# Does Common Descent Follow Logically From Darwin's Four Postulates?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Eugene Shubert, May 10, 2017.

Messages:
979

3. ### Michael 345Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,735
What would I learn from unanswerable questions?

Been there done that?

5. ### Eugene ShubertRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
979
Your priest told you to believe that, so you do. You have entrusted your salvation to him.

7. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
24,460
In science, a probability of measure zero means impossible.
And the assumption that an evolutionary change of X -> Y has the same probability as Y -> X is ridiculous.
That theorem is in conflict with the findings of research and observation.

8. ### Eugene ShubertRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
979
Find some mathematicians you trust and ask them.

9. ### Michael 345Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,735
X --> Y has same probability Y --> X

Pregnancy --> Birth

Birth --> ???

I don't think so

I'm with you iceaura

10. ### Eugene ShubertRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
979
Axiom 3: "The DNA copying process is imperfect; there are random, frequently occurring single-character misspellings, deletions, insertions, duplications, translocations and inversions."

Consequently, what is the probability for each specific error and what is the probability for each error to be undone? All I know is that if a transposition takes place with probability p, then the reverse transposition to fix that error also has a probability of p of happening.

11. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
24,460
Like I said - all you need is a high school intro text in "Probability and Statistics". It will have a picture of a Galton Machine, for you to ponder. I linked one for you, on Wiki.

In more advanced classes, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is introduced - if you need something fancier than marbles in boxes.
That's not the case, in physical reality, for evolutionary processes.

We're not talking math, we're talking science. Physical reality. If your math model doesn't fit the facts, you discard it or change it.

12. ### Eugene ShubertRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
979
Likewise, if an inversion takes place with probability q, then the probability to invert that inversion is also of probability q.

13. ### Eugene ShubertRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
979
A Galton Machine has nothing to do with mutations.

14. ### Michael 345Valued Senior Member

Messages:
3,735
The probability of any particular transposition taking place is UNKNOWN and UNKNOWABLE

Hence the reverse of any particular transposition taking place is DOUBLE UNKNOWN and UNKNOWABLE

There MIGHT, only JUST might be a extremely high number just short of INFINITY but because of UNKNOWN imponderables is beyond calculation

If anybody out there has a formula or calculation method I would be happy to hear about it

I'll go with 1 in INFINITY

15. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
24,460
That's not true of evolutionary processes in physical reality. Your model is in conflict with research findings and observation. Change your model, or discard it.
That's not true either - the basics of probability are best illustrated with simple models like that, and models of mutation frequency etc incorporate probabilities.

16. ### Eugene ShubertRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
979
Given a string of n distinct characters, then the number of possible transpositions is exactly n(n-1)/2.

For example, AB is a string of two distinct characters. So n=2. Put that in the formula and you get 2(2-1)/2 =1. That's right, isn't it?
There is only 1 possible transposition for the string AB, which is BA.

Again, ABC is a string of three distinct characters. So n=3. Put that in the formula and you get 3(3-1)/2 =3. I'm right again.

So from ABC there are only 3 possible transpositions:

BAC
ACB
CBA

Here's a homework assignment for you. Check my formula for 4 distinct characters by listing all the possible transpositions to ABCD. There should be 4(4-1)/2 = 6 of them.

Last edited: May 17, 2017
17. ### spidergoatValued Senior Member

Messages:
51,949
In general, DNA polymerases are highly accurate, with an intrinsic error rate of less than one mistake for every 107 nucleotides added.[7] In addition, some DNA polymerases also have proofreading ability; they can remove nucleotides from the end of a growing strand in order to correct mismatched bases. Finally, post-replication mismatch repair mechanisms monitor the DNA for errors, being capable of distinguishing mismatches in the newly synthesized DNA strand from the original strand sequence. Together, these three discrimination steps enable replication fidelity of less than one mistake for every 109 nucleotides added.[7] (wikipedia)

exchemist likes this.
18. ### Eugene ShubertRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
979
Toy models are just the playthings of mathematicians. Again, start with a string of n distinct characters and derive the formula for the number of possible inversions. Assign the same probability for each inversion. Do the math.

19. ### spidergoatValued Senior Member

Messages:
51,949
Is that real math or creationist math?

20. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,637
Thank you for getting this show back on the road with some proper science, rather than puerile arguments based on a 5th former's grasp of probability.

21. ### Eugene ShubertRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
979
Axiom 4 of Sanford's Genomic Degeneration Theorem affirms that "The number of DNA copying errors has been measured to be between 100 and 200 per person per generation." Isn't that right?

Messages:
51,949