farmerjay86

Members
  • Content count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About farmerjay86

  • Rank
    Lepton

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    botany
  1. Thank you for helping. I pointed out some of those flaws. Particularly the problem with a uniform mutation rate and he gave up.
  2. Hello Fellow Forum Members, First off I would like to thank everyone that commented on my last post, they were very helpful and educational. Since then I have done quite a bit of research on genetics and the mathematical equations involved, it's been very enlightening and I thoroughly respect anyone who works in this field of science. Anyway back to the crazy creationist arguments.... As I mentioned in my previous post my father is a Jehovah's Witness who rejects evolution and believes that the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old. He also believes that the science of genetics as it relates to evolution and mutations is false and that he can prove it. Bellow is the first part of his mathematical "proof," I had assumed he was going to use an equation a little more complex than he did. His first "proof" is a simple compounding probability argument and in my first response I pointed out that this is not how genetic material accumulates and sent him links to the equations for replicator equations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicator_equation and Markov Chains http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_probabilities. I think these are the equations used for this sort of thing but I would like some feedback. I also pointed out a few other factual errors to him, such as the genome size of cyanobacteria today is most likely larger than it was 3 billion years ago and has probably changed and that genome size doesn't correlate to larger or more complex physiology and thus wouldn't absolutely need more resource. Well anyway here is the first part of his argument, I would appreciate any input and more insight. Thanks, FarmerJay This is the first math salvo of what I expect to be a lengthy correspondence, especially when you pull in help. First Salvo: We agreed the first viable organism started with 3 base pairs of genes. We also agreed that according to the fossil record, the second organism to evolve was the cyanobacteria which have 2488635 base pairs of genes. So, we need to "evolve" 2488632 base pairs of genes. We agreed that the working ratio of good to neutral\bad mutations for the prokaryote is 0.00041. In other words only 0.00041 in one mutations are good. That’s a very low number. Here’s the argument: I know your assumption is that there are billions of these duplicate simple 3 base pair pre-oxygen critters, happily bubbling away mutations in the mud at the bottom of the dead sterile oceans all at the same time; so 41­-4 (.00041) doesn’t seem unrealistic. So far, I agree the above isn’t impossible; however the mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. Some problems immediately pop into mind: · As soon as one critter makes the next required mutation step – it is no longer billions – it is one. All of a sudden all those other “biiiillions” become competitors to the “one” that has mutated and the odds drop off a cliff. · This “one” has to survive long enough to either reproduce its billions or pull off the next step itself within its very short lifetime. · You assume the next good mutation is not only beneficial, but it coordinates\matches with the rest of the organism’s original physiology AND helps it survive. · Mutations that move the critter to a more complex physiology most often would mean more genetic mater – also know as larger size. The larger it is the greater need for food. It needs to mutate methods of movement appropriate to its size, etc., all this would logically make it less advantageous while it goes through these stages. We know the odds of a good mutation in the target critter is 41­-4. The odds of the “one” critters offspring\lineage (assuming it survived long enough to reproduce, see above) of a good mutation in the target critter is 41­-4 also. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: The second mutation would be 41-­4 X 41-­4, or 41-8. That’s 0.000000041, (billion) Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That’s a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So Jay, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? The next mutation would be 41-8 X 41­-8, or 41-16. 16 zero, 0.00000000000000041. No way just 4 mutations will create new genetic material (new base pair) - so the fourth woul;d be 41-32 It hurts my head to try to figure out how large of a number that is. I don’t even know what it would be called; one hundred trillion trillions maybe? Suddenly, the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough critters to make it likely for you to find a pre-cyanobacteria with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations. What about trying for five related mutations? 41-64. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a your 3 pair critter into a photosynthesizing machine with 2488632 base pairs of genes capable of creating the earth’s oxygen ozone layer – critical for all other life to form there after! - four mutations don’t even make a start toward any real evolution. And remember – you only have 200,000,000 years to pull off: 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000041…… Go For It !!!! Your reply?
  3. Hello Folks, First I would like to thank you very much for the replies so far they have been extremely helpful, however my father still believes that he has a math equation that will prove that evolution couldn't happen and genetics is wrong. He has cited the Wistar Symposium of 1966 as one of his main sources for the math. At this point I would like to mention that he is a Software Engineer and plans on using C++ or another language to do the number crunching. Anyway I will be posting several of his emails as they come to me and I would appreciate any input on inaccuracies as this stuff is starting to get way over my head. This email is the most recent and is the "starting point" he plans to begin the mathematical model with. Let me know what you think and Thanks. As far as the Math thread goes, so far we have agreed that: · Evolution is responsible for both adding and subtracting genetic material from the genome · The plant Paris aethiopicus has a whopping estimated 150 billion base pairs in its genome · Many mutations happen, a lot bad, some good some neutral · The amount of base pairs an organism has does not represent the number of mutations it has gone through but in fact this number is much greater as evolution adds, subtracts and adds again to the genome. · Life started about 3.6 billion years ago (give or take a couple 100 million) · The first “living” organism\bacteria started with one base pair in its genome. · This first single organism built itself up, very rapidly adding pair after pair and lived long enough to develop the functionality of consuming material (eat) and asexual reproduction. · They were the first, a single ancestor to all life, no others evolved alongside them; all organisms came from them. · Millions of years later, two of these first organisms, evolving in parallel, one male, one female, happened to evolve at the exact same time, in the exact same place, right next to each other and started to sexually produce offspring. · As the first organisms reproduced and continued mutating, branched off and produced every living organism that has ever lived. · Mutations are always random · There are no unequivocally (no bad side) beneficial mutations · The smallest genome is the virus of E. coli with 5,385 base pairs · We will begin our discussion of the discipline of mathematics as applied to the theory of macro-evolution at the starting 3.6 billion years ago with the prokaryote · The 2nd macro-evolutionary step took 200 million years, was 3.4 billion years ago with Stromatolites (algae) · The time scope applicable to the first stage of our discussion is 200 million years · The working ratio of Good to Neutral\Bad mutations for the prokaryote is 0.00041 New data points to agree upon: The first algae’s were the cyanobacteria. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100603172209.htm) The sequencing of the brown algal genome is also a milestone in the efforts to reconstruct the evolution of photosynthesis. "We now know that oxygen-producing photosynthesis was „invented" before about 3.8 billion years ago, by cyanobacteria, sometimes erroneously called 'blue-green algae'," says Valentin about the elemental capability of plants to convert sunlight into biologically usable energy, whilst releasing oxygen. "Green and red algae have developed this ability after their ancestors scavenged living cyanobacteria, and thus more or less captured photosynthesis, to the benefit of both sides, since this symbiosis resulted in tremendous competitive advantages in the primordial ocean." Our target base pair amount is 2,488,635 in 200 million years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sequenced_bacterial_genomes#Cyanobacteria) Species Type Base Pairs Corynebacterium diphtheriae Actinobacteridae 2,499,189 Corynebacterium diphtheriae Actinobacteridae 2,530,683 Corynebacterium diphtheriae Actinobacteria 2,488,635 Corynebacterium efficiens Actinobacteria 3,147,090 Corynebacterium glutamicum Actinobacteria 3,309,401 Corynebacterium jeikeium Actinobacteria 2,462,499 Do you agree ?
  4. Are there examples like trisomy where the duplications are not detrimental to the organism? That would be his first response.
  5. Hi everyone, I am a horticulturalist who is interested in learning more about genetics. In the mean time I have an annoying question to pose, this question comes from my father who is a devout Jehovah's Witness and believes he has debunked evolution and exposed lies in Genetics. I know he is wrong about this and the math he uses to prove his point is a gross oversimplification however I don't know enough about genetics to point out the flaws in his supposed "discovery." Can someone with an elementary knowledge of this please help me? Here it is: "Base Pairs & Math. Your particular favorite sect of evolutionism says that evolution happens very slowly over millions of years. Evolution “currently” says the first simple cells appeared about 3.5 billion years ago out of the primordial soup, assumingly starting with one base pair and then evolving into more complex organisms. We know modern humans today have about 3 billion base pairs in their genome. x = Modern Humans have 3 billion base pairs of genes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome) y = 3.5 billion years of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life) The math shows that a slow mutation process would produce on average .87 base pairs of genes per year in humans. Humans will gain 87 new base pair of genes in 100 years? Humans will gain 50+ base pairs in you 70 year life span? The Modern human has existed for roughly ten thousand years with no obvious “new” physical changes whatsoever. The Protopterus aethiopicus (marbled lungfish) 130 billion base pairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome) 37.8 base pairs per year? The plant Paris japonica as 150 billion base pairs (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8196572/Worlds-largest-genome-belongs-to-slow-growing-mountain-flower.html) 42.8 base pairs per year? This means that, if you average the amount of base pairs, every year a new base pair should be added to the genome of every organism on the planet.…..? Is evolution science running experiments with organisms see if increases are actually occurring? I looked, I couldn’t find one. I found challenges to have this done, but so far no universities\scientists have taken this up. You know the results of this would either put a stake in the heart of creation or in the heart of evolution, so of course you know darn well why this experiment is not being run. ....... Evolution, if it is the source of all of nature, should be as constant as the flow of a river. It should be ongoing. Did the driving mechanism for evolution stop suddenly for some reason? If not, where is it? Variations (aka mutations) ARE NOT NEW GENETIC MATERIAL. I know you think over millions of years they would be, but this makes your problem even worse because mathematically for a slow even process you need a lot of new base pairs each year - just to tie out the numbers. Mathematically the average organism would have to gain about 100 base pairs of NEW GENETIC MATERIAL per year to make your theory of slow steady evolution to work. Numbers don't lie dude. Why do you not only refuse to answer the questions - but you refuse to even acknowledge them? Why is this not happening now? When did it stop, or are you saying it happens in fits and starts? If you are having trouble acknowledging the start of my serious questions, should I continue?"