Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (9005 total)
31 online now:
PaulK, Son Goku, Tangle (3 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,189 Year: 12,937/23,288 Month: 662/1,527 Week: 101/240 Day: 0/29 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7920
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 20 of 293 (803499)
03-31-2017 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by forexhr
03-31-2017 3:26 AM


forexhr writes:

Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?

Why do you say that evolution is a secular argument?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 3:26 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7920
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 62 of 293 (803828)
04-05-2017 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by forexhr
04-05-2017 8:37 AM


Re: Back to the same mistake
forexhr writes:

It is irrelevant how evolution works. Evolution is just a name for a human mental construct. What is relevant is to refute my claim that evolutionary resources are insufficient to extract functional bio-structures from clusters of particles.

It is irrelevant how a car works. Car is just a name for a human mental construct. What is relevant is to refute my claim that resources are insufficient to extract functional engineering structures from clusters of particles.

And yet it was done.

Perhaps there's something you're missing?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 8:37 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 9:37 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7920
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 185 of 293 (804864)
04-13-2017 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by forexhr
04-13-2017 3:19 PM


Forexhr writes:

My objections mean that in evolutionary programing, targets are a priori selected by intelligent agents. Without this information about the search space structure evolutionary programing does no better than blind search.

You've just explained why you're wrong. Well done.

Evolution is not searching for a target. Nor would it know one if it was. It is indeed blind, but it isn't searching.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by forexhr, posted 04-13-2017 3:19 PM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 2:13 AM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7920
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 191 of 293 (804922)
04-14-2017 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by forexhr
04-14-2017 2:13 AM


forexhr writes:

WOW, you also don't know how evolution works. Evolution is ALWAYS searching for a target. Whatever the environment looks like, in order to adapt to it, evolution MUST find a solution.

Utter crap and the reason why everybody is telling you you're wrong. Evolution is not a thinking process, it does not search or have a target. Evolution doesn't have to do anything. The most likely event in a change of environment is death. You're making a basic error in thinking a particular outcome could be expected.

It is really mind blowing that people who argue for evolution exhibit lack of knowledge about the first precondition for adaptation to a specific environment - evolution MUST find a solution to cope with this environment. This is other words means - evolution must search for a TARGET.

Repeating it doesn't make it any less crappy. There is no target, there is only a random change in a gene that may or may not help an organism in a particular situation. You are committing the sharp-shooter fallacy by looking in hindsight at an outcome and trying to calculate the odds of it happening. That fact is, it didn't have to happen at all or not in that way.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 2:13 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 7:06 AM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7920
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 197 of 293 (804930)
04-14-2017 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by forexhr
04-14-2017 7:06 AM


forexhr writes:

Unbelievable, after I gave you clear examples that adapting to an environment means targeting a specific solution you still deny that evolution process must find a target. Since you cannot comprehend something so simple, it is no wonder you are left with nothing except standard evolutionary magic phrases. Just like flat earthers who repeat their mantras in defiance of all evidence.

You're looking at a whale and saying that the odds it being that way are infinitessimal. This is wrong-headed. It's the equivalent of looking at all the cards in a deck dealt one after another and saying that the chances of that being that way are infinissimal. The cards didn't need to fall that way - we'd still be looking at a deck of cards no matter what order they were dealt. The whale did not have to look like it does today for evolution to have happened. As Percy says, the haystack is stuffed full of needles.

And of course your biggest problem is that we know that as far as evolution overall in concerned p=1, because we have vast quantities of evidence that demonstrates it beyond reasonable doubt. We know empirically that you are wrong.

You're trying to prove statistically that the earth is flat whilst we're all here looking at a round ball from space. Good luck with that.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 7:06 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 10:15 AM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7920
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 202 of 293 (804937)
04-14-2017 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by forexhr
04-14-2017 10:15 AM


Forexhr writes:

Besides being uneducated about evolution and biology,

Well I do have to admit it was only my first degree that was in Zoology.....

when the cards are being dealt it is necessary to get some distribution of cards.

Correct.

Probability on the other hand, is the measure of the likeliness of being dealt specific cards that you specified before dealing.

Also correct

In the context of evolution, you need to get specific distribution of nucleotides in the DNA in order to cope with specific environmental conditions. Any distribution will not work. That is why we calculate probabilities in the first place. Please do yourself a favor and go educate yourself.

And this is where you go wrong.

You've just looked at the outcome of a particular organism produced by evolution and claimed it's probability is x, an outrageous number. Just like you would look at the dealt deck and claim its probability as impossible. However, we both know the probability is 1. Because we're looking at them.

Unlike cards, there are not only and always 52; as far as evolution is concerned there are an infinite number of cards and any outcome at all except death will do.

As you have no idea how many survival outcomes there are, you can not predict their probabilities.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 10:15 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 12:32 PM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7920
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 204 of 293 (804957)
04-14-2017 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by forexhr
04-14-2017 12:32 PM


forexhr writes:

Besides being uneducated about evolution, biology and mathematics, you've shown yourself to be just as inept with logic.

And you're a dickhead. Should we stop with the insults do you think or do you really need them in lieu of an argument?

An already dealt deck of cards doesn't have probability because probability is calculated by dividing the number of favorable outcomes by the number of total possible outcomes.

Wahey, he's getting it!

If nobody defined favorable outcomes before dealing that it is impossible to calculate probability.

I'm holding my breath....

On the other hand, favorable outcomes of a particular organism were defined by the environment - favorable outcomes were DNA arrangements that contained information to cope with a given environmental condition while the total possible outcomes were total possible DNA arrangements.

....oh dear, blown it again.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by forexhr, posted 04-14-2017 12:32 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7920
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 230 of 293 (805371)
04-18-2017 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by forexhr
04-18-2017 8:51 AM


What a pile of illogical, unreasonable and unreasoned nonsense.

Ignoring all the rest of that garbage, ”The evironment is a 3D shape” has to be one of the most bizarrely bonkers statements posted on these boards.

Why don't you waste you time trying to show that the mutation of the peppered moth isn't a 3D shape that can happen instead of all this pseudo-mathematical bullshit with no empirical or even theoretical grounding?

You know, look at a real example of a real mutation causing a real beneficial change in a real organism which made it a better fit to its environment.

We're all looking at a flying bee here, it's hard to tell us that it can't fly.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by forexhr, posted 04-18-2017 8:51 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by forexhr, posted 04-18-2017 10:06 AM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7920
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 236 of 293 (805383)
04-18-2017 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by forexhr
04-18-2017 10:06 AM


Right, despite being the poster child for old fashioned Darwinian evolution? Descent with medication with environmental change creating the selection pressure for survival of the fittest.

Nothing in that might fit a definition of evolution? Did you ever read any evolution theory?

The color variation in the peppered moth is an instance of phenotypic plasticity - a pre-programmed feature of an organism.

You're out of date sir. The colour change was caused by a mutation. It was not gene plasticity.

quote:
Discovering the mutational events that fuel adaptation to environmental change remains an important challenge for evolutionary biology. The classroom example of a visible evolutionary response is industrial melanism in the peppered moth (Biston betularia): the replacement, during the Industrial Revolution, of the common pale typica form by a previously unknown black (carbonaria) form, driven by the interaction between bird predation and coal pollution1. The carbonaria locus has been coarsely localized to a 200-kilobase region, but the specific identity and nature of the sequence difference controlling the carbonaria–typica polymorphism, and the gene it influences, are unknown2. Here we show that the mutation event giving rise to industrial melanism in Britain was the insertion of a large, tandemly repeated, transposable element into the first intron of the gene cortex. Statistical inference based on the distribution of recombined carbonaria haplotypes indicates that this transposition event occurred around 1819, consistent with the historical record. We have begun to dissect the mode of action of the carbonaria transposable element by showing that it increases the abundance of a cortex transcript, the protein product of which plays an important role in cell-cycle regulation, during early wing disc development. Our findings fill a substantial knowledge gap in the iconic example of microevolutionary change, adding a further layer of insight into the mechanism of adaptation in response to natural selection. The discovery that the mutation itself is a transposable element will stimulate further debate about the importance of ‘jumping genes’ as a source of major phenotypic novelty.

http://www.nature.com/...al/v534/n7605/full/nature17951.html


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by forexhr, posted 04-18-2017 10:06 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by forexhr, posted 04-18-2017 11:11 AM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7920
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 240 of 293 (805400)
04-18-2017 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by forexhr
04-18-2017 11:11 AM


forexhr writes:

How do you know that the mutation was not non-random(pre-programmed)?

Now you're really grasping at straws - that paper deals with e.coli bacteria not a sexually reproducing macro-organism.

You will also note that the moth's mutation placed a transposon in a place not associated with pigmentation - a properly random event.

Until you come up with your paper on pre-programmed randomness in Biston betularia, it remains what it is - a random mutation leading to evolutionary change.

(The concept of non-random randomness is quite cute though. It implies a genetic function evolved to create change and enhance an organisms ability to evolve.)

quote:
Once there was a final shortlist of 87 DNA differences between the black and pale lab moths, he and his colleagues tested whether each variation, one by one, was present in the wider variety of white moths found in the wild.
"After a long time we eventually managed to get down to a single one, which then had to be the causal mutation. To our surprise, it also turned out to be a rather unusual type of mutation."
The carbonaria mutation was in fact a "jumping" piece of DNA, called a transposon, which had inserted itself into a gene called cortex.
These odd sequences more often have a damaging effect when they disrupt an existing gene. But for one embryonic moth in the early 19th Century, when these extra 9,000 bases landed in its cortex gene, they were in fact the secret to success.
Exactly how the mutation causes black colouring remains a mystery; cortex is not a gene with any known role in pigmentation.

And... what does randomness or non-randomness of shape modification have to do with my argument about the lack of resources?

It was an attempt to get you to deal with real world evolution and away from your fantasy numbers.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by forexhr, posted 04-18-2017 11:11 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by forexhr, posted 04-18-2017 12:41 PM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7920
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 242 of 293 (805425)
04-18-2017 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by forexhr
04-18-2017 12:41 PM


forexhr writes:

That paper deals with non-random nature of mutations and not with differences between various life forms. You are the one grasping at straws.

So now you're behaving like a typical disingenuous creationist cherry picker. The paper actually tells you that.....

quote:
....it may not be practical to extrapolate very much from an asexually reproducing species such as E. coli to organisms that reproduce sexually.

And Stumpf warns that because bacteria live in such large populations, their evolution in aggregate may be more predictable than that of larger, more dispersed species.


Transposon was placed in an intron of the cortex gene.

It was a mutation in the cortex that changed the colour of the moth period. It's just too bad that you find it incovenient.

Transposons have nothing to do with neither randomness nor evolution.

And the mutation was random and affected the evolution of the moth. Weird huh?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by forexhr, posted 04-18-2017 12:41 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7920
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 280 of 293 (805848)
04-21-2017 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by forexhr
04-21-2017 6:03 AM


forexhr writes:

In this thread, I proved that there haven't been enough resources in the history of life to find these 3D shapes.

I love this creationist trope. It's repeated by The loonytunes Davidjay and the sadly deluded Faith, here daily. Despite your ideas being debunked and proven wanting by everyone here from every level of argument from logic to molecular genetics using the very papers you site. You declare victory.

It's both amusing and sad.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by forexhr, posted 04-21-2017 6:03 AM forexhr 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 © 2020