Evidence for Big Leaps?
michael...@worldnet.att.net
July 07, 2006
An Evolution Saga: Beach Mice Mutate and Survive
It's a pitiless lesson-adapt or die-but the sand-colored mice that
scurry around the beaches of Florida's Gulf Coast seem to have learned
the lesson well. Now researchers have identified a genetic mutation
that underlies natural selection for the sand-matching coat color of
the beach mice, an adaptive trait that camouflages them from aerial
predators.
In the July 7, 2006, issue of the journal Science, evolutionary
geneticist Hopi Hoekstra and colleagues at the University of
California, San Diego, report that a single mutation causes the
lifesaving color variation in beach mice (Peromyscus polionotus) and
provides evidence that evolution can occur in big leaps.
"This is a striking example of how protein-coding changes can play a
role in adaptation and divergence in populations, and ultimately
species."
Hopi Hoekstra
The Gulf Coast barrier islands of Florida and Alabama where the beach
mice are found are less than 6,000 years old-quite young from an
evolutionary standpoint. Hoekstra said that the identification of a
single mutation that contributes to the color change that has arisen in
these animals argues for a model of evolution in which populations
diverge in big steps.
This model, in which change is driven by large effects produced by
individual mutations, contrasts with a popular model that sees
populations diverging via small changes accumulated over long periods
of time.
Inez
michael...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> July 07, 2006
> An Evolution Saga: Beach Mice Mutate and Survive
>
> It's a pitiless lesson-adapt or die-but the sand-colored mice that
> scurry around the beaches of Florida's Gulf Coast seem to have learned
> the lesson well. Now researchers have identified a genetic mutation
> that underlies natural selection for the sand-matching coat color of
> the beach mice, an adaptive trait that camouflages them from aerial
> predators.
>
> In the July 7, 2006, issue of the journal Science, evolutionary
> geneticist Hopi Hoekstra and colleagues at the University of
> California, San Diego, report that a single mutation causes the
> lifesaving color variation in beach mice (Peromyscus polionotus) and
> provides evidence that evolution can occur in big leaps.
>
hair has gone from blonde to red and back to blonde again.
R Brown
<michael...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:1152221804.5...@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
gives birth to a cat."
bullpup
<Obligatory creationist dismissal>
1 But it's still a mouse!
2 Moths, mice, same difference, big deal!
3 All mutations are bad! (But the mutation increases the probability of
sucessful reproduction.) All mutatons are bad!
4 (Stuffs head up arse) <muffled mumbling> I can't hear you!</muffled
mumbling>
5 The genetic information for sand covered fur was always there!
6 So, where's the new and novel structure requred for proof of evolution?
Mice already had hair to begin with!
7 <Nashty-poop> So, how does that same anyone's life? </Nashty-poop>
8 <nando> Who owns the decision point of the chance if the mutation where
things could go one way or the other, why didn't spiritual love appear in
the research? It's nothing but secular propaganda because it doesn't make
me feel *special*!</nando>
9 It was designed that way!
10 <ave> What does a different color of hare have to do with beach mice?
</ave>
11 <ed> I have a rock shaped like a mouse penis for sale on eBay, and it's
five feet long!</ed>
12 <McNameless> Ron Wyatt found the Ark shaped rock, and since they said the
islands were only about 6000 years old, that proves it Wyatt Ark is *the*
Ark!</McNameless>
</Obligatory creationist dismissal>
Boikat
michael...@worldnet.att.net
bullpup wrote:
>
>[snip]
<Obligatory creationist dismissal>
>
> Boikat
There is a picture with the original article, so we can add:
It's obviously a stuffed mouse that has been spray-painted with Glidden
interior enamel.
-- Mike Palmer
Desertphile
> July 07, 2006
> An Evolution Saga: Beach Mice Mutate and Survive
>
> It's a pitiless lesson-adapt or die-but the sand-colored mice that
> scurry around the beaches of Florida's Gulf Coast seem to have learned
> the lesson well. Now researchers have identified a genetic mutation
> that underlies natural selection for the sand-matching coat color of
> the beach mice, an adaptive trait that camouflages them from aerial
> predators.
Yes, but they are STILL moths!
Oh, wait. That's a different argument.
> In the July 7, 2006, issue of the journal Science, evolutionary
> geneticist Hopi Hoekstra and colleagues at the University of
"Hopi Hoekstra?!" What a great name!
> California, San Diego, report that a single mutation causes the
> lifesaving color variation in beach mice (Peromyscus polionotus) and
> provides evidence that evolution can occur in big leaps.
Note that it is also a single gene in humans that controls skin color.
Desertphile
Awww hell: you beat me to it.
> 3 All mutations are bad! (But the mutation increases the probability of
> sucessful reproduction.) All mutatons are bad!
3b "It was a loss of information that made the mice sand-colored."
> 4 (Stuffs head up arse) <muffled mumbling> I can't hear you!</muffled
> mumbling>
That's 90% of Creationists right there.
> 5 The genetic information for sand covered fur was always there!
5b "It survived the flood in Noah's sister-in-law, along with
gonorrhea, tuberculosis, and Mycobacterium leprae!"
> 6 So, where's the new and novel structure requred for proof of evolution?
> Mice already had hair to begin with!
Hee! That's a good 'un.
> 7 <Nashty-poop> So, how does that [save] anyone's life? </Nashty-poop>
7b "And duz the mice wan' fries wid' 'dat?"
> 8 <nando> Who owns the decision point of the chance if the mutation where
> things could go one way or the other, why didn't spiritual love appear in
> the research? It's nothing but secular propaganda because it doesn't make
> me feel *special*!</nando>
Wow. You got him down pat!
> 9 It was designed that way!
>
> 10 <ave> What does a different color of hare have to do with beach mice?
> </ave>
>
> 11 <ed> I have a rock shaped like a mouse penis for sale on eBay, and it's
> five feet long!</ed>
11b "That wasn't a mouse: it was Bill Clinton."
> 12 <McNameless> Ron Wyatt found the Ark shaped rock, and since they said the
> islands were only about 6000 years old, that proves it Wyatt Ark is *the*
> Ark!</McNameless>
13 <Ray Martinez>I'm writing a research paper on these mice right now
proving they did not evolve and are not brown and actually have six
legs and I'll publish this research paper in April.</Ray Martinez>
> </Obligatory creationist dismissal>
>
> Boikat
Nic
Not bad for a single mutation though. Does anyone know how many loci
are different for the Manchester moths?
David Wilson
July 6th in talk.origins michael...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> bullpup wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> <Obligatory creationist dismissal>
> >
> > Boikat
>
> There is a picture with the original article, ...
It was faked by gluing dead mice to the tree trunks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
David Wilson
SPAMMERS_fingers@WILL_BE_fwi_PROSECUTED_.net.au
(Remove underlines and upper case letters to obtain my email address.)
Kermit
>
> <Obligatory creationist dismissal>
>
> 1 But it's still a mouse!
>
> 2 Moths, mice, same difference, big deal!
>
> 3 All mutations are bad! (But the mutation increases the probability of
> sucessful reproduction.) All mutatons are bad!
>
> 4 (Stuffs head up arse) <muffled mumbling> I can't hear you!</muffled
> mumbling>
>
> 5 The genetic information for sand covered fur was always there!
>
> 6 So, where's the new and novel structure requred for proof of evolution?
> Mice already had hair to begin with!
>
> 7 <Nashty-poop> So, how does that same anyone's life? </Nashty-poop>
>
> 8 <nando> Who owns the decision point of the chance if the mutation where
> things could go one way or the other, why didn't spiritual love appear in
> the research? It's nothing but secular propaganda because it doesn't make
> me feel *special*!</nando>
>
> 9 It was designed that way!
>
> 10 <ave> What does a different color of hare have to do with beach mice?
> </ave>
>
> 11 <ed> I have a rock shaped like a mouse penis for sale on eBay, and it's
> five feet long!</ed>
>
> 12 <McNameless> Ron Wyatt found the Ark shaped rock, and since they said the
> islands were only about 6000 years old, that proves it Wyatt Ark is *the*
> Ark!</McNameless>
>
> </Obligatory creationist dismissal>
>
14 <robin> I have posted here many times, trying to be fair and
explaining that I embrace many possibilites, but the Creationists are
upset. While it's true that Darwin didn't disown the racist
implications in his books, he really didn't do worse than many of his
contemporaries, and the English gentlemen were hard pressed to explain
themselves in any event. I think there are many possibilities in
evolutionism, just as there are in the glory of True Christian love. I
wish you people could consider the possibility that God used evolution
to accomplish his goal, that science is not necesarily unrighteous, and
Darwin, while unwitting and flawed, was his spokesman on this issue.
Compare Darwin's racism to Thomas Merton's "Seven Storey Mountain", and
see how science could be. </robin>
> Boikat
Kermit
Dwib
> July 07, 2006
> An Evolution Saga: Beach Mice Mutate and Survive
> It's a pitiless lesson-adapt or die-but the sand-colored mice that
> scurry around the beaches of Florida's Gulf Coast seem to have learned
> the lesson well. Now researchers have identified a genetic mutation
> that underlies natural selection for the sand-matching coat color of
> the beach mice, an adaptive trait that camouflages them from aerial
> predators.
This sounds more like an example of "survival of the fittest".
I mean, it's not like "the mice adapted a new hair color". The hair
color was selected because those mice survived predation.
Perhaps I'm splitting hairs.
Dwib
hersheyhv
Life's a beach and if you are the wrong color, you die.
>
> More at:
> http://www.hhmi.org/news/hoekstra20060707.html
TCE
15 <topmind> This is exactly what SETI can't prove and I've been
telling you that all along. Those mice were genetically altered by
alien spores easily found by generic pattern searching based on an
algorithm I don't understand. It also proves you're all part of a
conspiracy to suppress the true nature of the universe. Talk about
calling the camel a pot. </topmind>
---
Strange
nightlight
> Now researchers have identified a genetic mutation
> that underlies natural selection for the sand-matching
> coat color of the beach mice, an adaptive trait that
> camouflages them from aerial predators....
It doesn't appear they have shown that the mutation
was _random_. They only found a variant of a gene
which is responsible for the lighter color.
a) If the given population size for a given time can
produce altogether N mutations for all individuals,
b) and if there are total of T theoretically possible
mutations at a comparable distance from the baseline
mice genome as the Mc1r mutation they found,
then the probability that this mutation will happen by
chance at least once in these N available tries is:
P(N,T) = 1 - (1-1/T)^N ~ 1 - exp(-N/T) ... (1)
For small values of N/T this is approximately:
P(N,T) ~ N/T ... (2)
(If there are F favorable color mutations among T, then
N/T in (2) would be multiplied by F. That refinement is
irrelevant for the point being made below.)
I don't see in the article any hint of estimates for P(N,T)
in order to establish what are the odds that a _random_ mutation
can "find" the right solution (any of the F favorable color mutations)
in the given number of tries N.
They need to estimate P(N,T), then show that P(N,T) is fairly
high e.g. 50% or above in order to claim that neo-Darwinian model
(ND = RM + NS = Random Mutation + Natural Selection) has better
than 50% chance of producing this adaptation. Otherwise,
what is left is guided (intelligent) mutation.
Hence, this particular discovery as it stands, seems at
least as favorable to ID = IM + NS as to ND = RM + NS,
since all they have shown is the existence of M + NS,
a fact consistent with ID and ND models of evolution.
Windy
nightlight wrote:
> michael...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > Now researchers have identified a genetic mutation
> > that underlies natural selection for the sand-matching
> > coat color of the beach mice, an adaptive trait that
> > camouflages them from aerial predators....
>
> It doesn't appear they have shown that the mutation
> was _random_. They only found a variant of a gene
> which is responsible for the lighter color.
>
> a) If the given population size for a given time can
> produce altogether N mutations for all individuals,
>
> b) and if there are total of T theoretically possible
> mutations at a comparable distance from the baseline
> mice genome as the Mc1r mutation they found,
Ooo, fancy words. What is this "baseline mice genome"? Are the baseline
mice kept in a vault somewhere for comparisons?
> then the probability that this mutation will happen by
> chance at least once in these N available tries is:
>
> P(N,T) = 1 - (1-1/T)^N ~ 1 - exp(-N/T) ... (1)
>
> For small values of N/T this is approximately:
>
> P(N,T) ~ N/T ... (2)
No, the possibility of independent events (T) does not bring down the
probability of a given nucleotide from mutating, moron.
> They need to estimate P(N,T), then show that P(N,T) is fairly
> high e.g. 50% or above in order to claim that neo-Darwinian model
> (ND = RM + NS = Random Mutation + Natural Selection) has better
> than 50% chance of producing this adaptation. Otherwise,
> what is left is guided (intelligent) mutation.
The goalposts are moving in a completely new direction, I'll give you
that.
> Hence, this particular discovery as it stands, seems at
> least as favorable to ID = IM + NS as to ND = RM + NS,
> since all they have shown is the existence of M + NS,
> a fact consistent with ID and ND models of evolution.
So the designer actively intervened in the evolution of these mice
during the last 6000 years? Interesting.... how, exactly?
-- w.
nightlight
>
>>a) If the given population size for a given time can
>> produce altogether N mutations for all individuals,
>>
>>b) and if there are total of T theoretically possible
>> mutations at a comparable distance from the baseline
>> mice genome as the Mc1r mutation they found,
>
>
> Ooo, fancy words. What is this "baseline mice genome"? Are the baseline
> mice kept in a vault somewhere for comparisons?
I called "baseline genome" the initial state of the genome of
the entire population. That is a set of DNA configurations, call
it S0 (initial set), which is a subset of the combinatorial space
S1, consisting of all DNA configurations which are at a distance
of 1 mutation away from elements of S0.
The number of elements in the set S1 was denoted in (b) as T. Now,
the adaptation process for the given population size and the
given duration will be able to explore some set of points (DNA
configurations) from the set S1, call it SN, starting from
various points in S0. The size of the set SN was denoted as
N in (a).
For the argument being made, it doesn't matter whether we can
compute numbers T and N in practice with present-day technology.
We are discussing different mathematical models of the observed
process and we only need to know that such finite sets S0, S1
and SN exist (and thus have sizes, such as integers T and N),
as mathematical elements of the models. The neo-Darwinian model
is one conceivable way to construct set SN from S0 -- it says
that the N points of SN are chosen randomly from the set S1
(of all configurations which are 1 mutuation away from S0).
That model then implies certain probability for the adaptation to
occur, as indicated in eq. (1). Again, it doesn't matter whether
we can presently compute P(N,T). It only matters that neo-Darwinian
model mathematically implies some P(N,T), a number that exists
whether we can calculate it at present or not.
In contrast, the ID model says that those N points are not
chosen randomly from S1, but are guided by some 'intelligent
agency' which allows it to find favorable configurations
from S1 faster than the random search does i.e. the ID model
says that if we observe a series of such adaptation processes,
then the rate of observed favorable adaptations will be
greater than the rate predicted by the neo-Darwinian model
(implied by particular P(N,T) in each process instance).
The point of my argument is that there is nothing in the article
for neo-Darwinians to crow about. All that was shown is that
the adaptation process consisted of a certain mutation plus the
natural selection i.e. they observed M + NS. The neo-Darwinian
model requires _RM_ + NS.
To show that their observation favors neo-Darwinian model, they
would have to obtain prediction of that model, at least some
rough estimate for P(N,T), and compare it to the observed facts
(the appearance of the favorable mutation for the given population
size and duration). If the ND model estimate for P(N,T) turns
out much smaller than 1, then the ND model is not a probable
mechanism behind the observed adpatation. Of course, the ND
model is not excluded by the P(N,T) << 1, since random mutation
can in principle produce the observed result. It can only be
shown to be a highly improbable mechanism for the observed
adaptation and one would have to consider the remaining
more probable possibility, the guided mutations.
>
>>then the probability that this mutation will happen by
>>chance at least once in these N available tries is:
>>
>> P(N,T) = 1 - (1-1/T)^N ~ 1 - exp(-N/T) ... (1)
>>
>>For small values of N/T this is approximately:
>>
>> P(N,T) ~ N/T ... (2)
>
>
> No, the possibility of independent events (T) does not bring down the
> probability of a given nucleotide from mutating, moron.
>
Where did I "bring down" any probability. If you roll a dice with T=6
possible outcomes, N=2 times, the probability that you will _not_ get,
say, number 5 in those 2 throws, is P(no_5) = (1-1/6)^2. Hence the
probability that you will get 5 at least once is 1 - P(no_5) =
1 - (1-1/6)^2, which is what eq. (1) is for some general numbers T
and N (which are the sizes of sets S1 and SN). Now Mr. Genius, show
us your formulae for this type of probabilities.
>>They need to estimate P(N,T), then show that P(N,T) is fairly
>>high e.g. 50% or above in order to claim that neo-Darwinian model
>>(ND = RM + NS = Random Mutation + Natural Selection) has better
>>than 50% chance of producing this adaptation. Otherwise,
>>what is left is guided (intelligent) mutation.
>
>
> The goalposts are moving in a completely new direction, I'll give you
> that.
>
What goalpost has moved? I am saying that there is nothing in the
reported result that suggests _random_ mutation is responsible for
the observed adaptation. At best it shows that the particular
mutation they found was responsible. But they show nothing that
would indicate whether the mutation was random or guided/intelligent.
As already explained, the neo-Darwinian random mutation model
implies certain probabilty P(N,T) of occurrence of particular
adaptation. To claim that their oobservation supports the
neo-Darwinian model, they would need to estimate this P(N,T)
and compare its implied rates favorable mutations to those
observed. They do nothing of the sort. Their empirical result
is completely non-discriminating between the ID and ND models
of the observed adaptation.
>
>>Hence, this particular discovery as it stands, seems at
>>least as favorable to ID = IM + NS as to ND = RM + NS,
>>since all they have shown is the existence of M + NS,
>>a fact consistent with ID and ND models of evolution.
>
>
> So the designer actively intervened in the evolution of these mice
> during the last 6000 years? Interesting.... how, exactly?
There could be an intelligent agency guiding mutation faster than
random search toward the favorable DNA configuration. We do know
that numerous 'intelligent agencies' do exist in nature, such
as human or animal brains, immune systems and variety of other
intelligent networks (complex systems) at all scales. There is
no a priori reason why the biochemical reaction network of a
cell, which in turn is a sub-net in a hierarchy of larger
adaptable networks (organism, population, ecosystem), cannot
be at least a part of the 'intelligent agency' guiding mutations
faster than a purely random process. After all, we know that
some other perfectly natural processes do exist which guide
mutations purposefully (e.g. those occurring in brains of
molecular biologists while designing some new GM plant).
There is no fundamental reason why those known intelligent
processes guiding mutations are the only ones that can
exist.
There is also no a priori reason why the biochemical
reaction network of a cell has to be the innermost/smallest
or the most important such network implementing the
'intelligent agency' which guides the mutations. For
example, our physical space-time is meaningful (within
present-day physics) down to Planck scale which is 1e-33m.
The elementary particles, which are elemental building
blocks for atoms, molecules, cells, organs, organisms,
human brains, human societies, sciences and technologies,
are above the scale of 1e-16m. Hence, there are as many
orders of magnitude between the Planckian scale objects
and our 'elementary' particles as there are between the
'elementary' particles and the intelligent agencies
built from them (e.g. human brain which is at the
scale ~ 1e-1m). Thus, there is as much space for
Planckian scale objects to build complex intelligent
networks below the levels of our elementary particles
as there is between these particles and us.
The frequencies at which these Planckian objects
interact are 1e16 times faster than those occurring
between our elementary particles i.e. any complex
networks (distributed computers) built up on Planckian
scale objects would run 1e16 times faster than the
networks built from our 'elementary particles' (our
brains and technologies). Now, try extrapolating where
the evolution at our scale, including our science and
technology, might be at some future time which is
1e16 times longer than the few billions years we had
to evolve, biologically and culturally, so far. It is
beyond what we could imagine.
Hence, it is perfectly conceivable that our physical,
chemical, biological... laws are an extremely crude
picture of an activity by an unimaginably powerful
underlying intelligence (vast distributed computer
running 1e16 times faster and having (1e16)^3 ~ 1e50
times more components than the intelligent processes
we are familiar with at our level). In addition to
providing support for ID model of evolution, this
kind of model could also be a rational alternative
to the 'anthropic principle' in explaining the fine
tuning of physical constants.
In any case, these are just couple ways one might
conceive the nature of the 'intelligent agency'
guiding mutations and evoution.
Windy
OK.. if favorable adaptations occur at a high rate, this is evidence
for ID? What about if favorable adaptations did not occur or occur at a
lower rate? Is that evidence against ID?
> The point of my argument is that there is nothing in the article
> for neo-Darwinians to crow about.
Sez you.
> All that was shown is that
> the adaptation process consisted of a certain mutation plus the
> natural selection i.e. they observed M + NS. The neo-Darwinian
> model requires _RM_ + NS.
> To show that their observation favors neo-Darwinian model, they
> would have to obtain prediction of that model, at least some
> rough estimate for P(N,T), and compare it to the observed facts
> (the appearance of the favorable mutation for the given population
> size and duration).
No, *you* are adding an unnecessary intelligent agent into the equation
and making the explanation more complex. It is your job to prove that
the process is non-random.
> >>then the probability that this mutation will happen by
> >>chance at least once in these N available tries is:
> >> P(N,T) = 1 - (1-1/T)^N ~ 1 - exp(-N/T) ... (1)
> >>
> >>For small values of N/T this is approximately:
> >>
> >> P(N,T) ~ N/T ... (2)
> >
> > No, the possibility of independent events (T) does not bring down the
> > probability of a given nucleotide from mutating, moron.
>
> Where did I "bring down" any probability. If you roll a dice with T=6
> possible outcomes, N=2 times, the probability that you will _not_ get,
> say, number 5 in those 2 throws, is P(no_5) = (1-1/6)^2. Hence the
> probability that you will get 5 at least once is 1 - P(no_5) =
> 1 - (1-1/6)^2, which is what eq. (1) is for some general numbers T
> and N (which are the sizes of sets S1 and SN). Now Mr. Genius, show
> us your formulae for this type of probabilities.
The genome is not a die. Mutations can occur independently of other
mutations (but in rare occasions don't, but that is irrelevant here).
At the very least you would have to represent all nucleotides with
their own dice. Then *each* nucleotide has some probability of mutating
represented by the mutation rate. Adding more nucleotides to your
observation is like adding more dice, not adding more sides to the die.
(Which is what you are doing now with your assumption that T=possible
outcomes).
> >>They need to estimate P(N,T), then show that P(N,T) is fairly
> >>high e.g. 50% or above in order to claim that neo-Darwinian model
> >>(ND = RM + NS = Random Mutation + Natural Selection) has better
> >>than 50% chance of producing this adaptation. Otherwise,
> >>what is left is guided (intelligent) mutation.
> >
> > The goalposts are moving in a completely new direction, I'll give you
> > that.
>
> What goalpost has moved? I am saying that there is nothing in the
> reported result that suggests _random_ mutation is responsible for
> the observed adaptation. At best it shows that the particular
> mutation they found was responsible. But they show nothing that
> would indicate whether the mutation was random or guided/intelligent.
We can consider guided mutation if someone presents a hypothesis that
explains the observed adaptation better. Random mutation is the null
hypothesis and you have to present evidence against it yourself.
> >>Hence, this particular discovery as it stands, seems at
> >>least as favorable to ID = IM + NS as to ND = RM + NS,
> >>since all they have shown is the existence of M + NS,
> >>a fact consistent with ID and ND models of evolution.
> >
> > So the designer actively intervened in the evolution of these mice
> > during the last 6000 years? Interesting.... how, exactly?
>
> There could be an intelligent agency guiding mutation faster than
> random search toward the favorable DNA configuration.
And *how* is it doing that? Devise an experiment to test it.
What are you smoking?
> Hence, it is perfectly conceivable that our physical,
> chemical, biological... laws are an extremely crude
> picture of an activity by an unimaginably powerful
> underlying intelligence (vast distributed computer
> running 1e16 times faster and having (1e16)^3 ~ 1e50
> times more components than the intelligent processes
> we are familiar with at our level). In addition to
> providing support for ID model of evolution, this
> kind of model could also be a rational alternative
> to the 'anthropic principle' in explaining the fine
> tuning of physical constants.
So we're in the Matrix?
-- w.
Kermit
Windy wrote:
> nightlight wrote:
> > Windy wrote:
<snip OC pseudo-equations>
Apparently it's time to acknowledge a new class of anti-evolutionists -
the Matrixers (Matrices?). They may or not be religious, but if so
they're more mystics ("Is that a real poncho, or is that a Sears
poncho?") than biblical literalists.
This is not the first time I have heard of a "universe as computer"
scenario, but they seem to be on the rise since those movies came out.
I have often presented a Matrix as one alternative to mainstream
evolutionary science, but I always present it as a non-testable model -
it fits the facts, but there is no way to get supporting *or refuting
evidence, so it doesn't matter how you try to present the null
hypothesis.
I suggest God is a nerd living in his Mom's basement, who can't get a
date, who is playing The Sims version 47 or somesuch. The ones who take
it seriously always see the computer itself as wise and conscious, and
something with which we will someday meld or something which dispenses
power or knowledge, etc. It may be true, but until Norbert the
Omnipotent Nerdness manifests himself to us subroutines, there would be
no way to confirm the universe as virtual reality, even using math :P
Besides, like aliens seeding life on Earth, it just pushes the ultimate
questions back further out of reach. I do not see this as a desirable
possibility.
>
> -- w.
Kermit,
who needs both hands to bend the spoon, just like Uri Gellar
hersheyhv
nightlight wrote:
> michael...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > Now researchers have identified a genetic mutation
> > that underlies natural selection for the sand-matching
> > coat color of the beach mice, an adaptive trait that
> > camouflages them from aerial predators....
>
> It doesn't appear they have shown that the mutation
> was _random_. They only found a variant of a gene
> which is responsible for the lighter color.
All variants of genes start out as mutations. Although there are some
"domesticated" mutational processes that occur at a higher (sometimes
strikingly higher) rate in particular cells (e.g. our immune system or
the switch of mating type in haploid yeast), even these are largely
random (wrt need) events. There is no reason to believe that the
single mutational event that produced the color variant described here
is any more or less random (wrt need) than the mutation of bacteria to
strep resistance or the mutation(s) --there are several -- that
produces melanic moths or melanic mice in the desert southwest. The
mutation that produces this color variant happens from time to time.
Since you are the one claiming that this mutation is somehow different
from the vast, nay, overwhelming (in the sense that 99.99999% or more
is overwhelming), majority of mutations -- which occur from time to
time without respect to the need for the mutation, it is *your*
responsibility to demonstrate why this mutation is different from
almost all other mutations.
That said, if the mutation is a point mutation, the likely probability
of it occurring in any one individual offspring is between 10^-6 and
10^-11 (with a modal peak around 10^-8 to 10^-9). That is, admittedly,
a wide range of probabilities (because the rate of mutation *is*
dependent upon local features of sequence and the type of point
mutation involved -- e.g. transversions are rarer than transitions, not
because the rate varies according to need).
It would also help to know if the phenotypic effect is dominant or
recessive. [If recessive, there is a probability that the frequency of
the allele in the *population* of mice that invaded these islands
already had the allele.] If dominant, OTOH, when it occurred in the
population on the island, its phenotypic effect would be observed (or
not observed by predators in this case) immediately.
This probability of the mutation (actually this would only be if the
trait was dominant) needs to be multiplied by the mean number of mice
on the islands and the number of generations until the mutation
occurred. Then there would have to be a factor to take account of the
probability that that particular time the beneficial mutation would be
lost by chance. That would give you a very rough idea of the
probability of this event. Without even knowing the other numbers, I
can say that the probability of such a mutational event occurring
sometime within 6000 years is certainly within the realms of
probability.
For recessive traits, the more probable starting point is the frequency
of the allele in the founding population on the islands, which can be
significantly higher than the mutation frequency. Then the amount of
inbreeding would play a significant role in producing the mice with the
now beneficial variant trait, resulting in their exposure to the
selective environment.
> a) If the given population size for a given time can
> produce altogether N mutations for all individuals,
>
> b) and if there are total of T theoretically possible
> mutations at a comparable distance from the baseline
> mice genome as the Mc1r mutation they found,
>
> then the probability that this mutation will happen by
> chance at least once in these N available tries is:
>
> P(N,T) = 1 - (1-1/T)^N ~ 1 - exp(-N/T) ... (1)
>
> For small values of N/T this is approximately:
>
> P(N,T) ~ N/T ... (2)
>
> (If there are F favorable color mutations among T, then
> N/T in (2) would be multiplied by F. That refinement is
> irrelevant for the point being made below.)
>
> I don't see in the article any hint of estimates for P(N,T)
> in order to establish what are the odds that a _random_ mutation
> can "find" the right solution (any of the F favorable color mutations)
> in the given number of tries N.
>
> They need to estimate P(N,T), then show that P(N,T) is fairly
> high e.g. 50% or above in order to claim that neo-Darwinian model
> (ND = RM + NS = Random Mutation + Natural Selection) has better
> than 50% chance of producing this adaptation. Otherwise,
> what is left is guided (intelligent) mutation.
No mutation has ever been observed to be guided by any intelligence.
You are proposing a mechanism (guided mutation or mutation that occurs
as a result of need) that has been diligently searched for and has
never been observed. Lamarckism is dead. Killed by a lack of
evidence. If you can resurect that particular rancid corpse by
presenting evidence that *some* specific point mutations (which is what
we are talking about) occur as a result of need please to so. Until
then, you are proposing a mechanism that has uniformly and consistently
has been shown not to occur in nature. If your claim is that an
intelligent agent capable of altering the genome of the island mice was
responsible, one way to support your claim would be to present
empirical evidence of such an intelligent agent capable of performing
such genomic magic having existed at the right time and place.
> Hence, this particular discovery as it stands, seems at
> least as favorable to ID = IM + NS as to ND = RM + NS,
> since all they have shown is the existence of M + NS,
> a fact consistent with ID and ND models of evolution.
Not really. ID = IM + NS requires the existence of the hypothetical
"I" agent, for which there is zero evidence. RM, OTOH, is consistent
with all known mechanisms of natural mutation. And the probability of
RM producing a point mutation for any normal point mutation variant
within, say, 500 years, with a mean population size of, say, 10,000
mice with 2-3 generations per year, is actually pretty good. And if
the mutant allele is recessive, the starting point might not involve a
"new" mutation but a variant that is already present (but it would be a
deleterious variant in the other environment). That the same variant
can be deleterious in one environment and beneficial in another would
simply mean something that creationists have a hard time grasping, that
the terms "deleterious" and "beneficial" are conditional adjectives,
not inherent properties, of the variant being described.
Because the ID = IM + NS hypothesis requires something that is neither
supported by independent evidence (unlike the 'random wrt need' nature
of point mutations) nor is such an entity necessary to explain what has
been observed, the famous blade of Ockham must slice it off.
nightlight
>>In contrast, the ID model says that those N points are not
>>chosen randomly from S1, but are guided by some 'intelligent
>>agency' which allows it to find favorable configurations
>>from S1 faster than the random search does i.e. the ID model
>>says that if we observe a series of such adaptation processes,
>>then the rate of observed favorable adaptations will be
>>greater than the rate predicted by the neo-Darwinian model
>>(implied by particular P(N,T) in each process instance).
>
>
> OK.. if favorable adaptations occur at a high rate, this is evidence
> for ID?
It would be an evidence that neo-Darwinian model (RM+NS) is
an unlikely explanation of the observed adaptation and that
a more efficient (than random) search algorithm is responsible
for the adaptation. By convention, we can call this more
efficient algorithm an 'intelligent' or guided mutation,
or generally an ID algorithm.
> What about if favorable adaptations did not occur or occur at a
> lower rate? Is that evidence against ID?
>
I think you meant "higher rate" not "lower rate" above (otherwise
what you wrote is a gibberish). Assuming this correction,
it would be an evidence that the 'intelligent agency' (IA) model
is not necessary to explain that particular adaptation. That
doesn't exclude a need for the IA model in order to explain
some other adaptations. It doesn't even exclude the IA
participation in that example. It only means that what
was observed does not discriminate for or against IA and
that one might need additional data to make such discrimination.
(The latter observation is important since a coherent IA theory
should not cherry pick in which processes the IA participates
and in which it choses not to be involved with.)
Consider an 'intelligent agency' which we know to exist in nature
(human brain) applying its efforts to stock market trading. One
could trade using all his knowledge and foresight and not do
any better than chance on any particular day or a week or
throughout the whole trading career. Could you declare that
he was picking randomly if his gains don't exceed random
ones for some given span of time? You can't. You would
need more data and possibly different kind of data (such as
direct observation of his trading or an interview) to support
such conclusion.
In any case, what is your point? How is your question related
to my observation that there is nothing in the article, no
calculation or estimation of predictions of any mutation model
(random or any other), let alone any comparison of such
prediction with the empirical facts observed. There is simply
nothing there for neo-Darwinians to crow about. If you saw
something to crow about, you haven't shown as yet what that
might be.
Instead, so far you have been quite desperate in trying
to divert the discussion to your little collection of pet
strawmen while showing off your repertoire of explitives.
Either say something of substance or stay quiet and let
somene who may have a better understanding of the subject
being discussed have a turn defending the neo-Darwinian
model. Your response was and continues to be so inpet that
you may well be a supporter of Pat Robertson's theory of
evolution acting here under the false flag, trying to
make neo-Darwinians look stupid and primitive.
>
>>The point of my argument is that there is nothing in the article
>>for neo-Darwinians to crow about.
>
>
> Sez you.
Well, can you cite some calculation from the paper demonstrating
that the observed mutation was 'most probably' (e.g. 50% or
better) random.
>>Where did I "bring down" any probability. If you roll a dice with T=6
>>possible outcomes, N=2 times, the probability that you will _not_ get,
>>say, number 5 in those 2 throws, is P(no_5) = (1-1/6)^2. Hence the
>>probability that you will get 5 at least once is 1 - P(no_5) =
>>1 - (1-1/6)^2, which is what eq. (1) is for some general numbers T
>>and N (which are the sizes of sets S1 and SN). Now Mr. Genius, show
>>us your formulae for this type of probabilities.
>
>
> The genome is not a die. Mutations can occur independently of other
> mutations (but in rare occasions don't, but that is irrelevant here).
> At the very least you would have to represent all nucleotides with
> their own dice. Then *each* nucleotide has some probability of mutating
> represented by the mutation rate. Adding more nucleotides to your
> observation is like adding more dice, not adding more sides to the die.
> (Which is what you are doing now with your assumption that T=possible
> outcomes).
In this case they were talking about a particular _single_
nucleotide mutation (not some chain of mutations compunding
in the presence of natural selection which would require conditional
probabilities in the reasoning). The number of sides for
the neo-Darwinian dice in the case of single nucleotide mutation
is then simply the number of all DNA configurations which differ
from the starting configuration by a single nucleotide. Hence,
to roughly estimate the size of this set of configuration, the
number T, one would need to multiply number of nucleotides with
some average number of variants per nucleotide.
Note also that since radnom mutations model does not have a 'look
ahead' capability, and since natural selection occurs _after_
the mutation, you cannot reduce the size of T by discarding
'non-viable' mutations in your count of configurations that
RM has to explore. You have one configuration available,
viable or otherwise, per random mutation and only the natural
selection can decide what is viable and what unviable (hence
each try costs you one potentially available offspring).
Let's also note here that you're again not answering the original
objection: where does the paper compute any 'random mutation'
model predictions, much less compare such predictions with
the observed data? The argument you are pursuing, such as what
is the best way to obtain such estimates, is entirely irrelevant
since they haven't shown any way, optimal or subpotimal, to be
debated.
>>What goalpost has moved? I am saying that there is nothing in the
>>reported result that suggests _random_ mutation is responsible for
>>the observed adaptation. At best it shows that the particular
>>mutation they found was responsible. But they show nothing that
>>would indicate whether the mutation was random or guided/intelligent.
>
>
> We can consider guided mutation if someone presents a hypothesis that
> explains the observed adaptation better. Random mutation is the null
> hypothesis and you have to present evidence against it yourself.
The article does not make any estimates as to how any hypothesis,
radnom or any other, performs against the observed data. Hence
it provides no evidence in support or against any particular
mutation model. If you wish to crow that their empirical data
support 'RM' model, you need to calculate prediction of the RM
model and compare them to the data. Otherwise, in the absence of
any model calculations and comparisons to the data, the data is
neutral with respect to the mutation model. Absent any model
predictions, your "RM is the null hypothesis" is a vacuous
euphemism, providing precisely zero bits of information about
the nature of the observed mutation.
>>>So the designer actively intervened in the evolution of these mice
>>>during the last 6000 years? Interesting.... how, exactly?
>>
>>There could be an intelligent agency guiding mutation faster than
>>random search toward the favorable DNA configuration.
>
>
> And *how* is it doing that? Devise an experiment to test it.
There are plenty of ways that an 'intelligent agency' could exist
and perform directed mutations. I merely pointed out couple
possibilities which are not a priori excluded by the presently
known laws of physics.
We also already know that natural processes which intelligently
guide mutations exist in nature (e.g. brains of molecular
biologists). The empirically established existence of such
processes is a direct counter-example to a conjecture
that such natural processes are excluded by laws of nature.
They are obviously not excluded by the laws of nature since
they do exist in nature.
Hence your "point" about '6000 years', which is what I was
responding to above, is a vacuous strawman. Pat Robertson's
model of evolution is certainly not the sole alternative
to the neo-Darwinian model.
>>Hence, it is perfectly conceivable that our physical,
>>chemical, biological... laws are an extremely crude
>>picture of an activity by an unimaginably powerful
>>underlying intelligence (vast distributed computer
>>running 1e16 times faster and having (1e16)^3 ~ 1e50
>>times more components than the intelligent processes
>>we are familiar with at our level). In addition to
>>providing support for ID model of evolution, this
>>kind of model could also be a rational alternative
>>to the 'anthropic principle' in explaining the fine
>>tuning of physical constants.
>
>
> So we're in the Matrix?
I suppose, if one had to put it in terms understandible to
a simpleton whose science education consists of going to
the movies, one might put it that way.
nightlight
>>It doesn't appear they have shown that the mutation
>>was _random_. They only found a variant of a gene
>>which is responsible for the lighter color.
>
>
> random (wrt need) events. There is no reason to believe that the
> single mutational event that produced the color variant described here
> is any more or less random (wrt need) than the mutation of bacteria to
> strep resistance or the mutation(s) --there are several -- that
> produces melanic moths or melanic mice in the desert southwest.
You are confusing the absence of evidence due to 'no reason to
believe' (as far as you know) with the evidence of absence of
such phenomenon (directed mutation).
> That said, if the mutation is a point mutation, the likely probability
> of it occurring in any one individual offspring is between 10^-6 and
> 10^-11 (with a modal peak around 10^-8 to 10^-9).
You are confusing empirically observed rates of mutations
with the predictions of such rates by some mathematical model,
such as random mutation model. As explained in the first post,
the RM model is an assumption about the algorithm used to explore
the space of DNA configurations. Specifically, the RM assumes
that the 'next' configuration to be explored is randomly selected
among all accessible configurations (consistent with physical laws).
Like any such search algorithm, the RM assumption implies a certain
probability of success for a given space of physically accessible
configurations (size of which was denoted as number T in (b))
and given number of tries (denoted as number N in (a)). To test
whether the RM search algorithm is likely explanation of the
observed adaptation (under the given population size and time
constraints) one needs to estimate these spaces and compute
the RM implied probability. Only if the computed probability is
high enough, you can crow that the observation confirms the
RM model (as the likely mechanism). Neither you nor the article
provide any such RM model prediction.
The figures of empirical rates of mutations have no relation
with their origin. After all, there is also some empirical
rate of mutations which are known to be intelligently guided,
such as those within the bio-technology (in agriculture,
academic research etc). By your logic, merely measuring
the empirical rate of these mutations and citing the obtained
figure, "proves" that these mutations are random. Of course not.
The empirical rate of mutation is relevant only if you wish
to show that a mutation (of whatever nature) is responsible
for the observed adaptation. That is not being debated here.
We take for granted that the paper has demonstrated not just
the genetic nature of this adaptation but also found the
specific mutation responsible. Hence, your citations of
the empirical rates of mutations are a strawman argument in
the context of this debate.
> No mutation has ever been observed to be guided by any intelligence.
How about those in bio-technology? That merely shows that a
natural processes which guide mutations intelligently do
not contradict the natural laws. Such natural processes can
exist and do exist.
> You are proposing a mechanism (guided mutation or mutation that occurs
> as a result of need) that has been diligently searched for and has
> never been observed.
Again, you're confusing absence of evidence, or even the failure
to examine and recognize the evidence, with the evidence of
absence.
If you want to demonstrate that the mice adaptation discussed
shows that the search algorithm in the space of DNA configuration
was random (this was just a single nucleotide mutation, the
simplest case you can have), go ahead. Compute the prediction
of success for such random search algorithm for the given space
of possibilities (all configuration with one nucleotide change
away from the initial state) and the given number of tries
(which requires population sizes, conception rates, duration)
and show that this algorithm has a 'good' probability of success
under the constraints given.
Recall that ID and ND differ for these simple adaptations only
in the their search algorithm, in how each picks the 'next'
configuration to explore (which in turn implies probabilities
of success of each algorithm under any given constraints).
> If your claim is that an intelligent agent capable of
> altering the genome of the island mice was responsible,
> one way to support your claim would be to present
> empirical evidence of such an intelligent agent capable
> of performing such genomic magic having existed at the
> right time and place.
My claim is that the article shows nothing in favor or against
the ND = RM + NS vs ID = IM + NS models of adaptaion observed.
It shows only M + NS, which is common to both models. Hence
there is nothing here for neo-Darwinians to crow about.
As to what might be the nature of 'intelligent agency' guiding
the mutations, that is a separate issue from the point I was
making. We all agree that natural processes exist on Earth
which guide mutations intelligently (the natural processes
we call bio-technology or genetic engineering). Your argument
above seems to be based on conjecture that no such natural
process is consistent with natural laws. The direct
counter-example (pointing you to the existence of such
natural processes) invalidates your conjecture. Try
something better.
>>Hence, this particular discovery as it stands, seems at
>>least as favorable to ID = IM + NS as to ND = RM + NS,
>>since all they have shown is the existence of M + NS,
>>a fact consistent with ID and ND models of evolution.
>
>
> Not really. ID = IM + NS requires the existence of the hypothetical
> "I" agent, for which there is zero evidence.
This paper, which is what is I was referring to above, has no
discussion, let alone tests, of the I-agentcy hypothesis. Now, you
and I may have this or that view on the existence or plausibility
of the I-agency, but that is unrelated to what the paper and its
empirical facts show, or fail to show. In particular they do not
show that the observed adaptation and its genetic mechanism
favor any particular search algorithm, the RM or IM based method,
in the space of DNA configurations accessible to mutations.
> Because the ID = IM + NS hypothesis requires something that is neither
> supported by independent evidence (unlike the 'random wrt need' nature
> of point mutations) nor is such an entity necessary to explain
> what has been observed, the famous blade of Ockham must slice it
> off.
Ockham razor doesn't apply unless you can show that the
alternative models are equally consistent with the empirical
evidence. Merely failing to evaluate the consistency of the
alternative models A and B against the empirical evidence
does not allow you to declare that A is simpler, hence it
is a better model by Ockham's razor.
Otherwise, someone could have a "theory" A of free fall, which
says that all objects fall at a constant speed, then refuse
to make a specific prediction of his "theory" since by
_your_ interpretation of Ockham's razor, that prediction is
not necessary because his "theory" is preferable to the
alternative theory B, which says that the free fall motion
is accelerated, since theory A is simpler than theory B.
nightlight
> Windy wrote:
>
>> What about if favorable adaptations did not occur or occur at a
>> lower rate? Is that evidence against ID?
>>
>
> I think you meant "higher rate" not "lower rate" above (otherwise
> what you wrote is a gibberish). Assuming this correction, ...
Oops, your wording was merely grammatically incorrect (mixed up
tenses), but not ambiguous semantically as I suggested. Hence,
scratch my correction since my reply that followed the correction
responded to what you actually meant to say above.
Lee Bowman
<nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
>hersheyhv wrote:
>This paper, which is what is I was referring to above, has no
>discussion, let alone tests, of the I-agentcy hypothesis. Now, you
>and I may have this or that view on the existence or plausibility
>of the I-agency, but that is unrelated to what the paper and its
>empirical facts show, or fail to show. In particular they do not
>show that the observed adaptation and its genetic mechanism
>favor any particular search algorithm, the RM or IM based method,
>in the space of DNA configurations accessible to mutations.
To go a step further with the interventionary model (ID = IM + NS),
would you consider as a possibility ID = IM + IS?
(or + ISS, 'Intelligently Specified Selection)?
> > Because the ID = IM + NS hypothesis requires something that is neither
> > supported by independent evidence (unlike the 'random wrt need' nature
> > of point mutations) nor is such an entity necessary to explain
> > what has been observed, the famous blade of Ockham must slice it
> > off.
>
>
>Ockham razor doesn't apply unless you can show that the
>alternative models are equally consistent with the empirical
>evidence. Merely failing to evaluate the consistency of the
>alternative models A and B against the empirical evidence
>does not allow you to declare that A is simpler, hence it
>is a better model by Ockham's razor.
>
>Otherwise, someone could have a "theory" A of free fall, which
>says that all objects fall at a constant speed, then refuse
>to make a specific prediction of his "theory" since by
>_your_ interpretation of Ockham's razor, that prediction is
>not necessary because his "theory" is preferable to the
>alternative theory B, which says that the free fall motion
>is accelerated, since theory A is simpler than theory B.
I agree. Given the observed complexity of biologic systems, I feel
that Ockham's Razor is an outdated philosophy, and quite risky to
invoke. Richard Dawkins once referred to it to rule out a supernatural
causation of life, stating that a naturalistic cause was simpler, and
thus more viable.
i.e. "God as an unnecessary rider in an otherwise perfectly acceptable
scientific theory of life's origins"
Didn't mean to take this thread in a new direction by the above
philosophical rant. Primarily wanted to get your (and others) take
on:
ID = IM + IS or
ID = IM + ISS
*assuming* an intelligent agency other than human existed
Windy
nightlight wrote:
> Windy wrote:
(snip)
> > What about if favorable adaptations did not occur or occur at a
> > lower rate? Is that evidence against ID?
> >
> I think you meant "higher rate" not "lower rate" above (otherwise
> what you wrote is a gibberish). Assuming this correction,
> it would be an evidence that the 'intelligent agency' (IA) model
> is not necessary to explain that particular adaptation. That
> doesn't exclude a need for the IA model in order to explain
> some other adaptations. It doesn't even exclude the IA
> participation in that example. It only means that what
> was observed does not discriminate for or against IA and
> that one might need additional data to make such discrimination.
> (The latter observation is important since a coherent IA theory
> should not cherry pick in which processes the IA participates
> and in which it choses not to be involved with.)
Good. But you are aware, I trust, that a low rate of favourable
adaptations emerging in nature is often cited as evidence against
evolution? I was therefore wondering why now a high rate of favourable
adaptations is evidence against evolution, too. It couldn't be because
evolution skeptics are twisting their theories to accommodate all
possible results, now could it?
> There is simply
> nothing there for neo-Darwinians to crow about. If you saw
> something to crow about, you haven't shown as yet what that
> might be.
You haven't shown as yet why the null hypothesis of random mutation
should be discarded. Like it or not, that is the null hypothesis at
present. If you don't like it, do your own research.
> Instead, so far you have been quite desperate in trying
> to divert the discussion to your little collection of pet
> strawmen while showing off your repertoire of explitives.
Now I'm hurt. I would have used much better expletives if I'd known you
were counting, douchebag.
> Either say something of substance or stay quiet
Says a veritable veteran with a total of five posts.
> and let
> somene who may have a better understanding of the subject
> being discussed have a turn defending the neo-Darwinian
> model.
I imagine most people are rather turned off by your wordy,
self-important bullshit.
> Your response was and continues to be so inpet that
Perhaps you mean "inept"?
> you may well be a supporter of Pat Robertson's theory of
> evolution acting here under the false flag, trying to
> make neo-Darwinians look stupid and primitive.
Fuck you and the mouse you rode in on.
> >>Where did I "bring down" any probability. If you roll a dice with T=6
> >>possible outcomes, N=2 times, the probability that you will _not_ get,
> >>say, number 5 in those 2 throws, is P(no_5) = (1-1/6)^2. Hence the
> >>probability that you will get 5 at least once is 1 - P(no_5) =
> >>1 - (1-1/6)^2, which is what eq. (1) is for some general numbers T
> >>and N (which are the sizes of sets S1 and SN). Now Mr. Genius, show
> >>us your formulae for this type of probabilities.
> >
> > The genome is not a die. Mutations can occur independently of other
> > mutations (but in rare occasions don't, but that is irrelevant here).
> > At the very least you would have to represent all nucleotides with
> > their own dice. Then *each* nucleotide has some probability of mutating
> > represented by the mutation rate. Adding more nucleotides to your
> > observation is like adding more dice, not adding more sides to the die.
> > (Which is what you are doing now with your assumption that T=possible
> > outcomes).
>
> In this case they were talking about a particular _single_
> nucleotide mutation (not some chain of mutations compunding
> in the presence of natural selection which would require conditional
> probabilities in the reasoning). The number of sides for
> the neo-Darwinian dice in the case of single nucleotide mutation
> is then simply the number of all DNA configurations which differ
> from the starting configuration by a single nucleotide.
No, it's not the "number of sides", and I just explained why. Fine,
stay stupid.
> Let's also note here that you're again not answering the original
> objection: where does the paper compute any 'random mutation'
> model predictions, much less compare such predictions with
> the observed data?
Such computations are not customary since the body of evidence points
to mutations being random. Again, if you don't like it, do your own
research.
> >>What goalpost has moved? I am saying that there is nothing in the
> >>reported result that suggests _random_ mutation is responsible for
> >>the observed adaptation. At best it shows that the particular
> >>mutation they found was responsible. But they show nothing that
> >>would indicate whether the mutation was random or guided/intelligent.
> >
> > We can consider guided mutation if someone presents a hypothesis that
> > explains the observed adaptation better. Random mutation is the null
> > hypothesis and you have to present evidence against it yourself.
>
> The article does not make any estimates as to how any hypothesis,
> radnom or any other, performs against the observed data. Hence
> it provides no evidence in support or against any particular
> mutation model. If you wish to crow that their empirical data
> support 'RM' model, you need to calculate prediction of the RM
> model and compare them to the data. Otherwise, in the absence of
> any model calculations and comparisons to the data, the data is
> neutral with respect to the mutation model. Absent any model
> predictions, your "RM is the null hypothesis" is a vacuous
> euphemism, providing precisely zero bits of information about
> the nature of the observed mutation.
Sour grapes.
> >>>So the designer actively intervened in the evolution of these mice
> >>>during the last 6000 years? Interesting.... how, exactly?
> >>
> >>There could be an intelligent agency guiding mutation faster than
> >>random search toward the favorable DNA configuration.
> >
> > And *how* is it doing that? Devise an experiment to test it.
>
> There are plenty of ways that an 'intelligent agency' could exist
> and perform directed mutations. I merely pointed out couple
> possibilities which are not a priori excluded by the presently
> known laws of physics.
>
> We also already know that natural processes which intelligently
> guide mutations exist in nature (e.g. brains of molecular
> biologists).
They can't "guide mutations", they either accelerate the rate of random
mutations using mutagens or develop transgenic organisms through a
laborious process. The second approach tends to leave plenty of
physical evidence.
> Hence your "point" about '6000 years', which is what I was
> responding to above, is a vacuous strawman. Pat Robertson's
> model of evolution is certainly not the sole alternative
> to the neo-Darwinian model.
The mice have existed on the dunes for at most 6000 years (real years,
not biblical), hence the time limit for the adaptation. Way to read for
comprehension, dunce.
> >>Hence, it is perfectly conceivable that our physical,
> >>chemical, biological... laws are an extremely crude
> >>picture of an activity by an unimaginably powerful
> >>underlying intelligence (vast distributed computer
> >>running 1e16 times faster and having (1e16)^3 ~ 1e50
> >>times more components than the intelligent processes
> >>we are familiar with at our level). In addition to
> >>providing support for ID model of evolution, this
> >>kind of model could also be a rational alternative
> >>to the 'anthropic principle' in explaining the fine
> >>tuning of physical constants.
> >
> > So we're in the Matrix?
>
> I suppose, if one had to put it in terms understandible to
> a simpleton whose science education consists of going to
> the movies, one might put it that way.
Not really, but better that than a moron pushing idiotic word salad
without understanding a single thing about the probability of
mutations.
-- w.
nightlight
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:34:29 -0400, nightlight
> <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
>
>
>>hersheyhv wrote:
>
>
>>This paper, which is what is I was referring to above, has no
>>discussion, let alone tests, of the I-agentcy hypothesis. Now, you
>>and I may have this or that view on the existence or plausibility
>>of the I-agency, but that is unrelated to what the paper and its
>>empirical facts show, or fail to show. In particular they do not
>>show that the observed adaptation and its genetic mechanism
>>favor any particular search algorithm, the RM or IM based method,
>>in the space of DNA configurations accessible to mutations.
>
>
> To go a step further with the interventionary model (ID = IM + NS),
> would you consider as a possibility ID = IM + IS?
> (or + ISS, 'Intelligently Specified Selection)?
>
>
>>>Because the ID = IM + NS hypothesis requires something that is neither
>>>supported by independent evidence (unlike the 'random wrt need' nature
>>>of point mutations) nor is such an entity necessary to explain
>>>what has been observed, the famous blade of Ockham must slice it
>>>off.
>>
>>
>
> I agree. Given the observed complexity of biologic systems, I feel
> that Ockham's Razor is an outdated philosophy, and quite risky to
> invoke. Richard Dawkins once referred to it to rule out a supernatural
> causation of life, stating that a naturalistic cause was simpler, and
> thus more viable.
> i.e. "God as an unnecessary rider in an otherwise perfectly acceptable
> scientific theory of life's origins"
He was misapplying the Ockham's razor. The proper caveat was best
stated by A. Einstein: "Make everything as simple as possible,
but not simpler."
> Didn't mean to take this thread in a new direction by the above
> philosophical rant. Primarily wanted to get your (and others) take
> on:
>
> ID = IM + IS or
> ID = IM + ISS
>
> *assuming* an intelligent agency other than human existed
The selection of reproductive mates is an 'intelligent selection'
(IS & ISS). In my view the 'intelligence' (foresight, strategizing)
and the 'mind stuff' (the stuff that answers for 'you' a question:
what is it like to be such and such arrangement of atoms and
fields that make up 'you') is manifest not just in humans or
higher animals, and not just in 'live' or 'material' nature,
but in everything from the most elemental 'elementary' particles
and fields, through the larger complex systems (intelligent
networks) in the material and the abstract realms, such as
biochemcial reacton webs within cells, immune systems, animal
and human brains, technologies, sciences, languages, cultures,
religions, human societies, gene pools, ecosystems,...
I visualize the overall structure of this vast hierarchy of
mutually permeating, overlapping and nesting intelligent
networks and sub-networks, sharing the same elements
and motions, each network in 'pursuit of its own happiness',
as a gigantic, multi-dimensional crossword puzzle, with words
at one level serving as letters at the next level, and where
each 'letter' belongs to multitudes of 'words', 'super-words'...
all in unceasing, busy little motions at all levels and along
all dimensions, endlessly harmonizing itself in pursuit of an
ever more perfect 'solution', at ever higher levels. As the
near perfect harmonization is achieved at the lower/inner
levels, the motions of their elements become increasingly
more regular and repetitive (such as the simple periodic
oscillations at the level of physical particles and fields),
their creative spark extinguished and the disquietudes of
fragile individuality given away in return for a safe,
predicatable harmony and eternal fulfillment in serving
obediently the increasingly more delicate flame as it
advances its ever narrowing edge to the levels above.
In this kind of larger picture, the 'natural selection' and
'mutations' can be seen as slightly different forms of these
little harmonizing motions, where each organism is continually
adapting to (or harmonizing with) its environment and the
environment adapting/harmonizing with the organism. Each
seeks to become more predicatable to the other by harmonizing
its own motions to the internal model the other has of these
motions, while the respective models in turn are seeking to
anticipate the motions of the other as closely as possible.
Nic
Not sure I see.
Intelligent selection is often used when an intelligent agent cannot
influence what is originally on offer. I mean if you're a would-be
meddler, then you can meddlingly select from a set you can't meddlingly
control, or you can simply meddlingly control. You wouldn't need to do
both.
Or am I missing the point?
Lee Bowman
>
>Lee Bowman wrote:
>>
>> ID = IM + IS or
>> ID = IM + ISS
>>
>> *assuming* an intelligent agency other than human existed
>
>Not sure I see.
>
>Intelligent selection is often used when an intelligent agent cannot
>influence what is originally on offer. I mean if you're a would-be
>meddler, then you can meddlingly select from a set you can't meddlingly
>control, or you can simply meddlingly control. You wouldn't need to do
>both.
Gene tweaking could entail an allele alteration (mutation) followed by
manual selection (IS or ISS).
Hmm ... how about ID = IAA + ISS
>
>Or am I missing the point?
>
What point? My ramblings are often pointless.
I know, how about IM instead of ID
(Intelligent Meddling)
Lee Bowman
<nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
>Lee Bowman wrote:
>> i.e. "God as an unnecessary rider in an otherwise perfectly acceptable
>> scientific theory of life's origins"
>
>He was misapplying the Ockham's razor. The proper caveat was best
>stated by A. Einstein: "Make everything as simple as possible,
>but not simpler."
Right. Or its corollary, KISS (keep it simple stupid). It probably
refers more to organizing your investments, office, projects, etc.
than to cosmology.
How about KICK (keep it cogent, kiddo).
>> Didn't mean to take this thread in a new direction by the above
>> philosophical rant. Primarily wanted to get your (and others) take
>> on:
>>
>> ID = IM + IS or
>> ID = IM + ISS
>>
>> *assuming* an intelligent agency other than human existed
>The selection of reproductive mates is an 'intelligent selection'
>(IS & ISS). In my view the 'intelligence' (foresight, strategizing)
>and the 'mind stuff' (the stuff that answers for 'you' a question:
>what is it like to be such and such arrangement of atoms and
>fields ...
<snip>
>... each seeking to
>become more predicatable to the other by harmonizing
>its own motions to the internal model the other has of these
>motions, while the respective models in turn are seeking to
>anticipate the motions of the other as closely as possible.
Hey, didn't I read that in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Astral Plane??
Nic
Lee Bowman wrote:
> On 8 Jul 2006 15:51:06 -0700, "Nic" <harris...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Lee Bowman wrote:
>
> >>
> >> ID = IM + IS or
> >> ID = IM + ISS
> >>
> >> *assuming* an intelligent agency other than human existed
> >
> >Not sure I see.
> >
> >Intelligent selection is often used when an intelligent agent cannot
> >influence what is originally on offer. I mean if you're a would-be
> >meddler, then you can meddlingly select from a set you can't meddlingly
> >control, or you can simply meddlingly control. You wouldn't need to do
> >both.
>
> Gene tweaking could entail an allele alteration (mutation) followed by
> manual selection (IS or ISS).
In management speak, that would be micro-meddling! If that goes on,
then there's no possible excuse for there being any evil in the world.
nightlight
> Hey, didn't I read that in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the
> Astral Plane??
Never heard of that book, although I have probably
absorbed those images from somewhere. As to Astral
Projection, I haven't read about that subject
since a brief interest in high school.