Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-15-2017 8:27 PM
92 online now:
Dr Adequate, jar, kjsimons, Rrhain (4 members, 88 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,289 Year: 28,895/21,208 Month: 961/1,847 Week: 336/475 Day: 101/82 Hour: 4/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
20Next
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
forexhr
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 196 of 292 (804929)
04-14-2017 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Percy
04-14-2017 8:19 AM


A definition cannot change the concept. Origin of a thing and modification of a thing are two entirely different concepts. If an animal hits the fence at your backyard with force and modifies it, this doesn't explain the origin of the fence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Percy, posted 04-14-2017 8:19 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Percy, posted 04-14-2017 4:21 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 209 by vimesey, posted 04-14-2017 5:29 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5252
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 197 of 292 (804930)
04-14-2017 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by forexhr
04-14-2017 7:06 AM


forexhr writes:

Unbelievable, after I gave you clear examples that adapting to an environment means targeting a specific solution you still deny that evolution process must find a target. Since you cannot comprehend something so simple, it is no wonder you are left with nothing except standard evolutionary magic phrases. Just like flat earthers who repeat their mantras in defiance of all evidence.

You're looking at a whale and saying that the odds it being that way are infinitessimal. This is wrong-headed. It's the equivalent of looking at all the cards in a deck dealt one after another and saying that the chances of that being that way are infinissimal. The cards didn't need to fall that way - we'd still be looking at a deck of cards no matter what order they were dealt. The whale did not have to look like it does today for evolution to have happened. As Percy says, the haystack is stuffed full of needles.

And of course your biggest problem is that we know that as far as evolution overall in concerned p=1, because we have vast quantities of evidence that demonstrates it beyond reasonable doubt. We know empirically that you are wrong.

You're trying to prove statistically that the earth is flat whilst we're all here looking at a round ball from space. Good luck with that.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 7:06 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 10:15 AM Tangle has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11855
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 198 of 292 (804932)
04-14-2017 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by forexhr
04-14-2017 7:59 AM


Ability to have longer fur or larger beaks or larger size is already built into an organisam.

What do you mean by "built into"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 7:59 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11855
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 199 of 292 (804933)
04-14-2017 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by forexhr
04-13-2017 3:11 PM


You obviously don't know that a random bag of molecules cannot fertilize the egg cell, convert substrate into product, cut the introns and rearrange the exons, etc. So, according to you -"there is no target goal in mind, but the environment is what it is". So, if the enviornment is egg cell then molecules will just magically arrange themselves into a sperm cell. If the enviornment is a specific substrate then again, molecules will just magically arrange themselves into a specific functional enzyme to achieve enzyme-substrate specificity. If the enviornment is intron-exon gene structure then molecules will just magically arrange themselves into a 200 specific proteins to gain RNA splicing ability. Because the environment is what it is... you just wave your magic wand of 'selective pressure' and molecules will just start flying around to form whatever shape you wish. Your mantras about environment clearly demonstrates that you don't have the capacity for rational discussion about the issue at hand.

Nah man, all that stuff already existed in the parent and the offspring just inherited it. It doesn't have to be created whole cloth from scratch.

You do know how babies are made, right?

How does the phrase "selective pressure" explain bio-organization?

What makes you think it does?

I will leave you in your magical kingdom with your 'selective pressure' because in your posts there is nothing of substance worth rebutting.

That's cool, you haven't rebutted a single thing. You're just wallowing in your ignorance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by forexhr, posted 04-13-2017 3:11 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 200 of 292 (804935)
04-14-2017 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Tangle
04-14-2017 8:51 AM


Tangle writes:

You're looking at a whale and saying that the odds it being that way are infinitessimal. This is wrong-headed. It's the equivalent of looking at all the cards in a deck dealt one after another and saying that the chances of that being that way are infinissimal. The cards didn't need to fall that way - we'd still be looking at a deck of cards no matter what order they were dealt.

Besides being uneducated about evolution and biology, you've shown yourself to be just as inept with mathematics. Looking at the cards in a deck dealt one after another has absolutely nothing to do with probability but with necessity - when the cards are being dealt it is necessary to get some distribution of cards.

Probability on the other hand, is the measure of the likeliness of being dealt specific cards that you specified before dealing. In the context of evolution, you need to get specific distribution of nucleotides in the DNA in order to cope with specific environmental conditions. Any distribution will not work. That is why we calculate probabilities in the first place. Please do yourself a favor and go educate yourself.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2017 8:51 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by jar, posted 04-14-2017 10:21 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 202 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2017 10:53 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 206 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2017 2:06 PM forexhr has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29787
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 201 of 292 (804936)
04-14-2017 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by forexhr
04-14-2017 10:15 AM


forexhr writes:

In the context of evolution, you need to get specific distribution of nucleotides in the DNA in order to cope with specific environmental conditions.

How utterly stupid an assertion that is.

Is it possible that more than one species copes with a given environmental condition?

Golly gee, it seems it is. And we can even determine which species it is genetically.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 10:15 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5252
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


(3)
Message 202 of 292 (804937)
04-14-2017 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by forexhr
04-14-2017 10:15 AM


Forexhr writes:

Besides being uneducated about evolution and biology,

Well I do have to admit it was only my first degree that was in Zoology.....

when the cards are being dealt it is necessary to get some distribution of cards.

Correct.

Probability on the other hand, is the measure of the likeliness of being dealt specific cards that you specified before dealing.

Also correct

In the context of evolution, you need to get specific distribution of nucleotides in the DNA in order to cope with specific environmental conditions. Any distribution will not work. That is why we calculate probabilities in the first place. Please do yourself a favor and go educate yourself.

And this is where you go wrong.

You've just looked at the outcome of a particular organism produced by evolution and claimed it's probability is x, an outrageous number. Just like you would look at the dealt deck and claim its probability as impossible. However, we both know the probability is 1. Because we're looking at them.

Unlike cards, there are not only and always 52; as far as evolution is concerned there are an infinite number of cards and any outcome at all except death will do.

As you have no idea how many survival outcomes there are, you can not predict their probabilities.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 10:15 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 12:32 PM Tangle has responded

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 203 of 292 (804954)
04-14-2017 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Tangle
04-14-2017 10:53 AM


Tangle writes:

And this is where you go wrong.
You've just looked at the outcome of a particular organism produced by evolution and claimed it's probability is x, an outrageous number. Just like you would look at the dealt deck and claim its probability as impossible. However, we both know the probability is 1. Because we're looking at them.
Unlike cards, there are not only and always 52; as far as evolution is concerned there are an infinite number of cards and any outcome at all except death will do.
As you have no idea how many survival outcomes there are, you can not predict their probabilities.

Besides being uneducated about evolution, biology and mathematics, you've shown yourself to be just as inept with logic.

An already dealt deck of cards doesn't have probability because probability is calculated by dividing the number of favorable outcomes by the number of total possible outcomes. If nobody defined favorable outcomes before dealing that it is impossible to calculate probability. On the other hand, favorable outcomes of a particular organism were defined by the environment - favorable outcomes were DNA arrangements that contained information to cope with a given environmental condition while the total possible outcomes were total possible DNA arrangements.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2017 10:53 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2017 1:49 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 205 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-14-2017 1:56 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 207 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2017 2:21 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5252
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 204 of 292 (804957)
04-14-2017 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by forexhr
04-14-2017 12:32 PM


forexhr writes:

Besides being uneducated about evolution, biology and mathematics, you've shown yourself to be just as inept with logic.

And you're a dickhead. Should we stop with the insults do you think or do you really need them in lieu of an argument?

An already dealt deck of cards doesn't have probability because probability is calculated by dividing the number of favorable outcomes by the number of total possible outcomes.

Wahey, he's getting it!

If nobody defined favorable outcomes before dealing that it is impossible to calculate probability.

I'm holding my breath....

On the other hand, favorable outcomes of a particular organism were defined by the environment - favorable outcomes were DNA arrangements that contained information to cope with a given environmental condition while the total possible outcomes were total possible DNA arrangements.

....oh dear, blown it again.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 12:32 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11855
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 205 of 292 (804958)
04-14-2017 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by forexhr
04-14-2017 12:32 PM


An already dealt deck of cards doesn't have probability because probability is calculated by dividing the number of favorable outcomes by the number of total possible outcomes.

Are you trying to say that if I flip a coin and it lands on heads then there is not a probability that it would have happened?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 12:32 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 206 of 292 (804960)
04-14-2017 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by forexhr
04-14-2017 10:15 AM


Looking at the cards in a deck dealt one after another has absolutely nothing to do with probability but with necessity - when the cards are being dealt it is necessary to get some distribution of cards.

Probability on the other hand, is the measure of the likeliness of being dealt specific cards that you specified before dealing.

Yes! Finally! You are finally starting to understand what's wrong with your stupid use of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy! You are finally starting to understand what a lie it is to take something that already happened and then prattle on about how it could not have possibly happened because the probability is so low, despite the simple fact that it did indeed happen.

Of course, being a creationist you will deny that you understand what you've done.

In the context of evolution, you need to get specific distribution of nucleotides in the DNA in order to cope with specific environmental conditions.

Yes, but just how do you get that set of specific distributions of nucleotides. Because there's not just one single distribution that would work, but rather many. And you do not start from scratch with each and every individual (ie, single-step selection), but rather each individual inherits the distributions of its parents from its parents (ie, cumulative selection), along with some possible minor changes (ie, mutations -- remember, the only mutations that can have any effect in evolution are genetic mutations which can appear in germ cells and hence would be inheritable).

Here's a pop quiz. Pick a protein, any protein. It's a chain of amino acids, a sequence of amino acids. Calculate the probability of getting that specific sequence of amino acids. Does that prove that that protein couldn't have evolved? Why? Because you believe that the gene for that protein just fell together at random, instead of having been inherited? IOW, that probability calculation says nothing about evolution because your randomness idea is not how evolution works. If you were to calculate probabilities based on how evolution actually works, then you might have something worthwhile to say.

The other problem with such a random-protein-creation claim is that it ignores the simple fact that there are a very large number of possible sequences for any specific protein. Different sequences in different species. You can calculate how closely related different species are by comparing their protein sequences. Comparing cytochrome c we find that the human and rattlesnake proteins differ by 14 amino acids, the human and macaque proteins by one, and the human and chimpanzee proteins are identical.

The relevance here is that it is not just one single specific distribution of nucleotides that would work, but rather a very great many distributions, some working better than others but still working. So when you calculate your probabilities, then you need to take that into account in order to avoid the same stupid mistake of that random-protein-creation claim.

You also need to factor in how those distributions come about. Is it by single-step selection in which it all falls together randomly and either works or doesn't; in the latter case you then just start all over from scratch. Since you have read my MPROBS document, you already know that the probability of single-step succeeding is abysmally small, virtually impossible. And that is also not at all how evolution works.

Rather, evolution uses cumulative selection in which an individual inherits the sequence from its parents along with some possible minor changes (ie, mutations). If that individual does a good enough job of surviving and reproducing, then it passes its own sequence to its own offspring along with some possible minor changes. And so on. Again, we find the probability of cumulative selection succeeding to be virtually inevitable since the probability of it consistently failing is virtually impossible.

Please do yourself a favor and go educate yourself.

Good advice. Why aren't you following it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 10:15 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by forexhr, posted 04-15-2017 9:36 AM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 207 of 292 (804961)
04-14-2017 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by forexhr
04-14-2017 12:32 PM


On the other hand, favorable outcomes of a particular organism were defined by the environment - favorable outcomes were DNA arrangements that contained information to cope with a given environmental condition while the total possible outcomes were total possible DNA arrangements.

Close, but not quite.

On the other hand, favorable outcomes of a particular organism were defined by the environment - ...

Yes! And how close a particular organism comes to meet those requirements as defined by the environment is called fitness. And it is the organism's fitness which natural selection works work.

... - favorable outcomes were DNA arrangements that contained information to cope with a given environmental condition while the total possible outcomes were total possible DNA arrangements.

No, favorable outcomes are those "DNA arrangements" being passed on to the next generation. And to the next, and to the next, etc. Though of course we're attaching value judgments to that outcome. You could be the only individual with an extremely favorable "DNA arrangement", but if it fails to promote your ability to pass it on to your offspring then it will die with you. Of course, if your siblings also have it and you ensure the survival of them and their offspring (ie, altruism) then that arrangement will survive.

Also, those "DNA arrangements", the genotype, are not what are selected. Rather, it is the phenotype produced by that genotype which possesses the property of fitness and which is selected for or not. It's the phenotype that is favorable or not, not the genotype.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 12:32 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16328
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 208 of 292 (804963)
04-14-2017 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by forexhr
04-14-2017 8:48 AM


forexhr writes:

A definition cannot change the concept. Origin of a thing and modification of a thing are two entirely different concepts.

What Darwin termed the origin of species was via descent with modification and natural selection, a process of gradual change over time.

If an animal hits the fence at your backyard with force and modifies it, this doesn't explain the origin of the fence.

This analogy doesn't work. Species aren't like fences. Species evolve gradually as populations of interbreeding organisms into new species. It isn't as if there was no species and then suddenly there was.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 8:48 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 888
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 209 of 292 (804964)
04-14-2017 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by forexhr
04-14-2017 8:48 AM


Origin of a thing and modification of a thing are two entirely different concepts.

You're setting up a false dichotomy, for the purposes of your snake oil.

When it comes to evolution, trying to distinguish between origin and modification is irrelevant. It's all a continuum of billions of incremental changes - simple as.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 8:48 AM forexhr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by vimesey, posted 04-14-2017 5:36 PM vimesey has not yet responded

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 888
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 210 of 292 (804965)
04-14-2017 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by vimesey
04-14-2017 5:29 PM


More completely, it's all a myriad of continua of incremental changes.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by vimesey, posted 04-14-2017 5:29 PM vimesey has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
20Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017