Journal club time: paper by Sanford et al: The Waiting Time Problem in a Model Hominin Population. I’ve pasted the abstract below.
Have at it guys 🙂
Background
Functional information is normally communicated using specific, context-dependent strings of symbolic characters. This is true within the human realm (texts and computer programs), and also within the biological realm (nucleic acids and proteins). In biology, strings of nucleotides encode much of the information within living cells. How do such information-bearing nucleotide strings arise and become established?
Methods
This paper uses comprehensive numerical simulation to understand what types of nucleotide strings can realistically be established via the mutation/selection process, given a reasonable timeframe. The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process, and was modified so that a starting string of nucleotides could be specified, and a corresponding target string of nucleotides could be specified. We simulated a classic pre-human hominin population of at least 10,000 individuals, with a generation time of 20 years, and with very strong selection (50 % selective elimination). Random point mutations were generated within the starting string. Whenever an instance of the target string arose, all individuals carrying the target string were assigned a specified reproductive advantage. When natural selection had successfully amplified an instance of the target string to the point of fixation, the experiment was halted, and the waiting time statistics were tabulated. Using this methodology we tested the effect of mutation rate, string length, fitness benefit, and population size on waiting time to fixation.
Results
Biologically realistic numerical simulations revealed that a population of this type required inordinately long waiting times to establish even the shortest nucleotide strings. To establish a string of two nucleotides required on average 84 million years. To establish a string of five nucleotides required on average 2 billion years. We found that waiting times were reduced by higher mutation rates, stronger fitness benefits, and larger population sizes. However, even using the most generous feasible parameters settings, the waiting time required to establish any specific nucleotide string within this type of population was consistently prohibitive.
Conclusion
We show that the waiting time problem is a significant constraint on the macroevolution of the classic hominin population. Routine establishment of specific beneficial strings of two or more nucleotides becomes very problematic.
That wouldn’t falsify DESIGN because a sufficiently powerful DESIGNER could manufacture something that is identical to the same biological entity, down to the last atom, which evolved through natural processes.
Creationist FAIL.
Frankie,
That wouldn’t falsify IDC because IDCists coyly refuse to discuss the constraints under which their designer operates. A designer without any constraints could choose to use known evolutionary mechanisms to instantiate its designs.
You are not addressing the fact that you have an implicit assumption that design is the default. It is not. Demonstrating that known evolutionary mechanisms couldn’t produce a particular artifact would provide no support whatsoever to the design non-hypothesis of “Somewhere at some time(s) some entity did something(s).”
Elizabeth,
This needs to be printed on a clue-by-four to be brought out whenever an IDCist brings up Behe’s IC as support for their nonsense.
Frankie,
In your own words, please explain why you think the parameters are “ridiculous” and what you think they should be to meet “Behe’s criteria”, whatever that may be.
Frankie,
Most of the people here understand the claims of IDCists all too well. IDC has lots of them, after all. What it lacks is a scientific hypothesis, testable entailments, and evidence.
Frankie,
As has been repeatedly discussed here, Dembski’s CSI is useless as a metric. If you disagree, please provide a detailed calculation of CSI for a biological artifact.
mumble mumble two mutations mumble mumble malaria mumble mousetrap mumble bignumber mumble
DNA doesn’t produce anything and you know it. DNA is a repository, not a factory. You also know that. I see no reason to attempt to have a “discussion” with someone who holds such bizarre beliefs. Cheers.
Again, I’d say, all that’s going on here is a dispute about analogies, not a dispute about beliefs.
Allan is absolutely correct that DNA codes for enzymes as well as enzymes that produce enzymes.
So it is involved in their production – no DNA, no enzymes.
It’s a necessary but not sufficient cause. There is no single sufficient cause of enzymes below the level of the cell. I don’t suppose Allan disagrees with this.
Technically, deoxyRibozymes are known, though so far they are synthetic(have been selected for function from randomized pools or from varius DNA’s accidentally discovered to have some catalytic properties). Just saying this so you aren’t totally flabbergasted if at some point a wild-type organism with a functional deoxyRibozyme is discovered.
Yeah, you had me at that.
Mung,
Well, I have a degree in biochemistry. Yes, I know, bully for me. But the point is, I know a bit about DNA, yet I don’t ‘know’ either of those things that you do. DNA is neither a repository nor a factory. It’s a molecule. DNA produces, directly or indirectly, every molecule you claim is ‘really’ produced by the cell. Every ribosomal component, every tRNA, every tRNA synthetase, every enzyme in every biochemical pathway. Let me ask again: if DNA does not produce anything in the cell, what does? It’s no good saying ‘enzymes’ or ‘the system’ – where do they come from? If DNA is the source of cellular components, why is it wrong to say it ‘produces’ them?
Once again, map comes over territory – you get pissy because someone does not accept your favoured analogy, or the appropriateness of this word over that?
I did a quick search for a Miss Piggy ‘flounce’ GIF. Let’s pretend I found it, and here it is:
Ah, (reading Rumraket) you meant DNA has no catalytic role? Well, I guess, if that’s what ‘producing’ something means to you.
Is this a spat over the correct usage of the active vs the passive voice?
Elizabeth,
Well, I might stick my pedantic hat on and say that that wider system is capable of significant reduction! But no, I would agree that DNA alone does not perform the entirety of the activity. But then, neither does protein or any given cofactor. It’s the ’emergent’ system – but that system remains rooted in DNA.
You look very fetching in your pedantic hat 🙂
Yes, I accept your emendation.
It shows that basic reproduction is IC. Thank you for proving my point and choking on the evidence.
It would falsify ID, Patrick. You are also no one to say otherwise. You “argue” like a spoiled brat.
Thank you for proving that you are not interested in an honest discussion.
Elizabeth choked on Behe’s criteria. She doesn’t get it and refuses to even try.
I posted a peer-reviewed article that goes over it, Pat. That is more than enough.
Patrick, you have proven that is a lie. You don’t know jack about ID. IDC exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant. And here you are.
LoL! What does your position have? It doesn’t have anything that is close to being as good as CSI is.
Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007): – That measures CSI in biology.
You don’t know anything about ID and it shows. To falsify ID all you have to do is demonstrate undirected processes can produce what IDists say is designed.
Yes, ID is falsified if someone can show how evolution can create a sufficient quantity of FIASCO, where FIASCO is defined as “what evolution cannot create”.
And yet according to you the entire universe is designed. ID is the default for people like you, and it’s default for a very good reason. Nobody can prove a negative.
I can’t prove X was not designed as a designer could have created X even if evolutionary processes could also have created X (as already noted).
So you’ve won
JoeFrankie. You’ve “WON” for all the other creationists out there.So why don’t you go a celebrate? Perhaps a watermelon/tick based cocktail?
One more thing that the TSZ ilk do not seem to understand- to falsify IC as an indicator of design it is not enough to show some simple form of IC can be had by undirected processes. Showing something with 3 components can evolve via natural selection and drift does not mean something else that requires 10 components can also evolve via natural selection and drift.
You have to show whatever is the greatest value for IC can be had via NS and drift. Even Behe has said that.- even though it doesn’t need to be said.
Do you deny that you believe the universe is designed?
Ah, you are inventing new terms also!
Not only do we have “IC” we now have “Simple-IC” and “Complex-IC”. Why don’t you just say what you mean and have “IC that evolution cannot create”? As you only “win” by definition, and if you create the definitions you “win”!
LoL! Your ignorance is not a refutation and only your ignorance sez I am inventing something new. Read “Darwin’s Black Box”- the complexity criterion is in it.
Are you retarded? Your question doesn’t follow from what you were responding to. But yes, obviously the universe was designed.
What page is “Simple-IC” defined on and what page is “Complex-IC” defined on?
Therefore there is no such thing as “undirected evolution”. You have assumed your conclusion before you start and as such there is no value to be had from your opinions, as those opinions were formed before you have evidence either way.
Too bad Joe but IDiots say lots of ridiculous and untrue things. That’s why they’re known as IDiots. The simple fact is what you claim would falsify your DESIGN claims wouldn’t do so at all for the reason given. As usual you can’t address the argument but start spewing insults at those who point out the IDiot stupidity.
You have to wonder why they can’t spot the pattern.
IDC: This bar is too high for your evolution to leap.
Evolutionist: No it’s not, look at this demonstration.
IDC: No, I meant this slightly higher bar. Look, it can’t make it.
Evolutionist: Well, here, look, it can if I create a different experiment
IDC: No, I meant this higher bar yet, look, it’ll never reach that!
You claim to follow the evidence where it leads Frankie, but you never seem to spot the pattern of the ever shrinking gap do you?
It’s all in the book- start on page 39
You must be an imbecile. I never said that undirected evolution doesn’t exist just because the universe is designed. Grow up
@ Frankie
Please refer to the site rules. I’ve moved a couple of your comments to guano. Please adhere to the rules if you wish to continue commenting here without restriction.
Tell the people I am responding to adhere to the site rules.
Look I know that you cannot stand being proven wrong. I know that you will have to ban me sooner or later because I expose your equivocations and misrepresentations. But do not pretend it is because I am not adhering to the rules. I follow what your regulars do. My responses are no worse than theirs.
What page is Simple-IC defined and what page is Complex-IC defined?
It is your claim that evolution can create Simple-IC but not Complex-IC. As such it’s your responsibility to define your terms.
Ah, so undirected evolution does exist? How have you determined that?
Page numbers or retract.
Frankie,
Ah, Frankie, Frankie, Frankie. I’ve been defending you here from folks claiming that you’re Joe Gallien. This is a place for reasonable discussion, after all, and accusing someone of being as willfully ignorant, uneducated, vulgar, ungentlemanly, and of low intelligence as that trollish scumbag is too rude to be tolerated. To further suggest that even he would be so sleazy as to come back after being banned for grossly crude behavior is beyond the pale.
When you make these kinds of comments, it makes it harder to shield you from those accusations. It’s almost like you’re trying to impersonate that obnoxious half-wit.
Now go back, re-read what I wrote, and address the substantive issues. That will definitely distinguish you from JoeG.
Frankie,
On the contrary, she understands it well enough to summarize it quite succinctly:
If you disagree, perhaps you’d care to point out exactly where this summary is inaccurate.
Frankie,
I read that. I was not impressed. The authors got too many simple points wrong.
What do you think would be non-ridiculous parameters? What do you think Behe’s criteria are?
In your own words, please.
Frankie,
Were this directed at any other participant, I’d move it to Guano.
How do you explain the fact that “creationist” could be replaced with “intelligent design proponent” in a well-known IDC book without changing the meaning at all?
Frankie,
No, it does not. Dembski’s CSI is a very specific equation. If you think that some other metric is useful for identifying design, feel free to provide a worked example of how to calculate that metric for an actual biological artifact.
OMagain,
Sheesh, OMagain, stop standing around flapping your gums and help Frankie. Those goalposts he’s moving look heavy.
Since one can never prove any process is undirected with an unknown designer with unknown abilities ID is unfalsiable but that leaves the question:
if undirected processes have to shown to the satisfaction of IDists to have created the feature to falsify, shouldn’t ID have to show that directed processes created that feature to support its claim or at the very least show that even unknown undirected processes could not have created that feature?
I would be happy with a demonstration of biological design. let’s see an example.
You don’t have to, if a process is the product of natural laws and natural laws are product of a designer , are you saying that the product of design can be undesigned? If so you may have found a way to falsify ID after all.
This may well be true. If you define IC as a continuous measure, rather than a categorical one, you can always claim that SOME degree of IC is unevolvable.
And that would be very difficult to falsify. However, that is not a strength of the concept, it is a weakness. Unfalsifiable claims are not generally regarded as scientific.
Remember, Joe, that it is not the “evos” making the claim that there was no designer (well not as scientists). It is the IDists who are making the claim that there must have been.