|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total) |
| |
JustTheFacts | |
Total: 883,353 Year: 999/14,102 Month: 402/597 Week: 12/168 Day: 12/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 191 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another IDology challenge -- complete with complaints of harsh treatments ... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 191 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The bigger problem for the video is that it is a poorly choreographed dog and pony show and the pony never showed up. quote: Cue the dogs dressed up as lions and tigers and elephants ... oh my. The video is a sham pretending to be a scientific discussion. NO science was discussed, no evidence was presented that showed that evolution was not able to account for the diversity of life on earth, from the fossil record to the historic record to the genetic record, or to the record of the life around us today. Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel•American•Zen•Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
WookieeB Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 122 Joined: |
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.
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.
So you assert, but you still haven't given any support or specifics for that allegation.
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
WookieeB Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 122 Joined: |
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.
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.
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: So since you are so in tune with what "actual biologists use", which one is it?
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.
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.
Nice story, but you still have to demonstrate it.
Really? That's your answer? Edited by WookieeB, : combining response posts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021