Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8942 total)
30 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Guido Arbia, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (5 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,832 Year: 18,868/19,786 Month: 1,288/1,705 Week: 94/446 Day: 94/64 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 151 of 530 (527916)
10-03-2009 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Peg
10-03-2009 10:01 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
No science. Just a working understanding of maths and logic.

Done a lot of reading lately on a couple of Japanese geneticists, Kimura and Ohno. They came up with The Neutral Theory and The Nearly Neutral Theory respectively.

While they held out the required olive branch to Darwinists, their research really showed what a load of cobblers positive selection of mutations is.

Kimura didn't even factor "beneficial" mutations into his calculations, the obvious implication being that he considered them so rare that they weren't worth bothering with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 10:01 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-04-2009 12:29 AM Kaichos Man has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 152 of 530 (527917)
10-03-2009 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Peg
10-03-2009 8:51 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
So in line with this thread, there are reasons to doubt evolution. If you want to start a new thread refuting such evidence then do so.

Those contentions have already been refuted.

And you prove the point of my post: you should not even bother to comment on science for the reasons I gave in my previous post.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 8:51 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6683
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 153 of 530 (527921)
10-03-2009 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 9:11 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
The use of terms "correct" and "incorrect" and "backwards" show that you do not even have a basic understanding of the TOE. Those are terms that could only be used if there was a creator or a designer. You are using them to try to discredit a system that does not have a designer or a creator, therefore your whole premise is flawed.

Try again. If I were you, I would first start with learning what the TOE truly is, Your worst source for that information would be creationist websites. As we have shown Peg time and time again, creationist websites lie. Lying isn't real christian is it.

Edited by Theodoric, : spelling


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 9:11 AM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 10:38 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 154 of 530 (527922)
10-03-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dr Jack
10-03-2009 10:04 AM


Re: There is not a target mutation
"It doesn't work this way. There aren't "correct mutations", evolution is not searching toward a single "correct" sequence of nucleotides. Because the assumptions behind your calculations are wrong, your results are meaningless."

Nice attempt at a sidestep.

Evolution isn't searching for a single correct sequence- we are. Let's say the gene is for the antenna on a fruit fly. We know exactly what the sequence needs to be. The exercise is designed to see how that particular gene might have been created by random mutation and natural selection.

And even given several significant leg-ups, it can't get there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dr Jack, posted 10-03-2009 10:04 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Dr Jack, posted 10-03-2009 10:31 AM Kaichos Man has responded
 Message 157 by cavediver, posted 10-03-2009 10:34 AM Kaichos Man has responded
 Message 158 by jacortina, posted 10-03-2009 10:36 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 155 of 530 (527923)
10-03-2009 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 10:25 AM


Re: There is not a target mutation
Evolution isn't searching for a single correct sequence- we are. Let's say the gene is for the antenna on a fruit fly. We know exactly what the sequence needs to be. The exercise is designed to see how that particular gene might have been created by random mutation and natural selection.

It needs to be for what? Are you talking about a mutation we've already discovered? Then your argument is even more broken. You can't treat the probabilities of an event that has already occured like that way; if you could no-one would ever win the lottery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 10:25 AM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 10:47 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 985 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


(1)
Message 156 of 530 (527924)
10-03-2009 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Peg
10-03-2009 8:51 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
Peg writes:

2. the fossil record shows sudden appearances of fully formed creatures.

Peg, I don't get it. A while ago you said that you understood my metaphor for the fossil record of a film reel with a badly damaged film, or the other one of the burned box of photographs. And now you say this.

Are you sure you understand those metaphors?

Let me tell you something else about the fossil record. We are actually very lucky to have fossils at all, because fossilization is a rare process. You've heard that before, no doubt. But what you should also realise is that even if there were no fossil record at all, evolution would still be true. We have so much evidence beside the fossil record that we really don't need it. So don't get too hung up on the fossil record and its gaps, because it isn't the be all and end all of evolution.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 8:51 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 9:12 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1932 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 157 of 530 (527925)
10-03-2009 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 10:25 AM


Re: There is not a target mutation
We know exactly what the sequence needs to be.

No, we know what the sequence happens to be. It does not *need* to be this sequence. Try again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 10:25 AM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 10:54 AM cavediver has responded

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 158 of 530 (527926)
10-03-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 10:25 AM


Re: There is not a target mutation
If you are not modeling (at least some limited facet of) what happens in nature, your model cannot inform one way or the other about what nature can or cannot do.

Your model simply has no bearing on reality because reality is NOT searching far any specific goal.

That you can come up with an algorithm which has trouble finding a goal has no relationship whatsoever with what goes on in nature.

Edited by jacortina, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 10:25 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

    
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 159 of 530 (527927)
10-03-2009 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Theodoric
10-03-2009 10:23 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
"The use of terms "correct" and "incorrect" and "backwards" show that you do not even have a basic understanding of the TOE. Those are terms that could only be used if there was a creator or a designer. You are using them to try to discredit a system that does not have a designer or a creator, therefore your whole premise is flawed."

Another sidestep!

When faced with simple maths and logic, your only defense is to nit-pick over semantics?

Again, let's call it a gene relating to the antenna on a fruitfly. We know what the required sequence is. Therefore mutations are going to be "correct" or "incorrect" with regard to its construction. And last time I checked, 98% to 97% is "backwards".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Theodoric, posted 10-03-2009 10:23 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by cavediver, posted 10-03-2009 10:43 AM Kaichos Man has responded
 Message 168 by Theodoric, posted 10-03-2009 2:00 PM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 160 of 530 (527928)
10-03-2009 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by AnswersInGenitals
10-03-2009 1:43 AM


Topic!
The topic is the ToE and reasons for doubting it -- not the ToC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-03-2009 1:43 AM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1932 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 161 of 530 (527929)
10-03-2009 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 10:38 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
We know what the required sequence is. Therefore mutations are going to be "correct" or "incorrect" with regard to its construction.

Wrong again You are fixated on the outcome, a classic probability mistake. You have to consider the space of all possible outcomes, of which the observed antenna is just one outcome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 10:38 AM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 11:03 AM cavediver has responded

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 162 of 530 (527930)
10-03-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Dr Jack
10-03-2009 10:31 AM


Re: There is not a target mutation
"It needs to be for what?"

For the creation of a gene relating to the antenna of a fruitfly. Wasn't that clear?

" Are you talking about a mutation we've already discovered?"

No, I'm talking about a known gene which, according to you, must have evolved.

"Then your argument is even more broken."

I'd be happy if it was simply understood.

"You can't treat the probabilities of an event that has already occured like that way; if you could no-one would ever win the lottery"

This last statement only makes sense if you believe in evolution. It should be obvious that I don't. That's one lottery I won't take a ticket in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Dr Jack, posted 10-03-2009 10:31 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by cavediver, posted 10-03-2009 10:55 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded
 Message 167 by Dr Jack, posted 10-03-2009 11:06 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

    
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 163 of 530 (527931)
10-03-2009 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by cavediver
10-03-2009 10:34 AM


Re: There is not a target mutation
"No, we know what the sequence happens to be. It does not *need* to be this sequence. Try again."

I assume you are making some oblique reference to synonymous codons. Are you aware that synonymous mutations often result in impaired protein production? I repeat- "needs" to be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by cavediver, posted 10-03-2009 10:34 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by cavediver, posted 10-03-2009 10:58 AM Kaichos Man has responded
 Message 172 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 9:19 PM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1932 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 164 of 530 (527932)
10-03-2009 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 10:47 AM


Re: There is not a target mutation
Mr Jack writes:

You can't treat the probabilities of an event that has already occured like that way; if you could no-one would ever win the lottery

This last statement only makes sense if you believe in evolution.

Nonsense. It makes complete sense because it is true, irrespective of your take on creation or evolution. Unless you think that probability theory is also an invention of the devil and not to be trusted


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 10:47 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1932 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 165 of 530 (527933)
10-03-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 10:54 AM


Re: There is not a target mutation
I assume you are making some oblique reference to synonymous codons.

Not in the slightest - I am talking about your confusion between an observed outcome and the entire outcome probability space. This is mathematics, not genetics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 10:54 AM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-04-2009 12:14 AM cavediver has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019