I’d really like to understand your underlying model, possibly to the extent of being able to implement it in software.

Try implementing that. Are you having problems counting up to 1?

Ah, it could be worse, I could be having problems demonstrating common courtesy.

Zachriel at 101 politely detailed the additional information required to understand your model:
Is that the average mutations per individual? What is the distribution of effects of the harmful mutations? How often do reversions occur? How frequent are beneficial mutations and what is their distribution? What is the population? The size of the genome? What about recombination which is common in haploid organisms?

Without knowing those kinds of parameters, it is not possible to replicate your model. I am more than willing to go to the effort of doing so; I hope you are willing to provide the additional information.

I’d really like to understand your underlying model, possibly to the extent of being able to implement it in software.

Haploids: 1 new harmful per new born

Try implementing that. Are you having problems counting up to 1?

“Is that the average mutations per individual?”

Feel free to report the results.

Now you’re just teasing.

Why so coy? I’d really like to understand your underlying model, possibly to the extent of being able to implement it in software. Could you please describe it at the level of detail suggested by Zachriel?

It wasn’t in this thread, it was 2 years ago here at UD.

Sal, this is not a model.

Baloney. Look at the animation. The seleciton model doesn’t matter. Who gets killed doesn’t matter. With haploids, the number of offspring doesn’t matter.

The model is minimally simple to drive home the theme: if there are enough harmfuls mutations, no model of selection can prevail against deterioration. Therefore with respect to haploids,the other details are moot. Do you understand what the word “moot” means.

Care to comment?

I just did. Do you understand what the word moot means with respect to the matter at hand.

Hint: moot means with respect to any other possible modeling parameters or details, the parameters and details don’t affect the final outcome. Thus it doesn’t add anything to the clarity of the model.

Perhaps you mean to model the case of haploid organisms who experience 1 new harmful mutation per newborn.

Look at the friggin animation!!!! It illustrates visually what will happen!!!! Sheesh.

Zach has yet to run it with those specifications. He’s been running the diploid model. I’ve objected, and Zach, who’s been quick to provide sim work, has been noticably quiet to run the simulation that is consistent the animation.

Why the silence?

Model: Haploids, 1 new harmful per newborn.

Sal, this is not a model.

Perhaps you mean to model the case of haploid organisms who experience 1 new harmful mutation per newborn.

If that is the case, you need to develop such a model.

Let us say that each newborn dies, as a result of the harmful mutation.

GREAT! Now that is something we can actually model.

For each newborn that enters the population, add one harmful mutation to that individual.

For each harmful mutation in an individual in the population, remove that individual from the population.

Are we making progress yet?

Well, to answer that, we need to ask how well our model tracks with observations of actual organisms.

Care to comment?

I do express my thanks that you’ve tried to stick to the topics at hand and you’ve never attacked me personally despite the fact that I’ve not always been so nice to you.

Unlike myself, who has apparently expressed a revulsion for Salvador that can only be expressed as contempt and repugnance.

Now I’ve been charged of making the claim here at UD that I find Sal repugnant, even though I cannot recall the occasion.

See my response to Sal here:

http://telicthoughts.com/mutat.....ent-248736

I repeat what I said there: Sal, If I called you repugnant, I apologise.

I can’t find anyplace in this thread where I have done so.

Is that the average mutations per individual?

Minimum. See the discussion above.

How about trying to model it with the other parameters to your choosing.

Feel free to report the results.

Do you think that Jistak’s provisional agreement with me is generally well founded regarding 1 harmful per newborn in haploids?

You still didn’t point to any such study. What specific research has Sternberg done to support the claim?

See the Evolution and News Report for a bibliography. Disagree with Rick? Do you needed peer-reviewed by Darwinists before you can even consider the conclusions.

Feel free to express on what grounds specifically Sternberg is wrong.

We’ll know in the coming decades if junk DNA is junk.

PS
I do express my thanks that you’ve tried to stick to the topics at hand and you’ve never attacked me personally despite the fact that I’ve not always been so nice to you.

For that I salute you.

scordova: Model: Haploids, 1 new harmful per newborn.

Is that the average mutations per individual? What is the distribution of effects of the harmful mutations? How often do reversions occur? How frequent are beneficial mutations and what is their distribution? What is the population? The size of the genome? What about recombination which is common in haploid organisms?

scordova: Sternberg said about 90% functional.

You still didn’t point to any such study. What specific research has Sternberg done to support the claim?

What recent study indicates that deleterious mutations are that high in humans?

I made the inference several times in this thread.

The nature paper said about 100 new mutations. Sternberg said about 90% functional. This would strongly suggest U = some number around 100.

Whether this leads to meltdown is another story. The issue is whether selection can police these functional regions. Which it obviously does not (in light Kimura’s work). Ergo: Selection doesn’t create most of the function in the genome.

Mentioned in the OP at UD.

U=3, 3 harmfuls per newborn

Result:

Kid gets about 1 or more harmfuls from each parent. Kid gets 3 additional.

Why is this. With 40 kids, 2 might have no mutations from parents carrying 3 mutations. If parents have fewer than 40 kids, then, it’s likely all the kids have 1 mutation or more!

See the resemblance now to the haploid model.

Did I get the chance to make these clarifications? Maybe, but I was so distracted by the strawmen and derailments being put forward I didn’t get the chance to add these. I make amends now.

But the data was right there in Nachman’s paper.

Comprende?