Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne

[dust1n]

That organisms carry useless garbage around for 3000 generations, at which point it suddenly becomes useful, is not a working model. In the model that would mean the organisms become garbage, rather than that they carry garbage around.

Sigh... welcome back, Mohammad. I can see your fixation with refuse-based vocabulary hasn't left.

I'm aware you'd yet to have a luxury of taking a couple of evolutionary biology courses, so Ii'll drop this here:

"Genetic drift (or allelic drift) is the change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling of organisms.[1] The alleles in the offspring are a sample of those in the parents, and chance has a role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces. A population's allele frequency is the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form.[2] Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation...

The law of large numbers predicts that when the population is large, the effect of genetic drift is much milder. When the reproductive population is small, however, the effects of sampling error can alter the allele frequencies significantly. Genetic drift is therefore considered to be a consequential mechanism of evolutionary change primarily within small, isolated populations.[25]

Although both processes affect evolution, genetic drift operates randomly while natural selection functions non-randomly. While natural selection has a direction, guiding evolution towards heritable adaptations to the current environment, genetic drift has no direction and is guided only by the mathematics of chance.[26] As a result, drift acts upon the genotypic frequencies within a population without regard to their phenotypic effects. In contrast, selection favors the spread of alleles whose phenotypic effects increase survival and/or reproduction of their carriers, lowers the frequencies of alleles that cause unfavorable traits, and ignores those that are neutral.[27]

In natural populations, genetic drift and natural selection do not act in isolation; both forces are always at play, together with mutation and migration. However, the magnitude of drift on allele frequencies per generation is larger when the absolute number of copies of the allele is small, e.g. in small populations. The magnitude of drift is large enough to overwhelm selection when the selection coefficient is less than 1 divided by the effective population size.

The mathematics of genetic drift depend on the effective population size, but it is not clear how this is related to the actual number of individuals in a population.[13] Genetic linkage to other genes that are under selection can reduce the effective population size experienced by a neutral allele. With a higher recombination rate, linkage decreases and with it this local effect on effective population size.[28][29] This effect is visible in molecular data as a correlation between local recombination rate and genetic diversity,[30] and negative correlation between gene density and diversity at noncoding sites.[31] Stochasticity associated with linkage to other genes that are under selection is not the same as sampling error, and is sometimes known as genetic draft in order to distinguish it from genetic drift.[13]

When the allele frequency is very small, drift can also overpower selection even in large populations. For example, while disadvantageous mutations are usually eliminated quickly in large populations, new advantageous mutations are almost as vulnerable to loss through genetic drift as are neutral mutations. Not until the allele frequency for the advantageous mutation reaches a certain threshold will genetic drift have no effect.[27]

In general, "global" solutions to many adaptive challenges at once can evolve at a smaller effective population size than "local" solutions that must evolve separately to each adaptive challenge.[32]""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Sigh... welcome back, Mohammad. I can see your fixation with refuse-based vocabulary hasn't left.

I'm aware you'd yet to have a luxury of taking a couple of evolutionary biology courses, so Ii'll drop this here:

"Genetic drift (or allelic drift) is the change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling of organisms.[1] The alleles in the offspring are a sample of those in the parents, and chance has a role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces. A population's allele frequency is the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form.[2] Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation...

The law of large numbers predicts that when the population is large, the effect of genetic drift is much milder. When the reproductive population is small, however, the effects of sampling error can alter the allele frequencies significantly. Genetic drift is therefore considered to be a consequential mechanism of evolutionary change primarily within small, isolated populations.[25]

Although both processes affect evolution, genetic drift operates randomly while natural selection functions non-randomly. While natural selection has a direction, guiding evolution towards heritable adaptations to the current environment, genetic drift has no direction and is guided only by the mathematics of chance.[26] As a result, drift acts upon the genotypic frequencies within a population without regard to their phenotypic effects. In contrast, selection favors the spread of alleles whose phenotypic effects increase survival and/or reproduction of their carriers, lowers the frequencies of alleles that cause unfavorable traits, and ignores those that are neutral.[27]

In natural populations, genetic drift and natural selection do not act in isolation; both forces are always at play, together with mutation and migration. However, the magnitude of drift on allele frequencies per generation is larger when the absolute number of copies of the allele is small, e.g. in small populations. The magnitude of drift is large enough to overwhelm selection when the selection coefficient is less than 1 divided by the effective population size.

The mathematics of genetic drift depend on the effective population size, but it is not clear how this is related to the actual number of individuals in a population.[13] Genetic linkage to other genes that are under selection can reduce the effective population size experienced by a neutral allele. With a higher recombination rate, linkage decreases and with it this local effect on effective population size.[28][29] This effect is visible in molecular data as a correlation between local recombination rate and genetic diversity,[30] and negative correlation between gene density and diversity at noncoding sites.[31] Stochasticity associated with linkage to other genes that are under selection is not the same as sampling error, and is sometimes known as genetic draft in order to distinguish it from genetic drift.[13]

When the allele frequency is very small, drift can also overpower selection even in large populations. For example, while disadvantageous mutations are usually eliminated quickly in large populations, new advantageous mutations are almost as vulnerable to loss through genetic drift as are neutral mutations. Not until the allele frequency for the advantageous mutation reaches a certain threshold will genetic drift have no effect.[27]

In general, "global" solutions to many adaptive challenges at once can evolve at a smaller effective population size than "local" solutions that must evolve separately to each adaptive challenge.[32]""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

I contest that somebody has to study all that, in order to reject the proposed idea.

Evolution theory has no scientific respectability in that the evidence obviously points to intelligent design. The common reasoning, by anybody regardless of whether they went to school or not, that the organisms appear to be chosen as a functional whole, is actually a fully warranted and credible scientific theory, supported by the available evidence.

That you try to persuade people to swallow as fact that a mutation is useless for 3000 generations, and then becomes useful, that this is part and parcel of a working model, I find perverse.

 

[dust1n]

I contest that somebody has to study all that...

I did that a lot of that grade school myself. My grades were sorely lacking as a result.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I did that a lot of that grade school myself. My grades were sorely lacking as a result.

It is all just posing to have authority through sophistication, while the emperor has no clothes. To have very sophisticated reasoning as to how it might be that for 3000 generations a mutation is useless, after which it becomes useful, is basically the same as having sophisticated reasoning for how aliens could have planted the organisms there, or any other wild speculation.

What it really says is that without acknowledging the relevance of freedom we cannot come up with a credible theory of origins in line with the evidence.

 

[dust1n]

It is all just posing to have authority through sophistication, while the emperor has no clothes. To have very sophisticated reasoning as to how it might be that for 3000 generations a mutation is useless, after which it becomes useful, is basically the same as having sophisticated reasoning for how aliens could have planted the organisms there, or any other wild speculation.

It isn't actually. I'm sorry to inform your that most professions, including biology, require intense study. I'm not sure why in the world you think your contention that having the study stuff is really out of the way for you, so you shouldn't have to do it, is suppose to appeal to anyone.

Perhaps you are more of a lecture sort of guy...

What it really says is that without acknowledging the relevance of freedom we cannot come up with a credible theory of origins in line with the evidence.

Free... dom? Never heard of it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It isn't actually. I'm sorry to inform your that most professions, including biology, require intense study. I'm not sure why in the world you think your contention that having the study stuff is really out of the way for you, so you shouldn't have to do it, is suppose to appeal to anyone.

Perhaps you are more of a lecture sort of guy...

Free... dom? Never heard of it.

Studying biology is a different issue from studying how for 3000 generations a mutation is useless, and then becomes useful.

It is of course because you "never heared" of freedom that you are engaged in this rather perverse pursuit, of authoritively claiming the factuality of nonsensical speculation.

And Jerry Coyne also denies freedom is real. That is a significant pattern that anybody should be able to see, the denial of freedom among evolutionists, if they are worth anything as a scientist. To know that garbage you trot out doesn't make people more knowledgable.

 

[David M]

Science studies the available evidences. But a scientific fact can only be based on undeniable full proof(s).

No, that is not how science works. It has never been how the scientfic method works.

 

[David M]

No, a theory is a general, vague idea. A scientific theory is made up of facts.
Evolution will never become a scientific "fact" nor "law" in the strictest senses of the word.

All evolution theory is present facts through a more narrow medium. I.e.:
[Natual selection]
[Common descent]
[Speciation]

This linguistic red herring can also be applied to the general theory of relativity.

The only thing general and vague is your post. If you are trying to be pedantic you need to get your terminology correct.

Evolution is already a scientific fact. I think you meant to say "The Theory of Evolution" in that sentence.

 

[David M]

That organisms carry useless garbage around for 3000 generations, at which point it suddenly becomes useful, is not a working model. In the model that would mean the organisms become garbage, rather than that they carry garbage around.

No it doesn't. But you would know that if your understanding of what the science actually says was anywhere near competent.

 

[dust1n]

Studying biology is a...

How would you know?

 

[outhouse]

This is another typical example of the dangers of islam, and its refusal to accept credible knowledge.

We know this is a global problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_science


In the Muslim world today, most of the focus on the relation between Islam and science involves scientific interpretations of the Quran (and sometimes the Sunna) that claim to show that these sources make prescient statements about the nature of the universe, biological development and other phenomena later confirmed by scientific research, thus demonstrating proof of the divine origin of the Qur'an (and sometimes the Sunna). This effort has been criticized by some scientists and philosophers as containing logical fallacies,[1] being unscientific, likely to be disproven by evolving scientific theories


The world should not tolerate this.

 

[gnostic]

To both Rome Viharo and Lyndon:

Observation is not necessarily direct observation.

Observation can be made through available devices or tools.

A person cannot directly see atom, or the atomic particles (electrons, protons, neutrons or nucleus), which is why microscope of certain power are required.

No one directly observe Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, but can be seen through telescopes or from cameras of space probes or crafts.

If we see a live wire on the ground, we cannot see the electricity, we get electrocuted if we touch it. But we can use devices that can measure the electric current, voltage or power. Of course, you could say being electrocuted as directly observing electricity (through touch), but I seriously wouldn't recommend touching live wire.

No one can directly see radio waves (electromagnetic waves), doesn't mean that that don't exist, and yet it can be used, everyday, like radio, TVs, mobile phones, satellites, etc.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The world should not tolerate this.

People need to understand that scientists are human beings and therefore are affected by the common head vs heart struggle. Which is why they reject the obvious fact that freedom is real and relevant.

Just like they are doing now in a more transparant way with multiverse theory, which is another freedom avoiding idea. Scientists hate freedom, because they hate subjectivity which operates in a fee way. So rather than theorize that an object has multiple futures of which one is made the present, they conceive of several universes in which the object turns out a different way in each universe.

Evolution theory has the same freedom avoiding rottenness as multiverse theory. And sure these theories about the multiverse are hyper-sophisticated, and theories about useless mutations getting to be usable are highly sophisticated. Looking all educated and scholarly.

The theories are also pseudoscientific garbage, besides being sophisticated.

 

[outhouse]

A person cannot directly see atom

We can now

 

[Milton Platt]

Science is meant to be based on direct observation but evolutionists like Jerry Coyne believes in things they can not see.

Science does not rely solely upon direct observation of a phenomenon for evidence of it's existence. We have not known about the planet, Pluto, for as long as it takes for the planet to make one orbit of the sun, yet we know it will, and we know exactly how long it will take.

If you wish to insist that evolution, over the long term, has not been directly observed (the time span is too long), and therefore, god, then you must abide by your own rules and provide an example of a direct observation of your god, and a direct observation of a god creating a universe, and then creating life. The ball is in your court.

 

[viole]

Science is meant to be based on direct observation but evolutionists like Jerry Coyne believes in things they can not see.

Science does not rely solely upon direct observation of a phenomenon for evidence of it's existence. We have not known about the planet, Pluto, for as long as it takes for the planet to make one orbit of the sun, yet we know it will, and we know exactly how long it will take.

If you wish to insist that evolution, over the long term, has not been directly observed (the time span is too long), and therefore, god, then you must abide by your own rules and provide an example of a direct observation of your god, and a direct observation of a god creating a universe, and then creating life. The ball is in your court.

Science is based on direct observation in the same way legal pathology is based on directly observing how a person has been killed.

The question is why people, including Christians, take seriously a pathologist when trying to ascertain how a crime has been perpetrated.

Ciao

- viole

 

[MMarcoe]

I have long said that if you are different from your parents, then you are seeing evolution in action. Yes, it's observable.

It's so obvious that creationists have incorporated it into their own model via the "variation within kinds" idea.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sigh. Another thread that attempts to elevate a lie into truth.

Why are people so afraid of evolution?

 

[viole]

Sigh. Another thread that attempts to elevate a lie into truth.

Why are people so afraid of evolution?

Simple, evolution is incompatible with a benevolent and omnipotent God who knows what He wants.

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

People need to understand that scientists are human beings and therefore are affected by the common head vs heart struggle. Which is why they reject the obvious fact that freedom is real and relevant.

Just like they are doing now in a more transparant way with multiverse theory, which is another freedom avoiding idea. Scientists hate freedom, because they hate subjectivity which operates in a fee way. So rather than theorize that an object has multiple futures of which one is made the present, they conceive of several universes in which the object turns out a different way in each universe.

Evolution theory has the same freedom avoiding rottenness as multiverse theory. And sure these theories about the multiverse are hyper-sophisticated, and theories about useless mutations getting to be usable are highly sophisticated. Looking all educated and scholarly.

The theories are also pseudoscientific garbage, besides being sophisticated.

I see you are polluting another thread with this garbage...