ID and coronavirus conspiracy theories

[shunyadragon]

So, one, you're refusing to acknowledge the extensive discussions of the literature on these mutations, which show the two mutations did not have to occur simultaneously.

Second, you're attempting to apply the evolution of drug resistance to completely unrelated contexts.

Third, you're ignoring that fact that a vast number of neutral mutations always exist in all populations, and thus the raw material for evolution of new functions pre-exists the selective pressures for them.

Summing up: your definition is arbitrary and unsupported by biology.


Finally: stop listening to Behe. I won't call him a liar, because i think he's delusional enough that he believes what he's saying. But what he's saying is frequently false.

Not only arbitrary and unsupported by the science of biology, but a caspiracy theory in its own right.

[lee_merrill]

So, one, you're refusing to acknowledge the extensive discussions of the literature on these mutations, which show the two mutations did not have to occur simultaneously.

But mutations are statistically independent, so the probability is the same, whether the mutations occur simultaneously, or not.

Second, you're attempting to apply the evolution of drug resistance to completely unrelated contexts.

Larry Moran would disagree...

Source: Sandwalk

There's no disagreement among evolutionary biologists about the low probability of simultaneous mutations. They all agree with Behe on that part of his argument.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Third, you're ignoring that fact that a vast number of neutral mutations always exist in all populations, and thus the raw material for evolution of new functions pre-exists the selective pressures for them.

That apparently wasn't the case for the malaria parasite, which required some time to develop resistance.

Blessings,
Lee

[Stoic]

But mutations are statistically independent, so the probability is the same, whether the mutations occur simultaneously, or not.

No, the probability of them occurring simultaneously is much lower than the probability of them occurring up to many generations apart.

With neutral mutations, they can occur many generations apart.

Larry Moran would disagree...

Source: Sandwalk

There's no disagreement among evolutionary biologists about the low probability of simultaneous mutations. They all agree with Behe on that part of his argument.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Yes, I think we can all agree that simultaneous mutations are very improbable.

[shunyadragon]

But mutations are statistically independent, so the probability is the same, whether the mutations occur simultaneously, or not.


Larry Moran would disagree...

Source: Sandwalk

There's no disagreement among evolutionary biologists about the low probability of simultaneous mutations. They all agree with Behe on that part of his argument.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

LAURENCE A. MORAN is not a reliable source.

Simultaneous mutations are not necessary

[rogue06]

LAURENCE A. MORAN is not a reliable source.

Simultaneous mutations are not necessary

That's kind of what he said

[TheLurch]

But mutations are statistically independent, so the probability is the same, whether the mutations occur simultaneously, or not.

Stoic handled this.

Larry Moran would disagree...

The quote doesn't address what i said. Try again.

That apparently wasn't the case for the malaria parasite, which required some time to develop resistance.

You don't actually know that. It's entirely possible that one or even both mutations existed in the population prior to the experience of selective pressure (malarial parasites undergo sexual reproduction, so you can have recombination events that combine separate mutations). What may have taken time was the combination becoming prevalent enough in an area with sufficient healthcare resources for us to recognize it existed.

[lee_merrill]

No, the probability of them occurring simultaneously is much lower than the probability of them occurring up to many generations apart.

With neutral mutations, they can occur many generations apart.

With statistically independent events, the probability is not dependent on the timing of the events. So if you roll three dice, or if you roll one die three times, the probability of getting three 3s is the same.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

The quote doesn't address what i said. Try again.

Evolutionary biologists agree about the low probability, regardless of the context.

You don't actually know that. It's entirely possible that one or even both mutations existed in the population prior to the experience of selective pressure (malarial parasites undergo sexual reproduction, so you can have recombination events that combine separate mutations). What may have taken time was the combination becoming prevalent enough in an area with sufficient healthcare resources for us to recognize it existed.

Behe, as I recall, calculated the probability of the two mutations arriving after chloroquine was introduced, and it fits with the timing when resistance developed.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

Evolutionary biologists agree about the low probability, regardless of the context.

Yes, he agreed that something that didn't happen is low probability.

A something that has absolutely nothing to do with whole-genome virus evolution.

Behe, as I recall, calculated the probability of the two mutations arriving after chloroquine was introduced, and it fits with the timing when resistance developed.

If Behe told me i was tall, i'd immediately ask for a tape measure.

With statistically independent events, the probability is not dependent on the timing of the events. So if you roll three dice, or if you roll one die three times, the probability of getting three 3s is the same.

Ok, this is evidence that you don't even understand Behe's argument. I mean, it's just as well, given that it's a bogus argument. But it kind of makes everything you're posting about it here a waste of space.

[Stoic]

With statistically independent events, the probability is not dependent on the timing of the events. So if you roll three dice, or if you roll one die three times, the probability of getting three 3s is the same.

Blessings,
Lee

The dice aren't being rolled 3 times. They are being rolled countless times.

You roll the dice as many times as it takes for one of the three numbers to come up, and then you roll it as many times as it takes for one of the other numbers to come up, and then you roll it as many times as it takes for the third number to come up.

Simultaneous mutations would be akin to expecting the 3 numbers to be rolled sequentially.

[rogue06]

The dice aren't being rolled 3 times. They are being rolled countless times.

You roll the dice as many times as it takes for one of the three numbers to come up, and then you roll it as many times as it takes for one of the other numbers to come up, and then you roll it as many times as it takes for the third number to come up.

Simultaneous mutations would be akin to expecting the 3 numbers to be rolled sequentially.

Considering how many times and in how many ways it has been explained that a sequence of mutations do not need to occur simultaneously folks like Behe cannot be ignorant of it but are instead being intentionally dishonest when they keep saying otherwise.

[lee_merrill]

You roll the dice as many times as it takes for one of the three numbers to come up, and then you roll it as many times as it takes for one of the other numbers to come up, and then you roll it as many times as it takes for the third number to come up.

That would be how selectable mutations would work--but non-selectable mutations are independent.

Simultaneous mutations would be akin to expecting the 3 numbers to be rolled sequentially.

Well, independently, so P(A and B and C) = P(A) x P(B) x P(C).

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Considering how many times and in how many ways it has been explained that a sequence of mutations do not need to occur simultaneously folks like Behe cannot be ignorant of it but are instead being intentionally dishonest when they keep saying otherwise.

Well, the mutations have to be simultaneously present, so simultaneous in that sense, but the probability of independent events occurring is the same, no matter when the events occur.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

Well, the mutations have to be simultaneously present, so simultaneous in that sense, but the probability of independent events occurring is the same, no matter when the events occur.

Behe's whole argument is bogus, because its based on there being no selective advantage to the mutations unless both are present, which we know to be wrong.

But even if we grant him that premise for some hypothetical case, then he's got to show that the existence of neutral mutations in the population is rare, and there aren't many of them floating around. If he can't show that, then the probability of one or both of these pre-existing the arrival of selection is much higher. But, given the fact that we know neutral mutations are the most common type, and huge numbers of neutral variants exist in every population, i don't get how he could claim that.

So it's both a bad argument and based on a false premise.

And, in any case, it's a huge side track from the topic under discussion, which is that the only analysis of the coronavirus genome has been done by biologists, and not the ID crowd, because after all these years, they've not developed any tools to analyze genomes.

[rogue06]

Well, the mutations have to be simultaneously present, so simultaneous in that sense, but the probability of independent events occurring is the same, no matter when the events occur.

Blessings,
Lee

Lee, that is nothing but making up definitions to support a predetermined conclusion.