Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 166 of 530 (527936)
10-03-2009 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by cavediver
10-03-2009 10:43 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
"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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by cavediver, posted 10-03-2009 10:43 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by cavediver, posted 10-03-2009 3:37 PM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 167 of 530 (527937)
10-03-2009 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 10:47 AM


Re: There is not a target mutation
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.

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

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 168 of 530 (527954)
10-03-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 10:38 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 10:38 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 169 of 530 (527962)
10-03-2009 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 11:03 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 11:03 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-04-2009 12:27 AM cavediver has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 170 of 530 (527999)
10-03-2009 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Parasomnium
10-03-2009 10:03 AM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Parasomnium, posted 10-03-2009 10:03 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by pandion, posted 10-04-2009 1:09 AM Peg has replied
 Message 188 by Theodoric, posted 10-04-2009 9:46 AM Peg has replied
 Message 189 by Theodoric, posted 10-04-2009 9:54 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 171 of 530 (528001)
10-03-2009 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Parasomnium
10-03-2009 10:31 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Parasomnium, posted 10-03-2009 10:31 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Coyote, posted 10-03-2009 10:07 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 172 of 530 (528002)
10-03-2009 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 10:54 AM


Re: There is not a target mutation
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 10:54 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 173 of 530 (528007)
10-03-2009 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Peg
10-03-2009 9:12 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 9:12 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 10:13 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 174 of 530 (528008)
10-03-2009 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Coyote
10-03-2009 10:07 PM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Coyote, posted 10-03-2009 10:07 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Dr Jack, posted 10-04-2009 3:54 AM Peg has replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


(1)
Message 175 of 530 (528009)
10-03-2009 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mike the wiz
09-28-2009 8:52 AM


Re: peg, your understanding is flawed
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 09-28-2009 8:52 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 176 of 530 (528024)
10-04-2009 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by cavediver
10-03-2009 10:58 AM


Re: There is not a target mutation
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by cavediver, posted 10-03-2009 10:58 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Dr Jack, posted 10-04-2009 3:33 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 187 by cavediver, posted 10-04-2009 4:58 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 177 of 530 (528026)
10-04-2009 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by cavediver
10-03-2009 3:37 PM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by cavediver, posted 10-03-2009 3:37 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by jacortina, posted 10-04-2009 12:40 AM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 182 by Dr Jack, posted 10-04-2009 3:31 AM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 186 by cavediver, posted 10-04-2009 4:52 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 178 of 530 (528028)
10-04-2009 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 10:10 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
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:
Neutral theory does not contradict natural selection, nor does it deny that selection occurs.
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:
As of the early 2000s, the neutral theory is widely used as a "null model" for so-called null hypothesis testing. Researchers typically apply such a test when they already have an estimate of the amount of time that has passed since two species or lineages divergedfor example, from radiocarbon dating at fossil excavation sites, or from historical records in the case of human families. The test compares the actual number of differences between two sequences and the number that the neutral theory predicts given the independently estimated divergence time. If the actual number of differences is much less than the prediction, the null hypothesis has failed, and researchers may reasonably assume that selection has acted on the sequences in question. Thus such tests contribute to the ongoing investigation into the extent to which molecular evolution is neutral.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 10:10 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-04-2009 1:39 AM Otto Tellick has replied

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


(1)
Message 179 of 530 (528030)
10-04-2009 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Kaichos Man
10-04-2009 12:27 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-04-2009 12:27 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-05-2009 8:37 AM jacortina has replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


(1)
Message 180 of 530 (528034)
10-04-2009 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Peg
10-03-2009 9:03 PM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
peg writes:
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 9:03 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Peg, posted 10-05-2009 3:49 AM pandion has not replied
 Message 211 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-05-2009 8:10 AM pandion 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