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.
Frankie,
Most people on the pro-evolution side simply make their arguments, and don’t feel the need to bring ‘experts’ in to add weight. It’s a sign of insecurity, and pretty diagnostic – particularly when pro-evolutionists are being brought in to make a case against evolution. That’s always a bit fishy.
Holy cow! You have reading comprehension issues. It does not say that the program always added functional code and yet you responded as if it said that.
Frankie,
Indeed. It depends on the environment in which the phenotype finds itself.
In the context of differential reproductive success, they are two sides of the same coin.
AVIDA- I was talking about AVIDA
Easy, we eliminate lesser explanations by observing there isn’t any way to test them. And yes, living organisms are intelligently designed as they meet the criteria. ATP synthase also meets the criteria. And your position cannot explain either of those.
You have reading comprehension issues. And no one can demonstrate the mutations in Lenski’s E coli were accidents/ errors/ mistakes. You don’t have a methodology.
LoL! When people question my claims it is always god to bring in the support, duh.
Frankie,
If you don’t know enough to find the information yourself, you really have no business discussing this topic. While not always a great resource, you can start with the Wikipedia entry. For a good introduction I recommend Futuyma’s “Evolution” textbook.
Then it should be no problem for you to provide a cite to that refutation.
Mayr disagrees with you. When it comes to evolution Mayr matters, you do not.
Frankie,
Not initially …
!
So you cannot link to this alleged theory of evolution. Got it. But you “know” it exists”. Got it.
The modern synthesis is a collection of books, one bearing that name. A scientific theory, like Einstein’s, is published in peer-review. There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution so published.
Frankie,
Please leave the insults out of your comments as per Elizabeth’s rules.
With respect to Avida, why do you think that selectable intermediates invalidate the results?
I was talking about AVIDA when I said that about Lenski. It is a quote I posted in this thread.
Frankie,
This is you arguing in your own words, is it?
Frankie,
Your quoted material said that “Additionally, every mutation which added code, always added functional line(s) of code”. That is not correct.
I note that you elided context yet again.
That seems to be a distinction without a difference.
I personally prefer the view that organisms are changing their genome (for the next generation). But it is still random changes, so still an accident as to whether a particular genetic change is the result.
What I say about evolution doesn’t matter. Are you really that obtuse?
If an organism controls its genome then the changes are not accidents, errors nor mistakes.
Frankie,
If you see an insulting post that one of the moderators has missed, please point it out. Everyone is responsible for the content of their own comments, regardless of what slights they perceive from others.
So lines of code can be added and some were not functional? Evidence please.
Frankie,
The Avida instruction set includes three no-op instructions. In addition, as pointed out repeatedly, some mutations were deleterious, by definition reducing functionality.
I posted:
Additionally, every mutation which added code, always added functional line(s) of code,
Patrick responded with:
This is completely inaccurate. Mutations did not always add functional code. In fact, as Elizabeth has pointed out a number of times, some mutations were deleterious.
I did NOT post that every mutation always add functional lines of code. The quote says that when lines of code where added they were always functional.
That doesn’t even respond top the quote you are responding to.
“Creationist heal thyself”
It doesn’t invalidate the results. The results just do not show that Behe’s IC can evolve.
Frankie,
Hilarious! Organisms were intelligently designed because there is no way to test the hypothesis that they weren’t? Yep, that’s some scientific method you’ve got going on there!
Learn how to read, Allan. We first eliminate lesser explanations and then we see if the design criteria has been met. And yes we can eliminate something if no one knows how to test it
Frankie,
I’d certainly agree with that. But I don’t feel under any obligation to follow Mayr either, particularly. Welcome to the world of thinking for yourself. Or we could simply paste quotes from assumed experts all day long. Wouldn’t that be fun?
Frankie,
No-one knows how to test Design (other than this ridiculously circular route you propose) so we can eliminate it.
Regarding evolution what Mayr said caries more weight than anything you say. You don’t have to follow Mayr but you don’t have anything to say about it either- nothing that anyone will listen to anyway.
My route isn’t circular and your ignorance is not a refutation. Archaeology and forensic science detect design every day.
See Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation
Anyway, back to Mendel’s Accountant. Is it a valid model of evolution? Or do we have one of theose “hate the method, love the conclusion” scenarios going on here?
There goes ID then. Unless you know how to test it Joe?
If so, why not demonstrate?
Frankie,
Not by deciding they can’t test the hypothesis something wasn’t designed, they don’t.
I have shown you how to test it. Your willful ignorance is not an argument
Frankie,
Mayr regarded evolution as essentially correct, and was not a Design advocate. Do you concur?
OK Allan, please tell us how you determined that ATP synthase was the result of blind and undirected processes? And I see that you still have that reading problem.
Frankie,
Yes, I got that the first time I read your quoted material. That fact is, that assertion is false.
Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution.
So you say but cannot demonstrate.
Frankie,
Elizabeth has refuted that claim several times. If she doesn’t join in soon, I’ll dig up one of her comments on this topic.
What type of evolution? Or are you also ignorant of what is being debated?
No, she did not. She ignored what Behe said and prattled on.
Frankie,
I eliminated the lesser hypotheses.
Frankie,
Those disciplines are able to detect the artifacts of human behaviors because they know that humans exist and what constraints humans act under.
What constraints do you place on your putative designer?
We posit the entailments of the design. And then we see if they exist and they do.
Frankie,
.Back to sloganising. Did I say it was? Mayr was an advocate of what you tend to call ‘blind watchmaker evolution’, and was not an advocate of Design. That’s the trouble with bringing experts in – why should one take them as the final word on X, if one regards everything else they said as horseshit?
Frankie,
Sez who?
Frankie,
Without constraints, literally anything is possible. That means that literally anything can be called an “entailment” of an unconstrained designer. That’s a vacuous position.