Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - Page 7

A_Wise_Fool · 06-29-08, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

I had asked you where you saw this and you hadn't given me such a place. plain and simple.

I quoted it in my post the very first time I used it. Did you think I dishonestly just made it up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

:In powerball you must select 6 number's correctly to win the lottery.
And the first 5 once a number is taken it won't repeat itself except for the powerball which is another free for all.
So.
The highest number of powerball is 99, the lowest is 1.
Thus
1/99x1/98x1/97x1/96x1/95 for the first five and then x1/99 for the last powerball again.
That gives an odds of ~1.18 x 10^-12 That's 10 to the negative 12 power please by all means what value as 12 zeros after it? million?
PLease, do some math will you.

Your point is flawed, do the math.

Do the math.

how many 0's are behind 100 million? oh right, 6. What unit has 12 zeros behind it?

ONLY because you said please. Im getting quite sick of this lackluster effort you are giving my posts and was about to quit wasting my time.

Powerball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

As of May 2008, to play the game, a player pays $1 and picks five numbers from 1 to 55 (white balls) and one additional number from 1 to 42 (the red Powerball number.)

So you do know how probability works. I commend you. But you had the facts wrong. It's five out of 55 and one powerball out of 42, not 99 like you thought.

It comes out to one in 150 million or so.

I'm hoping you didn't actually know this and then tried to slip it by me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

The article does not say trillions of intermediates.

It said one in a trillion, meaning the odds. Meaning on average, you need a trillion attempts, or reproductions to get somthing as complicated as a net metabolism ability.

Now an attempt/reproduction itself is not an intermediate. Not that it matters.

jfuh · 06-29-08, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_Wise_Fool

I quoted it in my post the very first time I used it. Did you think I dishonestly just made it up?

ONLY because you said please. Im getting quite sick of this lackluster effort you are giving my posts and was about to quit wasting my time.

Powerball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you do know how probability works. I commend you. But you had the facts wrong. It's five out of 55 and one powerball out of 42, not 99 like you thought.

It comes out to one in 150 million or so.

I'm hoping you didn't actually know this and then tried to slip it by me.

I was under the impression that it was over 99 numbers - there was no intention of "slipping it by".
So re-entering the figures what we get is 1/55*1/54*1/53*1/52*1/51*1/42 = 5.7 x 10^-11
So ten times less than the probability I calculated out before.
So as I said, do the math.
I don't think you are making it up more so that I think you are academically lazy - as I had demonstrated by too lazily looking up the actual values of a power ball lottery range.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_Wise_Fool

It said one in a trillion, meaning the odds. Meaning on average, you need a trillion attempts, or reproductions to get somthing as complicated as a net metabolism ability.

Now an attempt/reproduction itself is not an intermediate. Not that it matters.

Actually yes it does matter. It's the very core of the problem because you are equating the probability of an intermediate appearing to actually equate to the number of intermediates. Two distinctly different situations.

A_Wise_Fool · 06-30-08, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

I was under the impression that it was over 99 numbers - there was no intention of "slipping it by".
So re-entering the figures what we get is 1/55*1/54*1/53*1/52*1/51*1/42 = 5.7 x 10^-11
So ten times less than the probability I calculated out before.
So as I said, do the math.
I don't think you are making it up more so that I think you are academically lazy - as I had demonstrated by too lazily looking up the actual values of a power ball lottery range.

We are both even more lazy than you realize. You properly did the equation with the wrong numbers and multiple sites also disagreed with you so I assumed using the correct numbers would match up with all the the websitees 140 millions odds prediction so I just assumed that would solve it. But I was concerned after you redid the equation, and so I did too, and came up with a number much higher than all the websites were claiming and so I looked into it some more and realized that the key here is that the numbers do not have to be in order like we both thought. If they were then you would be right.

It really does come out to 146 million if they balls do not need to be in order, which is the way it is played. This link explains it if you care:About Odds

Now back to the point of this... one does need to play out the odds with trials and time before something can be achieved, in this case winning the lottery. So, as my link said it was one in a trillion odds of that chemical metabolism to evolve meant that in real life on average we need one trillion cell divisions before we get that trait. Therefor that need has to be met before we likely will see the trait, sometimes it will be more and sometimes less like I've said.

Another thing, since the way the powerball lottery is played the odds of winning are one in 146 million or so, and that takes several weeks to several months to have a winner, then if it was one in a hundred billion, an increased factor of I think one thousand, then it would take several years to several decades for anyone to win the lottery on average, because the need is not immediately met. (billions of more combinations than people playing)

Quote:

Actually yes it does matter. It's the very core of the problem because you are equating the probability of an intermediate appearing to actually equate to the number of intermediates. Two distinctly different situations.

[/quote] I'm sorry this was supposed to be implied by my argument.

There were no known intermediates between the first generation and the one that had the new trait. Therefor that makes it the first intermediate between something of higher complexity.

So with each new trait, each new supposed intermediate between something more complex like a jellyfish, there will be trillions of cell divisions/reproductions.

It doesn't help your case either way; having trillions of intermediates (that doesn't make sense anyway because most things aren't trillions of times different) or trillions of reproductions between EACH of a few thousand intermediates before we get to a jellyfish. You can pick whichever one you want. All I'm saying is that we can't have trillions of jellyfish "A" before we get to slightly different with new trait jellyfish "B" and then trillions more to get to slightly different with new trait "C" and so on: they wouldn't fit in the ocean.

nkgupta80 · 06-30-08, 02:25 PM

[quote][quote=A_Wise_Fool;1057657715]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

Alright..

Yes, you must "add an arm" before it becomes beneficial to develop feathers capable of flight. Why does it suddenly get easier to develop that kind of feather only after you have an arm? This is what you are getting accross to me and it doesn't make sense.

More "options" of complex mutations does not mean comparatively "faster" arriving of beneficial mutations.

Quote:

You are saying "information from each mutation goes up exponentially for each mutation once ____ occurs." This is where I'm loosing you. I think you want to fill in the blank with "greater number of mutations."

So that would mean the more complex an organism is the more each new mutation will produce even greater comparative complexity per mutation, compared to a mutation of an organism of lesser copmlexity.

A super exaggerated example would be bacteria making a new metabolism trait in the same ammount of time/odds/trials a mammal would have to make a new functioning organ.

That sure would fit very well considering it takes trillions of mutation chances to metabolize citrate in bacteria that reproduces ever few minutes on the hour while a mammal can take up to a decade and half to reproduce and provide a chance for mutation.

But I see no reason it suddenly starts getting easier to make traits other than it magically answers the dilema better than anything else.

Cause complexity stops being jsut about what mutation corresponds to what feature, and more about how those features interact. So yes the citric acid cycle takes trillions of bacterium to produce, but what makes us different from bacterium is how those processes get aggregated together to create new functions, which does not necessarily require the development of new base chemical processes. Rather it just requires the development of even one catalyst to trigger the emergent phenomena. More on this at the end.

Quote:

Yes and I don't think I said it needs to be exactly like a human. As a matter of fact that would have no application to my argument.

The only thing I said was that one chemcial metabolism ability was one in a trillion - therefor I assumed any chemical abiliity, no matter whatever it is you want it to be, would have the same odds. The human body I'm sure has to have thousands (A guess I admit) of chemical abilities. I don't see any mechanism which allows for any of them to come about at better or lesser odds. Which leads me to.....

Systems biology might be what you think is the reasoning behind devoloping capabilities at easier than previosly stated odds; a requirement for your posiition b/c we dont' have time for trillions of mammals to work with like we do with bacteria.

but in fact most of the chemical processes involved in human bodies were already developed from simpler organisms. Any complex behavior is where systems biology comes in. Most of the complex processes are amalgmations of these smaller processes. So looking at lets say a muscular system vs. a digestive system a lot of the base processes are the same. THe only difference is how when you put 1000 of these cells together do they specialize, and how ceertain extra proteins and compounds act as signalers, etc. its not like each system had to be designed from scratch. THis greatly reduces probabilities of something complex like this occuring.

Quote:

So answer me this please:

A human being is a great example of biological system and you appear to believe a biological system is capable of developing more complex mechanism and traits more easily than a single celled organism. Then...

-If a human suddenly would benefit from metabolizing citrate(I think we already can but for arguments sake) what mechanism, possibly having to do with emergence like you said earlier, would allow this human system to randomly develop this chemical metabolism ability FASTER or in FEWER NEEDED ATTEMPTS than the Ecoli bacteria? (a fantastic application question b/c you say more complex systems can achive beneficial traits faster than bacteria)

-There may be a way to "push the goal post back" on that question so here is a similar one: How would a hundred or thousand celled multicellular-organism develop that same ability faster as, In a conceptual sense, you say must be possible?

well see the things that a human can further develop cannot be compared with what a bacteria can develop. So if it took a bacterium that long to develop the citric acid cycle, it will take a human as long (given that it doesn't have any of those components). But again when you talk of something like a functioning organ, its not just about base proteins as it is the way those components interact to form a dynamic system. This looks very complex if we were to design it from scratch, but luckily emergent phenomena allows it to function in that way due to the functions of each component.

Again look at the game of life simulation. Creating the complex behaviour from scratch seems to show some kind of design. However, each cell has a few simple rules associated with it, that allows for emerging phenomena. (therefore you need less information encoded in the genome for that same seemingly more complicated phenomena