Another IDology challenge -- complete with complaints of harsh treatments ...

RAZD writes: What upsets me is when IDologists make IDotic arguments. Firsts the probability argument. They say it is a 1 in 10^70 probability to assemble a protein molecule by molecule.

What upsets me is when anti-IDologists make strawman arguments.

The 1 in 10^70* probability has nothing to do with assembling a protein. It is not relating to any molecule by molecule assembly issue. Go read Gelernter's article. Even in his layman's terms, he explains what the probability is referring to quite well.

Gelernter argues that it is impossible to make all the changes at the correct time during the development of a fetus to change a sheep into a horse ... in one generation.

No, that is not what his argument was. He was just commenting on, again in fairly layman's terms, how early in the developmental cycle that any changes (mutations) would have to be done to express any major change in an organism, and invariably when we see those changes done they are fatal.

f

dwise1 writes: So then show us! Point us to your sources. Quote from them.

RAZD writes: Please supply your supporting material. Especially if you have it in print.

The impetus for the video was due to an essay by David Galernter in the Claremont Review of Books. Gelernter's essay is at: https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

With regards to the probability argument, the primer to it starts under the heading "Mutations" where he talks about creating a protein from a modest-sized, 150 long amino acid chain.

Then the argument falls under the heading "Building a Better Protein" where he lays out the beginning mathematics:

quote:

---

The total count of possible 150-link chains, where each link is chosen separately from 20 amino acids, is 20^150. In other words, many. 20^150 roughly equals 10^195, and there are only 10^80 atoms in the universe.

---

What proportion of these many polypeptides are useful proteins? The estimate is 1 in 10^77
-----

Curiously I searched through the video to the part in question, and I was slightly incorrect. Starting at 12:25 is they are talking about assembling a protein, not molecule by molecule but with 1 of 20 amino acids adding them one by one, and the number they give is 1 in 1 x 10^77 (not 1 in 1 x 10^70).

Sorry, I'm kinda not buying it. Your search is proceeding in a weird fashion or you are just not paying attention.

Yes, at 12:25 Galernter starts talking about the "math" problem laid out in the code of DNA->Amino Acids->Protein process, but the 1 in 10^77 probability number doesn't come up until 17:17. Before that point, Galernter waxes poetic about the "number of ways you can arrange" his 'beads', but he doesn't mentioned any calculation yet.

Meyer takes over discussing the metaphor at 15:12. Peter Robinson (host) then asks the pertinent question at 15:38 -

quote:

---

...in this huge, unimaginably vast universe of possible combinations, the number of combinations that would produce a useful protein is what?

---

To which Meyer responds:

quote:

---

Exceedingly rare.

---

Meyer then goes on to expound on the numbers and finally at 17:17 lays out the probability: 1 in 10^77

Galernter then picks up again at 18:00 and ties it to his beads metaphor again.

TL : DR - just watch 12:02 - 19:22 of the video for the specifically relevant content or up to 22:20 if you want the full discussion on this topic. Can you stomach 10 minutes of it?

Off topic, but...

RAZD writes: The problem is that we have observed new species developed by the standard evolutionary model,

Where?

On topic (the referred section) -

RAZD writes: And of course the problem with this argument (from incredulity after fabricating immense numbers -- a typical creationist/IDologist ploy) is that biology doesn't operate this way;

First, what specifically are you saying is fabricated?
Secondly, can you be more specific about what "way" biology supposedly doesnt operate by?

mutations occur in a number of ways of many different length segments from whole gene copying to single inserts

Ya. So? That there are myriad ways mutations can occur....is irrelevant. When evaluating the mathematics of evolution, that mutations do and will occur is inherent to the argument; it is built in and assumed.

I do not think you understand the argument.

----

Then perhaps off-topic again, I have to ask about this diddy?

but also that evolution would occur rapidly when there was a void in habitat that could be occupied; selection would be diminished and more varieties would survive and evolve.

What are you talking about? What is a "void in habitat"? Regardless, Evolution doesn't care if there is a "void in habitat", it doesn't have any forward view, so it cannot occur any more rapidly to fill anything. It is unguided.
And wait, so diminishing selection allows more survival and evolving? How does that work, since the selection is the very thing that supposedly provides the surviving and evolving?

There are a couple themes being discussed here and I can get fairly verbose in responding, so I'm splitting up my posts into different parts so as to not have one huge message.

RAZD writes: The problem is that we have observed new species developed by the standard evolutionary model Several places. A quick google turned up these sites:

First off, pretty much nobody (that I know of) says that speciation is impossible, or never happens. Secondly, a lot of this also depends on what one uses as a definition of "speciation". If the definition is complete reproductive isolation, then most of your cited examples don't fit.

Your main examples come in the fashion of hybridization. Hybridization, I agree can produce something that falls under the definition of speciation (and I would include a couple plants from your 'list'), but then hybridization does not fall under the processes normally associated with the 'standard evolutionary model'. The standard evolutionary model would basically be the normal Darwinian/Neo-Darwinian process of mutation and natural selection. Hybridization (even via polyploidy) is not via that sort of process.

The Neo-Darwinian process is what Gelernter was referring to in the phrase you quoted. So I do not agree with you that his statement was "misinformation" or incorrect. Of course, if you want to quibble about definitions, we can. But from the context it is pretty clear on what Gelernter was referring, since he even made a differentiation between what he called "the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances" or "the fine-tuning of existing species" with "the origin of species" (which would all fall under your definition of Evolution", vs how a Darwinian process can explain the differences. He's making a distinction that you haven't really acknowledged yet.

As for speciation via hybridization, it is rather an underwhelming example to showcase your evolution. Even under an evolutionary paradigm, hybridization would likely be looked at as two species that had recently diverged coming together and making a hybrid. If that was the case, you are looking at really a loss or decrease of genetic diversity instead of adding new stuff.

The specific cases of Tragopogon mirus and Galeopsis tetrahit are probably legitimate forms of speciation via polyploid hybridization. But it's all meh, since this only occurs within flowering plants, it relies on pre-existing parent species, and there isnt really any new morphological characteristics.

Heliconius butterfly hybrids don't really fall into it this category because it doesn't appear that this is a case of reproductive isolation. It is more accounted for by interbreeding with various lines (including old parental/generational).

All the other examples in your list I would not consider speciation, since the reproductive isolation has not been established in those examples.

All in all, even though I would concede that speciation (within some limits) via Darwinian processes is possible, but this still has not been demonstrated by your examples. Despite all of this the bigger question remains: this is still not demonstrating anything akin to being able to explain the macro level differences between most organisms.

RAZD writes: And of course the problem with this argument (from incredulity after fabricating immense numbers -- a typical creationist/IDologist ploy) is that biology doesn't operate this way WookieeB writes: First, what specifically are you saying is fabricated? The probability numbers. See the old improbable probability problem.

How are you justifying that the 10^77 number is fabricated? Cause you don't like it?

As for you linked postings, I'm not seeing how it relates unless you can be more specific about where the problem is. Your listing is rather vague on it's own, but here is how I would comment on each numbered point with regards to the OP.

1) Um, ok, duh!. Language is odd, as a model of reality is a model of reality. A model of reality NEVER replicates reality, it merely describes reality. So if the reality doesn't conform to the model, no duh, the model is wrong (is missing something).
2) irrelevant. We're not referring to the formation of life. But if you want to argue semantics, than yes, this probability is considering all possible pre-existing molecules within the context of what is being discussed.
3) doesn't apply.
4) Nope. The probability calculation is specifically accounting for the combination of molecules related to it's subject. It is accounting for the combination process (that's kinda a central part of it). And just FYI, your mention of peptides is way off. Peptide refers to a bonding type between amino acids, and in nature it occurs about 1 in 2 times (1/2 would be peptide bonds, 1/2 would be non-peptide bonds). But for a protein to work, all the bonds have to be peptide bonds. So if you really want to highlight the peptide bond type, you are adding an additional 10^45 probability to what we already are discussing.
5) This does relate to the probability discussion, but not in a way you think it might. Ya, with the lottery there are a lot of possible ticket combinations and finding a win per ticket (single event) is a low probability. But there is a high certainty of a win event due to the number of tickets bought (events that occur). The same principle kinda applies, but instead we are taking about 10^195 lottery tickets produced, and the rate of winning is 1 in 10^77 tickets, which is very low The problem is though, how many tickets have actually been bought? Even if you consider a trillion (10^12) tickets bought, that even one winner exists is still extremely low. How many tickets have been actually bought is the key question here, and with evolution the answer is (comparatively) very low.
6) The funny thing here is you complained about a model not fitting to reality, and here you go creating such a model. With regards to the probability Gelernter is mentioning, nobody is saying it is technically impossible. But for all practical purposes, if you have a 10^77 chance, with a limited # of events occurring, plus you have to hit this probability multiple times..... it is considered effectively impossible.

You can't calculate probabilities without knowing all the possibilities first. If you assume this, then obviously if your end result seems impossible when it has in fact occurred the error is in the assumed numbers. I have two di -- a pair of dice -- what is the probability that I will throw/roll a seven in one try?

I suppose this is true if you are looking for an exact probability. But this is not necessarily true when estimating a probability (which is what is being done with the probability mentioned in the OP). You can usually get a fair estimate by looking at the results of manageable sub-groups of the full data set and extrapolate that out. People do it all the time.

The answer to the die question is: 1 in 6

The numbers used only refer to one specific type of mutation - a single replacement mutation. Biology operates on several different types of mutations, from single replacement to full gene duplication, many involving multiple segments inserted or deleted. This vastly increases the numbers of ways DNA is modified in the real world.

No, the numbers are NOT referring to a specific type of mutation. It's not really talking about how mutations occur at all. This cements with me that you do not understand the argument.

The argument is NOT saying there is a 1 in 10^77 chance that one mutation will produce a functional fold. There are probably many functional folds that are one (two, three, four even) mutation(s) away from whatever starting protein sequence you have.
The argument is saying that for any modest sized protein of 150 AA's (which is 10^195 possibilities), the estimate is 1 in 10^77 will result in a functional fold (whatever function that protein then exibits). And since there are multple proteins needed for life whose sequences are wildly differentiated from each other (granted most are larger than 150 AA's), within the time span known for life on Earth (let alone even the entire age of the universe), the odds of hitting on functional proteins is exceedingly small, effectively 'impossible'.

When you only include one specific mutation in your calculations and ignore all the other "myriad ways mutations" occur you are obviously not counting all the possible mutations.... I do not think you understand the critique of the argument.

So no, the probability is not concerned with one specific mutation. It is concerned with ALL possible mutations within the context of the parameters of the protein example.
I understand your critique of the argument, it's just that your critique of the argument is not addressing the argument.

Wookieeb writes: What are you talking about? What is a "void in habitat"? ... RAZD writes: A void is an empty niche in the ecology.

Arghh! What are you talking about?!?
You are equivocating words here. So is a "void" [in habitat] the same as an "empty niche" [in the ecology]? I'm taking "void" and "empty niche" to be synonymous. But is "habitat" a synonym for "ecology*"? Doesn't seem so with your "ecology" definition:

The ecology is composed of all species in a habitat in a quasi-balance of survival and reproductive abilities, not just in predator-prey arms races but also in like species competitions.

I think you mean ECOSYSTEM (as any *ology means: study of *), but otherwise I'm fine with your definition of "ecology". But per your definition "ecology" and "habitat" are clearly different, so a "void" in either is not the same thing. Also the "species" and "habitat" are not synonymous, though related in your description.

So what again is the "void" or "empty niche" supposed to be? You haven't defined it, and I'll have to try to reason it out based on your statement above. If I go off them, since the "ecology" is equivalent to the all species in a habitat, then a void/empty niche would have to be a lack of or not existing species in a habitat. But that doesn't make much sense. Evolution has no awareness of a lack of species. It has no forward vision. It cannot plan for a not-yet existing species.

Thanfully, you leave the idea of a empty niche in "ecology" in your next statement and go back to talking about the habitat:

If one of the species can take advantage of a new habitat niche that is not currently occupied then it has more resources for survival and reproduction than previously, giving it an advantage.

So now you are leaving species aside and talking about a "habitat [empty] niche". I'm guessing this habitat is more where you intend your focus. A habitat niche I can understand, as it would relate to how an organism/species relates to its environment. In that sense, EVERY species has its own niche. But a void/empty niche is an empty set, being either 1) how an existing species does not relate to it's environment (nonsensical) or 2) a non-existing species interacting in an environment, which is not possible. In other words, a void/empty niche in a habitat isn't a thing.

As a variation on (1) above, if you are trying to describe this as some set of potential or imaginary species that could relate to the environment in a way different from all other species, then fine, but you need to find a new word. But that set would be nearly infinite in the imagination as one could imagine just about any organism that does something different. And yet that set is not real. Either way, you're referring to something that is a goal, or possibility. But evolution does not reach for a goal, it doesn't imagine anything ahead.

So an empty niche doesn't exist (it's merely a concept), and a niche exists as a(ny) species interacting in the environment. The number of actual niches is equal to the number of species in existence.

Unless you have a different or more strict definition of your void/empty niche, you're statement ends up being a nonsense tautalogy.

This is actually observed in the case of foraminifera:

They are using the terms species and evolution quite loosely in this article. It doesn't seem to fit standard usage of terms, and they seem to offer contradicting ideas at times (see last paragraph). In all, there is not much here that is really a noteworthy example of evolution in a Neo-Darwinian sense. There talking about forams the whole way through, with changes that I would just consider normal diversification (like the many dog breeds, or even humans). Either way, it's the type of evolution that is no problem and even the most ardent critics of Darwinism would accept. The end is a bunch of speculation and a vague mention of 'niches'. (that where you got the term from?)

Similarly, the Cambrian "explosion" of new species types that first evolve protective shells occurred because the niche for species with protective shells was empty.

Please! Evolution occurred because it saw a potential opening niche? With no explanation for the new information needed to build the new body forms and organ types, and no precursors evident?

Let's start with this definition of evolution as a process: The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

About as vague and broad a definition as you could get. Basically: things change. Ok. I agree. This "evolution" happens.....
But it's missing the details regarding some proposed changes/differences between organisms in life. How and why specifically? No mention of where the information required for developing major differences comes from, nor how to explain getting around the apparent limits of adaptation within species?

Wookieeb writes: First off, pretty much nobody (that I know of) says that speciation is impossible, or never happens. ... RAZD writes: ummmm ... the whole point of the video was to show through math that it was virtually impossible, therefore intelligent (eg god) design.

No. You seem to have a problem with context. Or you really have failed to watch the video and read the essay by Gelernter.

First, the title of the video is "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution". It is not 'Mathematical Challenges to speciation'. You do not seem to be able to make a distinction. You are apparently stuck on being able to define a species (as the rest of your post indicates), but then you are critiquing the video on whatever seems to be the most restrictive version against it.

Secondly, "therefore intelligent (eg god) design" is not the end point of the video either. Again, if you were paying attention, you would realize that Gelernter doesn't subscribe to ID, and Berlinsky is rather neutral and ambivalent about it. Only one of the three in the video subscribes to that stance, and it hardly was the objective of the video.

RAZD writes: Biologists recognize that speciation is muddy,....

I agree. But if you're going to criticize the video, then you need to use the meaning that is represented in the video. Anything else is just an equivocation on your part.

WookieeB writes: The Neo-Darwinian process is what Gelernter was referring to in the phrase you quoted. So I do not agree with you that his statement was "misinformation" or incorrect. Of course, if you want to quibble about definitions, we can. But from the context it is pretty clear on what Gelernter was referring, since he even made a differentiation between what he called "the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances" or "the fine-tuning of existing species" with "the origin of species" (which would all fall under your definition of Evolution", vs how a Darwinian process can explain the differences. He's making a distinction that you haven't really acknowledged yet. RAZD writes: This type of "distinction" is also typical creationist/IDologist semantic misdirection -- which is why it is misinformation. Anytime you see the words "Darwinian" or "Neo-Darwinian" you can be pretty sure that the author is equivocating between a vary narrow view of some evolutionary processes and the full band-width of all known evolutionary processes. Pretending/implying they are the same means making the "part for the whole" logical fallacy.

Male cow feces poppycock! You're the one that is equivocating. They are pretty clear in the video on what they mean , but because you can't deal with their definitions and instead point to a different meaning, you go and call foul? Please!!!

The FIRST topic the moderator asks in the video is on definitions. After referring to a statement in the essay where Gelernter commented on what Darwin could explain in relation to small changes vs big ones, is: "Start by convincing me, ..., that you are not just defining the term "species" to Darwin's disadvantage". Gelernters response:

quote:

---

There really is very little disagreement on the issue of what a species is and I think it doesn't have to be a technical term. I think virtually any alert child knows when he passes from one species of pet creature to another species or, what do [you have], a cat, a cow or a sheep or something like that, this is part of our innate view of the universe. Nobody wants to define anything to Darwin's disadvantage."

---

I would obviously disagree with him that there is little disagreement on what a species is, or the need (in your case) to provide a technical term. But from the essay and the video, and even from what Darwin meant in his "Origin of the Species", it is clear we're talking about creatures that are very different in form and type - probably minimally on the taxonomic level of Genus or Family. And since they are also referencing animals from the Cambrian Explosion, with animals with new body plans suddenly appearing, it should be clear the distinctions they are talking about. And as for the method of changes, they are clearly dealing with Darwinian/Neo-Darwinian processes. There is no misdirection or misinformation at all.

If you don't want to or can't deal with talking about Darwinian processes, that is your problem. If you think there are some other things in the "all known evolutionary processes" wheelhouse to explain things, then you have to specify it. The essay and video has been clear on what they are talking about. You have not.

And this criticism doesn't address: Message 19 writes:...

which standard of speciation was:

message 19 writes: Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.

which is reproductive isolation. If that is the standard, then the items in your list, 5.2-5.8 are not examples of speciation because they are not examples of reproductive isolation.

My point is your list doesn't fulfill it's claims based on its own standards.

Thus....

The point is that biologists have recognized speciation in a multitude of instances.

... might be a true statement, but you haven't demonstrated this yet with the exception of a few plants. Which is why I said:

All the other examples in your list I would not consider speciation, since the reproductive isolation has not been established in those examples.

Again, I think that speciation can occur, depending on your definition. But by the examples given so far, even when it does, the results are trivial at best and do not demonstrate much of anything to crow about. They certainly do nothing to demonstrate or explain the origin of large-scale biological change. And some BIOLOGISTS agree with me:

quote:

---

Theodosius Dobzhansky:
"Reproductive isolation evidently can arise with little or no morphological differentiation."

"we are in a situation today similar to that experienced by Darwin more than a century ago: differentiation of species is inferred from copious indirect evidence, but has not actually been observed.”

---

quote:

---

Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan:
"Speciation, whether in the remote Galápagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced.”

---

quote:

---

University of Bristol bacteriologist - Alan H. Linton:
"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. . . . Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [e.g., bacterial] to eukaryotic [e.g., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms"

---

It is fabricated because it hasn't been empirically tested. It is a fabrication of the assumptions Axe makes.

No, the results were determined via empirical testing. Experiments were done.

Now if you are saying that nobody has done 10^77 tests to determine the number, that would be true. But doing that many tests isn't the point. the 10^77 was inferred based on empirical results, and it has always just been called an estimate.

....we can see if any of those antibodies have B-lactamase activity, the function that Axe says can only occur once in every 1x10^77 combinations.

But that was not his claim. You are not properly understanding (or are just arguing a strawman) to what Axe was claiming. So your statement ends up being irrelevant.

In a library of 2 x 10^9 random peptides they were able to find 5 of those random peptides that had B-lactamase activity, well below the number given by Axe. Even if we look past all of the problems with Axe's mathematical model, reality shows us that Axe is wrong by many orders of magnitude.

Again, you are failing to understand what Axe was saying. His claim was NOT saying that finding peptides that have B-lactamase activity is 1 in 10^77. Besides, in your statement, "random" is a bit misleading, because the experiment did not use wholly "random" peptides. They were constrained in the same protein family. Nonetheless, that has little relation to Axe's claim.

You don't like Axe? Then how about other experiments that provide a roughly comparable conclusion.

Reidhaar-Olson and Sauer 1990 (Functionally acceptable substitutions in two alpha-helical regions of lambda repressor) - 1 x 10^63 sequences yielded a functional repressor fold

Yockey 1977 (A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory) - likelyhood of functional cytochrome c sequence is 10^65

Hayashi et al. 2006 (Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space) - Getting the wild-type function of the g3p minor coat protein of the fd phage takes rougly 10^70 trials.

My point being that you must know all the possibilities before you can estimate the possibilities. If you assume a limited number of possibilities and your model fails to reflect reality, then reality is not the problem -- the model is the problem, the assumption/s in the model are the problem.

For my die answer, within your parameters, I acknowledge my answer was limited. I was assuming the standard 6-sided die in a pair.

But I'm failing to see your bigger point. You seem to claim there is a problem with the model with regards to the math spoken of in the video and essay, but you haven't specified what that problem is. So, state your parameters that indicated an incorrect model.

RAZD writes: The bigger point is quite simple: when you make (mistaken) assumptions about the possibilities your are limiting your answers to a (mistaken) subset of actual probabilities. Those assumptions should be part of the answer.

Understood. But you do not seem to realize that what amounts to the "assumptions" that you are complaining about. That info is already baked into the problem that Gelernter was talking about.

But first, lets go back to your dice examples. You populated charts up to 20 sided dice for commonly used dice, but you messed up your math according to your model.

If you'll notice, for any pair of dice where the # of sides on each die is 6 or greater, the number of 7s possible is 6. It doesn't matter if you roll two 6-sided dice, or two 100-sided dice, or any combination of 6to100-sided dice - rolling a pair of dice will always allow 6 possibilities of getting a 7. Now of course, your best odds are with two 6-sided dice. Any die used with sides greater than 6-sided will reduce your odds of getting a 7, cause there is still only 6 successes of all possibilities per one roll.

If you understand that, you may see where you made a mistake. Again, regardless of the die sizes, with your model the question was "what is the probability that I will throw/roll a seven in one try". You broke down the odds with various die combinations, but then you ADDED those probabilities together to get a new probability that reflected multiple tries, not just one as per your model. So the odds of getting a 7 in one try is not "26 out of 660", nor is it "78 out of 1580 possibilities, or about 1 in 20". The best odds you can get are 1 in 6. If you say, had a pair of 150-sided die, then getting a 7 would be less than 3 in 10000.

There are only 4 numbers discussed in the video (a remarkable paucity for a "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution" don't you think?): the number of amino acids (20), the number of possible working proteins (1 in 10^77 will result in a functional fold), the possibility of getting a "right" 150 amino acid "string of beads" (20^150 = 1.4 x 10^195), and the number of atoms in the universe (number not given, just the comment that it is less than 20^150 = 1.4 x 10^195)

Well, there are more numbers than that discussed in the video, which you might know if you actually watched it, but if you are just referring to the issue of the proteins, those are sufficient. Though I must point out that your description is off. The 20^150 = 1.4 x 10^195 number refers to the possible number of combinations for a 150 AA protein, it is not a determination of what is "right". For the purpose of defining 'right', that would be the 1 in 10^77 number among all the possible combinations.

This should be a big red flag. They are all (except for the number of amino acids used), WAG (wild ass guess) assumptions, bald assertions or outright falsehoods.

So you assert, but you still haven't given any support or specifics for that allegation.

As I've already shown in Message 51, the 20^150 = 1.4 x 10^195 calculation is wrong, badly, grossly wrong, because it only uses one of the worst possible ways to assemble 150 amino acids, one by one in order.

What is wrong is your understanding of what is being talked about. You simply are not getting it.

They are talking about a 150 AA protein. Not a 20 AA protein, not a 100 AA protein, nor a 149 AA protein. 150! Got it?

Now using their illustration. If you are making a necklace of 150 beads (not 149, nor 98, nor 32, nor any other # of beads....) and for each bead you can choose any one of 20 different types of beads, the total possible, number of different necklaces that can be made are 20^150 = 1.4 x 10^195. That's it, and that is indesputable. No other criteria are being applied.

We're not talking about whether one puts the necklace together one bead at a time, or a handful of 12 beads in a clump are added at a time (or any other combination of assembly), or if the bead-thread is sticky and long enough to dump in a bead bucket and come out with 150 attached - that all doesnt matter. There is no 'better' or "worse" way to assemble it. The assembly method is irrelevant.

Question for you: why was a 150 amino acid string protein chosen? Consider that the first life would be the simplest, using the simplest molecules. As noted in Message 51 the smallest known protein is made with only 20 amino acids. Why choose a much more complex protein than necessary if the argument is that it's formation has a low probability?

If you don't know whay a 150 AA protein was used, then go check the essay and or video again.
And the reason it was chosen has nothing to do with whether there are smaller proteins of less complexity, because the formation of the proteins is not at issue.

RAZD writes: Okay, let's say they are talking about major change instead of speciation. Whatever "major change" means, because it is irrelevant to biology. Biology develops changes via speciation -- becoming different species, then evolving separately, diverging, adding change to previous changes.

Funny, you interpret it as, in your words, "major changes", then you go on to attack what are in your words: "major changes". Are you setting up a strawman?

Nonetheless, major shifts or differences in organisms is definitely something in biology, otherwise the whole classification system is irrelevant.

(1) so they are talking about speciation?

No. YOU are talking about speciation, and using a specific standard that YOU got from a reference YOU chose and that YOU then waffle on description-wise later. The video is talking about differences in species, but not with the same manner you got from some posting. If you actually watch the video and/or read his essay, you should be able to figure out what Gelernter is talking about.

nope. I need to use what actual biologists use. Anything else would be spreading misinformation.

So let's see. You (supposedly) watch a video where the participants are discussing a subject in a context and with definitions that is acceptable to all those involved. But YOU, holding to a different definition of subjects and want a different context, are now going to critique the discussion (which you were not involved in) based on YOUR different definitions. Umm, ya, that's fair.

And when it comes to the definitions, even you do not seem to be consistent on what you are talking about. For defining species, in prior posts you have mentioned at least 3 different definitions. You then link to a article that itself lists at least 8 different definitions (discusses 4 of those), and in it's beginning statements on defining species says:

quote:

---

"This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community"
and
"There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists"

---

So since you are so in tune with what "actual biologists use", which one is it?

Message 19 writes: Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community. which is reproductive isolation. ... Not necessarily. A reproductive community is composed of the individuals that happen to reproduce, as opposed to all the individuals that are capable of reproduction. This definition actually works better for single cell organisms. Consider horses and donkeys. They -- to use the rather childish definition in the video -- are readily recognized as different species, yet they can interbreed.

You're making a distinction without a difference.
Even so, from the article you posted, it is pretty clear that the BSC is referring to reproductive isolation. It quotes Ernst Mayr definition as: "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups", and Dobzhansky making a similar statement. Two of the papers cited in the article also echo the same sentiments.
And yet, such a definition of species does not imply any significant biological change has taken place between the two populations are the outcome.
As for horses and donkeys, if you want to stick to the BSC, then they would not qualify as different species, would they. So you would be using yet another definition there.

Curiously I see biologists handing out new species names, and I trust them more than non-biologists.

Clearly a non-sequitur. You failed to address the point that most all the examples in your posted and quoted article do not even fulfill the standard that it sets (reproductive isolation) for new species.

And yet "species" are designated for things unrelated to reproduction. How else do you think they designate species based on fossils? Nowadays, genetic differences are probably the main way classifications are done at a species level. There really is no clear standard yet, and it is subject to a lot of preference by whomever is doing the classifying.

Speciation is an opportunity for divergence in evolutionary paths for reproductive communities, breeding populations. That divergence is manifest in change, increasing differences between daughter populations.

Nice story, but you still have to demonstrate it.

But I'm failing to see your bigger point. You seem to claim there is a problem with the model with regards to the math spoken of in the video and essay, but you haven't specified what that problem is. So, state your parameters that indicated an incorrect model. The bigger problem for the video is that it is a poorly choreographed dog and pony show and the pony never showed up.

Really? That's your answer?

Edited by WookieeB, : combining response posts