|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: TOE and the Reasons for Doubt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4515 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
"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"
Let me get this straight. You're saying that the probabilities of our new gene resulting in an antenna are improved by the fact that it might turn into something else? That's priceless! Off to bed, ladies and gents...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Hi Kaichos,
If you enclose the bit of a message you're quoting in quote tags, like this: [qs]Quoting you[/qs] then it'll come out like this:
Quoting you And be much clearer for all ... On to your actual post
No, I'm talking about a known gene which, according to you, must have evolved. Yes, that's what I said. Your argument doesn't work for it, it would only work for a gene we hadn't found and were looking for. It's like this, see: I've just rolled 12 dice, and come out with the result 543456656141 !! Amazing, huh? That's a 1 in 2,176,782,336 chance! Isn't it astonishing that it happened? Well, no, of course it isn't. Because while events may be astonishingly unlikely before they happen, after they've happened the probability of them having happened is 1.
This last statement only makes sense if you believe in evolution. I hope you now realise I was talking about basic probability and not evolution. Edited by Mr Jack, : While a probably may be probable, it isn't probability.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
When faced with simple maths and logic, your only defense is to nit-pick over semantics? It is not semantics. It is your understanding even the basics of the TOE.
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". Required sequence? The antenna is what it is is. There was no requirement for it to get there. Who required it? It is just what it hbacme, nothing more nothing less.
Therefore mutations are going to be "correct" or "incorrect" with regard to its construction. And last time I checked, 98% to 97% is "backwards". Backwards to what? What is backwards for the TOE? Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
Let me get this straight. You can try...
You're saying that the probabilities of our new gene resulting in an antenna are improved by the fact that it might turn into something else? ...and fail. Of course I'm not saying this. The observed antenna is just one acceptable outcome. How big is the space of acceptable oucomes? I haven't a clue.
That's priceless! If you say so
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Parasomnium writes: The question is then, have you read source material directly from these fields of science, or have you read digests prepared by creationists with a hidden agenda? i dont beleive creationists have an agenda as much as i beleive evolutionists have an agenda to prove their theory at all costs...even when the evidence shows otherwise. Why is it only creationists who readily make known the other side? Probably because they see the other side as reason to doubt...why do evolutionists skim over the dubious parts of their research and go on teaching the ToE as if its rock solid? Its not rock solid but they teach it as if its rock solid. That is not an honest way to teach a theory. Its not honest to skim over/avoid the discrepinces.
Parasomnium writes: But I said: if it were the only evidence, you'd have a point, "it" being the fossil record. You probably glanced over it too quickly, because now you mention it again. Well, never mind. this is exactly what i mean when i say the discrepencies are skimmed over and the theory marches onward as if its rock solid. You know that the fossil record does not contain enough evidence to be used to prove the thoery, yet its skirted around and explained away. I can tell you know that Genetics does not help the ToE because the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Parasomnium writes: 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? Yes, i did understand them , but a metaphor should not be used to explain away the evidience the evidence is that there are gaping holes in the record of lifes 'evolution'A metaphore is not evidence of why there are gaping holes. Its speculation, there is nothign to support it. The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History had an article Jan 1979, Vol 50, No 1, pp. 22, 23. that said:
[quote]Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. ... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.[/qs] Parasomnium writes: 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. if the theory were true, it should be able to be proved in various ways shouldnt it? You need to be able show an actual
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
a tip for you
use [qs=name] at the beginnign of the quote, to create a quote box and then inside them put the quote then close with [ ] with /qs in side it and you'll get this
name writes:
at the beginnign of the quote, to create a quote box and then inside them put the quote then close with
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Creationist quote mines do not constitute empirical evidence.
I looked up that quote; about the top ten hits on google were all creationist sites. And all seem to have engaged in the same kind of quote mining. When will you learn that when creationists trumpet quotations by evolutionary scientists as supporting their creationist beliefs that they are almost certainly lies--quote mines that make a scientist appear to say something exactly opposite to what he really said? If creationists really had evidence to support their position they wouldn't have to engage in this deceptive practice. But what they have is belief, not evidence, and they envy the reputation science has for accuracy so much that they steal the results of science and then distort or misrepresent those results to make them appear to support the creationist position when they generally say the opposite. That's pretty sad. And that's lying. And you fell for it (again). Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
why google it when i provided the reference
you can alway go to the source of the reference material rather then google. anyway, regarding genetic research and its inability to prove ToE here is a research paper of Lonig
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2358 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined:
|
mike the wiz writes: Lots of people can't understand a God who would use evolution and death/suffering, and call it "very good". Right! There are lots of people who look at real-world evidence and the evolutionary perspective on that, and say "ok, that makes sense," but then look at the creation myth in Genesis, try to imagine any sort of literal interpretation of that, and say "huh? I don't understand how that has anything at all to do with reality."
In reality, evolution is the only support for atheism You've got that quite wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Evolution has to do with understanding, on the basis of objective evidence, how life actually works. You can certainly overlay that understanding with any amount of supernatural interpretation or elaboration that suits you. Honestly, that's ok -- just so long as you don't push your personal, non-objective notions to the point of denying / ignoring clear evidence, or closing off the pursuit of new evidence. As for what supports atheism, that's something else entirely: it's the general disarray and incompatibility among the vast number of distinct theistic beliefs, and impossibility of providing any objective rationale for any one theistic belief. I'll stress that this is not a matter of "dogma" on the part of any atheist. Rather, it's simply a natural reaction to the conflicting (and baseless) dogmas that can be found in all religions.
You only "allow" a God, if there is an acceptance of evolution, because evolution makes Him look weak and atheism look strong. The importance of God in evolution is a matter of personal preference, and there's no limitation on that, except that it's shameful or pathetic to deny or ignore evidence that has been established firmly and repeatedly, simply because it doesn't support a particular (and frankly strange) interpretation of certain passages in biblical text. Accepting the evidence for evolution (and an old earth, and an older universe) does not entail belief in a "weak" God. You can still make as many assertions as you like about God's omni-everything, and they still have the same truth value they had before Darwin wrote his book (and before we measured the speed of light and figured out red-shift in astronomy and learned about radioactivity and DNA and...) What you can't do now, given the amount of evidence we have, is make assertions that all physical phenomena have occurred within the last 8000 years or less, or that particular events (global flood, Tower of Babel) actually occurred at particular times, based solely on a particular interpretation of biblical text, because those assertions are simply refuted by too much real-world evidence, and the biblical text simply doesn't work as objective data. It's just like asserting that the earth is flat. I'll agree that the case for atheism gets stronger as we increase our understanding of physical reality and the natural processes that operate in it. Improving our understanding of ourselves is also helpful in this regard. One important purpose in the conception of any deity is to have a way of verbalizing an explanation for things we don't understand. Once we actually become able to understand these things in objective terms, the deistic "explanation" becomes obsolete. Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given. autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4515 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
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. The entire outcome probability space is all possible outcomes. It equals one. The outcome that produces a gene relating to a fruitfly's wing is a vanishingly small fraction of this. For a 1000 base pair gene it is 1/41000. I have no doubt that atheists would not baulk at this figure, or any figure for that matter. Their problem lies in convergence. The same organ appearing in vastly disparate species. All the faith in the world can't save them from the probabilities then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4515 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
The observed antenna is just one acceptable outcome. How big is the space of acceptable oucomes? I haven't a clue. This is real smoke-and-mirrors stuff. Acceptable outcomes are a fraction of all outcomes. The outcome that produces a fruitfly's wing is a miniscule fraction of acceptable outcomes. Let's put it another way. The probability of a fruitfly's wing not being arrived at is 41000-1/41000. Which is really, really really close to 1 which is stone cold certainty. P.S. Thanks to Peg and Mr Jack for the quote thing. Edited by Kaichos Man, : Added thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2358 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
Hi Kaichos Man. Thanks for mentioning "neutral theory" -- I wasn't actually aware of that term before seeing your post, and having it looked it up, it's an interesting topic.
Quoting from Neutral theory of molecular evolution - Wikipedia
quote: I presume this is what you view as "holding out the required olive branch to Darwinists"? The dates on these theories (late 1960's, early 1970's) led me to wonder whether your own interest has followed this topic into the more recent developments. Here's another section from the wikipedia article:
quote: How is it, exactly, that you interpret this to mean that "their research really showed what a load of cobblers positive selection of mutations is"? It looks to me like their findings have been incorporated into the ToE, to the general benefit of scientific progress. {AbE:} To put that more clearly, it looks like the findings of Kimura and Ohno have provided a quantitative basis for identifying the occurrence of positive selection, which is something quite different from disproving or dismissing it. If this point is actually true (can you cite some specific reference for this?):
Kaichos Man writes: 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 might simply reflect the personal interests that Kimura had at the time. It is a normal situation, given how scientists tend to get very specialized in their pursuits, that they consider some things "not worth bothering with", but that tends to be a personal view on the part of a given scientist as a result of his current focus, and does not necessarily reflect a negative view toward the actual value of the fields he doesn't choose to pursue. Edited by Otto Tellick, : grammar patch Edited by Otto Tellick, : added to comment about 2nd wikipedia quote, as noted in text Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given. autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5111 days) Posts: 64 Joined:
|
The probability of a fruitfly's wing not being arrived at is 41000)-1/41000. You think that says anything important? By far the majority of organisms do NOT have fruit fly wings. So? So far, you've done nothing but, is effect, declare the endpoint of a drunkard's walk to be the target destination of a second drunkard's walk and using the improbability of that outcome to claim the first one was too improbable to occur. If evolution is not 'trying' to to produce those wings, if there is not a target (and here's a hint: EVOLUTION HAS NO TARGET!!!!), there is no target to miss. So saying the likelihood of 'missing' is near unity has no meaning whatsoever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3028 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined:
|
peg writes:
Why would that be true. Most evolutionary scientists either are now or once were christians. Why would they wish to prove any theory at any cost? Do physicists have an agenda to prove the theory of gravitation at all costs? Do geologists have an agenda to prove the theory of plate tectonics at all costs? Do nuclear physicists have an agenda to prove the theory of radio decay at all costs? Why would any scientist wish to do so? Scientists observe the evidence, offer explanations, and then test those explanations. Explanations that fail the test are rejected. i dont [sic] beleive [sic] creationists have an agenda as much as i beleive [sic] evolutionists have an agenda to prove their theory at all costs...even when the evidence shows otherwise. Specifically, what evidence are you talking about? How often do you need to be asked before you will actually present the evidence. That, of course, includes the predictions from that evidence and how it was tested.
Why is it only creationists who readily make known the other side? Probably because they see the other side as reason to doubt...why do evolutionists skim over the dubious parts of their research and go on teaching the ToE as if its rock solid?
What other side? Are you talking about the mythology of bronze age nomads who believed that the whole universe was created in 6 days some 6000 years ago? Specifically, what dubious parts of evolutionary research are skipped over and where is it taught as "rock solid"?
Its not rock solid but they teach it as if its rock solid. That is not an honest way to teach a theory. Its not honest to skim over/avoid the discrepinces [sic].
What "discrepinces"? What do you mean by "rock solid"? Don't you teach your creationist mythology as undoubted fact in your Sunday schools? How is that any different? Why don't you teach the theory of evolution as an alternative? Could it be that you teach religion in your Sunday schools and science is taught in public school science classes?
You know that the fossil record does not contain enough evidence to be used to prove the thoery, yet its skirted around and explained away.
But the fossil record isn't the only evidence for evolution. Darwin didn't even include any argument from the fossil record in his book. Darwin argued from his knowledge of living organisms. It was only later that the fossil record was found to support Darwin's theories. As time has passed, the fossil record has offered more and more evidence. Of course, other fields of biology have also supported the theories of evolution. Notably, genetics, molecular biology, population genetics, microbiology, paleontology, and on and on. In fact, there has not been discovered a single piece of evidence that does not support evolution. That's why I am so interested in your claim that there is some. Please present it.
I can tell you know that Genetics does not help the ToE because the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations
Really? Please cite the peer reviewed paper where this law was stated. What does the "law of recurrent variation" actually mean? What is a "genetically properly defined species"? What are those "real boundaries" of which you speak? Point out 5 species that are at those boundaries and how you know. Why can't those boundaries be crossed? Really. Trying to talk science only makes you look foolish.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024