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

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.

quote:

---

"Dog and pony show" is a colloquial term which has come to mean a highly promoted, often over-staged performance, presentation, or event designed to sway or convince opinion for political, or less often, commercial ends. Typically, the term is used in a pejorative sense to connote disdain, jocular lack of appreciation, or distrust of the message being presented or the efforts undertaken to present it.[1]

Advertisement for Prof. Gentry's Dog and Pony Show, 1900

The term was originally used in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to refer to small traveling circuses that toured through small towns and rural areas. The name derives from the common use of performing dogs and ponies as the main attractions of the events.[2] Performances were generally held in open-air arenas, such as race tracks or public spaces in localities that were too small or remote to attract larger, more elaborate performers or performances. One was called “Prof. Gentry's Famous Dog & Pony Show”, started when teenager Henry Gentry and his brothers started touring in 1886 with their act, originally entitled “Gentry’s Equine and Canine Paradox.” It started small, but evolved into a full circus show.[3] Other early dog and pony shows included Morris’ Equine and Canine Paradoxes (1883).[4]

---

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

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