Enough Time for Evolution?

[Falvlun]

there was another one in post 485.

If i"m not mistaken, your article is simply about how Sexual populations will outlive asexual ones, and then it goes on to say that the model itself is based on an infinite population which renders the idea of a high ratio of beneficial mutations to a ratio far beyond what can be reasonably expected. Unless I missed something or I'm reading it wrong and someone would like to point out where it demonstrates what Favlun thinks it is saying here, it is not at all defending the idea that Beneficial mutations are in such high frequency as is necessary to sustain a Naturalistic model.

Your argument is that there is not enough time because beneficial mutations are few in numbers in comparison with the number of deleterious or neutral mutations. This study demonstrates how even a few beneficial mutations can quickly spread through a population, undercutting your argument.

Yes, it demonstrated why sexual reproduction produces more robust organisms than asexual reproduction. But you ignored the why: Why does sexual reproduction produce more robust organisms?

It does so because it allows beneficial mutations to quickly reach a high level of saturation within a population. Zing!

That part is in purple in the bit you quoted.

As for the infinite population issue, you read that completely backwards. The problem with such a model is not that it gives a benefit to the beneficial mutations, but that it makes it impossible for a beneficial mutation to saturate such a population. Thus, a non-infinite population is better for evolution to work upon. I highlighted that part in green.

In blue, I have highlighted the conclusion, that beneficial mutations will achieve a substantial frequency in large (but not infinite) populations in finite time.

Figure 2 shows that, under asexuality, even if a ben-
eficial mutation is doomed to extinction by the pro-
cesses just described, it may rise to a high copy number
before it is eliminated from the population. This occurs
because asexuality produces a high level of correlation
in the average of fitness of beneficial-mutation-bearing
individuals from one generation to the next. Thus, if a
beneficial mutation is initially associated with a relatively
fit genotype, it is likely that adults carrying the beneficial
mutation will continue to be relatively fit for a substantial
number of generations, even if their fitness eventually
erodes. It should be recognized, however, that the pat-
tern shown in Figure 2 might not appear in a relatively
small population. As the number of copies of a benefi-
cial mutation increases into the thousands, it can cause
an increase in the average fitness of a population that
contains, say, only ten or twenty thousand members.
This will cause a decrease in the relative fitness of in-
dividuals that carry the beneficial mutation. As a result,
in relatively small populations, beneficial mutations that
will eventually become extinct might not achieve the
sorts of copy numbers that are sometimes observed in
the extremely large (effectively infinite) populations
studies here.
One problem with the approach taken in this study is
that I have assumed an infinite population (N = 03). In
an infinite population a beneficial mutation that initially
arises in a single copy can never (in finite time) attain
a substantial frequency because its initial frequency is
infinitesimal. If the mutation becomes established, then
its numbers will continually grow, but the frequency of
the mutation will always be vanishingly small, except in
the limit as the time since the initial appearance of the
mutation becomes infinite. Another problem is that, un-
der a biologically reasonable mechanism of mutation,
one might expect the constant appearance of all pos-
sible beneficial mutations during each successive gen-
eration in an infinite population. The probability that a
given type of beneficial mutation will arise de nom may
be tiny for a given newborn individual, but so long as this
probability is finite, we can expect an infinite number of
new occurrences in an infinite population. This is con-
trary to my assumption that beneficial mutations are
rare.
Fortunately, these diffkulties with the N = a assump-
tion are more apparent than real. They tell us what we
already know, that infinite populations are biologically
unrealistic, and that they should only be used to approxi-
mate the case of very large populations. In a large (but
not infinite) population, established mutations will certainly achieve a substantial frequency in finite time. Fur-
thermore, we have data that strongly suggests that all
possible beneficial mutations will not necessarily arise at
one time even in very large microbial populations (e.g.,
PAQUIN and ADAMS 1983; LENSKI et al. 1991). The calcu-
lations made in this paper will be approximately correct
so long as the distribution of deleterious mutations is
similar to a Poisson distribution, and this requirement
can be fulfilled by a finite population, so long as it is
sufflciently large (HAIGH 1978). Thus, there is no real
problem with the N = ~0 assumption, as long as one
keeps in mind that the calculations are meant to be a
useful approximation for the case of very large (but fi-
nite) populations.
It may be worth pointing out that, while the popula-
tion is assumed to have an infinite number of members,
the fate of beneficial mutations (ie., establishment or
loss) is a random process. This may seem surprising to
some readers, as infinite populations are usually as-
sociated with deterministic processes. The reason for
the non-deterministic character of evolution in the
case of the models studied here is that the number of
copies of a beneficial mutation is finite at any given
(finite) time after the initial appearance of the
mutation.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What limits mutations and creatures evolving? Extinction....

 

[Shermana]

I can't help but notice that every time someone points out the mortal weakness of your position - that there is no boundary beyond which adaptation can not continue - you tell them they're embarrassing themselves instead of defending your claim.

For future reference:
Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dismissing and handwaving and calling it a "mortal weakness" is very ironic with your link.

 

[savagewind]

You have an opinion. It's not a theory because you can't test it.

Point is if you believe the bible is divinely inspired then you should take 6 days literally. Unless God could not express to the one who wrote genesis the actual length of time, or they just could not grasp it....

I believe the bible is divinely inspired and I take the notion that it took six days faithfully. I believe the account in Genesis is correct. The question is not; How long is a day? The right question is; What is a day?

 

[savagewind]

Secrets get revealed...so maybe just maybe evolution was the way God wanted us to discover the diversity of how things came about?

We have gain so much knowledge and I agree that we should continuously challenge evolution...but I feel some just do so because they want to cling to the past. There are plenty of moral guidelines in the bible.

The Bible cannot be trusted to be a moral lesson if what it says is gross error.

If you saw a person fall on the ground, start foaming at the mouth, twitching, eyes rolling back, making strange noises...would you say they were possessed by demons?

Have you ever heard of charkras ? When the harmony of the body is out of balance illness can result. When illness results because of it I think it is not too far off base to say it is "demon activity". "Demons" means that which is against life and love. Epilepsy is a physical malady but I think it can sometimes be caused by mind over matter. Stress causes disease imo. Not all is caused by stress, but I am sure some of it is.

 

[Shermana]

If this limit is so clear, then why are you completely unable to provide anything to show it?

You do an awful lot of whining about things that have not been observed, yet through that line of BS out when it comes to your own beliefs. Why?

What part about observed mutation rates did you not think was part of "observed"?

But yeah, I do notice your side has absolutely no problem making speculative assertions.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I believe the bible is divinely inspired and I take the notion that it took six days faithfully. I believe the account in Genesis is correct. The question is not; How long is a day? The right question is; What is a day?

Then it should be more clear. Written so that all generations can understand it. What is true then should be true now. It says a day it means a day. If it translates to a 1000 years it should have said that.

 

[Shermana]

there was another one in post 485.


Your argument is that there is not enough time because beneficial mutations are few in numbers in comparison with the number of deleterious or neutral mutations. This study demonstrates how even a few beneficial mutations can quickly spread through a population, undercutting your argument.

Yes, it demonstrated why sexual reproduction produces more robust organisms than asexual reproduction. But you ignored the why: Why does sexual reproduction produce more robust organisms?

It does so because it allows beneficial mutations to quickly reach a high level of saturation within a population. Zing!

That part is in purple in the bit you quoted.

As for the infinite population issue, you read that completely backwards. The problem with such a model is not that it gives a benefit to the beneficial mutations, but that it makes it impossible for a beneficial mutation to saturate such a population. Thus, a non-infinite population is better for evolution to work upon. I highlighted that part in green.

In blue, I have highlighted the conclusion, that beneficial mutations will achieve a substantial frequency in large (but not infinite) populations in finite time.

I'm still not seeing, even with what you said, where it implies there would be enough beneficial mutations from what is observed, please go over it line by line.

 

[savagewind]

Then it should be more clear. Written so that all generations can understand it. What is true then should be true now. It says a day it means a day.

All generations understand it. Not all the people of all the generations can understand it.

If it translates to a 1000 years it should have said that.

Gee wilikers It does not translate to 1000 years. But if it does mean 1000 (which it doesn't) then yes, I agree, it should say 1000 years. You are right. How does it feel?

 

[McBell]

What part about observed mutation rates did you not think was part of "observed"?

But yeah, I do notice your side has absolutely no problem making speculative assertions.

Your avoidance is clearly noted.

 

[Shermana]

Your avoidance is clearly noted.

YOUR avoidance is what's clearly noted.

You have yet to actually contribute anything, and you have yet to actually address what I've even said.

But I do appreciate you showcasing all of what most on your side seems to be capable of doing.

 

[Falvlun]

I'm still not seeing, even with what you said, where it implies there would be enough beneficial mutations from what is observed, please go over it line by line.

No one study is ever going to completely cover such a large topic. Are you going to honestly debate this or not?

This study addressed one of the specific reasons you are using to support your claim that there is not enough time, namely, the relatively small number of beneficial mutations that are created in contrast to the number of neutral or deleterious ones. This study showed that despite small numbers of beneficial mutations they are able to quickly disperse through a population.

 

[McBell]

YOUR avoidance is what's clearly noted.

You have yet to actually contribute anything, and you have yet to actually address what I've even said.

But I do appreciate you showcasing all of what most on your side seems to be capable of doing.

Itis most interesting with all the whining you do about off topic posts that you are the one who has the most off topic posts.

But that is not as interesting as the fact that you have as yet to actually address my posts other than to avoid answering them with anything other than the off topicness you whine so much about.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm still not seeing, even with what you said, where it implies there would be enough beneficial mutations from what is observed, please go over it line by line.

You really should consider stopping demanding that others take the responsibility for your lack of biological knowledge.

 

[Shermana]

You really should consider stopping demanding that others take the responsibility for your lack of biological knowledge.

Scared of having Favlun explain why he thinks it means what he says? You got a problem with asking people to clarify and substantiate their interpretation? So now asking people to elaborate is "Taking responsibility for my lack of biological knowledge"?

How about you consider stop interjecting your pollution into my thread if you're not going to actually contribute something that's remotely related? Save yourself the embarassment of looking like you are totally unable to.

Look at this,asking people to substantiate their position is being complained about. That speaks volumes. Projection of fear of getting shown to be wrong? Hmmm....

 

[savagewind]

No one study is ever going to completely cover such a large topic. Are you going to honestly debate this or not?

This study addressed one of the specific reasons you are using to support your claim that there is not enough time, namely, the relatively small number of beneficial mutations that are created in contrast to the number of neutral or deleterious ones. This study showed that despite small numbers of beneficial mutations they are able to quickly disperse through a population.

The small number of beneficial mutations and neutral ones that later prove to be beneficial for life are not "created" which is linked to the verbs "bring" (who brings what please?) and "cause" (what causes random things?- NOTHING causes randomness). The dispersal of these things "created" in a population is not applicable to the OP imo.

 

[LuisDantas]

Scared of having Favlun explain why he thinks it means what he says? You got a problem with asking people to clarify and substantiate their interpretation? So now asking people to elaborate is "Taking responsibility for my lack of biological knowledge"?

How about you consider stop interjecting your pollution into my thread if you're not going to actually contribute something that's remotely related? Save yourself the embarassment of looking like you are totally unable to.

Thanks for showing me how much I should care about your face.

 

[Shermana]

Itis most interesting with all the whining you do about off topic posts that you are the one who has the most off topic posts.

But that is not as interesting as the fact that you have as yet to actually address my posts other than to avoid answering them with anything other than the off topicness you whine so much about.

Are you serious?

Are you really this intent on embarassing yourself?

Is this your tactic? Accuse me of going off topic when I respond to baseless attacks on my responses to on topic posts like yours?

What posts of yours do you think I haven't answered? I told you, the mechanism stopping it is the fact that mutations are not demonstratably able to produce such changes. What's wrong with that answer? You don't like it?

So because I reply to off-topic posts to tell them to stop polluting my thread or telling them why they're wrong, I'm getting off topic?

This is great, you guys are really showcasing your terror of getting shown to be wrong.

It's pretty see through you know.

And then there's those like Luis Dantas who object to me asking someone to back up their position when I'm saying their interpretation of the quote I posted isn't quite what they think it says.

I'm definitely seeing a pattern here, and it's quite humorous to be honest.

 

[savagewind]

Are you serious?

So because I reply to off-topic posts to tell them to stop polluting my thread or telling them why they're wrong, I'm getting off topic?

This is great, you guys are really showcasing your terror of getting shown to be wrong.

At first this phenomenon stung like a bee. People would accuse me of going off topic every time I would answer a post that was already off topic (off topic), now I just think it's funny.

 

[McBell]

Are you serious?

Are you really this intent on embarassing yourself?

Is this your tactic? Accuse me of going off topic when I respond to baseless attacks on my responses to on topic posts like yours?

So because I reply to off-topic posts to tell them to stop polluting my thread or telling them why they're wrong, I'm getting off topic?

This is great, you guys are really showcasing your terror of getting shown to be wrong.

It's pretty see through you know.

And yet another off topic post that does nothing more than avoid the questions asked.

And you think I am the one embarrassing myself?

Since you are the one completely avoiding the topic when asked specific questions, how are you proving anyone wrong?

Methinks your transference is getting the better of you.