what?;
No, it's an outcome of selection
>why not only one cell-one fish-one something still unknown-one chimp
>predecessor-one human?
Because they occupy different ecological niches, and the requirements
of these ecological niches are such that no single species can ccupy
them. Think about the habitats occupied by the various species of
bears, from the tropics to the poles, there is no way a single bear
species could occupy them all.
>the bird could think as well - why am i here and why are useless turtles and
>humans also here;
The occupy differnt ecological niches, all valuable in their own
right.
>then try to imagine unnecessity of all those extremely complicated and
>extremely different species and that negligible chance of them to appear
>_all together at one planet_ and you would understand that it is not a
>coincidence and you would not count that "post factum argument" as an
>argument. oh no, i'm speaking like a religious creationist :(
You _really_ nead to read 'Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare" by Paul
Clauvinaux, it puts the ecological argument into perspective and shows
by example why selection produces diversity from what at first sight
appears to be a "uniform" environment.
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 12 Nov 2001 22:33:07 -0500, "dmitry shilo" <sp...@spam.org> wrote:
>"Robt Gotschall" <resta...@theend.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1659ab5f1...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>> > afaik it is not know yet, how little thouthands of percent of the
>> > genes determine how we look outside, but inside all functional parts
>> > like ears for instance must have identical and "correct" sequence in
>> > all humans in order to hear,
>> > btw maybe you or someone knows the estimation of this number already ?
>>
>> You seem to be ignoring the fact that we share something like 98.5%
>> of our "inside" with chimpanzees already and that we as humans
>
>i don't think that would be true about the brain, no one knows yet
On the contrary, we know a great deal about the structure and
organisation of chimp and human brains. They have all the bits and
pieces that we do, although not quite as exagerated. They even have
Brocca's and Wernekies areas, parts of the brain that humans use for
speach, although not as well developed. These areas appear to be
involved in communication in chimps, just as in humans, although not
to the same sophisticated extent.
[snip]
>> Most of us just accept a given amount of genetic variability _as_ human
>> and go from there. Some others accept an arbitrarily smaller amount
>> of variability, but they have problems of their own.
>>
>but aren't those cases different, and mutations mostly lead to diseases
No, a large amount of mutations have no effect, some lead to disease
and some, like the mutation in the apolipoprotein A gene that reduces
the incience of heart attacks, are beneficial.
[snip]
John Wilkins
wrote:
Colinvaux, P. (1980). Why big fierce animals are rare: how the natural
world works, London; Boston; Sydney, George Allen and Unwin.
>
> Cheers! Ian
> =====================================================
> Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
> reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
> Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
Robt Gotschall
>
> "Robt Gotschall" <resta...@theend.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1659ab5f1...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> > > afaik it is not know yet, how little thouthands of percent of the
> > > genes determine how we look outside, but inside all functional parts
> > > like ears for instance must have identical and "correct" sequence in
> > > all humans in order to hear,
> > > btw maybe you or someone knows the estimation of this number already ?
> >
> > You seem to be ignoring the fact that we share something like 98.5%
> > of our "inside" with chimpanzees already and that we as humans
>
> i don't think that would be true about the brain, no one knows yet
Unless you got your brain mail order it has the same genetics that the
rest of your body does.
>
> > are variable by a couple tenths of percent and are all still humans.
>
> and even if so none of 6 billions has any of distinctive chimpanzees
> features
You mean like some chimps having the same blood type (Type A ) as some
humans?
> > Most of us just accept a given amount of genetic variability _as_ human
> > and go from there. Some others accept an arbitrarily smaller amount
> > of variability, but they have problems of their own.
> >
> but aren't those cases different, and mutations mostly lead to diseases
Most humans and other multi celled organisms are genetically unique.
Humans are a population of primates that share a collection of genes. No
one single person has them all. No one is any purer then any one else.
We are all different. This variation is a good thing. It means that if a
disease hits, only some of us will die. Sometimes a mutation will make
us resistant to a disease, sometimes it will make us susceptible. Most
of the time a mutation has no visible effect.
rg
dmitry shilo
>[...]
> It is measured both indirectly (by assays that measure how well
> fragnments of chimp and human DNA stick together, and indirect measure
> of their sequence) or directly by sequencing the genes. Not all chimp
> genes have been sequenced, but the direct and indirect measures
> largely agree.
>
> >between chimp and human DNA is 1%
> >- the probability of emergence of the human DNA randomly "evolved" from
the
> >chimp DNA is 1/(4^(3*10^9 * 0.01)) = 1/(4^(3*10^7)),
> >omitting that changes also occur in other 99%
>
> Okay here's where everything goes off the rails.
> 1) Humans didn't evolve from chimps. They had a common ancestor. We
> don't have the common ancestors DNA sequence, but it would be as
> similar to Chimp DNA as it was to human DNA, since chimps and humans
> have been evolving the same amount of time since the common ancestor.
>
> 2) Taking 1) into account, let's assume your question is "what is the
> probability the sequence differences accumulated by chimps and humans
> since they split would have occured in _exactly_ the positions we see
> them?". This is a more tractable question, but even then your
> probability equation is way off base (you are expressing the _number_
> of nucleotides different as a porbability, which is just plain wrong).
>
yes, we could assume that the target sequence has a half of bases defferent
from the source, it would halve that number
(i'll try to argue here a bit just not to suffer a defeat without a fight,
and to make a bit clarify some of my points)
> Even worse, you are assuming that the current nucleotide differences
> are the _only_possible_ nucleotide differences. This changes the maths
> entirely. The vast majority of the sequence differences between humans
> and chimps are _neutral_, that is they have no effect on the fitness
> or function of humans or chimps. This is mostly due to the fact that a
> large proportion of the human and chimp genome is junk, and a mutation
recently it was about 10% as i heard
> in junk DNA has no effect. It is also partly due to the fact that, in
> a given coding gene, you can change bewteen 40-60% of the gene's
> sequence without affecting its function.
>
now we have reduced the number by one order of the number of the power
> So, take the case of a given 300 nucleotide streach of DNA, the human
> sequence differs from the chimp by one nucleotide at position 234. The
> probability of that you will get _exactly_ this sequence from the
> chimp sequence by random substitutions is around one in 3x10^7. Which
> is pretty small. But this assumes that this is the _only_ allowable
> sequence. If this was a strech of junk DNA, the mutation could have
> been anywhere, and its probability is effectively one.
>
if mutations has happend in a junk portion, the individual would still have
the same meaningful part, so that mutation has happened in vain.
> Also, for function affecting benefical mutations, again, thete is
> _more_ than one sequence, usually very menay sequences, that will be
> eqivalent.
>
> Three points here.
> 1) not all organisms fossilize
> 2) most "deaths" from selection occur at the fertilized egg or early
> embryo stage
btw, as i heard the rate of mutations must have been far more higher early
days to fit the Theory.
if so, far less ebryos would have survive that days, which seems disastrous
to the population.
> 3) You are allowing only one mutation per ancestor (not a chimp),
hm, but there are just several cell divisions from the fertilisations to the
egg afaik
> there are in fact many more. ANd you are ignoring the spread of
> muations via sexual recombination
>
which imho just doubles the number of mutations happened at that stage
anyway, argueing by numbers and math would not lead us to any decission
by the way, your scientific opinion would be interesting on my other post to
this thread today with a kind of logical proof
> And, as shown above you don't need to go through _every_ single
> permuation of the common ancestor genome to get to the human genome,
> so yopu don't need anywhere near that population.
>
>>[..]
> Neutral muations, mostly.
Andrew Glasgow
mail1...@pop.net (Ferrous Patella) wrote:
> In article <1f2th9s.5rauc11aigjlsN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>, John Wilkins says...
> >
> >June <junego...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Clayton <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Andrew Glasgow wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In article <9speg...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> >> > > TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > "On 12 Nov 2001 15:07:25 -0500, in article
> >> > > > <9spa5u$945$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> >> > > > "Bobby stated..."
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >In article <MPG.1659a3fdd...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Robt
> >> > > > >Gotschall" <resta...@theend.com> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> Hey wait!!!!! We only denied that He/She was King/Queen of the
> U.S.
> >> > > > >> of A. Between Bush and Gates we have more then enough
> Kings/Queens
> >> > > > >> already.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >Really? I had assumed they were both straight.
^^^^^^^^
> >> > > >
> >> > > > They are flush, but not royal.
> >> > >
> >> > > What a pair you two are.
> >> >
> >> > If you don't cut the silly puns, I'm going to deck you.
> >> >
> >> You're all such cards.
> >
> >You have to hand it to them, though.
> >--
> >John Wilkins>
>
> It was a good straight line.
^^^^^^^^
Oops, so sorry, NO PUNS FOR YOU!
Andrew Glasgow
junego...@earthlink.net (June) wrote:
I'll bet.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| "The general root of superstition is that men observe when things hit, and |
| not when they miss, and commit to memory the one, and pass over the other" |
| --Sir Francis Bacon 1561-1626 |
geoffrey kimbrough
Ferrous Patella wrote:
I think it's time for this thread to shuffle off to Buffalo.
Geoffrey Kimbrough
Why do they call it tourist season if we can't shoot them?
Bart
>
> "Bart" <ba...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:tv182b9...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > evolution and base your calculations on humans being the goal.
> > > >
> > >
> > > yeah, but i still can't cope with other 20 millions sometimes completely
> > > different species which perfectly fit for completelly different
> > > environments, is it a coincidence or what?
> >
> > No - they evolved to take advantage of available niches. That's the whole
> point
> > of evolution!
> >
>
> lets bring some logic here.
> the evolution is *not substantial*.
LOL. No theory is substantial. But DNA is substantial. Mutations are
substantial. The environment is substantial. And the results of evolution are
substantial.
.
> there are just *prosaic mutations and extinctions*.
> using the prosaic mutations and extinctions only those would live now:
> one cell -> one fish -> one something still unknown -> one chimp
> predecessor -> one human
> and some plants as a food.
> no other linages and branches at all.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
> all mutated junk has already extincted.
Wrong. As the environment changes, new niches appear and others disappear,
which is why evolution is ongoing. Evolution produces change in the environment
which produces opportunities for organisms to evolve into new niches (while
others will go extinct when their niche vanishes).
> no birds or insects or whatever, whose emergence probability is as low as
> human's, and too low to coinscide with emergence of human.
So, you still don't understand probability despite the efforts of many to
educate you. Too bad for you...
>
> now look around - they are *all* here.
> - *every possible* place in our environment is actually taken,
Because organisms evolved to take advantage of them. That's what evolution is
all about.
> - *every possible* feature of this basis of life is actually implemented in
> plants and animals,
And how exactly would you know this?
> - *every possible* sense in our set of chemical elements, sound,
> electrycity, magnetic waves of all kinds is used.
> quite surprising, huh
This makes no sense whatsover.
> what is possibility of *all* of those emerge at this timespan - none -
> because *everithing possible has been implemented*,
Ditto.
> which is not just concerns the dna -
> it is a *possibility of having* say 10^50 atoms located at 10^10
> *predefined* positions
~100%, if you've got the right parents...
> in order to *take all advantages of this world*
Wrong. Humans do not take advantage of most niches.
> ok, *what are those predefined positions* ?
> this is a *key question* -
> those positions *must have been designed intelligently*
So, in other words, you're just a creationist who thought he'd thow some
numbers together with ridiculous assumptions and then pretend to be interested
in what anyone who knows better has to say about them. Why am I not surprised?
> because *there are no other ways to taking advantages of this world by
> "living organisms"*
> the rest of positions would just collapse
Baseless drivel.
Bart
John Wilkins
Stake him!
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 13 Nov 2001 18:44:35 -0500, "dmitry shilo" <sp...@spam.org> wrote:
>"Bart" <ba...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:tv182b9...@corp.supernews.com...
>> > > evolution and base your calculations on humans being the goal.
>> > >
>> >
>> > yeah, but i still can't cope with other 20 millions sometimes completely
>> > different species which perfectly fit for completelly different
>> > environments, is it a coincidence or what?
>>
>> No - they evolved to take advantage of available niches. That's the whole point
>> of evolution!
>
>lets bring some logic here.
>the evolution is *not substantial*.
What do you mean by this?
>there are just *prosaic mutations and extinctions*.
Prosaic mutations can produce novel structures and biochemical
pathways (like the polychlorophenyl degradation pathway).
>using the prosaic mutations and extinctions only those would live now:
>one cell -> one fish -> one something still unknown -> one chimp
>predecessor -> one human
Why are you assuming that evolution produces a "ladder-like"
arrangement. Ladder-like arrangements are Lamarkian, not Darwinian.
Evolution proceeds with branching, in fact, one of the earliest
diagrams in Darwins book shows multiply branching lineages. It is what
we expect from theory, as the majority of speciation is due to
geographical/ecological isolation of populations, so that one species
gives rise to two (and later those two species give rise to four
etc.). It is confirmed from fossil record, such as the Metrarabdos
lineage where we see multiple species arising and branching again to
give even more species.
>and some plants as a food. no other linages and branches at all.
No, in fact both Darwinian theory, and modern evolutionary biology
expects branches.
Think about a hypothetical organism that can live in all terrestrial
ecological niches. That generality comes at a cost for maintaining
adoptions that will not be applicable to the environment the organism
lives in. This cost will be reflected in the amount of food the
organism needs to grow. Now imagine a mutant that specializes in just
one niche. It sheds a lot of the cost of being a super generalist, and
can multiply rapidly, it will displace the generalist from the niche.
Soon you have two species where you had one. Apply this process to all
niches and you then have a landscape of multiple species. Many
bacteria where you envisage one, many fish where you envisage one,
many amphibians where you envisage one.
[here I'm ignoring neural drift, but it also plays a role in
establishing blooming, buzzing variety]
It doesn't take much, a few simple mutations will result in a unique
organism exploiting a unique resource (like the banana eating moths in
Hawaii). The riot of grasses and herbs in a prarie or meadow comes
about because each plants is exploiting a micro niche in the
environment. Each step is a small change, but all these steps add up.
>all mutated junk has already extincted.
>no birds or insects or whatever, whose emergence probability is as low as
>human's, and too low to coinscide with emergence of human.
Insect emergence occurred LONG before humans, or even mammals, and
birds. Birds preceded humans by some tens of millions of years.
>pretty dark and grey view.
And completely at variance with what evolutionary biology actually
predicts.
>now look around - they are *all* here.
>- *every possible* place in our environment is actually taken,
As would be expected from competition for survival.
>- *every possible* feature of this basis of life is actually implemented in
>plants and animals,
No. A wide set of features, but not every possible feature. Until
recently, bacteria did not have the ability to eat nylon or diesel
fuel. Not surprisingly, as until the last 40 years or so these things
were not in the environment. Now, there exist bacteria that have
evolved to eat nylon and diesel fuel. Humans are producing new
habitats rapidly, eventually these new habitats will be invaded, but
initially they are empty.
>- *every possible* sense in our set of chemical elements, sound,
>electrycity, magnetic waves of all kinds is used.
No, there are no organisms that use radar or microwaves for example,
no organisms use laser light.
>quite surprising, huh
>what is possibility of *all* of those emerge at this timespan - none -
All these "senses" exploit simple, preexisting physical properties of
matter, it's no surprise that they have been elaborated in the past
3.5 billion years. magnetotactic bacteria exploit the simple
properties of crystals of magnetite, freely available in the
environment. Nothing sophisticated is needed.
>because *everithing possible has been implemented*,
No, a large number of things have been implemented, but by no means
all.
>which is not just concerns the dna - it is a *possibility of having* say 10^50 atoms located at 10^10
>*predefined* positions in order to *take all advantages of this world*
This sentence doesn't make sense.
>ok, *what are those predefined positions* ?
Good question.
>this is a *key question* -
Yep. And your answer is?
>those positions *must have been designed intelligently*
>because *there are no other ways to taking advantages of this world by
>"living organisms"*
Logical leap here, you haven't identified these predefined positions,
let alone shown they can only be produced by intelligent intervention.
Did you know there is something like 10^68 alternative sequences for
cytochrome C alone. There seems to be no "pre-defined positions" for
cytochrome C in the sense you seem to be using. This is true for all
known enzymes and proteins.
>the rest of positions would just collapse
Alternative cytochrome C "positions" not only do not collapse, they
actually exist.
>it seams more like a big game of home-made-bio-robots is going on here.
Only if you don't understand the underlying biology. What this post
shows is you really, _really_ need to read an introductory biology
book with a good account of ecology. Mark Ridelys "Evolution",
Blackwell publishing, 1996 or Douglas Futuyamam's "Evolutionary
Biology", Sinaeur Associates. And of course, Colinvaux, P. (1980). Why
big fierce animals are rare: how the natural world works, London;
Boston; Sydney, George Allen and Unwin (Thanks John). These go into
sufficient detail to deal with these questions, which is beyond the
scope of a forum like this.
[snip]
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
No, even that approach is incorrect, as you as still formulating the
probability statement incorrectly.
>> Even worse, you are assuming that the current nucleotide differences
>> are the _only_possible_ nucleotide differences. This changes the maths
>> entirely. The vast majority of the sequence differences between humans
>> and chimps are _neutral_, that is they have no effect on the fitness
>> or function of humans or chimps. This is mostly due to the fact that a
>> large proportion of the human and chimp genome is junk, and a mutation
>
>recently it was about 10% as i heard
Where from? That's the estimate of the amount of non-junk DNA. Junk
DNA accounts for between 90-75% of the human genome.
>> in junk DNA has no effect. It is also partly due to the fact that, in
>> a given coding gene, you can change bewteen 40-60% of the gene's
>> sequence without affecting its function.
>>
>now we have reduced the number by one order of the number of the power
No, it has been reduced by many, many orders of magnitude. It is
estimated that the number of substitutions involved in the common
ancestor -> human transition is between 1,000 and 3,000, with the
lower side more likely from the latest human genome data. The rest of
the 10^7 substitutions are all in junk DNA or are neutral mutations.
>> So, take the case of a given 300 nucleotide streach of DNA, the human
>> sequence differs from the chimp by one nucleotide at position 234. The
>> probability of that you will get _exactly_ this sequence from the
>> chimp sequence by random substitutions is around one in 3x10^7. Which
>> is pretty small. But this assumes that this is the _only_ allowable
>> sequence. If this was a strech of junk DNA, the mutation could have
>> been anywhere, and its probability is effectively one.
>>
>if mutations has happend in a junk portion, the individual would still have
>the same meaningful part, so that mutation has happened in vain.
Which is the point, that vast bulk of the 1% difference between human
and chimp genomes is either mutations in junk DNA, or neutral
mutations. There are vastly fewer mutations that are responsible for
the phenotypic differences between humans and chimps, and even then,
there is more than one mutation that can bring about these changes.
>> Also, for function affecting benefical mutations, again, thete is
>> _more_ than one sequence, usually very menay sequences, that will be
>> eqivalent.
>>
>> Three points here.
>> 1) not all organisms fossilize
>> 2) most "deaths" from selection occur at the fertilized egg or early
>> embryo stage
>
>btw, as i heard the rate of mutations must have been far more higher early
>days to fit the Theory.
Where from? I've never seen such a claim anywhere in the literature.
DO you have a reference?
>if so, far less ebryos would have survive that days, which seems disastrous
>to the population.
Since it didn't happen, there's no need to worry about it.
>> 3) You are allowing only one mutation per ancestor (not a chimp),
>
>hm, but there are just several cell divisions from the fertilisations to the
>egg afaik
That's not what's relevant, there are relative few cell divisions from
the egg primordia to the egg, and there are literally billions of cell
divisions producing sperm. You yourself probably have a minimum of 3
mutations not present in your parents.
>> there are in fact many more. And you are ignoring the spread of
>> muations via sexual recombination
>>
>which imho just doubles the number of mutations happened at that stage
>anyway,
In an individual. In a population of a million individuals there will
be around 3 million new mutations each generation which get propagated
by recombination.
>argueing by numbers and math would not lead us to any decission
Then why did you start a math argument?
>by the way, your scientific opinion would be interesting on my other post to
>this thread today with a kind of logical proof
What that post shows is you really, _really_ need to read an
introductory biology book with a good account of ecology. Mark Ridelys
"Evolution", Blackwell publishing, 1996 or Douglas Futuyamam's
"Evolutionary Biology", Sinaeur Associates. These go into sufficient
detail to deal with these questions, which is beyond the scope of a
forum like this.
[snip]
Richard A. Mathers
>
> On 12 Nov 2001 22:51:00 -0500, junego...@earthlink.net (June)
> wrote:
>
> >Richard Clayton <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew Glasgow wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <9speg...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> >> > TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > "On 12 Nov 2001 15:07:25 -0500, in article
> >> > > <9spa5u$945$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> >> > > "Bobby stated..."
> >> > > >
> >> > > >In article <MPG.1659a3fdd...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, "Robt
> >> > > >Gotschall" <resta...@theend.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Hey wait!!!!! We only denied that He/She was King/Queen of the U.S.
> >> > > >> of A. Between Bush and Gates we have more then enough Kings/Queens
> >> > > >> already.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Really? I had assumed they were both straight.
> >> > >
> >> > > They are flush, but not royal.
> >> >
> >> > What a pair you two are.
> >>
> >> If you don't cut the silly puns, I'm going to deck you.
> >>
> >You're all such cards.
>
> Hey Ace, put your dues on the tray to pay for five sexes savin'
> Haight-Ashbury nigh on the tin jakes and the quince kin.
>
that only the King could do the Queen under the Union Jack
by the Tens. My but you Jokers are wild!
Ferrous Patella
Andrew Glasgow
wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
No doubt you think I can't come up with anything to trump that, eh?
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| "A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human |
| history, with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila." |
| -- Mitch Ratcliffe, Technology Review, April 1992 |
Marty Fouts
Andrew Glasgow <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> writes:
I never doubted that you could, because you're such a card.
John Wilkins
I bow ernestly before your skill. I can't take a trick in this thread.
dmitry shilo
> G'Day All
[...]
> Boston; Sydney, George Allen and Unwin (Thanks John). These go into
> sufficient detail to deal with these questions, which is beyond the
> scope of a forum like this.
>
> [snip]
> =====================================================
> Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
> reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
> Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
>
thank you very much.
i have to make some research on some things that i've heard today for the
first time as well as the books, but only to absorb them and conform them to
other yet more weighty arguments that i've got in reserve, hopefully will
get back here soon. :)
Best regards,
dmitry
Andrew Glasgow
wrote:
^^^^^
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Ace, put your dues on the tray to pay for five sexes savin'
> > > > > > Haight-Ashbury nigh on the tin jakes and the quince kin.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > That ante even possible!
> > > >
> > > > I'll bet.
> > >
> > > Stake him!
> >
> > No doubt you think I can't come up with anything to trump that, eh?
> >
> I never doubted that you could, because you're such a card.
^^^^
Don't tell me you're folding on this cascade already!
Andrew Glasgow
wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
That bid to fool me won't work, you cur!
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| "The ordinary telegraph is like a very long cat. You pull the |
| tail in New York, and it meows in Los Angeles. The wireless is |
| the same, only without the cat." -- Albert Einstein |
John Wilkins
He was just bluffing.
Christopher Peters
I knew someone would have dealt with the possibility of a
pun being repeated.
>--
>| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
>| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
>| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
>| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
>
--
Chris Peters (cpe...@TheWorld.com)
"Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer." -- Voltaire
("If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.")
Marty Fouts
Andrew Glasgow <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> writes:
I got distracted by a queen in the club, you joker.
Marty Fouts
If you don't be good I'll have to take two clubs to you.
dmitry shilo
news:3bf055fd...@news.netcomuk.co.uk...
> On 11 Nov 2001 17:10:24 -0500, dsh...@medchat.com (denis shilo) wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> I have posted a similar calculation before, yes folks, it's boojumase
> again. This is a slightly changed version which incorporates the
> results of some computer modelling I did, see section 7. The
> modelling indicate that my calculations are pessimistic by less than
> 2%.
>
> rossum
>[...]
> Drawing up the first three mutations in tables:
>
> Mutation 1 (Year 4000) Mutation 2 (8000) Mutation 3 (12000)
>
> D = 5% DD = 5% x 5% DDD = 5% x 5% x 5%
> B = 95% DB = 5% x 95% DDB = 5% x 5% x 95%
> BD = 95% x 6% DBD = 5% x 95% x 6%
> BB = 95% x 94% DBB = 5% x 95% x 94%
> BDD = 95% x 6% x 6%
> BDB = 95% x 6% x 94%
> BBD = 95% x 94% x 7%
> BBB = 95% x 94% x 93%
> [...]
looks pretty realistic, but to find where is the trick one has to be
familiar with amino acids (as it supposed to be actualy as to argue with it
:) )
in the other hand, finally i got the logic of benefical mutations and
multiplications, it's like a pack of cards thrown to the floor and we turn
cards randomly so as to see pictures of all cards.
but, actually there are more longer sequences in reality and even turning
each element one by one to the right positions - 3 billion nucleotide
bases - 3 billion years - much faster in the beginning (smaller organisms -
more organisms) - but far more slowly near the end (small populations) - it
still seems a bit hardly to accomplish, as well for us - latest organisms -
to calculate :)
Regards
dmitry shilo
"Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au> wrote
in message news:+NrxO2ByfVzb9kR0=C+Mtu...@4ax.com...
> All these "senses" exploit simple, preexisting physical properties of
> matter, it's no surprise that they have been elaborated in the past
> 3.5 billion years. magnetotactic bacteria exploit the simple
> properties of crystals of magnetite, freely available in the
> environment. Nothing sophisticated is needed.
>
we actually cannot say "nothing sophisticated" without understanding how it
works.
we still wondering how birds orient themselves using magnetic fields, how
the ear hear with that selectivity and tuning, how does the cell work in
details, and how all these are formed from the dna.
Regards
June
[snip]
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> Hey wait!!!!! We only denied that He/She was
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> King/Queen of the U.S. of A. Between Bush and
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> Gates we have more then enough Kings/Queens
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> already.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >Really? I had assumed they were both straight.
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > They are flush, but not royal.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > What a pair you two are.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> If you don't cut the silly puns, I'm going to deck
> > > > > > > > >> you.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >You're all such cards.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hey Ace, put your dues on the tray to pay for five sexes
> > > > > > > > savin' Haight-Ashbury nigh on the tin jakes and the quince
> > > > > > > > kin.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That ante even possible!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll bet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Stake him!
> > > >
> > > > No doubt you think I can't come up with anything to trump that, eh?
> > >
> > > I bow ernestly before your skill. I can't take a trick in this
> > > thread.
> >
> > That bid to fool me won't work, you cur!
>
> If you don't be good I'll have to take two clubs to you.
I bet you're going to poker up on us now.
--
June
Andrew Glasgow
wrote:
> Andrew Glasgow <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> writes:
Let's call a spade a spade, I say.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
|"It is quite obvious that, like a trite archetype of the "scumbag lawyer", |
|Johnson thinks he can force reality to conform to his wishes by out-debating|
|everyone who disagrees. Reality is unimpressed. -- Eric Gill in talk.origins|
Marty Fouts
Andrew Glasgow <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> writes:
I always knew you were a diamond in the ruff.
Richard Harter
wrote:
Have your heard about Peaches LaRue (pride and glory of the Golden
West Saloon)? She had a party with three lumberjacks, two of whom had
lost their left eye. She went wild with the one-eyed jacks and the
man with the axe.
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 14 Nov 2001 22:34:23 -0500, "dmitry shilo" <sp...@spam.org> wrote:
>
>"Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au> wrote
>in message news:+NrxO2ByfVzb9kR0=C+Mtu...@4ax.com...
>>[...]
>> All these "senses" exploit simple, preexisting physical properties of
>> matter, it's no surprise that they have been elaborated in the past
>> 3.5 billion years. magnetotactic bacteria exploit the simple
>> properties of crystals of magnetite, freely available in the
>> environment. Nothing sophisticated is needed.
>>
>sorry, cannot leave this unanswered.
>we actually cannot say "nothing sophisticated" without understanding how it
>works.
And as we do understand this reasonably well, this is not a problem
>we still wondering how birds orient themselves using magnetic fields,
No, we aren't. They use a version of the magnetotactic bacteria's
trick. Particles of magnetite which brush up against hair cells in
particular orientations. Nothing magic.
>how the ear hear with that selectivity and tuning,
I refer you to Kandel, Schwartz and Jessel, "Principals of Neural
Science" Part 5, section 32 starting page 481 for more detail than you
wish to know :-)
>how does the cell work in details,
We don't have all the details, but we know enough of the broad
outline. Good enough to design new drug therapies de novo (like the
anticancer drug Glivec/Gleevec).
>and how all these are formed from the dna.
Watson, "Molecular Biology of the Gene" is a good starter, and perhaps
Dr. Myeres will chip in with a good developmental biology text.
Cheers! Ian
Robt Gotschall
says...
Thanks for dealing me out this thing anyway.
rg
Leonid Meteor shower 17 & 18 Nov.
rossum
Remember that all genes in the organism are evolving at the same time.
It would be quite possible for a number of proteins to all evolve in
the same two million year period.
If we think of the calculation in terms of generations, rather than
years then the timescale also compresses. As you point out, single
cells generally have a faster generation time than anything
multi-cellular.
On a back of the envelope calculation I reckon that there are about
2e13 generations in our ancestry. That will allow an awful lot of
evolution to go on.
rossum
Andrew Glasgow
wrote:
Ah, hit the road, Jack.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| "Basically my wife was immature. I'd be at home in the bath and she'd come |
| in and sink my boats." -- Woody Allen |
Andrew Glasgow
Robt Gotschall <resta...@theend.com> wrote:
Great, now my shirt has a tear -- oh!
Andrew Glasgow
wrote:
Indeed, I've been a hit for 21 years...
Richard Harter
<amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
These puns are very heavy; some weigh but a single ton and others a
double ton.
Wade Hines
That makes me want to void, pass me a trey.
Richard Harter
I'm game for that if you don't slam me. I'm game for spades, I'm game
for hearts but I'm not game for diamonds or clubs.
Wade Hines
Richard Harter wrote:
>
> On 17 Nov 2001 13:41:20 -0500, Wade Hines <wade....@rcn.com> wrote:
> I'm game for that if you don't slam me. I'm game for spades, I'm game
> for hearts but I'm not game for diamonds or clubs.
Now I'm redoubled in pain but is all this point scoring above board?
Richard Harter
Nah, it's all below the line which is why there are no honors in this
cascade.
Wade Hines
Richard Harter wrote:
> Nah, it's all below the line which is why there are no honors in this
> cascade.
The Cascades are too cold right now so I'm off to Bermuda for a bowl,
perhaps Gin or something Rummy.
Martin Musatov
> "TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:9skik...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > "On 10 Nov 2001 16:45:50 -0500, in article
> <tur8085...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Bart" stated..."
> > >
> > >"dmitry shilo" <sp...@spam.org> wrote in message
> > >news:9sjup4$rr1$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> > >> - the probability of emergence of the human DNA randomly "evolved" from
> the
> > >> chimp DNA is 1/(4^(3*10^9 * 0.01)) = 1/(4^(3*10^7)), omitting that
> changes
> > >> also occur in other 99%
> > >
> > >
> > >The probability that humans evolved from chimps is essentially zero. And
> no
> > >evolutionist believes that, BTW. Early primates evolved into chimps and
> humans.
> > >These calculations don't make any sense because it assumes that creating
> humans
> > >was a goal. It was not. Pre-human primates mutated and the mutations
> created
> > >new species. One of them just happened to be humans. The calculations
> above
> > >would be akin to someone winning the lottery and claiming that it was a
> miracle.
> > [...snip...]
> >
> > Here's another way of looking at it.
> >
> > Suppose we set out to examine the probability that a given person,
> > some one individual now living, would actually exist. Let's take the
> > example of Queen Elizabeth of the UK. What is the probability that
> > she would have been born?
> >
> [...]
> > that QE of UK had a grand total of something like 100x160=16,000
> > ancestors (back to 2000 BCE), with a probability that each of
> > them survive to maturity of 1/2. That means that the probability,
> > on this *very* conservative estimate, that QE of UK would be born,
> > as something like .5 ^ 16,000 ... approximately 1 chance in
> > 10^480.
> >
> > And, as a final flourish, this extremely slim probability is
> > true of each of the 6 billion people on earth today.
> >
> > Each one of us, simply by virtue of being born, is the winner
> > of a mammothly improbable lottery.
> >
> > Tom S.
> >
>
> You are right.
> But isn't it strange in that case that all of 6 billion are actually 100%
> humans outside and inside,
> and their DNA replication facilities, which are common to other species,
> takes every possible step to preserve the original vital code intact. It
> seems that evolutionists just fighting with creationists trying to turn them
> to the science, instead of the greatest misleading story of "god". Yes,
> Darwin have done a great job to figure out that all species were "evolved"
> gradually, but this is the way things are developed usually, especially with
> that enormous complexity. There are some species, which have obvious
> superfluous and complicated design features, like a fish which compensate a
> light falling on it from top by lighting a photophores at the bottom, and
> has a reflecting surfaces on it's sides, so it stays completely invisible
> all the time (BBC "Blue Planet"). So the next step would be finding of
> "developers", i suppose 8)
I hope this break it break it is the proof NOR or it is the proof:
If you are ugly in flesh
and ugly in spirit God loves you most
and loves you less if you are ugly in flesh
and beautiful in spirit
He hates you not least who are beautiful in spirit
and beautiful in flesh
He hates you most who are beautiful in flesh
and ugly in spirit
For if you are beautiful in flesh
Be not ugly in your Spirit or God will hate you
But even if you are ugly in flesh and beautiful in spirit
Know not will God love you most
God will always you less than his children who are ugly in spirit
But will love you more if you were ugly in flesh
He will hate you less if you were not beautiful in spirit
He will love you more if you were ugliest of all flesh spirit
He will be realistic to they who doubt you
He will fill them with faith your spirit is beautiful with him
Even if your flesh is ugly and your spirit is ugly it will not always be this way with Spirit
What was with flesh the worst of what was held apart from God like dirty feet from these Father
Who is called the Son of God
He is my Father is your Father perfect in heaven
His was is the God was the God he was not as his son on the earth
But only after he killed his Son did God make his Son a perfect father in heaven
To they who are not the son of the Son of God never are they his father God
Whether are alive in the earth or died before or after his son who was called son
Of the Father was called the God in heaven and over the Earth as his God the Father
The Father who is mine was not the God is not the God is the Father who was his son
Called the Son of God who is my Father Jesus
He is the Son of God who became my Father and his Father is the God and was the God
Forever His Father is the God who is the Father of my Father in the heaven
He was not always a Father first he was son of God the Father
God the Father killed him his Son in the earth and raised my Father
Who was the Son of God is the Son of God in heaven has now a Son in the earth
Zion is city read I in book called New Jerusalem
If you are afraid be brave know not fear of Israel
Nor of the Jews for my Father is one of them
Though I am Gentile called His Son in the earth
I still not scared of him so much in heaven
More I scared of him on earth
When I can't tell if he is the Father who is the God
Or who is the Father was the God is not my Father is the God
That is when I get scared
I have to remind myself who is the Father was always the father
Even if he is God was the God of the Son of the Father
Not a Jew he is scared he is a Gentile and they fight over him
He doesn't want to be a son of Jew or a Gentile but he is afraid God made him this way
This is not the way the Son of the Father who was the Son God I am judges best
Cause I can't tell if it is my judgment as his son who was the son is the Father not God
But maybe it is just the will of God and the will of his Father who want go on Forever
The Son of God is my Father one in the name of his friend called me Christ once
Mark was his name I worked with him and I still do kind of consider him a friend
I don't know if he is my Father's friend just cause he has his name or not or says things under breath scare me
One time Daniel sent me mini-miracle in Javascript on computer when I was on company computer at Cisco could have been other scripting language I was just guessing
I was praying to God said I am sorry I just wanted a friend and up on my computer screen
Little tiny note popped up on looked like computer paper said Your friend, Daniel
One time I was on train underground called subway not the sandwich shop
Saw I saw some kids walking ahead of me going into the tunnel underground to get on the train
Kept jumping up the boy and his friends one was girl but boy jumped up touch Exit sign illuminated reminded me of school
At night but his friends who were with him kept turning around and kind of snarling really fast like demons or angels
And calling me Satan
Then I got on the subway and sat behind them cause I was not scared
It was like God was telling me just listen to them but don't look at them exactly
So I looked the mirrored reflection as the train raced down the tunnel beneath Los Angeles from Hollywood
Sunset and Vine street station red line don't remember what direction was I going but think of probably downtown
All I heard was kids talking and said something sounded like and I am kind of bit paraphrase,
'Whoa did you see J race up all those stairs to stack the chairs for the wedding. He ran up all the stairs to Mecca'.
I was not so impressed with that but their images who in my sight looked like they were playing funny cool fast games,
not disturbing like in horror just captivating I guess you could call them.
And the moment before they all jumped up it was like they ran some sort of interference,
while one of them was doing something on the train like a surprise for me maybe.
Then when they jumped the train, I saw a big movie poster for TV show called one sheet
Can't remember the title of show
But was cop with girl who was maybe undercover or civilian partner smile pretty with boyfriend
And I read in perfectly erased right out of the place where the young boy stood where I couldn't look at it
as he as his friends raced off the tunnel off the train.
I got up to almost follow them, but looked at poster and it was perfectly erased part words,
like when you take an eraser from a pencil and write on a poster like a glossy book cover at school.
You can see all the colored ink gets white from the glossy paper and is like an erase magic special marker.
Here is I read I am disclosing the last name though I wonder about it ethical:
It said, 'This is the point at gun down. With you is a man, a woman, a people. Her name unknown. My name Daniel Radkin'. Sorry if exact single quotes not best choice.
I immediately went to my special hang out called Internet Cafe to do some swift research on Internet.
A quick search through my special revealed a man named NOT Daniel Radkin was some type of Anthropology college professor I thought I had researched when writing about this after first time,
of whom I could not find much information. I am going to go to see if I can find and report back more specifics.
Hold on, please... Oh, it is not Radkin, I said his name wrong, I remember now because I was thinking cool family,
like Rad Kin, but now remember after reconfirming search it was Rankin
Here is link to .pdf file report like digital paper on what I found might be him:
Man called NOT Daniel Radkin wrote article on Simple Maths for a perplexing world under name Daniel J. Rankin.
Funny when you think of J running up steps thought I heard it coincidence didn't realize it til just now.
Still looking of Anthropology previous reference thought I found, hold on please...
I found it pretty sure is referring to guy in first link I thought I found...
http://londonevolutionarynetwork.wordpress.com/category/study-groups/
It is confirmed http://xcelab.net/rmpubs/Rankin_2007_Simple_maths.pdf
I think this him:
http://www.socialgenes.org/people/rankin.html Her name is Martin, fyi
Öö Tiib
> >"Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au> wrote
> >> Even worse, you are assuming that the current nucleotide differences
> >> are the _only_possible_ nucleotide differences. This changes the maths
> >> entirely. The vast majority of the sequence differences between humans
> >> and chimps are _neutral_, that is they have no effect on the fitness
> >> or function of humans or chimps. This is mostly due to the fact that a
> >> large proportion of the human and chimp genome is junk, and a mutation
> >
> >recently it was about 10% as i heard
>
> Where from? That's the estimate of the amount of non-junk DNA. Junk
> DNA accounts for between 90-75% of the human genome.
Both the numbers seem strange. I most often read such numbers:
About 80% of human genome is biochemically active and does something.
About 20% of human genome regulates activity of genome that makes proteins.
2% of human genome encodes proteins.
For example take random that google spits out:
http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/
So actual amount of trash, junk and garbage in human genome is somewhere
between 20%-78%. Not exact enough percentages to make deep mathematical
studies here.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>
>> Where from? That's the estimate of the amount of non-junk DNA. Junk
>> DNA accounts for between 90-75% of the human genome.
>
> Both the numbers seem strange. I most often read such numbers:
>
> About 80% of human genome is biochemically active and does something.
--
athel
Roger Shrubber
the idea that it it is involved in any of a number of bichemical
reactions, it is functional. So if DNA binding proteins bind to
a region in the genome with some reasonably high specificity
(with the bar set fairly low) that was taken to be functional.
Similarly, if there was any level of tissue specific transcription
that was taken to be functional. This seems to appeal to
lesser biochemists who don't think about the fact that you
fully expect systems like transcription to be leaky.
Put another way, if they could detect that a region of the
genome took part in a biochemical reaction that had some sense
of specificity to it, they declared it to be functional
despite the known fact that such reactions occur frequently
with no detectable consequence to a cell or tissue.
Öö Tiib
of some scientists are not convincing to other scientists then there is
apparent dispute and so I as mere engineer have to accept that scientists
do not know how many junk DNA there is in human genome.
Robert Carnegie
further progress in genetics since then.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> On Wednesday, 9 April 2014 21:36:29 UTC+3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2014-04-09 17:07:41 +0000, 嘱 Tiib said:
>>>>
>>>> Where from? That's the estimate of the amount of non-junk DNA. Junk
>>>> DNA accounts for between 90-75% of the human genome.
>>>
>>> Both the numbers seem strange. I most often read such numbers:
>>>
>>> About 80% of human genome is biochemically active and does something.
>>
>> I don't think many biochemists not involved in the ENCODE project think that.
>
> Those are biochemists and others are biochemists. If the conclusions
> of some scientists are not convincing to other scientists
that there is a controversy among scientists about the reality of
evolution. Yes, they can find some "mere engineers" (your term) who
will agree that a controversy exists, but it's extremely hard to find
any biologists who will agree. If a mechanical engineer tells me that
there is something seriously wrong with the train I'm travelling in,
and a representative of the train company says that everything is OK,
which opinion am I, a mere biochemist, more likely to believe?
> then there is
> apparent dispute and so I as mere engineer have to accept that scientists
> do not know how many junk DNA there is in human genome.
major financial stake in their claims, but virtually no other
biochemists accept them. Have a look at Dan Graur's blog ("Judge
Starling").
--
athel
eridanus
> "dmitry shilo" <sp...@spam.org> wrote in message
> news:9sjup4$rr1$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> > - the probability of emergence of the human DNA randomly "evolved" from the
> > chimp DNA is 1/(4^(3*10^9 * 0.01)) = 1/(4^(3*10^7)), omitting that changes
> > also occur in other 99%
>
>
> The probability that humans evolved from chimps is essentially zero. And no
> evolutionist believes that, BTW. Early primates evolved into chimps and humans.
> These calculations don't make any sense because it assumes that creating humans
> was a goal. It was not. Pre-human primates mutated and the mutations created
> new species. One of them just happened to be humans. The calculations above
> would be akin to someone winning the lottery and claiming that it was a miracle.
>
> 2*10^-2 -it's 2% not 1%). And mutations don't tend to happen to base pairs one
> at a time - they come in largish batches. So, 6^(10^7) is the *largest* possible
> number of mutations required. In reality, that number would be orders of
> magnitude smaller.
And there is not any need that those mutations would occur all at once.
Just a series of small mutations would be able to occur much easily, and
after a time of a few million years there it is something like a primitive
human some 5 or 6 millions years ago. But the process could had started
much earlier. But even them, we cannot "resurrect" the DNA of a primitive
man from 6 million years ago to see how many mutations had occurred since
that time to the present. Or even, closer to our time, what could be
the difference between the DNA of Neanderthals and ours at present.
Or put it more simple, what is the average difference in small mutations
between actual humans, and what is the standard deviation in regard to
the average.
Eri
>
> > - now let's say one wasted chimp takes 1 cubic centimeter as a fossil, then
> > the total volume of all transitional chimps would be about 4^(3*10^7 - 14)
> > cubic meters
>
> Aside from the basic problem with the numbers provided, the vast majority of
> animals don't create fossils. A centimeter would be an extremely high estimate.
> A fossil requires very rare conditions to form - an organism essentially has to
> win the lottery. Not to mention the fact that the Earth's crust erodes and
> melts...
>
>
> > - t
> he radius of the Earth would be now about 4^((3*10^7 - 14)/3) which is
> > about 10^(10^3) meters, this is wrong, the radius of the visible universe is
> > 10^23 meters, where is the trick, besides there are 2*10^6 more species
> > around
>
> Providing a gigantic clue that this reasoning is horribly flawed...
>
>
> Bart
Öö Tiib
> On 2014-04-09 20:18:35 +0000, 嘱 Tiib said:
> > On Wednesday, 9 April 2014 21:36:29 UTC+3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2014-04-09 17:07:41 +0000, 嘱 Tiib said:
> >>>>
> >>>> Where from? That's the estimate of the amount of non-junk DNA. Junk
> >>>> DNA accounts for between 90-75% of the human genome.
> >>>
> >>> Both the numbers seem strange. I most often read such numbers:
> >>>
> >>> About 80% of human genome is biochemically active and does something.
> >>
> >> I don't think many biochemists not involved in the ENCODE project think that.
> >
> > Those are biochemists and others are biochemists. If the conclusions
> > of some scientists are not convincing to other scientists
>
> That is always true, and means no more than the creationists' pretence
> that there is a controversy among scientists about the reality of
> evolution.
mathematics and engineering ... if something works then it is real. It
is unclear why it should not be same in biology.
> Yes, they can find some "mere engineers" (your term) who
> will agree that a controversy exists, but it's extremely hard to find
> any biologists who will agree. If a mechanical engineer tells me that
> there is something seriously wrong with the train I'm travelling in,
> and a representative of the train company says that everything is OK,
> which opinion am I, a mere biochemist, more likely to believe?
people who are motivated to lie.
> > then there is
> > apparent dispute and so I as mere engineer have to accept that scientists
> > do not know how many junk DNA there is in human genome.
>
> I think you miss my point. People involved in the ENCODE project have a
> major financial stake in their claims, but virtually no other
> biochemists accept them. Have a look at Dan Graur's blog ("Judge
> Starling").
Why the others do not accept them? For example human-made Google
Chrome web browser is about 10 millions lines of source code. So ...
if the evolved nanotechnological program of building a human
consists of 20 Mbp then that feels bit too simple even if to compare
with stupid web browser. ;-)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> [ … ]
> That is always true, and means no more than the creationists' pretence
>> that there is a controversy among scientists about the reality of
>> evolution.
>
> You mean evolution in biology?
> [ … ]
>> Yes, they can find some "mere engineers" (your term) who
>> will agree that a controversy exists, but it's extremely hard to find
>> any biologists who will agree. If a mechanical engineer tells me that
>> there is something seriously wrong with the train I'm travelling in,
>> and a representative of the train company says that everything is OK,
>> which opinion am I, a mere biochemist, more likely to believe?
>
> Most rational is to trust neutral specialists. It is dangerous to trust
> people who are motivated to lie.
getting journalists and politicians to believe what they say. If that
isn't "motivated to lie" I don't know what is. Actually I'm not sure
that they're lying in the conventional sense; it's more that they have
a strong interest in fooling themselves. As Peter Medawar said of The
Phenomenon of Man, "its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the
grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to
deceive himself."
> --
athel