Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
32 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK, vimesey (3 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,468 Year: 18,504/19,786 Month: 924/1,705 Week: 176/518 Day: 0/50 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight
Percy
Member
Posts: 18870
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 181 of 265 (500697)
03-01-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Buzsaw
03-01-2009 10:26 AM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Hi Buz,

Incredible that after all your time here you still don't understand how evolution works.

What you're looking for with the 25 die is an analogy with evolution. If you insist on a scenario that requires that one die is thrown once and must come up 6 otherwise you lose and there's no point throwing the next die, then that isn't analogous to evolution.

If you insist on a scenario that requires throwing all 25 die at once and requiring them all to come up 6, then that isn't analogous to evolution, either. Evolution proceeds in small steps of a mutation here, then a few generations later a mutation there. Large numbers of simultaneous mutations causing macro evolution in a single generation is not evolution, it's a miracle.

Let's say there's a population of finches that reproduces for generation after generation until one finch experiences a mutation that gives it a longer beak that gives it a survival/reproduction advantage. That's equivalent to throwing one die over and over and over again until it comes up 6.

The mutation is passed on offspring who pass it on to their offspring who pass it on to their offspring and so on and on (equivalent to throwing the next die many times but it never comes up 6), until in one generation a descendant experiences a mutation that gives it an even longer beak that gives it an even greater survival/reproduction advantage. That's equivalent to many throws of the next die until it comes up 6.

You're approach seems to be this: "If you can't explain something to me clearly enough for me to understand it, then you're wrong." Which is, of course, ridiculous. In other words, the only thing you're proving here is that after all these years, you still don't understand how evolution works, and so you're still offering nonsensical disproofs.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Buzsaw, posted 03-01-2009 10:26 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by dwise1, posted 03-02-2009 12:09 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 185 by Buzsaw, posted 03-02-2009 11:54 PM Percy has responded

  
RCS
Member (Idle past 892 days)
Posts: 48
From: Delhi, Delhi, India
Joined: 07-04-2007


Message 182 of 265 (500713)
03-02-2009 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Larni
01-20-2009 8:12 AM


Kind of points to your god of choice being too dumb to give us this tremendous advantage.

This god himself did not have infrared vision. Reason why he was searching for Adam/Eve in Eden by calling for them.

Again, instead of asking Cain the whereabouts of Abel, he should have located him on his own. If Abel was alive, would he not be giving out infra red radiations?

Edited by RCS, : corrected grammar


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 01-20-2009 8:12 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Larni, posted 03-02-2009 7:05 AM RCS has responded

Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 183 of 265 (500724)
03-02-2009 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by RCS
03-02-2009 2:25 AM


This god himself did not have infrared vision.

I thought the Yahweh was omniscient?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by RCS, posted 03-02-2009 2:25 AM RCS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by RCS, posted 12-24-2009 1:48 AM Larni has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3768
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 184 of 265 (500768)
03-02-2009 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Percy
03-01-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Dawkins' Weasel (Blind Watchmaker, Chapter 3) demonstrates this difference between the cumulative selection method that is modeled on evolution and the single-step selection method of the false and misleading caricature of rolling 25 die and having them all come up with 6 each and every generation. Two completely different math models there.

When I worked out the math of Weasel (which I had named MONKEY after the Eddington quote), the probability of success for the single-step selection model was so abysmally small that I estimated that it would have taken my then Norton-Factor-2 PC (ie, IBM XT clone that ran a 8MHz 8086) more than 20 times the age of the universe (the old-age of about 14 billion, rather than the YEC age of 10,000) of running continuously to finally have a 1-in-a-million chance of success. The cumulative selection model succeeded consistently in less than a minute or two (within a few seconds now with the more powerful PCs of 20 years later).

Doing the math, the probability of the single-step selection method did indeed prove abysmally small. However, the cumulative selection model's probability (calculated with Markovian chains) would always converge towards 100%.

My interpretation for this is that for cumulative selection to fail, every single offspring of every single generation would have to fail*. That would be like throwing hundreds or thousands of die and have them all come up with a failing number, generation after generation. The probability of such failure in cumulative selection is even more lower than the probability of success in single-step selection.

And of course, the real advantage of cumulative selection over single-step selection is that cumulative selection is actually modeled on evolution, whereas single-step selection has nothing at all to do with evolution. Which I guess is why creationists continue to use single-step-selection arguments and refuse to go anywhere near cumulative selection.

{* FOOTNOTE:
In this model, the most fit offspring was the one most similar to the target, for which in MONKEY I had chosen the alphabet in alphabetical order. Each generation, the most fit offspring could either advance, slide back, or remain the same. Each of those outcomes would have its own probability, which would change as the population approached the target -- ie, the closer it got to the targe, the less probable it became to advance and more probable to back-slide. Success would be advancing and failure would be back-sliding.}

Edited by dwise1, : Translated the Norton Factor for the young; Peter Norton's utilities would rate a computer's speed by how many times faster it ran than a 4.7 MHz "true-blue" IBM PC XT.

Edited by dwise1, : minor clean-up


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Percy, posted 03-01-2009 5:57 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 265 (500899)
03-02-2009 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Percy
03-01-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Percy writes:

Incredible that after all your time here you still don't understand how evolution works.

What you're looking for with the 25 die is an analogy with evolution. If you insist on a scenario that requires that one die is thrown once and must come up 6 otherwise you lose and there's no point throwing the next die, then that isn't analogous to evolution.

My apologies for taking so long to respond. I've been doing other things.

I understand the process of evolution. I failed to read Coyote carefully before my responses. I mistakenly took the analogy as an odds game. My bad for carelessness.

However, I'm not sure I understand the analogy as being a good one, especially for the the genesis era of evolution when simple organisms allegedly progressed to become more complex. The early processes would have been far more unlikely to be complex positive than, say, your finch analogy.

It would seem that in the early stages of evolution the dice analogy would not work so well. Saving up the dice sixes would be no problem whereas the survival of the early organism/s until the process of reproduction got underway would have been difficult. Then from there, a whole lot of random natural complexity positives would have been necessary to continually advance the evolution process.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Percy, posted 03-01-2009 5:57 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Percy, posted 03-03-2009 8:20 AM Buzsaw has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18870
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 186 of 265 (500908)
03-03-2009 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Buzsaw
03-02-2009 11:54 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Buzsaw writes:

I understand the process of evolution.

Even you must know this isn't true.

It would seem that in the early stages of evolution the dice analogy would not work so well.

Are you saying that evolution was different in principle for early life? If that's what you're saying, can you describe for us how it was different? Please don't waste everyone's time and make things up off the top of your head again - research and think through your answer this time.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Buzsaw, posted 03-02-2009 11:54 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Buzsaw, posted 03-03-2009 4:51 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 265 (500975)
03-03-2009 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Percy
03-03-2009 8:20 AM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Percy writes:

Are you saying that evolution was different in principle for early life? If that's what you're saying, can you describe for us how it was different? Please don't waste everyone's time and make things up off the top of your head again - research and think through your answer this time.

1. It would be the same in principle, but until the ability to reproduce and until genetic information was evolved, logically, natural selection would have been less unlikely in the primitive era of evolution.

2. I woke up in the wee hours this AM and lay in bed thinking about the problems with Coyote's analogy model. Perhaps this would be for another thread, but I see some reasons why the dice analogy does not fit the evolution model.

a. The dice are intelligently designed cubes with symmetric dimensions so as for all available options to have an equal chance of coming up.

b. The dice each have only six possibilities as intelligently determined.

c. Intelligent design of the designer of the dice and the work of the intelligent dice thrower/manager is needed to throw the dice, to
save the sixes up for the next throw and to determine how many dice to throw for each round.

d. The number of options are predetermined and set by the intelligent manager of the dice.

None of the above would apply to random natural processes, i.e. evolution. In short, the dice are intelligently designed to guarantee all sixes eventually accumulating to fulfill the designer's goal of all sixes which would not be the case with either abiogenesis or evolution.

Another possible (I say possible) problem with the dice analogy might be that with evolution all of the dices would need to be thrown each time with all previous sixes coming up in each subsequent throw. Why? Because with each new generation of the organism, the new generation (as per dice throw/evolution analogy) would need the ability to randomly save the previous evolutionary advancement/s of the organism.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Percy, posted 03-03-2009 8:20 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2009 5:47 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 198 by Blue Jay, posted 03-03-2009 8:28 PM Buzsaw has responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6658
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 188 of 265 (500987)
03-03-2009 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Buzsaw
03-03-2009 4:51 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Why? Because with each new generation of the organism, the new generation (as per dice throw/evolution analogy) would need the ability to randomly save the previous evolutionary advancement/s of the organism.

That is a rough idea of how evolution works. Very rough.

The offspring of the creature with the mutation would not revert back to the grandsire non-mutation.

That would be plain silly.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Buzsaw, posted 03-03-2009 4:51 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Buzsaw, posted 03-03-2009 6:17 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 265 (500997)
03-03-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Theodoric
03-03-2009 5:47 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Theodoric writes:

That is a rough idea of how evolution works. Very rough.

The offspring of the creature with the mutation would not revert back to the grandsire non-mutation.

That would be plain silly.

Do I understand correctly then, that you agree with me that Coyote's dice analogy which does not randomly save/accumulate the sixes previously thrown is a poor analogy in that the dice process requires intelligence?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2009 5:47 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2009 6:24 PM Buzsaw has responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6658
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 190 of 265 (500999)
03-03-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Buzsaw
03-03-2009 6:17 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
NO. Not at all.

The analogy works quite well as an analogy. I was pointing out that your logic is quite faulty. Or it may just be your refusal to try to understand what the Theory of Evolution actually means.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Buzsaw, posted 03-03-2009 6:17 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Buzsaw, posted 03-03-2009 6:43 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 265 (501008)
03-03-2009 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Theodoric
03-03-2009 6:24 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Theodoric writes:

NO. Not at all.
The analogy works quite well as an analogy. I was pointing out that your logic is quite faulty. Or it may just be your refusal to try to understand what the Theory of Evolution actually means.

How does a totally designed and planned intelligent design analogy model a random and undesigned event?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2009 6:24 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2009 6:48 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 193 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2009 6:51 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 194 by Coyote, posted 03-03-2009 7:03 PM Buzsaw has responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6658
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 192 of 265 (501013)
03-03-2009 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Buzsaw
03-03-2009 6:43 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
The results of the throwing of the dice are RANDOM. That is the analogy. The analogy is not the dice, it is the results. It could be anything, but dice are things people can imagine. Thus it is an ANALOGY.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Buzsaw, posted 03-03-2009 6:43 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Buzsaw, posted 03-03-2009 7:58 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 193 of 265 (501016)
03-03-2009 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Buzsaw
03-03-2009 6:43 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
How does a totally designed and planned intelligent design analogy model a random and undesigned event?

Buz - The dice model is an anology for selection not intelligence.

Surely after all these years you have grasped that much.......?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Buzsaw, posted 03-03-2009 6:43 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Buzsaw, posted 03-03-2009 8:21 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 194 of 265 (501022)
03-03-2009 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Buzsaw
03-03-2009 6:43 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Theodoric writes:

NO. Not at all.
The analogy works quite well as an analogy. I was pointing out that your logic is quite faulty. Or it may just be your refusal to try to understand what the Theory of Evolution actually means.

How does a totally designed and planned intelligent design analogy model a random and undesigned event?


Selection pressure is what gives you the changes for the next roll of the dice.

Look at it as those organisms that succeeded (the sixes) didn't get eaten (the other numbers).

An analogy or a model is a simplification of a system; it does not purport to duplicate that system. It often isolates particular variables that they may be more readily studied. To nitpick the exact correspondence of the model to the system, as you seem to do when you disagree with the results of the model, is not very productive. Nor does it necessarily argue against the model.

The whole point of the dice model I presented was to illustrate two different ways of looking at odds in biology. It seems you are unable or unwilling to see how this applies to mathematicians modeling evolution.

"Belief gets in the way of learning."

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Buzsaw, posted 03-03-2009 6:43 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Buzsaw, posted 03-03-2009 8:08 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 265 (501033)
03-03-2009 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Theodoric
03-03-2009 6:48 PM


Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design
Theodoric writes:

The results of the throwing of the dice are RANDOM. That is the analogy. The analogy is not the dice, it is the results. It could be anything, but dice are things people can imagine. Thus it is an ANALOGY.

I think it's a poor cheater analogy. Did you bother reading the four reasons why? Please respond to my four reasons.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2009 6:48 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019