Abiogenesis and Probabilities

[DrNoGods]

I'm creating a new thread here to continue debate on a post made by EarthScience guy on another thread (Science and Religion > Artificial life: can it be created?, post 17). This post challenged probability calculations in an old Talkorigins article that I had linked in that thread:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Are the arguments (on creationist views) and probabilities presented reasonable in the Talkorigins article? If not, why not?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #384]

Missed the point entirely. I was responding to Noose001 who stated (post 375) "No such thing as natural selection or beneficial mutations." I asked if he believed in artificial selection, and gave selective breeding of dairy cows (artificially by humans) for higher milk production as an example, along with corn for higher yields. Breeding cows for higher milk yields benefits humans, not the cows! Ditto for corn yields. These are called artificial selection because we humans are changing the animal or plant characteristics to benefit us, but it is done by selecting breeding along with other optimizations (diet, fertilizers, etc.).

I understood what you were saying.

Where evolution has pulled the wool over people's eyes are in the definitions of the terms that are used. Take for example "beneficial mutation". How are you defining beneficial mutation? A mutation is only beneficial in specific environments. Take for example our new friend's HPAS1 "evolution" which reduces the hemoglobin concentrations. But now because of the increase in travel of these groups they are now looking into problems that people may have with anemia because of this mutation.

This brings us to our next definition problem "mutation". The driving force of evolutionary change is duplication and then mutation. Duplication to maintain function and then mutation changes one of the duplicated genes. I have not seen one example of duplication and then mutation, because most of the time duplication is lethal. The only problem that creationists have with mutations that are not duplicated and then the mutation are those that believe in evolution calling any mutation evolution. Calling any mutation evolution simply shows an ignorance of the very theory that they are espousing.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #389]

Yikes. I thought you said you knew about evolution. And you don't even know what 'fittest' means in that context?

Define fitness in terms of evolution without using survival.

Fitness is the thing there where something's it, and their lineage don't it just up and go dead, cause, ya know, they were all fitnessed and all.

[JoeyKnothead]

Where evolution has pulled the wool over people's eyes are in the definitions of the terms that are used.

Evolution, as here considered, has no ability to pull wool over the eyes of folks.

Take for example "beneficial mutation". How are you defining beneficial mutation? A mutation is only beneficial in specific environments.

Specifically those environments in which the beneficial mutation is all benefity.

If we conclude mutations can be detrimental, we can also conclude they can confer a benefit.

Take for example our new friend's HPAS1 "evolution" which reduces the hemoglobin concentrations. But now because of the increase in travel of these groups they are now looking into problems that people may have with anemia because of this mutation.

Various "unhealthy" mutations can be seen to occur within populations, but as long as they don't prevent the population as a whole from the baby plopping, well there we go.

As well, some "unhealthy" mutations can provide a benefit against some other fuss, such as we see in sickle cell anemia, and it's advantage against malaria.

This brings us to our next definition problem "mutation". The driving force of evolutionary change is duplication and then mutation. Duplication to maintain function and then mutation changes one of the duplicated genes. I have not seen one example of duplication and then mutation, because most of the time duplication is lethal.

"Most of the time duplication is lethal" leads us to conclude "some of the time it ain't".

It's those some of the times where new species come to be.

The only problem that creationists have with mutations that are not duplicated and then the mutation are those that believe in evolution calling any mutation evolution. Calling any mutation evolution simply shows an ignorance of the very theory that they are espousing.

We can disregard the notion of "any change is evolution", and compare it to "pile you up enough of those changes, and there we go".

One single change doesn't itself hafta make a new species.

But, by your admitting one change can occur, then how bout that...

1 change = not "evolution worthy" (my term).
1 change + 1 change = oh now, what's going on.
Them 2 changes + 1 change = is it me, or does junior have him an extra thing there.
Them 3 changes + 1 change = yep, got an extra thing there, and done passed it along.
Them 4 changes, and a good bunch of some more of em, and ya get the whales too proud of themselves to invite em the hippos over to the family reunion.

[Difflugia]

I have not seen one example of duplication and then mutation, because most of the time duplication is lethal.

That's wrong. Most of the time gene duplication is neutral, even if both copies are expressed. In fact, gene duplication events seem to increase organism robustness and life expectancy in the short term.

[The Barbarian]

Define fitness in terms of evolution without using survival.

Ability to leave more viable offspring. Creationists always get this wrong. Mere survival is not the payoff. Rather, it's the number of viable offspring that are left in the next generation.

As an example, peacocks have large elaborate tails that make them less agile and easier prey for leopards. But peahens love those tails and preferentially mate with peacocks with the biggest and gaudiest tails. The losers tend to survive and the winners tend to get killed. But natural selection isn't merely about survival.

And yes, I can now imagine some desperate resetting of goalposts, and creationists saying "It's a tautology; the fittest leave more offspring, so those leaving more offspring are fittest."

The second major goof we see from creationists, is to imagine that adaptations are either good or bad, and are always so, everywhere. But "fit" only counts in terms of environment. So we can confidently predict that if warming climate continues, we will see the differences in size between northern and southern populations of sparrows will become less, and that the differences in developmental timing between northern and southern leopard frogs will also decrease.

The "tautology" argument is such a woofer, I'm surprised any creationists still use it.

[The Barbarian]

Where evolution has pulled the wool over people's eyes are in the definitions of the terms that are used. Take for example "beneficial mutation". How are you defining beneficial mutation? A mutation is only beneficial in specific environments. Take for example our new friend's HPAS1 "evolution" which reduces the hemoglobin concentrations. But now because of the increase in travel of these groups they are now looking into problems that people may have with anemia because of this mutation.

You missed that, too. Darwin pointed this out; it's part of the theory. Fitness only counts in terms of environment. Mammals evolved a lung system that works exceedingly well at moderate elevations, because our system is decoupled from skeletal movement. Mammals got a lot bigger than birds and occupy many more niches. On the other hand, birds have a highly efficient lung for breathing in low oxygen environments, so geese can easily fly over Mt. Everest. Again, fitness depends on the environment, as Darwin pointed out. And as I pointed out, Tibetans don't adapt to high altitudes by making more hemoglobin. That's why they avoid anemia and altitude sickness.

This brings us to our next definition problem "mutation". The driving force of evolutionary change is duplication and then mutation.

No, that's not quite right, either.

A new study from researchers at the University of California, Davis, published Jan. 23 in Science Express, shows that new genes are created from non-coding DNA more rapidly than expected.

"This shows very clearly that genes are being born from ancestral sequences all the time," said David Begun, professor of evolution and ecology at UC Davis and senior author on the paper.

Geneticists have long puzzled about how completely new genes appear. In a well-known model proposed by geneticist Susumu Ohno, new functions appear when existing genes are duplicated and then diverge in function. Begun's laboratory discovered a few years ago that new genes could also appear from previously non-coding stretches of DNA, and similar effects have since been discovered in other animals and plants.
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/new-genes- ... coding-dna

Duplication to maintain function and then mutation changes one of the duplicated genes. I have not seen one example of duplication and then mutation, because most of the time duplication is lethal.

That's not right, either...

The origin of organismal complexity is generally thought to be tightly coupled to the evolution of new gene functions arising subsequent to gene duplication. Under the classical model for the evolution of duplicate genes, one member of the duplicated pair usually degenerates within a few million years by accumulating deleterious mutations, while the other duplicate retains the original function. This model further predicts that on rare occasions, one duplicate may acquire a new adaptive function, resulting in the preservation of both members of the pair, one with the new function and the other retaining the old. However, empirical data suggest that a much greater proportion of gene duplicates is preserved than predicted by the classical model.

https://www.genetics.org/content/151/4/1531

The only problem that creationists have with mutations that are not duplicated and then the mutation are those that believe in evolution calling any mutation evolution. Calling any mutation evolution simply shows an ignorance of the very theory that they are espousing.

Perhaps you don't know what the scientific definition of biological evolution is. What do you think it is? That's not a rhetorical question. I'd be interested in knowing what you think it is.

[Bradskii]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #389]

Yikes. I thought you said you knew about evolution. And you don't even know what 'fittest' means in that context?

Define fitness in terms of evolution without using survival.

You really don't know what Darwin meant by it? How can you claim to understand a theory when you don't know even know what the name of it means?

[The Barbarian]

Take for example our new friend's HPAS1 "evolution" which reduces the hemoglobin concentrations. But now because of the increase in travel of these groups they are now looking into problems that people may have with anemia because of this mutation.

Hmmm... the HPAS allele in Tibetans doesn't reduce hemoglobin; it just doesn't increase it with altitude as happens in most humans.

The Dali Lama seems to have done just fine at lower elevations as do most Tibetans and the relatively few Han Chinese who happen to have the same HPAS1 allele. Do you have a link showing that they have difficulties thereby?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #385]

No. The concentration of hemoglobin in Tibetans with this new allele is about what yours is, unless you live at higher altitudes. (In which case your hemoglobin would be higher than theirs. You see, the usual human response to low oxygen levels is to produce more hemoglobin. This works up to a point,but then produces high elevation sickness. The EPAS1 gene gets around this by a new function that makes the enyzme more stable and more effective at sequestering oxygen.
Because when those without HPAS1 "evolution" go to higher altitudes their body naturally increases the hemoglobin concentrations. This is not an increase in function, it is a decrease in an existing function.
No, you've been misled about that:
PNAS June 22, 2010 107 (25) 11459-11464
Natural selection on EPAS1 (HIF2α) associated with low hemoglobin concentration in Tibetan highlanders
...The alleles associating with lower hemoglobin concentrations were correlated with the signal from the GWADS study and were observed at greatly elevated frequencies in the Tibetan cohorts compared with the Han. High hemoglobin concentrations are a cardinal feature of chronic mountain sickness offering one plausible mechanism for selection.
Which is a normal occurrence for your "favorable mutations".

Your quote said exactly what I said. That EPAS1 reduces the hemoglobin concentration in upper elevations. Your quote says nothing about the new function that you say the Tibetans have. But it seems that there is definitely no selective advantage at lower altitudes. And it seems that this function must be deleterious at lower elevations otherwise evolutionary theory would predict that everyone in at least China would have the same function.

Not long ago, scientists discovered that a population of lizards, moved to a new environment, rapidly evolved a new digestive organ (among other things)
Examination of the lizard’s digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult-to-digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 112433.htm

1. They are not new structures. They are enlarged structures that have already existed.
2. The lizard could eat plants before they were released on the island. It is just that 95% of their diet was insects.

The Italian Wall Lizard feeds on invertebrates, especially caterpillars, grasshoppers, and beetles. Some populations are also known to eat plant leaves and flower parts.
https://webapps.fhsu.edu/ksherp/account.aspx?o=32&t=46

3. This is also evidence of creationism and that all animals were once plant-eating.

4. If the lizards were taken back to their original habitat then these cecal valves would go away.

[Difflugia]

4. If the lizards were taken back to their original habitat then these cecal valves would go away.

That's what Jean Baptiste Lamarck thought. He was wrong, too. The Soviets demonstrated that rather ironically.