Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-22-2017 5:00 PM
462 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 799,182 Year: 3,788/21,208 Month: 2,183/1,605 Week: 383/376 Day: 72/101 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
161718Next
Author Topic:   Extent of Mutational Capability
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15374
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 211 of 266 (794315)
11-14-2016 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Pressie
11-14-2016 5:51 AM


Re: The Maths
I don't believe you at all. You lie.

Please remember that CRR is quoting ReMine on this issue; so if this is false then CRR is not lying, he is being lied to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Pressie, posted 11-14-2016 5:51 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Pressie, posted 11-15-2016 6:04 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 214 by dwise1, posted 11-16-2016 2:50 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1449
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 212 of 266 (794399)
11-15-2016 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Dr Adequate
11-14-2016 2:48 PM


Re: The Maths
Not really. CRR was shown exactly where he/she was telling untruths, yet he/she kept on repeating the same falsehoods. To me that's a lie.

Maybe CRR is too intellectually challenged to realise that he/she keeps on telling untruths. Those untruths are and were
pointed out.

That's where it gets difficult. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-14-2016 2:48 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1449
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 213 of 266 (794402)
11-15-2016 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by dwise1
10-18-2016 3:29 PM


Re: No Barriers to Macroevolution
dwise writes:

The terms macroevolution and microevolution are defined differently by creationists than by scientists.

Yes and creationists pretend that their 'definition' is 'scientific'. Creationists always tell untruths. That's how they do it. They always tell untruths.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by dwise1, posted 10-18-2016 3:29 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2671
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 214 of 266 (794487)
11-16-2016 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Dr Adequate
11-14-2016 2:48 PM


Re: The Maths
Please remember that CRR is quoting ReMine on this issue; so if this is false then CRR is not lying, he is being lied to.

True enough. However, even though he is "merely" repeating a lie, it still does remain a lie. And the consequences of that lie being told is exactly the same whether or not CRR knows that it is a lie.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-14-2016 2:48 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1449
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 215 of 266 (794557)
11-17-2016 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gregory Rogers
10-18-2016 8:10 AM


So, Gregory Rogers. Please show us the maths backing up your claims. From this thread it seems as if you are very reluctant to do it. Maybe it's because you don't have a clue?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gregory Rogers, posted 10-18-2016 8:10 AM Gregory Rogers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2016 10:46 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15374
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 216 of 266 (794616)
11-18-2016 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Pressie
11-17-2016 6:58 AM


So, Gregory Rogers. Please show us the maths backing up your claims. From this thread it seems as if you are very reluctant to do it. Maybe it's because you don't have a clue?

Gregory Rogers and CRR are two different people. I don't see Gregory trying to put up a quantitative argument, so the absence of math is not a problem.

As a matter of fact, I like them both. Gregory is asking questions which seem perfectly reasonable coming from someone who doesn't know much about the topic --- which is exactly the sort of person who should ask questions.

And CRR, while he may be a creationist, is at least trying to be right. There's been some work and thought put it there, and while he is mistaken his mistakes have on occasion been subtle.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Pressie, posted 11-17-2016 6:58 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Taq, posted 11-18-2016 11:12 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(4)
Message 217 of 266 (794619)
11-18-2016 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Dr Adequate
11-18-2016 10:46 AM


Dr Adequate writes:

And CRR, while he may be a creationist, is at least trying to be right. There's been some work and thought put it there, and while he is mistaken his mistakes have on occasion been subtle.

To be fair, the mistake that CRR seems to be making is a common one, the Sharpshooter Fallacy. This is where you calculate the probability of a specific event happening after it has happened.

A good analogy is a deck of cards. If you shuffle the deck and then lay out all 52 cards one at a time, the probability of getting those specific cards in that specific order is 52!, which is a rather large number. However, the very act of shuffling and dealing cards guarantees that a highly improbable event will occur.

The same applies for evolution. Once you have imperfect replicators competing for limited resources the guaranteed outcome is evolution. The product of that evolutionary process is going to be nearly infinitely improbable. However, once the process of evolution starts you are guaranteed an extremely improbable outcome because something will evolve. As Stephen Jay Gould said on many occasions, if we rewound the tape of evolution and started it again we wouldn't expect the same outcomes. If we went back to the Cambrian, there is no reason that we would expect to see humans, or even primates, hundreds of millions of years later. We would expect to see different types of species.

The trick that creationists try to play is pretending that the outcome we see is the only possible outcome. That is where their math goes awry. It is like calculating the odds of our 52 card hand, pretending that the order of cards we see was somehow predestined or the only one that could occur. This is the Sharpshooter Fallacy, where you draw the bulls eye around the bullet hole, pretending that the shooter was aiming for the bulls eye from the start.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2016 10:46 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by NoNukes, posted 11-23-2016 11:51 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 221 by CRR, posted 01-21-2017 9:46 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9192
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 218 of 266 (794746)
11-23-2016 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Taq
11-18-2016 11:12 AM


nit picking on Thanksgiving eve...
A good analogy is a deck of cards. If you shuffle the deck and then lay out all 52 cards one at a time, the probability of getting those specific cards in that specific order is 52!

I think you mean to state that the odds are 1 in 52! or that the probability is 1/52!. Probability, by definition, is a number less than one.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Taq, posted 11-18-2016 11:12 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by caffeine, posted 11-24-2016 1:29 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1192
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 219 of 266 (794756)
11-24-2016 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by NoNukes
11-23-2016 11:51 PM


Re: nit picking on Thanksgiving eve...
I think you mean to state that the odds are 1 in 52!

If we're nitpicking, '1 in 52!' is the probability - the odds of it occuring would be 1 : 52!-1.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by NoNukes, posted 11-23-2016 11:51 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 47
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 220 of 266 (797469)
01-21-2017 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Dr Adequate
11-12-2016 1:21 PM


Re: The Maths
Re Message 203 (I've been away for a while, had a hard disk fail, etc.)

That's an interesting example, and at first looks convincing.

Now in previous posts you were clearly talking about mutations that had been fixed in the population (# 195, 176) and I was arguing that there wasn't sufficient time to fix the required number.

In this example it is quite certain that the mutations I acquired independently will not be fixed in the population. It is equally certain that neither will the mutations independently acquired by my parents and passed on to me. Similarly with the from my grandparents (unless the population is extremely small). I can be pretty confident that until the number of my ancestors reaches at least the population size that none of them will have been fixed.

So on the basis of the example you have given I can conclude, as in #206, that only a portion of the potential mutations would have bee fixed in the 350,000 generations available. My ballpark estimate was but the actual portion would depend on the population history.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2016 1:21 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2017 10:54 PM CRR has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 47
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 221 of 266 (797470)
01-21-2017 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Taq
11-18-2016 11:12 AM


Look Sharp
I've seen the sharpshooter fallacy on Youtube where someone deals several cards then says "hey, I just achieved a 1/? event!"

We need to look not only at the probability of en event but also at the probabilistic resources available. The chance of a royal flush is small but enough people are playing poker that we can be sure it happens nearly every day.

On the other hand the chance of a bridge player getting dealt 13 cards of the same suit in order is so small (~1/10^60) it might never have happened, at least with a properly shuffled deck. (I hope I got my maths right)

Douglas Axe has estimated the chance of a chain of amino acids forming a functional protein is ~1 in 10^77. Denton estimates that no more than 10^40 proteins have ever existed on Earth. So even with those vast probabilistic resources the odds are fantastically small that a protein could have formed by chance. (obviously there are lots of assumptions and boundary conditions in any estimates of this kind). Pro-evolution researchers have done estimates and come up with the chance forming a functional protein as ~1 in 10^50. However that still leaves the chance at ~1/10^10 so it remains fantastically improbable. Note this avoids the sharpshooter fallacy because any functional protein would be success.

You can read more on this in Axe's "Undeniable".

Other work has been done on the evolvability of proteins and shows that even the probabilistic resources of the Earth and Billions of years are not enough. And that's assuming you have a heritable replicator to start with; otherwise you can't have evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Taq, posted 11-18-2016 11:12 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Coyote, posted 01-21-2017 9:54 PM CRR has responded
 Message 225 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2017 10:59 PM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 228 by caffeine, posted 01-22-2017 5:42 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 230 by Percy, posted 01-22-2017 10:02 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 231 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2017 10:36 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 232 by dwise1, posted 01-22-2017 4:30 PM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 233 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2017 4:52 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5529
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 222 of 266 (797471)
01-21-2017 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by CRR
01-21-2017 9:46 PM


Re: Look Sharp
On the other hand the chance of a bridge player getting dealt 13 cards of the same suit in order is so small (~1/10^60) it might never have happened, at least with a properly shuffled deck. (I hope I got my maths right)

A simple google search shows you are wrong.

http://aperiodical.com/...s-an-event-never-seen-before-right

[Didn't notice the "in order" part.]

Edited by Coyote, : Correction


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by CRR, posted 01-21-2017 9:46 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by CRR, posted 01-21-2017 10:33 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 47
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 223 of 266 (797472)
01-21-2017 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Coyote
01-21-2017 9:54 PM


Re: Look Sharp
Yes, if the cards can be in any order it changes the odds a lot. Bridge probably has a similar problem to whist in that you have to follow suit where possible and shuffling between hands might not be perfect.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Coyote, posted 01-21-2017 9:54 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by NoNukes, posted 01-22-2017 9:07 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15374
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 224 of 266 (797473)
01-21-2017 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by CRR
01-21-2017 8:40 PM


Re: The Maths
That's an interesting example, and at first looks convincing.

Now in previous posts you were clearly talking about mutations that had been fixed in the population (# 195, 176) and I was arguing that there wasn't sufficient time to fix the required number.

In this example it is quite certain that the mutations I acquired independently will not be fixed in the population.

I never said they would be. Indeed specifically said I was doing a different calculation; I wrote: "if fixation is too confusing, let's think about two individuals".

But it still gives you an order-of-magnitude estimate of the difference between any given human and any given chimp. Can you find anything wrong with it?

(Fixation would, as you point out, not happen to very recent mutations, but it would happen by the elimination of the diversity that existed before the split. It's a different issue.)

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by CRR, posted 01-21-2017 8:40 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by CRR, posted 01-22-2017 12:24 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15374
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 225 of 266 (797474)
01-21-2017 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by CRR
01-21-2017 9:46 PM


Re: Look Sharp
Douglas Axe has estimated the chance of a chain of amino acids forming a functional protein is ~1 in 10^77. Denton estimates that no more than 10^40 proteins have ever existed on Earth. So even with those vast probabilistic resources the odds are fantastically small that a protein could have formed by chance. (obviously there are lots of assumptions and boundary conditions in any estimates of this kind). Pro-evolution researchers have done estimates and come up with the chance forming a functional protein as ~1 in 10^50. However that still leaves the chance at ~1/10^10 so it remains fantastically improbable. Note this avoids the sharpshooter fallacy because any functional protein would be success.

No-one claims that proteins were produced by amino acids being randomly strung together.

I notice that you have not shown any working.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by CRR, posted 01-21-2017 9:46 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
161718Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017