|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 01/04/2011 : 23:38:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
I have this urn with a mix of yellow and blue balls (a total of 50 balls). I remove a yellow ball and replace it with a blue ball.
S=2.34*10-23
There ya go, entropy is increasing. |
Wait... does it start as a 50-50 mix?  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 07:50:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JerryB
Bingo! Just admit that the study shows deleterious mutations accumulating in the human genome for 6 million years and we will need no math at all, will we. But you are not going to have the intellectual honesty to admit that, are you? |
Okay, I finally went and Googled up the whole letter (not a peer-reviewed study, but nevermind that), and now understand the methods better. The 1.6 deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation figure is an estimate of mutations that should have been found, but were not. In other words, it is an estimate of mutations which have been selected out of the population, which is the exact opposite of mutations "accumulating."
Essentially, they say that if all mutations were neutral, they estimated that they should have found 231 non-synonymous mutations in their sample, but they only estimated 143 from the actual data. The other 88 (38%) have been selected out of the genome (constrained), and so are thought to have been deleterious. They then converted those estimates to per-site-per-year rates, and then to per-diploid-genome-per-generation rates. 231 total estimated mutations becomes 4.2 mutations, and 38% of 4.2 gives us the 1.6 rate.
This is the opposite of what you want to show, Jerry. They're not saying that we get 1.6 more deleterious mutations per generation, they're saying that 1.6 deleterious mutations have been eliminated per generation over the last six million years.
The authors do say that such a high rate (which they think may be underestimated by as much as 40%, and the SEM is a whopping 50% of the 1.6 figure!) should be inconceivable for a low-reproductive-rate species like ourselves, but I don't really grok that part yet and will have to chase down their references sometime to learn more.
|
WOW....lol.....When I asked you above if you had the intellectual honesty to admit to the truth of the study, why didn't you just say no? You didn't have to go through all that twisting.
Read what they say:
we estimate that an average of 4.2 amino-acid-altering mutations per diploid per generation have occurred in the human lineage since humans separated from chimpanzees. Of these mutations, we estimate that at least 38% have been eliminated by natural selection, indicating that there have been more than 1.6 new deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation. Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate4, indicating that the effects of deleterious mutations may have combined synergistically. Furthermore, the level of selective constraint in hominid protein-coding sequences is atypically low. A large number of slightly deleterious mutations may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6717/abs/397344a0.html
Here is Prof. James Crow, the interpreter of the study:
"Translating these numbers into mutation rates gave a total rate of 4.2 mutations per person per generation, and a deleterious rate of 1.6. The rates for chimpanzees and gorillas were very similar, the deleterious rates being 1.7 and 1.2, respectively. The authors took 60,000 as the gene number and 25 years as the generation length. The number 1.6 is probably an underestimate, for various reasons. For instance, mutations outside the coding region are not counted and some of these regions -- such as those controlling gene expression -- are expected to be subject to natural selection. The gene number may also be an underestimate. If there have been mutations that increase fitness, they would also cause the number of deleterious mutations to be underestimated. A less conservative, and probably more realistic, estimate doubles the value, giving 3 new deleterious mutations per person per generation."...............
Their preferred explanation is that slightly deleterious mutations have become fixed in the population, by a process known as random genetic drift, during periods of human history when the breeding population size was low -- especially during genetic 'bottlenecks'. This would increase whatever effect the accumulated mutations are having on current human welfare. Are some of our headaches, stomach upsets, weak eyesight and other ailments the result of mutation accumulation? Probably, but in our present state of knowledge, we can only speculate.
http://www.colband.com.br/ativ/nete/biot/textos/geral/007.htm
NO intelligent person with intellectual honesty can read the above and twist it into: "they're saying that 1.6 deleterious mutations have been eliminated per generation over the last six million years." LMAO.
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 08:25:21 [Permalink]
|
Jerry: Are you not aware that had we been calculating beneficial mutations rather than deleterious ones; had we used log1/W rather than logW we would have come up with the same number but a negative one showing order rather than disorder?
Dave: Had we made both those changes, the number would still be positive. You obviously don't understand the math.
Jerry:I can't help it if you don't know how to use Boltzmann's formula.
Dave: Look in a mirror. |
Now I'm going to put this baby to bed by showing everyone how lacking in understanding you are in the maths of thermodynamics. I believe this is the only mathematical point you have made that I haven't refuted.
The original math:
W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! --- 3.66 x 10^173494 / 2.14 x 10^173487
W = 1.71 x 10^7
Now we can do Boltzmann's math:
S = K log W, S = (1.38 x 10^-23) log(1.71 x 10^7)
S = 9.98 x 10^-23
Entropy is positive showing the genome disordering as we would expect from the study and you claim it would be positive regardless of what we would do.
Wrong. Were the mutations beneficial we simply would use -S = K log 1/W. Let's try it:
W = 1.71 x 10^7
Now we can do Boltzmann's math:
-S = K log 1/W, S = (1.38 x 10^-23) log 1/(1.71 x 10^7)
-S = -9.98 x 10^-23
That's straight out of the windows calculator and ANYONE with windows can easily do that and see that were the mutations beneficial, then S would have been negative showing order in the genome.
I hope you enjoyed having your head handed to you on a plate in a friendly debate with a dum kreationist/ID feller.  |
| Edited by - JerryB on 01/05/2011 13:37:01 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 09:32:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
NO intelligent person with intellectual honesty can read the above and twist it into: "they're saying that 1.6 deleterious mutations have been eliminated per generation over the last six million years." LMAO. |
Whatever you say, Jerry, you're just quote-mining now. I'll go by how they did the math. Predicted mutations minus found mutations equals mutations eliminated by selection because they were deleterious. If you prefer the ambiguities provided by the prose descriptions you cherry-pick, that's your problem, not mine. The 1.6 figure is the 38% of mutations that they predicted but did not find. 1.6 mutations per diploid genome per generation are missing.
Because part of the James Crow piece you constantly neglect is this one:What's the significance? Every deleterious mutation must eventually be eliminated from the population by premature death or reduced relative reproductive success, a 'genetic death'. That implies three genetic deaths per person! Why aren't we extinct? If harmful mutations were eliminated independently, as in an asexual species, it has been estimated that this would lower population fitness to a fraction e-3, or 5%, of the mutation-free value, leading to the inevitable extinction of species with limited reproductive capacity. A way out is for mutations to be eliminated in bunches. This happens if selection operates such that individuals with the most mutations are preferentially eliminated, for example if harmful mutations interact. But such a process can only work in sexual species, where mutations are shuffled each generation by genetic recombination. The existence of a high deleterious mutation rate strengthens the argument that a major advantage of sex is that it is an efficient way to eliminate harmful mutations. It also raises again the possibility of fitness decline or even extinction in rare species from too many harmful mutations. Ignore these explanations at the risk of looking like a fool, Jerry (which you do).
More problematic for you than that, of course, is that how deleterious a mutation is ("slightly," etc.) makes a big difference to the other hypotheses that Eyre-Walker and Keightley offer, a metric that your calculation completely ignores. That's the primary reason your calculation of W is completely inappropriate: it models nucleotides as "bad" or "not bad," which is not how they behave in reality. There are degrees of "badness," and some "not bad" mutations are actually "good," which would cancel out some "bad." Your choice of formula set up evolution to fail before you ever put any numbers into it, and such an unfalsifiable hypothesis demonstrates nothing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 09:40:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
...you claim it would be positive regardless of what we would do. |
Liar.| Were the mutations beneficial we simply would use S = K log 1/W. Let's try it: |
No, if you're inverting the logarithm you need to negate the other side, as in -S = K log 1/W, otherwise you fail algebra. The signs matter, Jerry. That you're trying to ignore basic algebra to get a negative sign where you wish one to be means that you don't understand the math.| That's straight out of the windows calculator and ANYONE with windows can easily do that and see that were the mutations beneficial, then S would have been negative showing order in the genome. |
No, Windows and its calculator don't show which equations are appropriate to use on which numbers to model which processes. It is in those choices, Jerry, where you have failed miserably to support your case.| I hope you enjoyed having your head handed to you on a plate in a friendly debate with a dum kreationist/ID feller. |
More posturing.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 09:51:11 [Permalink]
|
CONCLUSION:
Dave is correct in that there was really no reason to even go to math on that study because the results of the study are so blatantly obvious that they speak for themselves.
However, studies are words and words can be twisted. One cannot twist math. That is the reason I went there.
So what does this all mean? It means that there was NO complex evolution in the human genome since man branched from a common ancestor with Chimp. Then why aren't we still an apeoid?
There is the question. How did we become so much more complex: people made up of doctors, engineers and computer programmers driving nice cars and flying strapped in a seat 5 miles in the air coast to coast chatting with our girlfriends on the laptop?
The truth is that not only was there no complex evolution in the human genome for the last 6 million years, there is no concrete evidence that there EVER WAS.
Was it a Darwinian magic "poof" then that morphed us into people?
We can see in the fossil record (i.e. the Cambrian Explosion, etc.) all kinds of organisms seemingly coming onto the record relatively quickly, fully formed and ready to go in their environment. How can this be if Darwinian gradualism is a legit hypothesis?
I'm sure that neither side in this 150 year conundrum would seriously consider poofs in the origins scenario, but there has to be SOMETHING out there that caused this.
Due to the evidence I've presented here and much more, I feel that the best explanation is design. And I don't mean a guy in heaven waving a wand and "poofing" us into existence either.
I mean design at the molecular level by recently discovered intelligent quantum mechanics that we still don't well understand (but we are working on it). This is what I call God, but you certainly don't have to.
I have posted some work by chairman of the Mathematical Physics Department at Tulane University, Frank Tipler. Tipler mathematically shows quantum mechanics acting within the universe.
He constructs a single pocket of increasingly higher level organization evolving to the ultimate "Omega Point" which he implies to be a pocket of quantum mechanics that acts as an intelligent observer from the future backward to the past.
He writes: "I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
Could this be the designer? Why rule it out without at least considering the possibility? Do I KNOW that this is the designer?
No, but Dave and I both agree that microstates define the macrostate. And if we were designed, wouldn't it make sense that the design would begin at the quantum level and progress to the molecular level eventually reaching a macrostate called homo sapiens?
Evolution would take it from there, of course, as mutations and natural selection began to work their charms.
So perhaps both sides of this argument are a little right and a little wrong. We have much to learn as Hawking continues the search for his god particle, man explores Mars and curious people like Dave and I continue to search for truth.
Keep an open mind.
|
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 10:02:57 [Permalink]
|
In other words:
"Now that I've thoroughly humiliated myself by being utterly and completely wrong in every aspect, I'm going to run away with my tail between my legs." |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 10:03:46 [Permalink]
|
| I didn't invert the log...LOL....I inverted the microstates, then took the log of that. And you are correct, the rest of the posts are just posturing. Thanks for the good conversation. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 10:05:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
In other words:
"Now that I've thoroughly humiliated myself by being utterly and completely wrong in every aspect, I'm going to run away with my tail between my legs."
|
I'm not going anywhere. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 10:10:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I'm not going anywhere.
|
I'm glad. Watching you make a complete fool of yourself is quite entertaining... |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 10:14:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
CONCLUSION: |
That's too good to be true.| Dave is correct in that there was really no reason to even go to math on that study because the results of the study are so blatantly obvious that they speak for themselves. |
Except for the fact that doing so led you to the polar opposite conclusion of what the researchers themselves found.| I didn't invert the log...LOL....I inverted the microstates, then took the log of that. |
Duh. log(x) = -log(1/x).| And you are correct, the rest of the posts are just posturing. |
Thanks for that admission of hypocrisy.| Thanks for the good conversation. |
Is that what you thought you were doing? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 10:31:34 [Permalink]
|
Jerry. About your closing speech. We are apes. Didn't you know? Also, like every other creationist you have miss interpreted the "cambrian explosion" which was no such thing. It marked a transition from mostly soft bodied life to bodies with bones or shells that would much more easily fossilize. It's exactly what evolution would predict. Nothing there is out of place. And only a creationist would talk about "fully formed" animals as being significant, because every animal and plant is transitional, and would appear fully formed because it is fully formed. What in the hell would a non fully formed animal even look like? It's the creationist idiot plea from total ignorance about what we should find in the fossil record. To even go there is to show that you know diddle squat about evolution, Jerry, but feel the need to show that it couldn't have happened.
Again, just as we came in, ID is nothing more than an appeal to incredulity and ignorance. And by demonstrating your tenuous grasp of evolution itself, what you have shown us so far Jerry is the same old creationist shit dressed up as a crackpot QM, whatever it is... Oh well.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 10:48:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JerryB
CONCLUSION: |
That's too good to be true.| Dave is correct in that there was really no reason to even go to math on that study because the results of the study are so blatantly obvious that they speak for themselves. |
Except for the fact that doing so led you to the polar opposite conclusion of what the researchers themselves found.| I didn't invert the log...LOL....I inverted the microstates, then took the log of that. |
Duh. log(x) = -log(1/x).| And you are correct, the rest of the posts are just posturing. |
Thanks for that admission of hypocrisy.| Thanks for the good conversation. |
Is that what you thought you were doing?
|
That is just semantics, Dave. You know very well that you are going to come out with negative entropy either way. Was Erwin Schrodinger wrong when he uses it exactly the same way I did?
"If D is a measure of disorder, its reciprocal, 1/D, can be regarded as a direct measure of order. Since the logarithm of 1/D is just minus the logarithm of D, we can write Boltzmann's equation thus:
-(entropy) = k log (1/D)."
http://dieoff.org/page150.htm
Keep spinning. Only your die-hard friends and fans on here are buying ANY of it. |
| Edited by - JerryB on 01/05/2011 10:54:10 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 11:31:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
That is just semantics, Dave. You know very well that you are going to come out with negative entropy either way. Was Erwin Schrodinger wrong when he uses it exactly the same way I did? |
Show me where he calculated D "exactly" as you calculated W. You can't, because he didn't."If D is a measure of disorder, its reciprocal, 1/D, can be regarded as a direct measure of order. Since the logarithm of 1/D is just minus the logarithm of D, we can write Boltzmann's equation thus:
-(entropy) = k log (1/D)." |
You left off the minus sign on the entropy when you posted your version earlier, Jerry. Nobody is disagreeing that log(x) = -log(1/x). What you can't do is just willy-nilly say that S = k log W sometimes and say that S = k log (1/W) at other times. S can't equal both, it's one or the other. So if S = k log W, then -S = k log (1/W) - just as you quoted Schrödinger - and S remains a measure of entropy only.| Keep spinning. Only your die-hard friends and fans on here are buying ANY of it. |
Empty posturing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2011 : 11:49:07 [Permalink]
|
| And with this post... |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Intelligent Design is Stupid
