Fred Hoyle & Evolution

[NavajoEverclear]

I sorta have another thread on this subject, but i probably babbled so much that people lost interest and thus i got no replies, so here i will be more brief.

 

Fred Hoyle said that on the rare occasion that an individual in a species has an advantageous mutation, that it has no effect on evolution because the rest of the population cancels it out. Its just too rare and thus there is nothing for natural selection to build on.

 

I know i've heard this creationist idea before, and am quite sure there is a logical way to dispell it (else would not the theory of evolution been thrown out long ago?). I however do not recall what the counterpoint is. could someone kindly help me with this one?

[Dak]

Fred Hoyle said that on the rare occasion that an individual in a species has an advantageous mutation, that it has no effect on evolution because the rest of the population cancels it out. Its just too rare and thus there is nothing for natural selection to build on.

 

::sigh::

 

genes are capable of duplication. therefore, even one gene can, in the dueness of time, become many. its relative ratio within a population is linked to its fitness of survival.

 

i do wish creationists would at least try.

[Sayonara]

Hoyle is being overly-simplistic. Genes aren't magically advantageous in their own right - they are advantageous because the other genetic expressions in the population are comparatively less well-adapted to the set of conditions in question.

 

Think weighted averages, only with expressive influence instead of the mean.

[NavajoEverclear]

::sigh::

 

genes are capable of duplication. therefore' date=' even one gene can, in the dueness of time, become many. its relative ratio within a population is linked to its fitness of survival.

 

i do wish creationists would at least try.[/quote']

 

duh, god i cant believe i forgot that. thanks tho

[Hellbender]

Hoyle is famous for his oversimplifications. He is the guy whos uses the airplane analogy, if memory serves.

[NavajoEverclear]

oh god yes is oversimplifications drive me insane. He makes so many statements without backing them up, and then referrs to mountains of evidence, that he implies he'll address and show us later . . . . but he doesn't. I do think his idea of space viruses is neat, but it'd be better if he stuck to science fiction. He's too sure of himself to be a scientist

[Aardvark]

I do think his idea of space viruses is neat, but it'd be better if he stuck to science fiction. He's too sure of himself to be a scientist

 

Well he is dead.

 

Also he was a fine astronomer, it's just when he got on the subject of evolution that he made a fool of himself. Which just goes to show that even very clever people can be very stupid.

 

By the way, i think his science fiction was weak, poor charactarisations, over simplistic dealing with emotional and moral problems and a very naive world view with scientists as the oracles of wisdom.

[Skye]

I sorta have another thread on this subject' date=' but i probably babbled so much that people lost interest and thus i got no replies, so here i will be more brief.

 

Fred Hoyle said that on the rare occasion that an individual in a species has an advantageous mutation, that it has no effect on evolution because the rest of the population cancels it out. Its just too rare and thus there is nothing for natural selection to build on.

 

I know i've heard this creationist idea before, and am quite sure there is a logical way to dispell it (else would not the theory of evolution been thrown out long ago?). I however do not recall what the counterpoint is. could someone kindly help me with this one?[/quote']

That will probably happen for a selectively neutral gene in a large population. The number of copies of the new gene in each successive generation will fluctuate when you start breaking the Hardy-Weinberg rules, and in a large population this number is more likely to reach zero before it reaches a stable state (where it is statistically unlikely the gene would be eliminated from the population through random fluctuations). Of course it can still reach that stable state, it's just unlikely. This is partly what makes large populations genetically stable.

 

The number of copies needed to reach this stable state decreases as the population size decreases, so it becomes increasingly likely the number of gene copies will reach a stable state before it reaches zero. It may only take a few increases in a row to reach the stable state. This is partly what makes small populations quick to evolve.

 

Then if you have a selective pressure for the new gene it increases the probability that the gene will be passed on, and so increasing the chances of the new gene reaching a stable state within the population.