Is There Enough Time For Humans to Have Evolved From Apes? Dr. Ann Gauger Answers

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 5, 2012

News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Comments

wd400: I apologize, but it is a little unclear what you are arguing. You insist that Gauger's comments have nothing to do with human-chimp evolution, which seems to be your primary position on this thread. Here is her statement: ". . . [given the population sizes and reproduction rates] it takes 6 million for 1 mutation in a DNA binding site to arise . . ." Now, obviously she is talking about a point mutation becoming fixed in the population. (As a follow-up matter, she then goes on to point out that if you need a series of coordinated mutations, the story is even worse.) You said:
It tells us if particular sorts of changes were absolutely required to create humanity we’d probably only have enough time for one such. But noone prespecified humanity, and no one has shown those sorts of mutations would be required.
So, you seem to acknowledge the time required for a specific point mutation to become fixed in the population, but, again, you seem to be falling back to the "it-wasn't-specified-beforehand-by-someone-so-it-isn't-a-problem" argument. Please clarify. Are you disputing her statement and arguing that a pre-specified change doesn't in fact take that long to arise? Are you arguing that not a single point mutation would have to have been involved in the human-chimp evolutionary changes? Are you arguing that because evolution is contingent there is no specification? Why do you think the question of how long it takes for a point mutation to get fixed in a population is irrelevant to the question of human-chimp origins? Is discussing point mutations in the context of human-chimp origins off limits because, as you seem to be saying, it is irrelevant? What is it exactly that you are arguing?Eric Anderson_{November 9, 2012
November
11
Nov
9
09
2012
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

wd400:
But selection can navigate them, we’ve seen that in the field and in the lab (and, in fact, in computational models).
Except you're not appealing to selection, you're appealing to random genetic drift. wd400:
Have you read anything up there? We’d expect 50 million or so point mutations to get fixed without invoking selection.
Mung_{November 9, 2012
November
11
Nov
9
09
2012
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

wd400:
We’d expect 50 million or so point mutations to get fixed without invoking selection.
Which, in YOUR scenario, means the very unscientific sheer dumb luck didit.Joe_{November 9, 2012
November
11
Nov
9
09
2012
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

wd400:
We’d expect 50 million or so point mutations to get fixed without invoking selection.
Only in a design scenario or via severe bottlenecks. There still isn't any evidence that neutral mutations can become fixed in a sexually reproducing population over 1000Joe_{November 9, 2012
November
11
Nov
9
09
2012
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

WD400 I forgot to add, your idea of random and undirected needs revision....Andre_{November 8, 2012
November
11
Nov
8
08
2012
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT}

Are you suggesting that no point mutations would need to be fixed in the population in order to get to humans? ?? Have you read anything up there? We'd expect 50 million or so point mutations to get fixed without invoking selection. Gauger is talking about something very different (as I've explained). The extreme difficulty required to get this simple idea into some heads is really something.wd400_{November 8, 2012
November
11
Nov
8
08
2012
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

wd400 @50:
Creationists of all types massively over-specify the target, calculate exact probabilities for that target and end up being woefully wrong. The exact probability that, say, the kreb cycle could evolve is completely unknowable. . . .
So, in other words, you don't know that the "creationists" are calculating it wrong. :) Furthermore, you are on the wrong side of history. Nearly every time we learn something more about a specific biological system we learn that we have underestimated the specification requirement, not overestimated it. Indeed, the only way your statement could be logically true is if: (i) we knew all parameters of the system in full detail, and (ii) we knew we were adding in extraneous stuff. Absent these two, which we clearly don't have, your statement simply cannot be true. ID people who look at these probabilities almost always oversimplify and underestimate what is required. Typically they are looking at the minimal specification that would be required, based on current knowledge of the system in question.
Evolution is a contingent process, and a chancy one at that. I’m very happy to say a random walk through the space of all sequences would never find a kreps cycle, or cellular division or whatever else you want to name. That’s because the parts of sequence space that are biologically viable are certainly very small. But selection can navigate them, we’ve seen that in the field and in the lab (and, in fact, in computational models).
I was going to call BS on this last sentence, but before doing so, perhaps you can clarify. Are you saying that we have several documented instances of complex functional biological features (like the Krebs cycle) arising in the field and in the lab? I would be most interested in seeing any such examples (and I think you know we aren't talking about finch beaks or bacteria resistance here).
But, I’ve now said this three times, what does the paper Gauger is talking about, with its three narrow assumptions, have to do with human evolution? It tells us if particular sorts of changes were absolutely required to create humanity we’d probably only have enough time for one such. But noone prespecified humanity, and no one has shown those sorts of mutations would be required.
Are you suggesting that no point mutations would need to be fixed in the population in order to get to humans? Or are you simply falling back on the "anything-can-happen-so-we-don't-need-to-explain-what-actually-did-happen" argument? And you certainly haven't shown that no point mutations would be required to get to humans. Gauger is not claiming that she has answered everything about the alleged human-chimp relationship; she is just giving us a reason to sit up and take notice and starting asking some questions about the facile evolutionary assumptions.Eric Anderson_{November 8, 2012
November
11
Nov
8
08
2012
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

Fair enough, Eric. My hunch, or prejudice, or whatever you want to call it, is that the more we learn about how genomes are organized and expressed, the more plausible it will seem that small changes in the nucleotide sequences (whatever the final data turn out to be in the human-chimp case) are consistent with the differences in anatomy and physiology, especially neuroanatomy and neurophysiology, and that the more we learn about neuroanatomy and neurophysiology, the more plausible it will seem that the differences in that regard are consistent with considerable differences between us and chimps with regards to cognition, culture, and morality.Kantian Naturalist_{November 8, 2012
November
11
Nov
8
08
2012
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Folks, the only reason wd400 gave us some numbers is because I was thinking out loud and tossed out the question whether the mutation rate would give us enough mutations to account for the human-chimp DNA differences (just on a simple raw # of mutations times # of generations basis). wd400 -- correctly -- answered me on the numbers and I promptly acknowledged that I had used the wrong timeframe. To that extent (i.e., raw # of mutations over x # generations) I don't think there is much to dispute -- largely because it is a circular issue (meaning, the timeframe is built on the mutation rate). So no point in questioning that. Nick @52 -- incorrectly -- misses the fact that I have already acknowledged to wd400 that his raw number matches up with the alleged human-chimp split and thanked him for pointing it out. This relates only to the simple basic question of whether there could even be enough mutations over the timeframe to account for the DNA difference. However, this basic initial calculation, as I and others have noted, tells us nothing about a whole host of other more critical issues: how long would it take to get mutations fixed in a population, what kinds of mutations would be required, whether there is a biologically realistic chain of changes from the alleged ancestor to humans and chimps, and on and on. It also does not address the question of whether the supposed 98% (97%, 99%, take your pick) similarity between human/chimp DNA will hold up to scrutiny. By every early indication, that number is wildly inaccurate and is going to have to come down significantly as we learn more. All of these are real and significant issues with the alleged human-chimp ancestry. These are legitimate questions that deserve real scrutiny. wd400's attempt to argue that stuff can happen because no-one specified it beforehand doesn't address these questions. Nick's pretends the answers are all out there in the holy literature and we would all immediately jump on board if we just weren't so stupid (his usual bluff, often accompanied by an irrelevant literature bluff -- mercifully absent in this case). Finally, neutral evolution, while certainly of some relevance in explaining raw #s of changes between the species, is of little help in understanding the many functional differences between humans and chimps and whether those differences could have come about through evolutionary mechanisms.Eric Anderson_{November 8, 2012
November
11
Nov
8
08
2012
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

I was asked above if I agreed with wd400's back-of-the-envelope calculations. I don't disagree with them. And I don't endorse them. I think that there's just not enough evidence to play with, all things considered. We've got a few really outstanding fossils, and some bits and pieces, and how it all fits together is itself up for grabs. (Notice, for example, the debate between "lumpers" and "splitters" amongst paleontologists.) Then we've got the genetic data, and that's problematic for all sorts of reasons -- as was pointed out here a few months ago, if the molecular clock doesn't have a fixed rate, everything's up in the air until we've built a better model that take variability into account. So in the meantime, all we really have to go on is intuitions, assumptions, and prejudices. Suppose we assume that the last common ancestor (LCA) of chimps and humans was some sort of Miocene ape that lived around seven million years ago. In light of that assumption, if the question is asked, "is seven million years enough time for humans to have evolved from the LCA?", then the best I can do (for now) is turn the question around and ask, "well, why wouldn't it be?"Kantian Naturalist_{November 8, 2012
November
11
Nov
8
08
2012
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

LoL@Nick Matzke- Nick, you cannot show that the math applies to the real world and the evidence says that it doesn't. As for research, well your position lacks the research that says that any amount of mutational accumualtion can do what is required. And that is why your position isn't taken seriously even though it is the reigning paradigm.Joe_{November 8, 2012
November
11
Nov
8
08
2012
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Jeez -- if you guys didn't want to talk about neutral evolution, you shouldn't have made this claim in the first place:
Based on the numbers Dr. Noor gave us in the Coursera Genetics course (approximately 65 point mutations per generation in humans), I did just a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation, and it looks to me like you can’t even explain the number of mutations in the time available from the alleged chimp-human split.
Just admit that this claim was wrong and move on! Don't bash wd400 for answering this poorly-thought-out-and-can't-be-bothered-to-do-the-basic-introductory-research question, on the basis of random other poorly-thought-out-and-can't-be-bothered-to-do-the-basic-introductory-research question. In this thread the ID guys have: - shown the inability to admit the conclusions of very simple, basic math - shown that they don't understand the difference between the definitions of "mutation" and "substitution" - confused point mutations with other sorts of mutations (insertions/deletions, duplications, etc.) - mixed all of this into some bizarre stew and randomly lashed out at anyone who tries to correct any piece of their misunderstandings. This kind of junk is why IDists will never be taken seriously by real scientists with actual basic coursework in the field, and why they will deserve this fate. You might as well try arguing with doctors that bleeding is a good medical treatment because the heart doesn't pump blood.NickMatzke_UD_{November 8, 2012
November
11
Nov
8
08
2012
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Wd400 - You have been thumb sucking since post 1. I ask a very simple question. How does natural selection, a "force" as you call it, with very specific limitations that has been documented, with the help of random mutation another "force" as you call it that very seldom has beneficial mutations, sometimes neutral ones and mostly deadly ones somehow combine to make the "force" called genetic drift? So against all possible odds that you can possibly imagine, a purposeless process with no goals and that was completely random has somehow conspired to accidentally create a conscious being that can ask the very question... How? I'm not from America but let's do as they say in Minnesota... Show me!Andre_{November 8, 2012
November
11
Nov
8
08
2012
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Eric, That's really not it at all. Creationists of all types massively over-specify the target, calculate exact probabilities for that target and end up being woefully wrong. The exact probability that, say, the kreb cycle could evolve is completely unknowable. Evolution is a contingent process, and a chancy one at that. I'm very happy to say a random walk through the space of all sequences would never find a kreps cycle, or cellular division or whatever else you want to name. That's because the parts of sequence space that are biologically viable are certainly very small. But selection can navigate them, we've seen that in the field and in the lab (and, in fact, in computational models). But, I've now said this three times, what does the paper Gauger is talking about, with its three narrow assumptions, have to do with human evolution? It tells us if particular sorts of changes were absolutely required to create humanity we'd probably only have enough time for one such. But noone prespecified humanity, and no one has shown those sorts of mutations would be required.wd400_{November 8, 2012
November
11
Nov
8
08
2012
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Eric, And let's not mention the design of random.orgMung_{November 8, 2012
November
11
Nov
8
08
2012
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

wd400: Do you, or anyone else, believe that neutral evolution is the answer to what makes humans and other primates different from their shared ancestors?Mung_{November 8, 2012
November
11
Nov
8
08
2012
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

wd400 wrote:
But the no one pre-specified humanity, so I don’t see how that matters.

I just went to random.org and picked a number between 1 and 100000000. I got 22166740. That’s a 1 in hundred million chance! I didn’t pre-specify it or anything. But it matters, because 22166740 is there.

Do you think Gauger’s pre-specified mutations are relevent to human evolution? Who pre-specified them?
To all the onlookers, this highlights an absolutely critical point. wd400's comments are a prime example of the Darwinist mindset as it relates to probabilities and their willingness to consider the design argument. Here is what is going on: If an ID proponent looks at an existing biological system (the eye, the Krebs cycle, an entire human being) and asks, "What is the most reasonable explanation for the existence of this system?" The ID proponent then analyzes the system, does the probability calculations, identifies complex functional specified information, and determines that the most reasonable explanation for the system's existence is that it was designed. The Darwinist disputes this. In most cases they don't bother carefully examining the system, don't do the calculations, refuse to recognize complex specified information when it is staring them in the face and so on. Then they claim that the existence of the system isn't really unlikely, or there isn't any information worth talking about, or that the information can easily be generated (Elizabeth Liddle & Co's laughable "Look! I can create Shannon Information with an algorithm!" proclamations, and the like). We're all familiar with this kind of debate tactic and have seen many examples recently. However -- and this is key -- there is another, almost more insidious, approach, as exhibited by wd400 in the above quotes. The mindset exhibited by this approach is as follows: evolution could have produced anything, everything could have turned out differently. And because essentially anything goes, there is nothing to explain. That we see the biological systems we see today is nothing but a cosmic fluke. Having a complex functionally specified integrated system with digital code, information storage mechanisms, top-down software protocol hierarchies, etc., is no more unusual than picking out a random number from a hat. Such a system may look incredibly improbable, but, hey, anything goes and we just happen to be looking at one particular role of the dice, so there is nothing that we need to explain. Case [and mind] closed! Now at some superficial level this thinking seems seductively logical. After all, no-one is saying that organisms have to possess exactly all the characteristics that they do. We can see this fact simply by looking at the great variety of organisms that exist. However, this thinking is fatally flawed, both because (i) it ignores the fact that we do see certain systems in existence, which means they have a real, historical origin that needs to be explained, and (ii) it is based on a simplistic, naive, head-in-the-sand view of biological systems that thinks nearly anything can work; we just mutate a couple of things here and there and, poof, we have a new working system; anything goes and anything could have happened, you see, so there really is nothing that we need to explain! ----- In contrast, those who have a more realistic understanding of the search space and the unimaginably small islands of function within that near infinite space sit up and take notice when they see systems exhibiting these incredibly unique characteristics. The reality is there is something that needs to be explained. And chance, or chance plus some culling process over time, doesn't cut it.Eric Anderson_{November 8, 2012
November
11
Nov
8
08
2012
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

wd400:
Mutations have gone to fixation many times.
If so they did so either by design or via a severe bottle-neck.
Even if that hadn’t been observed you’d still be denying math to claim that they somehow couldn’t.
Look YOU made an unsupportable claim, not me. And don't blame be because you cannot support your tripe. Also pre-specified just means they had to happen in some order to produce some benefit. Without that benefit all you have is evolution via sheer dumb luck.Joe_{November 8, 2012
November
11
Nov
8
08
2012
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

Mung, You are playing the gish gallop now. Do you think Gauger's pre-specified mutations are relevent to human evolution? Who pre-specified them? In terms of the number of differences between humans and chimps I've shown you the neutral expectation for a 6.5 million year divergence, a data that fits nicely within the fossil evidence (and with phylogenetic methods that allow us to place dates on particular speciations)wd400_{November 7, 2012
November
11
Nov
7
07
2012
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

Evolutionary theory. Science, without the science.Mung_{November 7, 2012
November
11
Nov
7
07
2012
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

Well gee, wd400. It's nice to see what committed evolutionists are reduced to in defending their commitment to junk science. Does 22166740 represent the human genome, the chimp genome, some other genome, or nothing at all relevant? What numbers did you obtain to represent the other players? What was the [alleged] common ancestor? How many steps did it take to get from the common ancestor to the current manifestation? How many mutations? How many generations? How much time? According to which model? Where are your testable claims? You claim to have a model (see your response to Joe @21) Now, take that model and plug in the numbers. Then compare the expected values to the actual values. You know, science.Mung_{November 7, 2012
November
11
Nov
7
07
2012
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

I just went to random.org and picked a number between 1 and 100000000. I got 22166740. That's a 1 in hundred million chance! I didn't pre-specify it or anything. But it matters, because 22166740 is there.wd400_{November 7, 2012
November
11
Nov
7
07
2012
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

wd400: But then no one pre-specified humanity, so I don’t see how that matters. It matters because humanity is here, and so are chimps, and other primates, and people claim they all share a common ancestor, but they can't say with any certainty what that ancestor looked like, genetically, or what specifically occurred in each lineage to get to the modern primates of today. But they call it science. So we're encouraging you to put forth testable claims.Mung_{November 7, 2012
November
11
Nov
7
07
2012
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

wd400:
Mutations have gone to fixation many times.
I call this the Law of Fixation.
Even if that hadn’t been observed you’d still be denying math to claim that they somehow couldn’t.
So it's math that causes evolution?Mung_{November 7, 2012
November
11
Nov
7
07
2012
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

Joe, Mutations have gone to fixation many times. Even if that hadn't been observed you'd still be denying math to claim that they somehow couldn't. Eric, Nah, what Gauger is saying (which is based on math by they way) is that if you prespecify two mutations are required for a particular phenotype and those mutations have to fall within the same pre-speficied region of DNA, and the first one has no fitness effect (i.e. three assumptions) then you have to wait so long it would probably only happen once in the time allowed for human-chimp evolution. But the no one pre-specified humanity, so I don't see how that matters. TJ, Two things. One, in the specific case that you are talking about the "disease" allele would fall into "mutation selection balance" a scenario in which the weak effect of selection (removing the allele) is balanced by the rate at which the allele is made anew by mutation. JBS Haldane was the first to predict this from the math, and amazingly used the theory to predict the human mutation rate very accurately before we even knew what DNA was (pretty good evidence that these models work). It is possible for weakly deleterious (bad) mutations to become fixed in a population, especially small populations which don't expereince selection as strongly as larger ones. There are some very interesting theories as to how the "slakcening" of slection, which mainly acts to keep things as they are on a molecular level, might facilitate the evolution of complexity. As a rule, creationists hate this idea, I think because they are wedded to the idea that our apparent complexity is really really important, rather than a side of effect of another process.wd400_{November 7, 2012
November
11
Nov
7
07
2012
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

Eric, So what you and Ann are saying is that the data does not support the equations. However if you accept that common ancestry is true and work backwards from that, then perhaps the equations work. But only if you get the number of differences correct. And we just don't know what that is yet...Joe_{November 7, 2012
November
11
Nov
7
07
2012
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

tjguy @35: This is absolutely a relevant and critical issue. Any rational view of the data suggests that, on average, we run into serious genetic entropy and breakdown long before novel new beneficial mutations arise. If anything, the human genome is degrading, not evolving more functionality. The idea that we can mutate our way to novel function in a sophisticated, functionally-integrated, information-dense medium, is a joke of the highest order. Any rational person should laugh at the idea. The only thing that saves the idea from being completely dismissed is the tag-along assertion that: "Yeah, but we're talking about lots of time and lots of individuals, so eventually something beneficial will arise." Unfortunately, the math just doesn't work.Eric Anderson_{November 7, 2012
November
11
Nov
7
07
2012
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Joe @34: Actually they have. That is what Ann is talking about -- real-world data of what it takes for a mutation to become fixed in a population. And the result appears to be that it doesn't even come close.Eric Anderson_{November 7, 2012
November
11
Nov
7
07
2012
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

I've got a question. Do negative or harmful changes ever take hold in a population? Perhaps an organism has good genes that allow reproductive success but at the same time it carries one or two negative changes. It seems like negative genes get established in populations sometimes. Then there is the problem of people who are carriers of a bad gene but don't have the disease because they also have one good gene inherited from on of their parents. But since natural selection cannot get rid of the bad genes in this case since it doesn't result in any problems, the bad genes get spread around and the probability of someone marrying a partner with the same bad genes increases over time. For instance, my wife and i are both carriers of MCADD, but we don't have the problem because we have one good gene. But our three kids got both bad genes and so they have the problem. It is not a life threatening disease so they'll be ok, but it shows that mutations can also get established in our genome even if they are neutral or have harmful potential. In fact we are all mutants and the amount of mutations in our genome is growing each generation. Unfortunately, these types of mutations are not the desirable type and have potential for harm. How long can these mutations build up in our genome before it starts taking a real toll on our species? So there are some things that seem beyond the reach of natural selection. That would also seem to indicate that the long term trend is not necessarily up up and away to new and greater heights, but more likely a downward trend.tjguy_{November 7, 2012
November
11
Nov
7
07
2012
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

No one has ever seen if the equations actually work in the real world. No one has ever observed a neutral mutation becoming fixed in a large population (over 1000 individuals). IOW the only thing "simple" about the equations are the people who just blindly accept them as fact.Joe_{November 7, 2012
November
11
Nov
7
07
2012
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply