Why do you still believe in evolution?
You’re willing to redpill yourself on so much – why not take the ultimate redpill about our origins?
The Law of Large Numbers makes microbes-to-humans evolution impossible. As http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full notes, “Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious”.
The Law of Large Numbers states that as your number of trials grows, the average in your sample will grow closer to the true average. Since mutations overwhelmingly erase genetic information, over time their effect will only be deleterious. Even if you have one that adds information (and, keep in mind, we’ve never observed this despite the untold plethora of mutations we’ve seen), it will be a fluke that cannot compensate for the much greater loss of information.
If your average is that you subtract more than you add, then you will inevitably decline as the process continues.
So are you a Creationist yet?
Why do you still believe in evolution?
You’re willing to redpill yourself on so much – why not take the ultimate redpill about our origins?
The Law of Large Numbers makes microbes-to-humans evolution impossible. As http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full notes, “Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious”.
The Law of Large Numbers states that as your number of trials grows, the average in your sample will grow closer to the true average. Since mutations overwhelmingly erase genetic information, over time their effect will only be deleterious. Even if you have one that adds information (and, keep in mind, we’ve never observed this despite the untold plethora of mutations we’ve seen), it will be a fluke that cannot compensate for the much greater loss of information.
If your average is that you subtract more than you add, then you will inevitably decline as the process continues.
So are you a Creationist yet?
>>71819864
*Tips Fedora*
>>71819864
>we’ve never observed this despite the untold plethora of mutations we’ve seen
downs syndrome
...Anonymous (ID: TdabxpY2)
Why do you still believe in ev(...)
04/23/16(Sat)09:17:28 No.71819864
Image
Genetic_decay.jpg
142 KB JPG
Why do you still believe in evolution?
You’re willing to redpill yourself on so much – why not take the ultimate redpill about our origins?
The Law of Large Numbers makes microbes-to-humans evolution impossible. As http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full notes, “Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious”.
The Law of Large Numbers states that as your number of trials grows, the average in your sample will grow closer to the true average. Since mutations overwhelmingly erase genetic information, over time their effect will only be deleterious. Even if you have one that adds information (and, keep in mind, we’ve never observed this despite the untold plethora of mutations we’ve seen), it will be a fluke that cannot compensate for the much greater loss of information.
If your average is that you subtract more than you add, then you will inevitably decline as the process continues.
So are you a Creationist yet?
>>71820036
>downs syndrome
Kek the typical evolutionist logic:
>They net effect of mutation is inevitably going to be harmful.
>Oh yeah but what about Down Syndrome???
The link you quoted from specifically states that the "[m]y concern, however, is not with mutation as a cause of evolution, but rather as a factor in current and future human welfare."
It focuses on the effect of mutation as a health risk to individuals. It says nothing of mutation in the wider sphere of evolution and nothing whatever about 'the law of large numbers'.
...Anonymous (ID: TdabxpY2)
Why do you still believe in ev(...)
04/23/16(Sat)09:17:28 No.71819864
Image
Genetic_decay.jpg
142 KB JPG
Why do you still believe in evolution?
You’re willing to redpill yourself on so much – why not take the ultimate redpill about our origins?
The Law of Large Numbers makes microbes-to-humans evolution impossible. As http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full notes, “Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must penis deleterious”.
The Law of Large Numbers states that as your number of trials grows, the average in your sample will grow closer to the true average. Since mutations overwhelmingly erase genetic information, over time their effect will only be deleterious. Even if you have one that adds information (and, keep in mind, we’ve never observed this despite the untold plethora of mutations we’ve seen), it will be a fluke that cannot compensate for the much greater loss of information.
If your average is that you subtract more than you add, then you will inevitably decline as the process continues.
So are you a Creationist yet?
>>71819864
It's sad scientists by their discoveries protect people like you from natural selection.
On the scale of humankind you are somewhere between niggers and muslims.
lol american cuckservatives r cute
>>71820183
I was citing the paper for what I cited it for: the fact that most mutations are harmful, and this their overall effect must be deleterious.
Which is really just basic logic. In any ordered system random changes will result in a net decrease of order, essentially by definition. If something is ordered then a smaller subset of the possible changes will increase the order, and a larger subset of the possible changes will decrease it. Since all possibilities are equally likely with a random event, by the Law of Large Numbers there will be a net decrease.
>>71820336
'Deleterious' does not mean a reduction or erasure of genetic information as you claimed in OP...
The word has a very normal and non-scientific definition.
>The Law of Large Numbers states that as your number of trials grows, the average in your sample will grow closer to the true average.
Only true for non-stationary processes. You can have noise with a non-zero mean fucktard.
Think of it this way.
Every mutation that is not healed and gets to pass on to the next generation becomes the new mean.
kekekekekekekekkekekekekeke
Someone has no fucking clue how cellular biology, molecular biology, environmental science, evolutionary biology, geology, or archaeology work.
It's a fact, like gravity and cell theory. Do you trust modern medicine? It was arrived at the same way of evolution: through observation, testing, critical research.
There is literally so much evidence I don't even know what to share with you. Vestigial organs, microevolution, controlled cases of macroevolution under observable conditions, genetic evidence, fossil evidence, embryonic evidence, selective breeding (dogs alone prove gradual change through selecting pressure), homology, and morphology. I mean, what more do you want.
Literally every facet of what I mentioned has a vast amount of critical research attached to it. Observable evidence. It's real.
>>71820481
>'Deleterious' does not mean a reduction or erasure of genetic information as you claimed in OP...
That's the mechanism by which mutations are deleterious. Proteins derive their function from their sequence of amino acids, and only a very small subset of amino acid sequences have function.
So, since all sequences are equally likely to result from random changes, the net effect of random change is going to be toward sequences which lack function.
>>71820571
>Only true for non-stationary processes.
meant stationary processes
>becomes the new mean
meant defines the new mean
fuck me I'm too tired to do this shit properly
>>71820571
>Every mutation that is not healed and gets to pass on to the next generation becomes the new mean.
That's exactly the problem. The mutation process is, on average, deleterious. Mutations are far more likely to erase genetic information than to make it.
If you have 100 mutations a generation, then the odds are that all 100 of those mutations will have erased genetic information. Maybe once every few generations you get one that adds some (though we have never observed such a mutation), but for every one that adds you have hundreds or thousands that remove.
So each successive generation is going to have less genetic information than the last.
>>71820757
Even if true, so what?
If a mutation is extremely deleterious to survival the likelihood is that the mutation carrier will be still-born, die shortly after birth or be infertile. Such mutations do not make it into the genepool and have zero influence on the evolution of the species.
>>71820571
r a n d o m walk
>>71820704
Evidences are useless with creationnists, the only real cure would be neuronal transplantations and a bunch of months in genetics and biology class to create few synapses with it.
Hmmmm...
but the process of mutation is non-ergodic. That means there is no mean.
Secondly, non viable mutations aren't passed on and so don't accumulate in the regression.
You are stuck in your religious Platonism that states there is a metaphysics driving evolution - you think evolution is a ladder where speciation takes advantage of mutations to navigate the world.
This is not true. Evolution is a sieve: what is here is what remains after EVERYTHING ELSE HAS DIED. There is no mechanism or law in the world; laws and cause and effect only happen in our stories of the world. The world is indistinguishable from random without someone to make a story about it.
SO here's a story:
Out of all the combinations of all the quanta of the universe, life is just one extremely rare combination. It is here because it is here and we are here to make a story about it.
>>71819864
This is retarded but actually brings up a good point.
In Western civilisation, where even a deaf retard can live till 90, and if it's a woman could reproduce, we should actually be evolving "backwards", seeing as most mutations are detrimental. Obviously you can't evolve backwards, but what I mean is that evolution will be detrimental to us in the world where nobody gets naturally selected.
>>71820979
Indeed. The problem is that most mutations are only slightly deleterious, and so are essentially invisible to natural selection.
And what's worse, natural selection cannot remove all mutations. To do so it would have to select against all mutated individuals - but virtually every individual born every generation carries with them new mutations, so this would lead to a population crash or extinction.
According to http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090827/full/news.2009.864.html, a direct measurement of the human mutation rate obtained by sequencing the DNA of distant relatives gave the estimate that “from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations”.
Selection can only remove the very worst mutations.
>>71821375
>and if it's a woman could reproduce
Oh and what I mean by this is that any woman will find someone who will fuck her, whereas a guy in that situation probably won't be getting any. Not that deaf retard guys CAN'T reproduce.
>>71820909
>So each successive generation is going to have less genetic information than the last.
Doesn't this show that your reasoning is wrong since this implies that over time complexity is reduced and this is the opposite of what we observe.
> Mutations are far more likely to erase genetic information than to make it.
Your argument seems to hinge on this point more than your law of large numbers nonsense.
The most common type of mutation iirc is a transcription error which usually add/change not subtract. Pretty sure thats why there are massive sections of non-coding DNA in every species.
>>71821375
>evolution will be detrimental to us in the world where nobody gets naturally selected
Correct! But also see >>71821380 - higher rates of natural selection help, but you cannot select strongly enough to remove most mutations or else we would experience a population crash and extinction.
Humans have 100-200 new mutations each generation. Most of these have only a slightly negative effect and so don't immediately influence selection. But over time, these mutations will build.
And there are no non-mutated lineages, so the only possible way is down.
>>71821380
You fail to recognise that the majority of human genes are non-coding or non-essential in nature.
You fail to recognise that, even in the article you quoted, it only states that mutations with effect are mostly 'deleterious', the majority of mutations have no effect at all - simply innocuous reshuffling of the genetic information.
Your leap to 'most mutations are deleterious is bullshit, if we take this article to be your reason for believing that.
>>71821609
> over time complexity is reduced and this is the opposite of what we observe
When have we observed (and I mean us genuinely observing, not speculating based on interpretations of remains but genuinely seeing) an increase in genetic information?
>The most common type of mutation iirc is a transcription error which usually add/change not subtract
Lol you don't need to remove DNA to subtract genetic information. Changing its order and scrambling it enough will render it non-functional or reduce its specific function. All mutations we've seen in DNA sequences for protein for example, when we can tell what effect they had, have resulted in that protein's specific function being disabled or reduced.
(Like if its chitinase for example, a mutation will make it unable to or less effective at digesting chitin)
>>71821686
>You fail to recognise that the majority of human genes are non-coding
Non-coding does not mean non-functional! It just means that that DNA isn't used to make proteins. There's lots of other stuff it can be used for (like RNA or centromeres)
It used to be thought that most of our DNA was totally useless junk DNA, but this is being disproven more and more with each find. One study here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html for example "enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions".
> or non-essential in nature
Of course. Especially with homeostasis, you'd be surprised what you can live without. Almost no one gene is truly essential. But each mutation reduces the functionality of something and decreases our net genetic information. A mutation doesn't need to kill you to make you worse.
>it only states that mutations with effect are mostly 'deleterious', the majority of mutations have no effect at all
Most mutations are nearly neutral, but that's only because we can't quite determine their effect. For EVERY mutation where we've been able to determine what it did, it was a reduction of genetic information. There is no such thing as "innocuous reshuffling" of DNA sequences.
>>71821375
>In Western civilisation, where even a deaf retard can live till 90, and if it's a woman could reproduce, we should actually be evolving "backwards", seeing as most mutations are detrimental. Obviously you can't evolve backwards, but what I mean is that evolution will be detrimental to us in the world where nobody gets naturally selected.
Deaf population is tiny, and very particular, since the handicap is invisible (so it does not affect beauty).
Retarded persons have a higher mortality rate, x8 until 17yo and less but still important at adult ages.
By the way they are least attractive partners since they are dependant of a provider.
The whole fact that progress protect stupid or chronicly sick people from natural selection is not really a problem.
The problem is in the fact that most intelligent/capable people don't procreate anymore or far less than before because of a bunch of new norms in modern societies and the fact that raising children while keeping their quality of life is extremly costly.
Anyway, won't be a real problem because we have the tools to take evolutions in our own hands now, it will just take time to master it.
>>71822053
>When have we observed an increase in genetic information?
antibiotic resistance in bacteria just off the top of my head. Hell plasmids literally are "increases in genetic information".
>Changing its order and scrambling it enough will render it non-functional or reduce its specific function.
Yeah that's the point you're supposed to break the bits that won't kill you and hope the transcription monkeys type out something useful from the scrambled mess of your genome. The vast majority of time you are probably going to get cancer. But sometimes someone somewhere might accidentally develop resistance to some pathogen out of his scrambled shit genome and not pass it on because >tfw no gf.
>>71823206
>antibiotic resistance in bacteria just off the top of my head
Antibiotic resistance is actually a natural part of bacterial populations.
According to here for example: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7365/full/nature10388.html, it was found that “microbe…DNA from 30,000 year-old…permafrost” contained “genes encoding resistance to β-lactam, tetracycline and glycopeptide antibiotics. Structure and function studies on the complete vancomycin resistance element VanA confirmed its similarity to modern variants. These results show conclusively that antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon that predates the modern selective pressure of clinical antibiotic use.”
So as far as we can tell, antibiotic resistance has always been present in bacterial populations.
>Hell plasmids literally are "increases in genetic information".
Transferring a plasmid from one organism to another doesn't make any new genetic information, you've just copied it and placed it elsewhere.
>The vast majority of time you are probably going to get cancer. But sometimes someone somewhere might accidentally develop resistance to some pathogen
Actually, the vast majority of the time you'll get a very minor reduction in something like the effectiveness of a protein. If one of the bases in your lactase gene changes so it is 0.02% less effective at digesting lactose, your body will compensate by producing 0.02% more of it. That won't have enough of an effect to get you selected against, so you'll pass this mutated gene on.
And that is happening in dozens of genes for everyone every generation.
>>71823884
Right. You've convinced me that pre-historic humans had the most efficient human genome and we're all lesser beings compared to them because nature over time has fucked us out of our genetic information.
That's enough /pol/ for me tonight.
>>71823884
It's amazing how retards can even think humanity is sustainable withe people living for 500+ years in a primitive state
>>71820988
It's the one thing I hate about this board. It's full of supposedly "redpilled" people but you have the cluster of people who hate niggers but somehow deny the fields of sciences which give them some rational justification for being against race mixing.
>>71819864
>Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious
What? Almost all of the difference in appearance, vital processes, and personality between you and the nearest other person are mutations. Why would most mutations be harmful? Just because they are mutations?
Is it harmful to have the Rh surface protein? What about A or B? AB? Is it harmful to have none of them?
>>71824881
>You've convinced me that pre-historic humans had the most efficient human genome
Is that not basic biology? There was more natural selection, so it is likely that more of the worse mutations were weeded out of the population.
The paper http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full agrees. It says "However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world...Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced. It seems clear that for the past few centuries harmful mutations have been accumulating."
This is nothing that isn't established science. Many people just aren't willing to swallow the red pill and accept the obvious conclusion: mutation has a net destructive effect over time. So, mutation over time cannot be what lead to us.
>>71825437
> you have the cluster of people who hate niggers but somehow deny the fields of sciences which give them some rational justification for being against race mixing.
I'm firmly against racism because I'm a Creationist, actually. We're all created by God and we aren't as different from one another as the people advocating evolutionary racism would have you believe.
>>71819864
are we giving up the scientific method in favour of just accepting magic now?
...by the way jesus made water come from heaven today. it was AMAZING!
>>71825531
>Almost all of the difference in appearance, vital processes, and personality between you and the nearest other person are mutations
Actually the genetic differences between people are because they have different alleles. Saying that all alleles are from mutation is simply assuming that evolution is true in order to prove that evolution is true.
>>71825857
>There was more natural selection
What.
>>71826065
>are we giving up the scientific method in favour of just accepting magic now?
We have the meme magic so it is time to accept the gene magic too!
>>71826356
*reaching for cyanide pill*
...by the way, nice work if that's oc.
>>71819864
Simplification is the root of all bullshit.
Until we can simulate it (never) it's all just hand waving, trying to give your hand waving more respectability with math is sophistry.
>>71826960
>Until we can simulate it
Ah but we can simulate it experimentally! Think of how increased mutation rates in small populations lead to mutational meltdown.
Having a large population isn't going to save us from that, it will just make it take longer.
We can also simulate the effect by looking at very simple subjects. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1774997/ discusses an experiment where RNA molecules were essentially fed and reproduced by the scientists (not on their own of course since they're just molecules, but they copied them and gave them energy and such) over a series of 50 generations, and their mutations and survival were tracked.
It ended in disaster for the molecules. As they found, “The accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations in populations lead…to the buildup of a genetic load and…the extinction of [the] populations”.
