Mutation

Me
"BUT...wouldn't you agree that we'd both be incredulous to think that they could do this at least 3 times? "Crashfrog
"I wouldn't be. In a random world I would expect it to happen once. After all one guy has already won the lottery twice, and that's within my lifetime."Me
Was it a million dollar lottery? I've heard of several people winning the 3 pick lottery a few times.Crashfrog
"The problem is that you're substituting your own incredulity for any kind of statistical guideline. "Me
Oh quite the contrary. I'm basing my incredulity on factual evidence. I'll elaborate below.Crash guy
"How low do the odds have to be before you won't believe it could happen?"Me again...
First of all, that question made me dizzy for a moment.
I never said that I "don't" believe that it could happen. (We're still talking lottery, Million dollar Lottery right?) However the odds ARE low enough to reasonably believe that it couldn't.I'm talking about the "odds" and/or "probability" of it actually happening. NOT the "possibility". The only reason we believe and actually "know" that anyone can win the lottery at least once in their lifetime is because...drum role please...we've "witnessed" it occurring. Ta-da! Shall we say, we've "observed" it happening. So...Based on THAT "fact" (as opposed to "possibility"). And Based on the fact (as opposed to "possibility")of how difficult it is for just one person to win it is. And Based on the fact (as opposed to "possibility") that the chance of them doing it again makes it even more difficult. Based on those "facts" I am incredulous to believe that anyone can win it 3 times in a life time. NOT because I think it's impossible but Because I think it's HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.Just because it's "possible" for someone to win 3 times in a lifetime doesn't change the "FACT" that it's not an easy thing to accomplish. And "WHY" is that? Because the "probability" of such an occurrence (based on "factual" observance, evidence) is very low. It's not unreasonable to be incredulous to the idea that anyone can win the lottery 3 times in a lifetime, based on those facts, that is, based on what we DO know.
Ya see what I'm saying?In the case of mutations, some claim that "beneficial" mutations occur. Fine, BUT...they admit that: it's very rare, hard to detect, may not be passed on (therefore gets lost) or the environment may not be conducive for their survivability, causing the mutation to get lost in that way as well. Those are the "facts". Based on those facts can we reasonably conclude in the context of said "facts" that the amount of varied species in the world today was the result of these rare occurrences? My question to you is, What are the "facts" about mutations that you see which shows that they (beneficial mutations) DID result in todays millions of varied species? If all you have is the "possibility" that they "could" have, but no "facts" about mutations to support that, then I'm sorry, but that's not good enough for me.However if the facts are that "beneficial" mutations DO occur then my next question is what is the average of 'beneficial" mutations that needed to occur to result in all we see in the world today? I'd be interested in that information, if it's even possible to calculate. I'll give it a go. Why do I feel that's important to know, because if we don't have any idea of what the average might be how can we even be sure that it could account for all species of today? In other words, say we did figure out that the average occurrence of "beneficial" mutations was 1 every 100 thousand years. What's 100 thousand into 45 Billion? Comes out to what, 450000 "beneficial" mutations? Does that sound like enough "beneficial" mutations to account for all the known species to you? How about 1 in 10 thousand years. That comes out to 4500000 million "beneficial" mutations? (Somebody correct my math if this is wrong). By this number we can conclude that on an "average" of 10 thousand years we can expect to find at least 1 "beneficial" mutation. Unfortunately even 1 in 10 thousand years, equalling 4500000 million "beneficial" mutations would make it practicaly impossible for these "beneficial" mutations to account for all the varied species we see today (Excluding species that are extinct). Don't you think? And let's not forget, not ALL "beneficial" mutations even make it. Also 45 Billions years would include the evolution of DNA even before we can start attributing the evolution of varied species to mutations that are "beneficial".Now don't you think in the context of those facts that it makes that "possibility" less likely and/or "Highly Improbable"? It would seem, to me at least, that the "odds" are stacked against the idea that the rare occurrence of "beneficial" mutations can account for all that we see today on earth.[This message has been edited by Milagros, 04-14-2004]

quote:

---

I am incredulous to believe that anyone can win it 3 times in a life time. NOT because I think it's impossible but Because I think it's HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.

---

You are forgetting one factor, number of chances. If I won a 100 million dollar jackpot and take all of that money and buy tickets, chances are I would win again, given that the odds are 1 in 50 million.Also, given that 100 million tickets are bought for a lottery with 1 in 50 million chances, it doesn't matter that we KNOW if someone won. It is highly probable given the number of chances and the odds of winning. Observation is not needed, only the probabilities.

quote:

---

What are the "facts" about mutations that you see which shows that they (beneficial mutations) DID result in todays millions of varied species?

---

Sorry to jump in on a debate, but this is an open forum. For me, the strongest data is in genetic relationships. From the fossil record we can construct trees that relate to common ancestory. From this fossil record we make the hypothesis that genetic differences will increase in direct relation to the amount of time since the last common ancestor between two species. For example, through the fossil record apes and humans should have more similarity than humans and dogs. This hypothesis actually works. Those differences in genetic sequence are due to mutations, and the longer two species have "been apart" the more differences they will have.

Crashfrog,Please correct me if I am reading into what you are saying instead of just showing what your argument leads to:You don't have a problem with a man winning 3 lottery jackpots. If this hasn't even happened once (or maybe just a couple times) in the years that the lottery has existed (or say the last 20 years). If you only had one beneficial mutation like this that created insect wings in 3 years, would this really help the population to increase? If 3 mutations (or three jackpots) caused 1 insect to have wings, and thus a new species, could this rate of winning the jackpot account for different genus over millions of years? How about a class? Could mutations at a rate even faster than this cause the five kingdoms we see today in only 500 million years?And for the objection that 500 million years is a long time, from our view, I would certainly agree. But it has been said that on the evolutionary timescale that 500 million years is not that long. Granted recent science says the universe is only 14 billion years old.

Also, the idea that irreducible complexity is wrong, as organisms can create parts and pull those in making more complex organisms is called the cooption theory. Miller uses the cooption theory in his response to Behe's mousetrap design. He says that the mousetrap was not made irreducibly complex, but it was built up to that point by the combination of other parts. He says that the mousetrap could have been part of a tie clip before, as an example.The main problem with this logic is the assembly of the pieces. What has acted on the stone arch to make it assemble? Natural selection can not account for it, as natural selection can only take away thing. Mutations might have set out the pieces, but it cannot put them together. And time, which most would argue as the thing that assembles it all is flawed because time by itself can't do anything. If the person is appealing to erosion, how did the rock get upright in the first place to erode it? Something must have put the rock there, or created the rock. If there were pieces that the arch is made up of, and a scaffold was used, what but a guiding intelligence would have put it there in the first place? Even if all the pieces were set up to be assembled (which in and of itself it very unlikely, if not impossible), there is not a logical explanation as to what could have moved those blocks onto the scaffold. Who cut the blocks? Who moved the blocks to the location in the first place? Who made a structure that could support the weight of the stones? Every part of the construction begs for a guiding intellegence. If it could be shown that evolution and nature and time could account for all the steps in the process of building an arch, then the theory of evolution would be a plausible explanation of the construction. Otherwise, evolution isn't an option.And someone mentioned: it seems like I am trying to disprove evolution because I am afraid of that as an option, that isn't true. I just don't think that evolution can logically show the origin of life and the universe as exists today. Intelligent Design makes more sense to me, but that's for another thread.

One problem that I see with the analogy is this, it isn't a matter of one person winning the big one three times. It's a matter of the lottery being won once by any person in each of three successive generations.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

Are you aware of Galton's use of Pascal's mathematical induction during any old regression to a mean especially should the elements in the old"recombination" be left unpredicated?? Just because a conditional probablity may apply and there are some correalations between a definable plane and some old line (whether presumed ancestrally or not) does not mean that the categories did notonly give the desired result. Now if one insists that descent and mechanisms are seperable it is hardly an argument unless all the parts are actualy known materially to submit one's sense of plausibility to that kind of reasoning. If ALL of science was working on a probablisitic material basis then that might be socially acceptable and I know that there ARE trends in this direction (aka simple program science) but to make a conclusion in a DEBATE it does not. If you look somewhat deeply in Derrida on KANT and Kant himself you can fidn the guy discussing of all things a bump on a rock. Well we dont have that we have fossils and what you said. Unless we are all such lumps.

quote:

---

The main problem with this logic is the assembly of the pieces. What has acted on the stone arch to make it assemble? Natural selection can not account for it, as natural selection can only take away thing. Mutations might have set out the pieces, but it cannot put them together. And time, which most would argue as the thing that assembles it all is flawed because time by itself can't do anything.

---

Of course each mechanism can not "build the arch" by itself. It is the combination of the mechanisms. Mutation creates the pieces, and natural selection determines which pieces stay and which go. In your post, you forgot that natural selection also keeps the good pieces which is an important point. Natural selection causes the accretion of multiple beneficial mutations as much as it removes the bad mutations. Given time, these mechanisms can create complex structures from the selection of good pieces from the ongoing development of pieces through mutation.

quote:

---

If it could be shown that evolution and nature and time could account for all the steps in the process of building an arch, then the theory of evolution would be a plausible explanation of the construction. Otherwise, evolution isn't an option.

---

Please explain how mutation and selection is incapable of explaining the biological structures we see today.

quote:

---

it seems like I am trying to disprove evolution because I am afraid of that as an option, that isn't true.

---

More of a rhetorical question, but if you hadn't read the Bible would you still have a problem with evolution? In other words, do you object for scientific reasons or religious reasons? Again, more of a rhetorical question but it still shows how our non-scientific preconceptions can taint our objectivity.

quote:

---

I just don't think that evolution can logically show the origin of life and the universe as exists today.

---

You should realize that evolution says nothing about the start of life, only the diversification of life once it was started. Also, evolution has nothing to do with how stars form. You might as well be saying that Darwin talked about the evolution of electronic media. Hey, I think I found another type of evolution to add to Hovind's list.

Asgara:"One problem that I see with the analogy is this, it isn't a matter of one person winning the big one three times. It's a matter of the lottery being won once by any person in each of three successive generations."I agree completely. I am not sure what side you were intending for this to support, but I would completely agree with your statement, because that is the probability that is necessary for evolution of the species to occur. This is one of the reasons I disagree with evolution, as it is very improbable for the chances that are necessary for this to happen. It seems that it takes more faith to believe in the complexities of evolution than any designed universe; of course others disagree though.

Wow, I hope my change in your analogy wasn't as bad as that. I meant exactly the opposite to what you think I did.SOMEONE please tell me if my analogy was so bad that it could be construed to mean the opposite of what I thought!

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

quote:

---

The main problem with this logic is the assembly of the pieces. What has acted on the stone arch to make it assemble? Natural selection can not account for it, as natural selection can only take away thing. Mutations might have set out the pieces, but it cannot put them together. And time, which most would argue as the thing that assembles it all is flawed because time by itself can't do anything.

---

quote:

---

Of course each mechanism can not "build the arch" by itself. It is the combination of the mechanisms. Mutation creates the pieces, and natural selection determines which pieces stay and which go. In your post, you forgot that natural selection also keeps the good pieces which is an important point. Natural selection causes the accretion of multiple beneficial mutations as much as it removes the bad mutations. Given time, these mechanisms can create complex structures from the selection of good pieces from the ongoing development of pieces through mutation.

---

My point in this is that the pieces are created, but they are not put in an assembled format. It may be true that natural selection keeps the good pieces, but how was this created in the first place? I think I understand the argument, but my objection lies with the fact that (to apply this again to the stone arch idea) you can have all of the stones laid out and ready, and you can have your natural selection take away all of the broken stones; even assuming you have all of the pieces (which is a big assumption), you still need to account for the assembly of the arch. Some unnatural force exerts itself on the stones, and lifts them into place. It first designs the arch, and builds a scaffolding to help support it. Then it constructs the arch. I don't see how time could construct it, and as the construction of such and orderly thing seems to go against the law of entropy, it would be breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

quote:

---

If it could be shown that evolution and nature and time could account for all the steps in the process of building an arch, then the theory of evolution would be a plausible explanation of the construction. Otherwise, evolution isn't an option.

---

quote:

---

Please explain how mutation and selection is incapable of explaining the biological structures we see today.

---

I tried to explain this above. For further clarification: If you see mutations creating the pieces to be used, and natural selection getting rid of the bad pieces, there is still something missing. That would be the assembly. It seems that the evolutionists appeal to time as the constructing agent. Things naturally decay, and as the second law of thermodynamics says, that entropy occurs, not a focused reconstruction of orderly things. If I leave my room and never spend the concerted effort to clean it, it will gradually become a disgusting pit. Why is nature different?

quote:

---

it seems like I am trying to disprove evolution because I am afraid of that as an option, that isn't true.

---

quote:

---

More of a rhetorical question, but if you hadn't read the Bible would you still have a problem with evolution? In other words, do you object for scientific reasons or religious reasons? Again, more of a rhetorical question but it still shows how our non-scientific preconceptions can taint our objectivity.

---

Your rhetorical question is a good one. I will chose to answer it by saying the truth: I truely don't know if I would still have a problem with evolution if I hadn't read the bible. That is one of my biases that I bring to the scientific field. Hopefully, you will admit your biases toward evolution. We all bring biases to the table, but people don't like to mention them. Men see biases in others easier than they see them in themselves. No one can be truely objective, or unbiased in their studies. I will carry the presuppositions that there is a God who made the world, and thus there is a supernatural realm. You, and others, might think that it is a primitive view, and you don't want to admit your own bias toward evolution and a naturalistic view of the world. An honest man will recognize his biases, and try to use scientific evidence to support what he believes. That is what I try to do, and what I would hope you try to do as well. So it is my hope that you examine the argument and evidence for what it is, and let the evidence inform your presuppositions, beliefs, and biases.

quote:

---

I just don't think that evolution can logically show the origin of life and the universe as exists today.

---

quote:

---

You should realize that evolution says nothing about the start of life, only the diversification of life once it was started. Also, evolution has nothing to do with how stars form. You might as well be saying that Darwin talked about the evolution of electronic media. Hey, I think I found another type of evolution to add to Hovind's list..

---

I do realize that most people believe what you are saying. The reason I disagree is because evolution hinges on certain presuppositions, such as naturalism. Also, it assumes that matter and the universe already existed, or were created, or something. You are saying that it is irrelevant; the theory picks up from that point on. I am arguing that one must deal with the beginning of life AND matter, as evolution presupposes certain things about how the universe existed before life. What I am trying to do in part in a paper that i am writing, is show how when you presuppose certain things about the creation of matter to get to the theory, you must deal with those presuppositions. If those presuppostions can be disproved, rather - shown to be weak (as science deals with inductive logic), then the theory itself has no ground to stand on. Hopefully you understand what I am saying - but you will probably disagree with me.But back to the topic. Did I answer you in a way that you could understand? Hopefully so. I will be busy for the next few days, and it will probably take me a while before I can reply to anything, so please be patient. Thanks.

you tell me eh? Notice the appearance of a bridge assembled from smaller stones ... the appearance of an intelligent scaffold architect? try: http://EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued? -->EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued?enjoy.[This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-14-2004]Edited by RAZD, : picture link changed to thumbnail, new sig

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Short note:The assembly as you call it would be the growth of individuals by taking in food for animals (energy) or sunlight for plants (energy) then using this energy along with gathered elements to develop according to DNA.

Of special note is the presence of the invisible water 'neath it that we view through the magic of invisible air through the vehicle of magical photography...only the majesty of God can create invisible water, air and the magic of photography (I guess that blows your "natural" stone arch theory all to hell and back).

Yeah, the Powerball or something. What if he played the lottery twice a day? What if he played it a hundred times every second, for 3 billion years? What might happen then?I submit that you just don't have the information, nor the statistical training, to make these kind of judgements about what could happen or what couldn't. Your off-the-cuff feelings about probablility just don't constitute any sort of proof, no matter how much you apply the term "reasonable" to them. I'd say it's something like 1 every 50 individuals, based on that 2 percent fixation rate. One in every 50 individuals has a beneficial mutation that will fix in the population. Now, how many individuals have lived in the last 3 billion years?Now figure it out. I'm not inclined to accept statistical reasoning that starts with the baseless assumptions of somebody who so desperately doesn't want evolution to be true.

I have a problem with people substituting personal incredulity for actual statistical reasoning.How many times does he play the lottery? Do you still have such a problem with it if he plays a hundred times every second for 20 years? The odds get a little better, don't you think? How many individuals have lived and died in 500 million years? Every one of them is like running the "evolution lottery."