by cofty 63 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Hooby there is no kind way of saying you are entirely wrong about how evolution works.
This is the sort of stuff that is covered in chapter one of a basic introduction to biology. I'm typing on my useless phone but if I really have to I will explain again later this evening. Shouldn't be necessary if you would just make a little bit of effort.
Hooby if you could also just paste short quotes and use the quote function it would be possible to see who said what.
I know what I said you don't need to re-post it.
You know I have read that book written by monkeys..
Its all about bananas and each one flicking his poop at the other...
to have perfect selection in one generation, you had to pay the price of the elimination of the other 9,999 in that same generation (destroying your population) for the evolutionary scenario to work. - Hooby
This is just gibberish.
I'm tempted to leave it there but I won't.
Take the example mentioned in the OP. (Did you bother to read it?)
In birds who see UV light a point mutation has occurred at position 90 on the SWS opsin gene changing the first letter from "AGC" which produces the amino acid serine to "TGC" which produces cysteine. This single substitution slightly changes the physical shape of the protein molecule changing its sensitivity from violet light with wavelengths of 405 nm to ultraviolet at 360-370 nm.
The first bird to experience that mutation would have the advantage of being better able to spot caterpillars with UV markings. Let's say it was part of a local breeding population of 10,000 birds.
All the other 9,999 birds would continue to survive and breed successfully, but our UV-sensing bird would on average leave more descendants than the others. The difference would only be measurable over many generations but the percentage of birds in the population with this mutation would gradually tend towards 100%.
Natural selection preserves advantageous changes in the gene-pool - unless of course the first UV-sensitive bird got eaten by a sparrowhawk before it got time to breed. Such is life.
Measuring the rate of mutations and their effects on a population is a field of research with some of the most amazing mathematical minds in science. What are the chances somebody who has never read a book about the evidence for evolution has spotted something basic that they all missed?
This is just gibberish.
No its not. By perfect selection in one generation I was referring to total selection against all the other types in one generation. Which is what you did in your Monkey scenario. Your selection coefficient was 1.
"Denoted as s, the selection coefficient is a number between zero and one. If s = 1, selection against the genotype is total, and it makes no contribution to the next generation." https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Selection_coefficient.asp
As I said before: To have perfect selection in one generation, you had to pay the price of the elimination of the other 9,999 in that same generation (destroying your population) for the evolutionary scenario to work. Your example tried to have the benefit of perfect selection, without the price. There is a cost to selective replacement that must must be paid. In this case the cost in the real world would indeed be the lives of the other 9,999. I was simply showing that an evolutionists own "rosy example scenario" when adjusted for reality runs into trouble.
You seem to attract creationists something awful cofty, they keep going back to dig up threads over a year old just to try and pick a fight using half-baked arguments.
As I said before: To have perfect selection in one generation, you had to pay the price of the elimination of the other 9,999 in that same generation (destroying your population) for the evolutionary scenario to work. Your example tried to have the benefit of perfect selection, without the price. There is a cost to selective replacement that must must be paid. In this case the cost in the real world would indeed be the lives of the other 9,999. I was simply showing that an evolutionists own "rosy example scenario" when adjusted for reality runs into trouble.
He has already said (repeatedly) that the beneficial change would disperse over several generations, not that it would be "perfect selection in one generation." I suppose you could modify the illustration to make it more closely fit the reality of natural selection by saying that some of the monkeys keep typing and some are given the first word and that word is slowly passed out to the other monkeys, but it is kind of a pointless change, because that has nothing to do with the main point, which is that evolution is a gradual process that happens in small steps with each individual member of species "working" simultaneously to produce beneficial changes and then spreading them through the population in successive generations.
In other words, while no single monkey is likely to type out a work of Shakespeare on its own, it is far more probable that a large group of monkeys might each be capable of typing out part of it and by pooling their work get the desired end result.
Hooberus, thanks for the link. Now I see where you get your ideas from. You are quoting from an online textbook (must be over 1000 pages) by Professor Mark Ridley. It looks like a fantastic resource. Each chapter finishes with a summary, and a quiz, to see if you have understood.
You seem to have not understood the issue though. Your quote is from the "A-Z Browser" which is the definition section for all of the various terms used. You should read "Chapter 7: Natural Selection and Random Drift in Molecular Evolution". This is a long chapter dealing with the issue of what proportion of changes in proteins and DNA are due to "natural selection" vs "random drift". Here is a link to the summary page at the end of that chapter:
A more succinct summary would be, to quote Richard Dawkins:
"It is becoming increasingly clear that most molecular evolution is due to natural drift."
The important point is that, although the issue has been a matter of considerable debate in the scientific world, it does not in any way undermine the theory of evolution.
No its not. By perfect selection in one generation I was referring to total selection against all the other types in one generation. Which is what you did in your Monkey scenario. - Hooby
Again - total gibberish.
I have not got a clue what you mean by "perfect selection" and neither have you.
total selection against all the other types in one generation
This doesn't happen.
This stuff is page one of Evolution for Dummies. I have explained multiple times why you are wrong and you just keep re-pasting the same nonsense. Evolution is about changes in the frequency of alleles in a gene pool. Those changes happen gradually over many generations.
The illustration about the monkeys and the typewriters is an attempt by creationists to mislead the uninformed about how evolution works. It implies that all of the many changes needed to produce complex structures would have to happen all at once through chance.
The illustration is wrong for this reason...
Small changes happen through random chance. I gave an example of such an illustration above where a single point mutation resulted in the ability to detect UV light. Now natural selection comes into play. That lucky individual will have a better than average chance of leaving offspring in the local breeding population, and those offspring will enjoy the same advantage. On average the individuals with the mutation will breed more successfully than those without it. OVER MANY GENERATIONS the percentage of the population with the UV mutation will tend towards 100%.
The creationist's illustration of the monkeys and the typewriters is stupid one. It only makes any sense if you think about natural selection occasionally updating the manuscript on every typewriter.
Evolution is gradual. One individual with a genetic advantage does not result in the elimination of the rest of the population. It just increases their chance of having more descendants.
Meanwhile other individuals in the same breeding population will also be experiencing mutations - some of which are advantageous, and which will also have been spreading in the same gene pool. Sexual reproduction makes it possible for useful combinations of genes to end up in the same individual.
Again - total gibberish.
I have not got a clue what you mean by "perfect selection" and neither have you.
I clearly explained what I meant by “perfect selection” I backed it up from an Evolutionary resource too.
If you disagree with my figures, then why don’t you calculate the selection coefficient value of your “Evolutionary Monkey Scenario” (in which all the wrong ones are immediately “scrapped”) from the opening post and share it with us?
