Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mutation
Milagros
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 171 (104114)
04-30-2004 9:50 AM


Oh yea, see if this sinks in "repetition makes Probabilities certainties". Let's see that "repetitious" math. eh.

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 2:57 PM Milagros has not replied

  
Milagros
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 171 (104691)
05-02-2004 4:02 AM


Wow, so much to choose from.
But before I submit my reply let me generously provide another web page with a definition. It's purty kewl, you don't even need a physical dictionary with computers anymore.
It talks about the word "Probable" from where "Probability" comes from. This may aid in understanding.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=...
Here it is:
Main Entry: 1probable
Pronunciation: 'pr-b&-b&l, 'pr(b)-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, provable, from Middle French, from Latin probabilis commendable, probable, from probare to test, approve, prove -- more at PROVE
1 : supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof
2 : establishing a probability
3 : likely to be or become true or real
Please note how I've included ALL of the definitions, that way it doesn't "appear" like I'm trying to "hide" something. Or pick, choose or bend a definition in my favor. I got a strange post expressing something about me "ignoring" one of the definitions even though I clearly provided it. Perhaps this person was not aware that sometimes words have "several different" meanings? So the "meaning" of "probable" or "probability" that "I" was expressing fits more with definition 1 and 3. Actually all them do but 1 and 3 make it more clear what my usage of the word is. Also notice carefully how Mathematics isn't part of the definition. NOTE: That's NOT to say that mathematics can't be included. It just means that when it comes to things "probable" or "probability" it isn't JUST referring to math "exclusively". Sometimes not at all.
One more point. After reading your posts there seems to be a convenient bent or thread. Convenient for me. I was initially just going to respond to all of them in 1 posting but separated it later to help lessen any potential confusion. How sweet of me, I know.

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 05-02-2004 4:50 AM Milagros has not replied

  
Milagros
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 171 (104692)
05-02-2004 4:03 AM


For Crashfrog
Ok, let's take your example further, Crash. Let's pretend that the die you have is a 1 Million sided die, that'll probably make the die the size of a basketball, at least. (oops I said "probably". Strike that since we don't really know what size a die with 1 million sides would be.) What are the odds that you role a 66? 1/1000000 right? Not very good. BUT...what if you roll it, ah what the heck, 1 million times. Your arm will probably get tired. (Crap I did it again, I said "probably". Strike that too, since I can't really know if your arm will get tired after rolling a die a million times and, I must confess, I wouldn't know how to do the math to make that conclusion.) But at least your odds of rolling a 66 have increased.
Ok, now let's apply this little pretend game to "beneficial" mutations. Well, since talkorigins mentions that it's hard to even detect "beneficial" mutations we'll make all the numbers on each side of the million sided die blurry, or scratched up, that way it makes it "hard to detect". So NOW we have a 1 Million sided die that you will role for 1 million times to see how many times you role a 66. I like this pretend game because it fits so very nicely with the point I've been trying to make.
Let's look at the comparisons, check it out.
What is the "information" we DO KNOW.
1) We have a die with 1 million sides.
2) We always know what to look for, even though it's all scratched up and blurry we know it's a 66 we need to find.
3) We've limited our roll's to just 1 million.
Based on this KNOWN information we can then calculate the probability of rolling a 66 on a 1 million sided die 1 million times. Right?
Now Let's look at "beneficial" mutations, respectively.
1) We DON'T know HOW MANY "beneficial" mutations, average, must occur to result in a new species.
2) We CAN'T always DETECT a "beneficial" mutation
3) We CAN'T tell HOW LONG it takes for "beneficial" mutations to develop into a new species.
Based on this UNKNOWN information we CANNOT then calculate the probability in any MATHEMATICAL way to know!
In other words, you have no MODEL to work from. Since we DON'T have a model to work from we are then left with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD of "Observation" and "deductive" and "inductive" reasoning. Which I've applied to conclude that such an occurrence is Highly Improbable. See, NO Math. However if YOU insist there must be, then YOU must provide the math, NOT ME. Why not me? Because that was never my position.

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 05-02-2004 4:59 AM Milagros has not replied
 Message 140 by Quetzal, posted 05-02-2004 9:04 AM Milagros has not replied

  
Milagros
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 171 (104693)
05-02-2004 4:04 AM


Loudmouth
"3. Beneficial mutations have been observed, so their affects are not in question. However, you have asserted that the beneficial mutation rate is unknown yet you claim they are rare."
I think you are confusing something there Loudmouth.
A)Fact: "beneficial" mutation rates are unknown.
B)Fact: What IS known is that they are "rare" occurrences.
Me
Are you telling me that the "rate" of occurrence is "rare"?
Loudmouth
"You then go even farther and say that they are too rare to result in the diversity between species. These two claims, rare and too improbable, follow the claim that the beneficial rate is not known."
Me
Well IS it known?
"This seems to be a logical flaw in your argument. To make your claim, you must show how many beneficial mutations there have been and in what time span, and then compare this to the observed mutation rate."
LOL, sorry Loudmouth, I'm not laughing at you. It's just that this is the question "I've" been posing, somewhat. That for YOU,"To make your claim, you must show how many beneficial mutations there have been and in what time span, and then compare this to the observed mutation rate." I would change the last part of the question to ", and thereby CALCULATE what the mutation rate is." This is "MY" question to those who accept the event that these rare occurrences that can still be lost are a reasonable reality that they "conclude" can result in all the varied life we see on earth today. (And life in the past I might "add".)
THIS is why I asked that if you ARE going to accept this then let's see the math that will support YOUR position in doing so. Otherwise your conclusion doesn't carry any more weight than my conclusion since I see it as an "Improbability" while YOU don't, based on the same evidence.

  
Milagros
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 171 (104694)
05-02-2004 4:06 AM


OoooK
"Quite a lot of your argument seems to be a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it. You want your position to be taken seriously as one taken by rational consideration and with the use of scientific method, and yet you refuse to submit any type of kind of data to back yourself up."
Me
Really, weren't those web pages enough for you? I "probably" shouldn't use the word "data" when refering to the known "evidence". Sorry, that may confuse some. I used data and evidence to mean basicaly the same thing.
Ooook
"When talking about probability from a scientific perspective you have to present real figures, there's no way of escaping doing the maths I’m afraid."
Me
Why is that? Doesn't the scientific perspective include "observation" and "deductive" and "inductive" reasoning as well?
Oook
"You say:
I must conclude (deduce) that it is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE that these rare occurrences (That can still be lost, referred to as "beneficial" mutations) can result in all the varied life we see on earth today
And yet:
I wasn't offering any math to support my position
Try using that kind of reasoning in a letter to Nature and see how fast it gets laughed out of the editor’s inbox!"
Me
Amazing. I think I now know what the problem is here.
Maybe some have forgotten or perhaps have never learned that: You cannot always formulate a model when you don't have all the relative data to do so. Keep that in mind.
Such is the case for the "MAJORITY" of scientific endeavors. Indeed this is the case we have for "beneficial" mutations. I have cited several web pages that are confirming this. We DO NOT have all the relative data to formulate a model by which you can make a "statistical" conclusion with. And "SINCE" we CAN'T, then all we are left with is "Observation" and "Deductive" or "Inductive" reasoning. And based on that reasoning we can say that such and such is either "probable" or "improbable". Again the term "probability" does not ALWAYS mean Math. In this case it CAN'T since, again, there is NO MODEL to formulate a statistical probability. HOWEVER, If YOU insist that "despite" what IS known about "beneficial" mutations that it CAN result in all the varied species we see on earth today. THEN "I", "ME" would like to see the "calculations" that help support "YOUR" position. OTHERWISE, it's simply a matter of you and I observing the "SAME" evidence I provided and merely making "opposite" conclusions. I expressed my view on the matter but others insist that I must show why or how I came to those conclusions. I therefore provided my "reasoning's" and NOW what is asked is that I provide some "mathematics" to how I arrived at this "probability". Again, I used NO MATH to arrive at that probability because, again, I nor YOU CAN. See, this is what happens when you insist that "probability" refers ONLY to mathematics. When, as the definition I provided shows it is NOT.
The "data" or "evidence" I provided can be found on the web pages I included in my postings. What exactly are you insinuating when you mention me "partially" quoting talkorigins. I provided the web pages where I got those "partially" quoted articles, that way you can confirm for yourself that they are correctly quoted. See how nice I am?
Ooook
"No evolutionist has provided a set of equations that prove that evolution happened because the amount of usable mathematical information is very small, so any result would be meaningless. The only people who claim that they can apply probability to evolution to any success are creationists, and they fail for exactly the same reason — we don’t know enough cast iron figures."
Me
I'm not applying any probability to evolution. I am applying "observation" and "deductive" reasoning to conclude that the event is highly improbable. And why do you think I am NOT applying any probability to evolution, well because "No evolutionist has provided a set of equations that prove that evolution happened because the amount of usable mathematical information is very small, so any result would be meaningless." You said it yourself. Therefore if "the amount of usable MATHEMATICAL information is very small..." or "you don't have all the relative data", what are we then left with? Yes, bingo, "observation" and "deductive" or "inductive" reasoning, which so happen to be SCIENTIFIC METHODS. See how nicely that all fits into place?

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by crashfrog, posted 05-02-2004 5:21 AM Milagros has not replied
 Message 139 by PaulK, posted 05-02-2004 8:39 AM Milagros has not replied
 Message 142 by Ooook!, posted 05-03-2004 6:03 PM Milagros has not replied

  
Milagros
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 171 (105106)
05-03-2004 11:31 PM


Crash
"C'mon, M. You've made no observations, and you certainly haven't deduced or inducted anything - you don't even know what those terms mean, or how to do them. The process you followed was "quote from a webpage" and "make a wild guess." You'll pardon us if we think the guess of someone already committed to the outcome - that is, evolution being wrong - isn't worth a damn."
Me
Are all these conclusions about me made via the "Scientific Method"? Show me the mathematical calculations that support your thesis about Moi?
Hey, let me express a thought. I'm thinkin that you already have committed yourself to an outcome - that is, evolution being right. However since you are "probably" a separate thinking human being I think it IS worth a damn. I think YOU'RE worth a damn. I think your opinions are worth a damn. I think your thoughts are worth a damn. I think your ideas are worth a damn. Whether I agree with them or not or argue about them or not, it doesn't change the fact that everything about YOU is worth a damn. Perhaps you shouldn't talk for others they may not agree with you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2004 11:46 PM Milagros has not replied

  
Milagros
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 171 (105107)
05-03-2004 11:32 PM


One at a time, take a number.
The "observation" I have shown comes from talkorigins. Are THEIR observations not good enough for yall? Based on what "THEY" have written of what, I'm assuming, are THEIR observations of "beneficial" mutations. I have made my "deduction" based on that. Yes I know "deductive" and "inductive" are two different things, I so happen to provide a nice little link that explained that. What a guy I am eh?
SLPx
"So, when you find out how many such mutations are required, you let us know. I am sure that Nature or Science would publish your manuscript in a heartbeat."
Me
Did you hear that Crash? You should talk to Crash, he might have some idea, in fact you can find his calculations on this posting somewhere. Apparently it appears that he thinks he might have actually figured it out. I made the suggestion myself to submit it to Nature (cheeky of me).
Ooook
"In this case it does. If you want to comment about something being probable/improbable in any branch of science it requires you to do statistics, to provide the calculations. Anything else is pure gut feeling. That's why scientists don't use probability to prove evolution, they rely on other methods."
Me
Ooook, perhaps you meant to say something else because you say on the one hand, "to comment about something being probable/improbable in any branch of science it requires you to do statistics,..." Then on the other you say, "That's why scientists don't use probability to prove evolution, they rely on other methods." It just so happens that I'm using the method of "observation" and "deductive" reasoning, Precisely because I have no math or statistics about "beneficial" mutations that I have found or read about to be able to supply it as evidence to support my position. See? If scientists don't use probability to prove evolution then why am I asked to do so with calculations about "beneficial" mutations that I initially asked about myself? Because I used the word "probable"?
Here's the other use of probability.
1) If someone swallows cyanide, they'll "probably" die. (Observation has shown this)
2) If I do a lot of physical activity I'll "probably" get tired. (Observations has shown this)
3 If I kick a ball it'll "probably" be moved, unless I miss. (Observation has shown this)
4) If I put paper near fire, it'll "probably" burn. (Observation has shown this)
5) If I mess around with new born cubs the mother bear will "probably" kill me. (Observation has shown this)
6) If I run through a glass window, I'll "probably" get cut. (Observation has shown this)
I'd call all of the above "scientific statements" since they all involve "observation".
I'm quite comfortable with the usage of the word which fits within the definition and follows the scientific method. What is your problem? However I did "inquire" as to whether anyone knows of any info as to whether any calculations have been made about "beneficial" mutations. SLPx is inquiring as well, although he admits he doesn't really care. He might contact Crash about those numbers. Why did I ask? Because if we had that information this may show that it's not as improbable as it appears, at least to me. Or vice versa, it can "confirm" how improbable it is. Since we don't have that information or can't find it, I reserve the right to conclude then, that it's highly improbable that "beneficial" mutations were the cause for all the varied life we see on earth, based on the information about "beneficial" mutations that we DO have, from talkorigins. If you don't like my conclusion, tuff frijoles. You guys want to argue with my "use" of "probably" even though I have shown that I'm quite justified in using it.
Here's an example of what's been going on:
a) We have evidence that paper is flammable. b) We have evidence that fire burns and is hot. Based on that, I conclude that a stack of books (paper backs) "probably" won't survive a fire, therefore the stack of books I see in the fireplace "probably" couldn't be there unless the fire was put out.
Respondents:
What do you mean they "probably" won't survive? Show us the math that confirms that. You don't know enough about "probability" to say. You're using your own personal views to conclude that. You don't want to see those stacks of books in the fire place so your conclusions are based on your own personal philosophy. If you are going to tell me that it's highly improbable that a stack of books could survive a fire I want to see the math to support that. How big was the fire? What kind of paper is it? How many books were in the fire? etc. etc. etc. yada yada yada.
None of those questions changes the "facts" in any way that a) and b) are true. And that based on those two known facts we can "deduce" that a stack of paperback books "probably" won't survive a fire. End of story!
Since this is the discourse we find ourselves in, perhaps it would be best to let you have your way. And I'll move on with mine. Aight? Besides, I'm annoying some of you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Ooook!, posted 05-05-2004 4:59 AM Milagros has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024