cdk007 is Wrong

This is a video response to cdk007's video "How Evolution REALLY Works, Part II." In this video cdk007 fails to present sources to backup his input settings. A more realistic setup shows the exact opposite of what he claims. P.S. Please do not take this as proof that the genome will decay. There is much more which must be explored before this conclusion can be reached. My only claim is that cdk007's simulation does not reflect the real world.

Sources:

Eyre-Walker A, Keightley PD. The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations. Nat Rev Genet. 2007;8:610-618.

KIMURAM, ., 1979 Model of effectivelyneutral mutations in which selection constraint is incorporated. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 7 6 3440-3444.

GERRISH, P. J., A. COLATO, A. S. PERELSON and P. D. SNIEGOWSKI, 2007 Complete genetic linkage can subvert natural selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 6266-6271

Pennisi, Elizabeth (2007). "DNA Study Forces Rethink of What It Means to Be a Gene". Science 316 (5831): 15567

Link to my video on mutations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOjbuYBUJD0

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• evolution
• creationism
• science
• religion
• DNA
• genetics
• thermodynamics

[f0xfree]

@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.

[owchywawa]

@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]

@tallibba Perhaps. I don't know how to solve this problem yet though.

[tallibba]

@owchywawa you culd make your own model and give it a try, then make the video...

[Vincentaneous]

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.

[SirBroadsword]

@owchywawa

Good to know. :)

[owchywawa]

@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.

[SirBroadsword]

@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?

[f0xfree]

@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.

[Flowtail]

@owchywawa Phew! *wipes forehead* I was a bit worried for a second.