The Electric Eel - more evidence against evolution

I see.Then the question moves into: is anyone claiming that this jump-in-sensitivity occurred very quickly, and only for electrocution? Or is it possible for this sensitivity to increase over time for other things (even just better mechanical detection) before being used for some inefficient version of electrocution?Or is this sort of the point where knowledge on the subject isn't up to the level needed to answer the questions?Send out the eel trackers! Go forth and learn!

Which is still irrelevant.In the example in this thread the question is whether or not changes that are not seriously disadvantageous can accumulate over time.It really is that simple.Can, might, improbable are all still irrelevant.

No. No, the question is whether the proposed changes offer a selective advantage. No.

It does matter, especially when something is proven fact in the face of how improbable it seemed to be. Like with CS's example of the calcium atoms. He didn't say plausibility doesn't really matter. What he said was probability in the case of the calcium atoms didn't really matter. The calcium atoms are in his arm bone and originated in a star in spite of how improbable that may be.- Oni

Except his example actually isn't all that improbable. The probability of the formation of a calcium atom in a star isn't improbable, as that's part of the way the physics of the situation works. The probability of calcium atoms spreading throughout the galaxy (including on Earth) is likewise very high, given the mechanism of calcium formation (e.g., supernovas). The probability of calcium atoms being used in bones is very high, since without calcium, bones would not have evolved. When you look at all the details, the scenario he outlines really isn't improbable. There's a reason why probability is used in science. But probability obviously matters when it comes to biological origins, as evidenced by a number of papers discussing the evolution of complex adaptations, and how these limit evolution the greater the number of individually non-adaptive mutations are required.

Yes, when you know ALL the details it's not so improbable any more is it?I believe that was CS's point. Of course there is. No one is saying there isn't a reason. It does in the general study of biology, to make predictions, etc. But, not in the sense that something couldn't have happened just because it seems improbable.- Oni

Does it??Do we know all the factors involved in it? You are making a lot of assumptions there based on lack of knowledge.It could very well be at least primitive life is assured in the proper conditions. After all, chemistry follows strict patterns.

And sometimes when you know all the details, the proposed mechanism for a given phenomenon results in that phenomenon's occurrence being improbable. No, the issue here isn't whether something "happened" or not. For example, in the case of the origin of molecular machines, no one denies that they exist, and thus, obviously they originated somehow. But if it is demonstrated that the proposed mechanism for their origin is improbable/implausible, then the efficacy of that mechanism is cast into doubt.

Yes. We have enough factors to make equations to estimate, e.g., the amount of time it will take for a particular complex adaptation to arise. Yes, it could be.

Maybe you just don't know all the details... I would imagine there would be another mechanism proposed to replace the one demonstrated not to work, like with Newton/Einstein physics. There may simply be not enough known about how the mechanism works. I mean, even Newton didn't understand everything about the nature of how the planets moved and said god had to be involved somehow. Then along came Einstein, and well, the rest is history.However improbable it may have seemed to a genius like Newton, Einstein showed just how easy it worked with new equations.If an particular improbability leads one to throwing their hands up and saying "It had to be God" then said person has not done enough work to understand whatever it is they're looking into.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

So the great deal of sequence similarity between human and chimp genomes could be due to convergence, rather than common ancestry? Because, ya know, we don't know all the details, so we can't rule out convergence? Yes, that's generally how science works. Even if a hypothesis doesn't fit very well, it usually remains until replaced by a more robust hypothesis. When was the last time I said that? I concur.

You can research whatever you want to research. If you feel convergent evolution is a better explanation than common ancestry knock yourself out. We'll see you at the end of your study and your peers will review it. I'm sure if you prove convergent evolution vs common ancesrty there's all kinds of rewards nerds will give you.What is the consensus so far? Not you, specifically, that I know of. At least not in this thread. But some will use improbability to support intelligent design or some other nonsense. Then improbability is irrelevant.- Oni

I don't think convergent evolution is a better explanation for the genomic sequence similarity than common ancestry. The reason I don't think so has precisely to do with probability -- despite the fact that we don't know all about genome evolution. Improbability or implausibility of a hypothesis is not enough to support an alternative model; it is simply enough to cast the hypothesis into doubt and intensify efforts to look for other explanations. It's perfectly relevant to gauge the robustness of a particular hypothesis for the origin of a given system.

Nothing else? Really? That depends on WHO is making that determination and what they're using as evidence to reach that verdict. I mean, ALL hypothesis have a level of doubt surrounding them. That's why they're just a hypothesis. But just saying "it's improbable" doesn't suffice, because, with every hypothesis, not all the details are known. Hypothesis by definition aren't complete theories, so improbability isn't relevant. We don't have all the details yet, like in my example of Newton, so it may seem improbable for now but not once we have all the details.Remember the calcium atom ending up in CS's arm? How improbable would that seem had solar fusion being a vaguely understood hypothesis? Highly improbable! But, as you detailed, not so much once we figured it all out.- Oni

Nothing else, unless you have some other idea that wouldn't boil down to probability. The reason we can say with confidence that certain human and chimp proteins are homologous is precisely because of statistical significance of the match. Of course just saying "it's improbable" doesn't suffice; one must detail reasons to support that thesis. So when choosing one phylogenetic hypothesis over another, why does one choose the one with the greatest probability? Because, ya know, improbability isn't relevant.