Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 40 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 400

Thread: Genetic Entropy

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Oh crap! John Sanford is a Young Earth Creationist! At about 35 minutes in to this video he says that we can't extrapolate back very far because of the exponential nature of the graph. He says "we started with Adam and Eve not so long ago." This contradicts ten thousand established facts.

    And in his testimony at the Kansas Intelligent Design trial, he said that the earth was less than 100,000 years old, and conceivably less than 10,000 years! Yowsers!

    How anyone could think to cite this man as an authority on any topic is beyond me. He's totally nuts.

    This shows how weak the anti-evolutionary position really is. The best "scientists" supporting it are total loons who reject the entire body of established science. This exemplifies why the anti-evolutionary folks will never win. In order to defeat evolution, you must defeat the entire edifice of modern science.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    676
    Hi Richy,

    How anyone could think to cite this man as an authority on any topic is beyond me. He's totally nuts.
    It is not his sanity that interests me. Rather, it is his claim about mutation rates. Even if he were nuts, he would be a madman with a good argument - which I prefer to a sane man with a bad argument.

    According to standard population genetics theory, the figure of three harmful mutations per person per generation implies that three people would have to die prematurely in each generation (or fail to reproduce) for each person who reproduced in order to eliminated the now absent deleterious mutations. Humans do not reproduce fast enough to support such a huge death toll. As James F. Crow of the University of Wisconsin asked rhetorically, in a commentary in 'Nature' on Eyre-Walker and Keightley's analysis: "Why aren't we extinct?"

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    Hi Richy,

    It is not his sanity that interests me. Rather, it is his claim about mutation rates. Even if he were nuts, he would be a madman with a good argument - which I prefer to a sane man with a bad argument.
    I understand your point, but I think you misunderstood my reason for using the word "nuts." It was shorthand for saying that his arguments are worthless and indicate a gross failure to understand basic science. By "nuts" I meant that he seemed like "a madman" because his arguments are so absurd that any sane person (with the requisite scientific knowledge he pretends to have) would never utter them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    According to standard population genetics theory, the figure of three harmful mutations per person per generation implies that three people would have to die prematurely in each generation (or fail to reproduce) for each person who reproduced in order to eliminated the now absent deleterious mutations. Humans do not reproduce fast enough to support such a huge death toll. As James F. Crow of the University of Wisconsin asked rhetorically, in a commentary in 'Nature' on Eyre-Walker and Keightley's analysis: "Why aren't we extinct?"
    You need to put the quote in context. It's from the article Mutations Galore from the Scientific Amercan (see here):
    According to standard population genetics theory, the figure of three harmful mutations per person per generation implies that three people would have to die prematurely in each generation (or fail to reproduce) for each person who reproduced in order to eliminate the now absent deleterious mutations [75% death rate]. Humans do not reproduce fast enough to support such a huge death toll. As James F. Crow of the University of Wisconsin asked rhetorically, in a commentary in Natureon Eyre-Walker and Keightley's analysis: "Why aren't we extinct?"

    Crow's answer is that sex, which shuffles genes around, allows detrimental mutations to be eliminated in bunches. The new findings thus support the idea that sex evolved because individuals who (thanks to sex) inherited several bad mutations rid the gene pool of all of them at once, by failing to survive or reproduce.

    Yet natural selection has weakened in human populations with the advent of modern medicine, Crow notes. So he theorizes that harmful mutations may now be starting to accumulate at an even higher rate, with possibly worrisome consequences for health. Keightley is skeptical: he thinks that many mildly deleterious mutations have already become widespread in human populations through random events in evolution and that various adaptations, notably intelligence, have more than compensated. "I doubt that we'll have to pay a penalty as Crow seems to think," he remarks. "We've managed perfectly well up until now."

    This is why I am so peeved at Sanford. He quoted scientists as saying that we are accumulating too many mutations as if that supported his ludicrous young earth hypothesis about "degradation" of the human genome following an exponential curve but their quotes don't support that at all. Their whole point is that the corruption of the genome is happening because modern medicine and lifestyle has eliminated a lot of the natural selection that normally eliminates the bad mutations.

    Sanford's errors are egregious and inexcusable in my estimation. We know that natural selection works very well to preserve genetic information. Just look at how quickly eyes are eliminated when animals are put in dark caves where there is no natural selection for the eyes. The fact that the same animals retains eyes for countless generations by natural selection is a proven fact.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    676
    According to standard population genetics theory, the figure of three harmful mutations per person per generation implies that three people would have to die prematurely in each generation (or fail to reproduce) for each person who reproduced in order to eliminate the now absent deleterious mutations [75% death rate].
    Good to see that Crow acknowledges a very high mutation rate, far higher than the 0.6 that you quoted earlier Richard.

    Crow's answer is that sex, which shuffles genes around, allows detrimental mutations to be eliminated in bunches. The new findings thus support the idea that sex evolved because individuals who (thanks to sex) inherited several bad mutations rid the gene pool of all of them at once, by failing to survive or reproduce.
    I am not sure how they conclude that sex solves the problem, Richard. If there is a mutation rate of 3 harmful mutations per person per generation, then everyone is born with 3 more mutations than their parents were born with. So we are ALL mutants. By having sex, all that is happening is one mutant is having sex with another mutant, and the offspring would have 3 more mutations than their mutant parents. It is all very sick.

    Yet natural selection has weakened in human populations with the advent of modern medicine, Crow notes. So he theorizes that harmful mutations may now be starting to accumulate at an even higher rate, with possibly worrisome consequences for health.
    Here Crow is acknowledging that "harmful mutations may now be accumulating at an even higher rate (than 3)". How much higher I wonder????

    I shall respond more fully to your arguments once I have had time to complete my research. However, I perceive an undercurrent in the evolutionary camp that worries me. I know that this is a distraction from the main argument, which resides squarely in the debate over the rate of mutation. However, I think it is worth bringing it to your attention.

    In the quote above, Crow attributes the current accumulation of harmful mutations to the advent of modern medicine, which preserves the less fit members of society.

    The evolutionist camp seems to place the blame upon the weaker members of society who have thus far "escaped natural selection". So, just beneath the surface of evolutionary dialog there appears to be a belief that compassion towards the weak leads to a degradation of the human race. All this sounds quite harmless now....BUT IF the human genome really is degrading, then there WILL come a time when people become DESPERATE for a solution, and such a philosophy could easily give rise to the horrors of eugenics.

    Anyway, I will get back on with my research, and report back when I have something relevant to the argument at hand.
    Last edited by Craig.Paardekooper; 05-22-2013 at 10:42 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    Good to see that Crow acknowledges a very high mutation rate, far higher than the 0.6 that you quoted earlier Richard.
    Actually, the number I quoted was 0.06 per cell generation. That's the number in Lynch's published paper. I think there is some confusion around these numbers. It would take a lot of research to sort it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    I am not sure how they conclude that sex solves the problem, Richard. If there is a mutation rate of 3 harmful mutations per person per generation, then everyone is born with 3 more mutations than their parents were born with. So we are ALL mutants. By having sex, all that is happening is one mutant is having sex with another mutant, and the offspring would have 3 more mutations than their mutant parents. It is all very sick.
    I think such speculations are pretty meaningless at this stage because we don't have the real numbers and you haven't done the research into why sex solves the problem. It's not something that you can figure out merely using your "simple common sense." We need to look at the actual evidence, such as the obvious fact that natural selection very effectively preserves genetic information when compared with animals that are removed from natural selection. We know that natural selection maintains the integrity of the genome (e.g. eyes).

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    I shall respond more fully to your arguments once I have had time to complete my research. However, I perceive an undercurrent in the evolutionary camp that worries me. I know that this is a distraction from the main argument, which resides squarely in the debate over the rate of mutation. However, I think it is worth bringing it to your attention.

    In the quote above, Crow attributes the current accumulation of harmful mutations to the advent of modern medicine, which preserves the less fit members of society.

    This is genuinely scary talk. The evolutionist camp seems to place the blame upon the weaker members of society who have thus far "escaped natural selection". So, just beneath the surface of evolutionary dialog there appears to be a belief that compassion towards the weak leads to a degradation of the human race. All this sounds quite harmless now....BUT IF the human genome really is degrading, then there WILL come a time when people become DESPERATE for a solution, and such a philosophy could easily give rise to the horrors of eugenics - the extermination of the weak.

    IF the human genome is degrading, THEN I foresee a terrible tribulation exacted by the evolutionary camp upon the weak in those days. Such a time will come.

    Anyway, I will get back on with my research, and report back when I have something relevant to the argument at hand.
    If it is a fact that the genome is being degraded by a lack of natural selection, then stating that fact cannot be interpreted as "blaming the victim." Truth is truth. What are we supposed to do? Deny the facts? I agree that it could present some serious challenges in the future but I'm confident we would be able to find a good solution using our intelligence that has saved us from the horrible lives we had when all we could do was beg God to cure out diseases.

    And since you brought up "scary talk" let's look at the horrors of Christianity. Prominent leaders like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have explicitly blamed gays for national tragedies like 9/11 and Katrina. They have said that gays are prompting God to destroy America. This has led to the abuse and murder of people who were thought to be gay. And this is not an isolated problem. It is endemic to Christianity which teaches that bad things in the world are caused by sin. So Christians are naturally prone to blaming "sinners" (which in effect are anyone who is not a Christian) when bad things happen, and then those sinners are cast out, abused, tortured, and murdered.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    676
    I think such speculations are pretty meaningless at this stage because we don't have the real numbers and you haven't done the research into why sex solves the problem. It's not something that you can figure out merely using your "simple common sense." We need to look at the actual evidence, such as the obvious fact that natural selection very effectively preserves genetic information when compared with animals that are removed from natural selection. We know that natural selection maintains the integrity of the genome (e.g. eyes).
    Hi Richard,

    I think you are right. Alot more research needs to be done, and speculations are premature until we have the exact mutation rates at hand. I wont comment further until I have researched more.

    Yours Respectfully

    Craig

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    676
    Dear Sirs,

    Here below is a quote from an article on mutation rates as measured directly. I have high-lighted some interesting numbers. As per our previous discussion, Crow estimated 3 harmful mutations per person per generation - meaning that every offspring would inherit 3 more harmful mutations from their parents than their parents inherited from theit grand-parents.

    However, it should be born in mind that ALL mutations are random rearrangements of an extremely complex code, and consequently it is arguable that ALL mutations are harmful.....

    Anyway, the most accurate method of determining rate of mutation isthe Direct Method as outlined below -

    Estimating the Human Mutation Rate: Direct Method



    This is the fourth in a series of posts on human mutation rates and their implication(s). The first three were ...

    What Is a Mutation?
    Estimating the Human Mutation Rate: Biochemical Method
    Estimating the Human Mutation Rate: Phylogenetic Method

    There are basically three ways to estimate the mutation rate in the human lineage. I refer to them as the Biochemical Method, the Phylogenetic Method, and the Direct Method.

    The Biochemical Method is based on our knowledge of biochemistry and DNA replication as well as estimates of the number of cell divisions between zygote and egg. It gives a value of 130 mutations per generation. The Phylogenetic Method depends on the fact that most mutations are neutral (are they ???) and that the rate of fixation of alleles is equal to the mutation rate. It also relies on a correct phylogeny. The Phylogenetic Method gives values between 112-160 mutations per generation. These two methods are pretty much in agreement.

    The Direct Method involves sequencing the entire genomes of related individuals (e.g. mother, father, child) and simply counting the new mutations in the offspring. You might think that the Direct Method gives a definitive result that doesn't rely on any assumptions, therefore it should yield the most accurate result. The other two methods should be irrelevant.

    This would be true if the Direct Method were as easy as it sounds but things are more complicated.

    The first paper to be published was by Xue et al. (2009). They looked at the sequences of Y chromosomes from two men separated by 13 generations. (6 generations in one lineage and 7 generations in the other.) The Y chromosomes differed by four mutations in 10.15 × 106 bp.1 These are neutral mutations and the rate works out to 3.0 × 10-8 mutations per base pair per generation.

    If we assume an average of 400 cell divisions per generation (male lineage) then this gives a mutation rate of 0.75 × 10-10 mutations per bp per replication. This isn't far from the value of 1.0 × 10-10 that we used in the Biochemical Method.

    If we apply this mutation rate to the entire genome then there will be 96 mutations in each sperm cell and 7 in each egg cell for a total of ... 103 mutations per generation

    The problems with this calculation have to do deciding how many real mutations there are. In this particular experiment, the Y chromosomes were extracted from cells in culture. The authors actually found 23 differences between the two Y chromosomes but only 12 of these were confirmed by resequencing. Of these, only four were confirmed by sequencing DNA directly from the donors. (Eight mutations occurred during growth of the cell lines.) The authors are confident that they have not missed any mutations and I suspect that the number of false negatives is, in fact, close to zero.

    This value (103 mutations per generation) is on the low end of the values calculated previously but the error bars are significant due to the low number of mutations.

    Three other papers have appeared recently.2

    1. Roach et al. (2012) sequenced genomes from a family of four (mother, father, two children). They found 33,937 potential mutations but confirmed only 28 mutations in the two children. After making some adjustments for false negatives they estimate that the total average number of mutations per diploid genome per generation was ...70 mutations per generation This is about half the value estimated by the Biochemical and Phylogenetic Methods. It's not clear to me how they estimated the true number of mutations. What is clear is that it is not easy to count mutations when dealing with sloppy sequences.

    2. Conrad et al. (2011) looked at two sets of parents and offspring (trios). They used cell lines so they had to distinguish between germline mutations and somatic cell mutations. One of the offspring had 49 mutations and the other had 35 mutations. There were 1,586 somatic cell mutations that had to be eliminated. After correcting for false negatives, they estimate 60 mutations in one child and 45 mutations in the other. Since only 2.555 Gb were analyzed, this works out to ... 75 mutations per generation
    56 mutations per generation

    These values are lower than what we expected from previous studies. The authors determined that 92% of the mutations in one offspring were from the father but only 36% of the mutations in the other trio were from the father. This is not reasonable and neither is the discrepancy in total mutations between the two different offspring. It suggests that there are a lot of errors in this study.

    3. The most comprehensive study so far is from Kong et al. (2012). These authors looked at 78 Icelandic families whose genealogies were well known. They sequenced the genomes of 219 distinct individuals and found an average of 63.2 mutations in each child. Since they only looked at 2.63 Gb, this translates to ... 77 mutations per generation

    Individual values vary over a wide range. The lowest score reported is 58 and the highest is 129. This study suffers from the same problems as the other two direct sequencing experiments; namely, that it's difficult to decide which of the differences are real mutations and which ones are artifacts. The authors claim that their false negative rate is only 2%.

    The whole genome sequencing papers have been widely reported as giving a result that is half the mutation rate we estimated previously. This is a problem because the mutation rate is used in many calculations. We'll discuss the implications in later posts
    OK, so all the papers show a mutation rate that is ALOT HIGHER than 3. We thought that 3 mutations per person per generation was bad enough !! . Now we learn from the papers that the mutation rate is as high as 50 to 100 mutations per person per generation, if not higher. My God.

    Of course, it is claimed that most of these mutations are not harmful. Really??? In a code as complex as the genetic code, the random introduction of mistakes would generate as much harm as a bull in a china shop.

    The constant introduction of 50 - 100 new mistakes into the genome of each new born child will inevitably have a cumulative effect, as the information in the code degrades more and more - and eventually this will lead to genetic collapse - at some time in the future.

    As I mentioned before, it seems we are all mutants, and becoming more so with each generation. Our future is very dark.

    Richard, you asked how we could have survived so long if the mutation rate was this high. I understand why you ask this. Please consider this possibility - that even though life has persisted upon this planet for millions of years, God intervenes periodically to recreate things. 6000 years ago may have been such a time.

    I have written a short book on this subject called "Genesis - a surprising confirmation". You can view it here -

    http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/genesis2.htm
    Last edited by Craig.Paardekooper; 05-20-2013 at 04:15 PM.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    Dear Sirs,

    Here below is a quote from an article on mutation rates as measured directly. I have high-lighted some interesting numbers. As per our previous discussion, Crow estimated 3 harmful mutations per person per generation - meaning that every offspring would inherit 3 more harmful mutations from their parents than their parents inherited from theit grand-parents.

    However, it should be born in mind that ALL mutations are random rearrangements of an extremely complex code, and consequently it is arguable that ALL mutations are harmful.....

    Anyway, the most accurate method of determining rate of mutation isthe Direct Method as outlined below -
    Thanks for posting this info. I did a quick Google and found what appears to be the source here. Is that where you got it? It's always a good idea to post a link to the source when quoting something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    OK, so all the papers show a mutation rate that is ALOT HIGHER than 3. We thought that 3 mutations per person per generation was bad enough !! . Now we learn from the papers that the mutation rate is as high as 50 to 100 mutations per person per generation, if not higher. My God.

    Of course, it is claimed that most of these mutations are not harmful. Really??? In a code as complex as the genetic code, the random introduction of mistakes would generate as much harm as a bull in a china shop.

    The constant introduction of 50 - 100 new mistakes into the genome of each new born child will inevitably have a cumulative effect, as the information in the code degrades more and more - and eventually this will lead to genetic collapse - at some time in the future.

    As I mentioned before, it seems we are all mutants, and becoming more so with each generation. Our future is very dark.

    Richard, you asked how we could have survived so long if the mutation rate was this high. I understand why you ask this. Please consider this possibility - that even though life has persisted upon this planet for millions of years, God intervenes periodically to recreate things. 6000 years ago may have been such a time.
    I think you are jumping to conclusions way too fast. The idea that the mutations will inevitably "lead to genetic collapse" is directly contradicted by all the evidence. You have yet to respond to the fact that natural selection very effectively conserves genetic information (as proven by what happens when there is no selection, as in dark caves).

    The suggestion that "God intervenes periodically to recreate things" is highly problematic. First, it means that God had to actively intervene to keep all the viruses and bacteria alive so we all would get sick and die. Otherwise, they would have all gone extinct long ago. Why would God do that? And it seems to contradict genetic science since we can trace relations between organisms on the phylogenetic tree of life using DNA including all sorts of harmful mutations. It really seems like an outrageous speculation with zero evidence supporting it. Sorry. And it is just seems entirely removed from any real science.

    Great chatting,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    676
    You have yet to respond to the fact that natural selection very effectively conserves genetic information
    Hi Richard,

    I can see how natural selection will select the healthiest for reproduction. However, when ALL offspring, without exception, are less healthy than the parents because ALL offspring aquire 50-100 more genetic errors than their parents, then natural selection can only choose the least unhealthy from amongst these offspring for reproduction. As a result errors accumulate with each generation - and the genetic code degenerates.

    My common sense tells me that natural selection CANNOT effectively conserve an original genetic code when it can only select between several unhealthy offspring, all of whom are more unhealthy than the parents. The general direction is inevitably DOWN.

    The only question that remains is "how far can our code degenerate before loss of function becomes fatal?" The answer to this question would set the time limit on our existence as a species.

    It seems ironic to me that mutation was touted as the mainstay of evolution, but is probably it's worst enemy.

    It seems that entropy predominates - the gradual destruction of information - even in the field of genetics - just like chinese whispers.
    Last edited by Craig.Paardekooper; 05-22-2013 at 10:45 PM.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    Hi Richard,

    I can see how natural selection will select the healthiest for reproduction. However, when ALL offspring, without exception, are less healthy than the parents because ALL offspring aquire 50-100 more genetic errors than their parents, then natural selection can only choose the least unhealthy from amongst these offspring for reproduction. As a result errors accumulate with each generation - and the genetic code degenerates.

    My common sense tells me that natural selection CANNOT effectively conserve an original genetic code when it can only select between several unhealthy offspring, all of whom are more unhealthy than the parents. The general direction is inevitably DOWN.

    The only question that remains is "how far can our code degenerate before loss of function becomes fatal?" The answer to this question would set the time limit on our existence as a species.

    It seems ironic to me that mutation was touted as the mainstay of evolution, but has become it's worst enemy.
    Hey there Craig,

    I understand your logic but I think it contains an obvious error. All you need to do is consider what happens when natural selection is removed, as when an organism lives in a cave without light. The genetic code for the eyes quickly becomes corrupt and the eyes are lost. Why doesn't this happen to organisms living out in the light? Because of natural selection. Therefore, we have direct evidence that your "common sense" conclusion is fallacious. Do you understand this point? What do you think about it?

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •