The poster of this video bases a lot of his ideas on papers on statistical analysis of changes in DNA. And this is completely valid, mathematically. The problem is with defining what you mean by "deleterious" and actually measuring the deleterious effect. You cannot do this with the statistical models used in these papers. So, one cannot know with any certainty whether the "deleterious mutation rate" is 0.01 or 0.001 or 0.0001. We're arguing over speculative numbers here.
An argument or scientific model needs to be entirely internally cohesive. This is actually going to be the main point of my rebuttal to you. All theories can be objected to in parts by smaller criticisms but the sum of those criticisms are usually contradictory and have no explanatory power. For example all of your criticisms so far do not explain adaptive fitness or how it occurs. The modern synthesis explains it.
Isn't the .5 meant to represent 50%? and you making it into 5 makes it 500%?
And I thought the video was meant to represent mathematically the plausibility of evolution through natural selection, as opposed to it's reality within nature.
@ZylHW No. What would a 50% mutation rate mean? It's .5 mutations per generation. If the simulation doesn't reflect reality, then he might as well had made a computer simulation of God creating the world in six days.
@owchywawa I assumed that a 50% mutation rate meant that 50% of organisms receive some sort of mutation ...... maybe I misunderstood cdk007's video...
I don't agree with your second point, surely one must develop a thesis before attempting to apply it to nature, and the thesis is proven (with his numbers) to be mathematically accurate.
@ZylHW I haven't seen his video in a while, but in the scientific literature mutation rates are usually shown as per person per generation; not by the percentage of people who receive them.
Here's the thing though: We have the numbers from nature; we have mutation rates. It's not like we are ignorant and we are just seeing what would happen. Why wouldn't he use these mutation rates in his model? Why would he just use unrealistic numbers that make evolution work?
"Exctinction occurs with 0,5 mutation strength". Oh you also seem to have 100% of them being deletrous, and 0% beneficial, then drawing bogus conclusions. Yeah, how arguing against evolution really works.
@mosquitoe4 cdk007 had the beneficial mutation rate at zero as well. That's why I used it that way. I was trying to replicate his results. Beneficial mutations don't really have an effect. As I showed at 4:20 in my video.
@HybridD91 Then what's the point of the simulation? I figured the point was to show that natural selection stops deleterious mutations, but considering that his own simulation shows otherwise...well... that's not helpful.
How on earth would you find deleterious mutation rates in real life? After you remove all neutral mutations (how do you do that?) and then assume there are no beneficial mutations, you still have to average the power of the mutations, as one deleterious mutation can cause virtually no harm at all, and another could kill you. And how come we've never observed it in labs or in real life in anything other then exposure to radiation or extremely small populations?
@owchywawa, well this argument was disproven a while ago anyways. The idea was that there was a maximum amount of information a genome could hold based on the one death per every deleterious mutation. But simulations showed that it wasn't the case as a single organism could die and take a dozen or more deleterious mutations with it.
@FirstFreedomFighter, so you believe. The definition of a deleterious mutation is any mutation that decreases an organisms fitness. The only way to find and judge deleterious mutations is to get an accurate and presice measure of an organisms fitness, which is virtually impossible. So no, there is no telling how many mutations are beneficial, deleterious, or neutral, and rough estimates are just that, rough, very, very rough.
I was with you until the lack of transitional species. You cant not know that that isn't true. Were you being dishonest or do you literally simply ignore the fossil record?
@esplin227 What do you think I mean by "lack" because I didn't mean none if that's what you were thinking. I just mean less than what was at first expected.
@owchywawa It is a rather simplistic model CDK007 made that is highly inaccurate but if you were going to be fair to criticize him you should of changed the attrition rate too. In fact CDK007 would be correct if he only considers the really bad mutations that have a 90% chance of killing you as being 1%. However I think your right that he needs to show the small bad mutations at a higher rate and see how natural selection would work with that.
@RuinSonic I didn't change that because I didn't have have a problem with it. What rate do you think it should be, why, and are you saying this will solve the problem? There are many complications when it comes to accurately modeling populations. I don't think you can change this model such that it works, but I am willing to accept that perhaps with other factors considered the problem will be solved. It's up to the person making the claim to prove though.
@owchywawa Also how can you simply assume minor bad mutations will accumulate into something detramental over time? Maybe many minor ones turn into a really bad one that gets selected out when it is ripe or maybe some of those turn into good ones sometimes. Also what about gene selection? I'm not trying to make excuses i'm just wondering how you can really know if your criticisms are really valid without testing it.
@RuinSonic What computer simulations do for the sciences is to test models which are not practically testable in reality. We cannot realistically test a human population over hundreds of generations to see if deleterious mutations will accumulate and by then it would be too late anyway (nor can we directly test the evolution of dinosaurs to birds). Obviously the simulation could be wrong and thus my criticism would be invalid, but the simulation is the best we have atm.
@owchywawa I'm not sure if you accept an old earth but if this was a problem for evolution it is just as much of a problem for an old earth. Surely 300 million year old animals would have decayed to the point of extinction if you are correct with deleterous mutations.
Also, I'd like to know where you got the mutation strength. It seems like you had to have it quite low to really make a strong downward curve. I wonder if these papers supported your conclusion?
@RuinSonic I accept both an old earth and common decent as of now. Right now, I am just skeptical of the mechanism of natural selection and mutations. Yes, animals would have decayed, so there is a solution to the problem. I am just not sure if natural selection has a solution hidden within it somewhere.
I have a video series where I go more in depth on this issue. It's on a playlist called "Why Evolution is Wrong." The playlist is to present creationist's views; not necessarily mine.
@owchywawa fair enough. I'm skeptical too of the mechanisms, but just because I don't understand something doesn't mean it's in serious trouble. But if common descent is true it is almost impossible to rationally speculate a bunch of magical or super-normal events happening to creatures. But what i was saying is that you might as well be just as skeptical for an old earth if you think there really is a big problem with negative mutations. That's what i was saying.
So would you say you feel, then, that the current model of the mechanisms of evolution is analogous to the "plumb pudding" model of atoms? Because just as the PP model was correct that there are atoms, but was incorrect regarding their structure, by saying you accept common descent, that suggests that you feel the current theroy of evolution is inaccurate in its model of how evolution rather than incorrect about evolution occuring in nature. Is that about right, Owchy?
@SirBroadsword Well, at the very least cdk007's model of evolution is not completely accurate. This stuff cdk007 and I are trying to address is really some of the more difficult areas of genetics, but as far as I can tell, our understanding of the mechanism which caused common decent is not complete.
@owchywawa But what i'm really curious about people that are supposedly rationally skeptical or agnostic about evolution is what makes them so skeptical of the evidence for common descent? For the sake of argument let's say there is major problems with darwins theory of evolution. How do we explain comparitive anatomy, the fossil record, genetic similarities all coroberated to form the same tree of life or the evidence from erv's or cytocrone C or apparent human chromosone fusion?
@RuinSonic how can we explain this without common descent or some sort of evolution be it some other naturalistic principle or god being involved a lot? I find a lot of creationist skepticism on things we cannot know such as how evolution occured, but i haven't seen any alternatives at all to the evidence for common descent. If you have please pop a link or let me know.
@RuinSonic I don't know what else the solution would be. I am not really even making a claim. The only claim I am making is that there is a problem. The problem may or may not be solved in many different ways, but the problem should be presented openly.
@owchywawa I'm not sure where you got your selection strength from. I don't know enough to know if there really is a problem. For instance for all i know neutral mutations can be gateways to other evolutionary jumps. i've heard a scientist hypothesize that but i don't really know. Do you read a lot about microbiology and genetics? I would be happy if i could find easy to understand research on it without buying books.
@RuinSonic Well, that's why I referred you to my video series; it has links to the relevant papers. What I do is read relevant papers published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic. If you are or ever have been enrolled in a university, you should be able to access papers from the majority of the major peer-reviewed journals. That's how I have access to them.
@owchywawa True, i hate all the restrictions on them but when i do read them they are very complex. I mean i got your links but i didn't know which one it is or where the quote was and i don't think i have access to most of them. Can you tell me specifically where i can find mutation strength?
I think you ar forgetting that deleterious mutations are in fact MORE likely to result in less offspring... and neutrals are neither here nor there... So even if the deliterious mutations killed off 90% of the population in the first generation... the only downside would be a smaller population with tons of resources... and that mutation is now out of the way until it happens again...
Mutations happen to 'individuals' whereas natural selection happens to populations!
And oddly many people forget that deleterious mutations can result in death BEFORE birth we call it miscarriage... its pretty common in mammals. In humans it accounts for up to 25% of pregnancies in the first 6 weeks with most women being blissfully unaware of this!
Reproduction is by no means perfect... in some mammals miscarriage runs at over 90% yet populations remain static or grow!
basically there is a built in eject to stop the mother wasting resources on non viable young!
No i did not. I figured he would reply to this video with the reasons. It's been over 2 months now though and I really doubt he has a response. The parameters I used the come from modern peer-reviewed sources, so there isn't really much I could imagine he could say in response.
@gregrutz I think it is extremely important how it came to be. If these graphs are real, then we could go extinct very soon in which case we must urgently learn how to prevent it.
@owchywawa Like all populations there are parameters which would make it MORE likely that a species becomes extinct the most likely cause is not stochacity but rather natural selection.
This happens to very LARGE populations and very SMALL populations it rarely happens to optimum populations. Humans have a VERY LARGE population compared to their environment resources. DNA has nothing to do with that but using up all the resources required to keep a large population going would prove disastrous!
Very small populations are very unstable... as are very large populations... Large ones since they affect their own environment...and would be very unlikely to be able to keep up with the change they have created themselves!
Small one... very small population are close to extinction anyway... if anything at all happens to their environment... then they might not survive!
In humans the worrying numbers would anything below 2,000 individuals... or anything above 4 billion!
@owchywawa The fact is... that small populations are pretty much the nail in the coffin... the result is extinction a lot of the time... unfortunately just like the cheetah that extinction could take 20k years! and given the low numbers across that span leaves no evidence of the cause... except genetics and effect selection effects on other species!
Large populations can go extinct very quickly though! The golden toad is an example now completely extinct, no human involvement either!!
@MumblingMickey Why don't you put the numbers into cdk007's simulation and make a video response showing evolution working rather than using your imagination?
I downloaded it... its only got a few parameters... which are totally ignorant of many of the issues which actually face organisms on this planet... the miscarriage rate is nowhere.. yet represents a huge proportion of fatalities...and lost resources...plus the corresponding attrition rate of dead mothers!
You might want to checkout mendel's accountant. It was created by creationists and it produces the same results as cdk007's, but with more options. Here is why fitness reduces:
1) We have more 5 deleterious mutations per individual, so one cannot select against all of them. You would have to kill everyone in the population and you wouldn't be able to see any effective fitness difference between the individuals generally speaking anyway.
2) Most mutations are extremely small and unselectable.
Oddly I 'd agree not only are deleterious mutations more common... but in fact they are 'fatal' more often than is commonly thought.... but we are not advancing species on an individual... even if 50% of offspring died... that would in fact 'increase' not decrease fitness!
ALL selection happens after mutations...they do add up! and are not equal to the sum of their parts! often times this is a LONG way down the chain... in the case of humans it could be hundreds of years!
Well, this would be a much faster rate because the rates I am using are about 10e-8 per site per generation. However, I am pretty sure this rate includes nonsynonymous sites. My rates exclude these. Check this paper for more info:
Nachman, M.W. & Crowell, S.L. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156, 297304 (2000).
"The average mutation rate was estimated to be approximately 2.5 x 10(-8) mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation."
Nachman, M.W. & Crowell, S.L.
I'm not exactly sure how these figures compare to the "1 x 10e-6 per gene per generation" I cited earlier, as a genome is comprised of a multitude of genes, and a gene is comprised of a multitude of nucleotide sites, though Nachman & Crowell do state their estimates are higher than previous estimates.
"...mutation rates on the order of 10^-8 per site per generation (e.g., KONDRASHOV and CROW 1993 ; DRAKE et al. 1998 ). Since many genes may contain 10^3 nonsynonymous sites, this estimate is in reasonable agreement with per locus rates of 10^-5 (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 )."
10^-5 is simple the rate between 10^-4 and 10^-6. Our rates are the same just your rates include nonsynonymous sites.
The poster of this video bases a lot of his ideas on papers on statistical analysis of changes in DNA. And this is completely valid, mathematically. The problem is with defining what you mean by "deleterious" and actually measuring the deleterious effect. You cannot do this with the statistical models used in these papers. So, one cannot know with any certainty whether the "deleterious mutation rate" is 0.01 or 0.001 or 0.0001. We're arguing over speculative numbers here.
Vincentaneous 10 months ago
@4:00 Owchywawa says "our geonome will decay..." and will discuss this later.
Owchy assumes that the more deleterious alleles in a gene pool the more likely the gene pool will collapse.
Serious crititcal deleterious alleles can accumulate infintely in a popular model and as long as they don't effect reproductive success.
We age after reproducting for example.
Natural selection still selects them in aggregate with more beneficial alleles that do contribute to reproductive success.
f0xfree 1 year ago
@f0xfree I was only referring to the model presented here. It would be a misunderstanding to claim I think any of what I said here reflects reality.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa
An argument or scientific model needs to be entirely internally cohesive. This is actually going to be the main point of my rebuttal to you. All theories can be objected to in parts by smaller criticisms but the sum of those criticisms are usually contradictory and have no explanatory power. For example all of your criticisms so far do not explain adaptive fitness or how it occurs. The modern synthesis explains it.
f0xfree 1 year ago
Wait, so you're saying that evolution is incorrect?
Flowtail 1 year ago
@Flowtail No. Just that his model is.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Phew! *wipes forehead* I was a bit worried for a second.
Flowtail 1 year ago
@owchywawa you culd make your own model and give it a try, then make the video...
tallibba 6 months ago
@tallibba Perhaps. I don't know how to solve this problem yet though.
owchywawa 6 months ago
Isn't the .5 meant to represent 50%? and you making it into 5 makes it 500%?
And I thought the video was meant to represent mathematically the plausibility of evolution through natural selection, as opposed to it's reality within nature.
ZylHW 1 year ago
@ZylHW No. What would a 50% mutation rate mean? It's .5 mutations per generation. If the simulation doesn't reflect reality, then he might as well had made a computer simulation of God creating the world in six days.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa I assumed that a 50% mutation rate meant that 50% of organisms receive some sort of mutation ...... maybe I misunderstood cdk007's video...
I don't agree with your second point, surely one must develop a thesis before attempting to apply it to nature, and the thesis is proven (with his numbers) to be mathematically accurate.
Thanks for replying so quickly though!
ZylHW 1 year ago
@ZylHW I haven't seen his video in a while, but in the scientific literature mutation rates are usually shown as per person per generation; not by the percentage of people who receive them.
Here's the thing though: We have the numbers from nature; we have mutation rates. It's not like we are ignorant and we are just seeing what would happen. Why wouldn't he use these mutation rates in his model? Why would he just use unrealistic numbers that make evolution work?
owchywawa 1 year ago
"Exctinction occurs with 0,5 mutation strength". Oh you also seem to have 100% of them being deletrous, and 0% beneficial, then drawing bogus conclusions. Yeah, how arguing against evolution really works.
mosquitoe4 1 year ago
@mosquitoe4 cdk007 had the beneficial mutation rate at zero as well. That's why I used it that way. I was trying to replicate his results. Beneficial mutations don't really have an effect. As I showed at 4:20 in my video.
owchywawa 1 year ago
"My only claim is that cdk007's simulation does not reflect the real world."---cdk007 says his simulation isn't reflective of the real world.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 Then what's the point of the simulation? I figured the point was to show that natural selection stops deleterious mutations, but considering that his own simulation shows otherwise...well... that's not helpful.
owchywawa 1 year ago
How on earth would you find deleterious mutation rates in real life? After you remove all neutral mutations (how do you do that?) and then assume there are no beneficial mutations, you still have to average the power of the mutations, as one deleterious mutation can cause virtually no harm at all, and another could kill you. And how come we've never observed it in labs or in real life in anything other then exposure to radiation or extremely small populations?
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter Very carefully.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa, well this argument was disproven a while ago anyways. The idea was that there was a maximum amount of information a genome could hold based on the one death per every deleterious mutation. But simulations showed that it wasn't the case as a single organism could die and take a dozen or more deleterious mutations with it.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter
"How on earth do you find deleterious mutation rates"
Pick up a genetics textbook.
FirstFreedomFighter 1 year ago
@FirstFreedomFighter, so you believe. The definition of a deleterious mutation is any mutation that decreases an organisms fitness. The only way to find and judge deleterious mutations is to get an accurate and presice measure of an organisms fitness, which is virtually impossible. So no, there is no telling how many mutations are beneficial, deleterious, or neutral, and rough estimates are just that, rough, very, very rough.
Houshalter 1 year ago
I was with you until the lack of transitional species. You cant not know that that isn't true. Were you being dishonest or do you literally simply ignore the fossil record?
esplin227 1 year ago
@esplin227 What do you think I mean by "lack" because I didn't mean none if that's what you were thinking. I just mean less than what was at first expected.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa oh. nm then
esplin227 1 year ago
@owchywawa It is a rather simplistic model CDK007 made that is highly inaccurate but if you were going to be fair to criticize him you should of changed the attrition rate too. In fact CDK007 would be correct if he only considers the really bad mutations that have a 90% chance of killing you as being 1%. However I think your right that he needs to show the small bad mutations at a higher rate and see how natural selection would work with that.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic I didn't change that because I didn't have have a problem with it. What rate do you think it should be, why, and are you saying this will solve the problem? There are many complications when it comes to accurately modeling populations. I don't think you can change this model such that it works, but I am willing to accept that perhaps with other factors considered the problem will be solved. It's up to the person making the claim to prove though.
owchywawa 1 year ago
Comment removed
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@owchywawa Also how can you simply assume minor bad mutations will accumulate into something detramental over time? Maybe many minor ones turn into a really bad one that gets selected out when it is ripe or maybe some of those turn into good ones sometimes. Also what about gene selection? I'm not trying to make excuses i'm just wondering how you can really know if your criticisms are really valid without testing it.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic What computer simulations do for the sciences is to test models which are not practically testable in reality. We cannot realistically test a human population over hundreds of generations to see if deleterious mutations will accumulate and by then it would be too late anyway (nor can we directly test the evolution of dinosaurs to birds). Obviously the simulation could be wrong and thus my criticism would be invalid, but the simulation is the best we have atm.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa I'm not sure if you accept an old earth but if this was a problem for evolution it is just as much of a problem for an old earth. Surely 300 million year old animals would have decayed to the point of extinction if you are correct with deleterous mutations.
Also, I'd like to know where you got the mutation strength. It seems like you had to have it quite low to really make a strong downward curve. I wonder if these papers supported your conclusion?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic I accept both an old earth and common decent as of now. Right now, I am just skeptical of the mechanism of natural selection and mutations. Yes, animals would have decayed, so there is a solution to the problem. I am just not sure if natural selection has a solution hidden within it somewhere.
I have a video series where I go more in depth on this issue. It's on a playlist called "Why Evolution is Wrong." The playlist is to present creationist's views; not necessarily mine.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa fair enough. I'm skeptical too of the mechanisms, but just because I don't understand something doesn't mean it's in serious trouble. But if common descent is true it is almost impossible to rationally speculate a bunch of magical or super-normal events happening to creatures. But what i was saying is that you might as well be just as skeptical for an old earth if you think there really is a big problem with negative mutations. That's what i was saying.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@owchywawa
So would you say you feel, then, that the current model of the mechanisms of evolution is analogous to the "plumb pudding" model of atoms? Because just as the PP model was correct that there are atoms, but was incorrect regarding their structure, by saying you accept common descent, that suggests that you feel the current theroy of evolution is inaccurate in its model of how evolution rather than incorrect about evolution occuring in nature. Is that about right, Owchy?
SirBroadsword 11 months ago
@SirBroadsword Well, at the very least cdk007's model of evolution is not completely accurate. This stuff cdk007 and I are trying to address is really some of the more difficult areas of genetics, but as far as I can tell, our understanding of the mechanism which caused common decent is not complete.
owchywawa 11 months ago
@owchywawa
Good to know. :)
SirBroadsword 11 months ago
@owchywawa But what i'm really curious about people that are supposedly rationally skeptical or agnostic about evolution is what makes them so skeptical of the evidence for common descent? For the sake of argument let's say there is major problems with darwins theory of evolution. How do we explain comparitive anatomy, the fossil record, genetic similarities all coroberated to form the same tree of life or the evidence from erv's or cytocrone C or apparent human chromosone fusion?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic how can we explain this without common descent or some sort of evolution be it some other naturalistic principle or god being involved a lot? I find a lot of creationist skepticism on things we cannot know such as how evolution occured, but i haven't seen any alternatives at all to the evidence for common descent. If you have please pop a link or let me know.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic I don't know what else the solution would be. I am not really even making a claim. The only claim I am making is that there is a problem. The problem may or may not be solved in many different ways, but the problem should be presented openly.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa I'm not sure where you got your selection strength from. I don't know enough to know if there really is a problem. For instance for all i know neutral mutations can be gateways to other evolutionary jumps. i've heard a scientist hypothesize that but i don't really know. Do you read a lot about microbiology and genetics? I would be happy if i could find easy to understand research on it without buying books.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic Well, that's why I referred you to my video series; it has links to the relevant papers. What I do is read relevant papers published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic. If you are or ever have been enrolled in a university, you should be able to access papers from the majority of the major peer-reviewed journals. That's how I have access to them.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@RuinSonic You're not going to find anything which is easy to understand in the peer-reviewed journals though.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa True, i hate all the restrictions on them but when i do read them they are very complex. I mean i got your links but i didn't know which one it is or where the quote was and i don't think i have access to most of them. Can you tell me specifically where i can find mutation strength?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic This is the best and most easy to understand one:
Eyre-Walker. "The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations." Nature Reviews Genetics. August 2007. 8: 610–618.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa Unfortunately I don't have a subscription.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
I think you ar forgetting that deleterious mutations are in fact MORE likely to result in less offspring... and neutrals are neither here nor there... So even if the deliterious mutations killed off 90% of the population in the first generation... the only downside would be a smaller population with tons of resources... and that mutation is now out of the way until it happens again...
Mutations happen to 'individuals' whereas natural selection happens to populations!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
And oddly many people forget that deleterious mutations can result in death BEFORE birth we call it miscarriage... its pretty common in mammals. In humans it accounts for up to 25% of pregnancies in the first 6 weeks with most women being blissfully unaware of this!
Reproduction is by no means perfect... in some mammals miscarriage runs at over 90% yet populations remain static or grow!
basically there is a built in eject to stop the mother wasting resources on non viable young!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
Interesting.
Did you ask CDK what premises were used for parameter settings?
achtungcircus 2 years ago
No i did not. I figured he would reply to this video with the reasons. It's been over 2 months now though and I really doubt he has a response. The parameters I used the come from modern peer-reviewed sources, so there isn't really much I could imagine he could say in response.
owchywawa 2 years ago
I would still consider that it does not hurt to ask.
achtungcircus 2 years ago
Funny how Darwin figured it all out without knowing what a mutation is.
Variation exists, it is a fact, who cares how DNA did it.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz I think it is extremely important how it came to be. If these graphs are real, then we could go extinct very soon in which case we must urgently learn how to prevent it.
owchywawa 2 years ago
@owchywawa Like all populations there are parameters which would make it MORE likely that a species becomes extinct the most likely cause is not stochacity but rather natural selection.
This happens to very LARGE populations and very SMALL populations it rarely happens to optimum populations. Humans have a VERY LARGE population compared to their environment resources. DNA has nothing to do with that but using up all the resources required to keep a large population going would prove disastrous!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey Actually, small populations are more likely have a mutational melt down.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa
Very small populations are very unstable... as are very large populations... Large ones since they affect their own environment...and would be very unlikely to be able to keep up with the change they have created themselves!
Small one... very small population are close to extinction anyway... if anything at all happens to their environment... then they might not survive!
In humans the worrying numbers would anything below 2,000 individuals... or anything above 4 billion!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@owchywawa The fact is... that small populations are pretty much the nail in the coffin... the result is extinction a lot of the time... unfortunately just like the cheetah that extinction could take 20k years! and given the low numbers across that span leaves no evidence of the cause... except genetics and effect selection effects on other species!
Large populations can go extinct very quickly though! The golden toad is an example now completely extinct, no human involvement either!!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey Why don't you put the numbers into cdk007's simulation and make a video response showing evolution working rather than using your imagination?
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa why don't I write my own... ??
I downloaded it... its only got a few parameters... which are totally ignorant of many of the issues which actually face organisms on this planet... the miscarriage rate is nowhere.. yet represents a huge proportion of fatalities...and lost resources...plus the corresponding attrition rate of dead mothers!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
You might want to checkout mendel's accountant. It was created by creationists and it produces the same results as cdk007's, but with more options. Here is why fitness reduces:
1) We have more 5 deleterious mutations per individual, so one cannot select against all of them. You would have to kill everyone in the population and you wouldn't be able to see any effective fitness difference between the individuals generally speaking anyway.
2) Most mutations are extremely small and unselectable.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@owchywawa
Oddly I 'd agree not only are deleterious mutations more common... but in fact they are 'fatal' more often than is commonly thought.... but we are not advancing species on an individual... even if 50% of offspring died... that would in fact 'increase' not decrease fitness!
ALL selection happens after mutations...they do add up! and are not equal to the sum of their parts! often times this is a LONG way down the chain... in the case of humans it could be hundreds of years!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
"the overall human mutation rate is estimated to be about 1 x 10e-6 per gene per generation."
- Mutation, Mutagens, and DNA Repair; by Beth A. Montelone, Ph. D., Division of Biology, Kansas State University.
Reading the paper will explain in detail how this figure was determined.
Atriviality 2 years ago
Well, this would be a much faster rate because the rates I am using are about 10e-8 per site per generation. However, I am pretty sure this rate includes nonsynonymous sites. My rates exclude these. Check this paper for more info:
Nachman, M.W. & Crowell, S.L. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156, 297304 (2000).
owchywawa 2 years ago
"The average mutation rate was estimated to be approximately 2.5 x 10(-8) mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation."
Nachman, M.W. & Crowell, S.L.
I'm not exactly sure how these figures compare to the "1 x 10e-6 per gene per generation" I cited earlier, as a genome is comprised of a multitude of genes, and a gene is comprised of a multitude of nucleotide sites, though Nachman & Crowell do state their estimates are higher than previous estimates.
Atriviality 2 years ago
The answer is near the end of the article:
"...mutation rates on the order of 10^-8 per site per generation (e.g., KONDRASHOV and CROW 1993 ; DRAKE et al. 1998 ). Since many genes may contain 10^3 nonsynonymous sites, this estimate is in reasonable agreement with per locus rates of 10^-5 (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 )."
10^-5 is simple the rate between 10^-4 and 10^-6. Our rates are the same just your rates include nonsynonymous sites.
owchywawa 2 years ago