Evolution is a Fact #27 - Monkeys, Typewriters, Shakespeare, 747s etc. (page 3)

cofty

That is because you totally misunderstood the illustration Hooby.

hooberus

Oh I "understood" it alright. Its just when you try to make it revelatant to the real world it FAILS completely.

Your OWN "inevitable" evolution example actually was inevitable extinction. (And this is from a "pro-evolution" example!)

You "illustration" is more reflective of misleading evoluionist argumentation, than reality.

cofty

Hooby you really don't get it.

It illustrates how natural selection accumulates complexity - it doesn't get there in one lucky jump.

The population is not reduced to just that individual who hosts the favourable mutation. The advantageous gene just gradually becomes more frequent in the population which doesn't get any smaller as a result.

You made the mistake of taking a simple illustration that explains one aspect of a complex subject and tried to make it apply to the whole subject.

cofty

"At that point all the other pages are scrapped and every monkey is given a copy of this page."

This is the part that takes many generations in the real world.

hooberus

In the real world of course the offspring entities are not pages, but baby monkeys. if "all the other" "are scrapped", then there is only ONE baby left. It now will be a long time to build up the population. Your example tries to have both perfect selection (100%), and a constant population size (10,000) between generations.

I simply showed the reality of what happens to YOUR OWN PRO-EVOLUTION scenario when adjusted for reality.

waton

is not the existence of the symbolic typewriters more amazing and enigmatic than the emerging of the tale about the witch's brew?

cofty

Hooby are you being obtuse on purpose?

Let's say one individual in a population of 10,000 acquires a favourable mutation. That has no effect on how many offspring the other 99,999 have. But over many generations the percentage of individuals with the mutation will gradually increase. Each generation of individuals with the mutation will do slightly better at leaving descendants. No change in the overall population will occur but the percentage of the whole population who have the favourable mutation will increase from 0.001% to closer to 100% while those without it gradually move in the opposite direction.

It really is a very simple concept.

cofty

In the illustration the words "all the other pages are scrapped" means the percentage of the population who do not have the favourable mutation gradually decrease in the population.

Remember the illustration about monkeys and typewriters was chosen by creationists.

hooberus

"Hooby are you being obtuse on purpose?

Let's say one individual in a population of 10,000 acquires a favourable mutation. That has no effect on how many offspring the other 99,999 have. But over many generations the percentage of individuals with the mutation will gradually increase. Each generation of individuals with the mutation will do slightly better at leaving descendants. No change in the overall population will occur but the percentage of the whole population who have the favourable mutation will increase from 0.001% to closer to 100% while those without it gradually move in the opposite direction.

It really is a very simple concept."

I'm not being obtuse, I simpy explained how to have perfect selection in one generation, you had to pay the price of the elimination of the other 9,999 in that same generation (destroying your population) for the evolutionary scenario to work. Your example tried to have the benefit of perfect selection, without the price. There is a cost to selective replacement that must must be paid. In this case the cost in the real world would indeed be the lives of the other 9,999. I was simply showing that an evolutionists own "rosy example scenario" when adjusted for reality runs into trouble.

Obviously evolutionists are aware that single generation replacement has a horrific effect in the real world, so they try to spread it over many generations. But this requires the slow replacement of all the descendants AND their offspring having the unfavorable gene. Thus a number MUCH larger than 9,999. This takes time. The standard evolution model (with favorable assumptions) is one replacement every 300 generations. Which seems to goes unnoticed as being a problem.

However, when compared with the evolutionists "human evolution" timescale (5 million years since common ancestor with chimps) a problem developes, since humans have a slow generation time. In fact with a 20 year generation time the standard model of "evolution" allows only 833 beneficial mutations to have accumulated.

5 million years divided by 20 = 250,000 generations

250,000 divided by 300 (standard model) = only 833 beneficial mutations. (most of which are a single nucleotide)

Perhaps evolutionists have or will someday come up with a new genetics model, but it must have biological reality in its assumptions.

And actually the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of beneficial mutations are ELIMINATED early on by genetic drift. Most evolutionists are not generally aware of this.

Another real killer is when deleterious mutations are factored in. Your example of typing asumed that once typed, the words were prevented from degeneration by later mutations. In reality each of us recieves many each generation.

shepherdless

I simpy explained how to have perfect selection in one generation, you had to pay the price of the elimination of the other 9,999 in that same generation (destroying your population) for the evolutionary scenario to work. Your example tried to have the benefit of perfect selection, without the price. There is a cost to selective replacement that must must be paid. In this case the cost in the real world would indeed be the lives of the other 9,999. I was simply showing that an evolutionists own "rosy example scenario" when adjusted for reality runs into trouble.

What? One mutant monkey wiped out the rest?

However, when compared with the evolutionists "human evolution" timescale (5 million years since common ancestor with chimps) a problem developes, since humans have a slow generation time. In fact with a 20 year generation time the standard model of "evolution" allows only 833 beneficial mutations to have accumulated.
5 million years divided by 20 = 250,000 generations
250,000 divided by 300 (standard model) = only 833 beneficial mutations. (most of which are a single nucleotide)
And actually the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of beneficial mutations are ELIMINATED early on by genetic drift. Most evolutionists are not generally aware of this.

Couldn't multiple beneficial mutations be occurring at the same time?

Evolution is a Fact #27 - Monkeys, Typewriters, Shakespeare, 747s etc.

Share this