Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9032 total)
45 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Post Volume: Total: 884,809 Year: 2,455/14,102 Month: 120/703 Week: 99/272 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
RAZD
Member (Idle past 257 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 294 (844515)
12-01-2018 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Porkncheese
11-30-2018 7:06 PM


Another fail from the get go
Some were unsatisfied with the presentation of the evolutionary tree of the previous artist
This is an Aboriginal artists impression of evolution

Which is just as meaningless a representation of the ToE as the last one. You appear to excel at picking bad examples at this point, and learned nothing about this in the previous thread.

If you think this represents the ToE, then we have a problem: you are not attacking the ToE but a pale empty false straw-man that is wrong. Beating that up is meaningless ... because it is NOT the ToE.

DNA molecule. Coded information

Goody, now we get Intelligent Design misinformation ...

The human body has about 37.2 trillion cells each of which contains a DNA molecule) ...

The question is how common or rare are advantageous functional sequences among the possible combinations of the DNA code? The answer is 1x10^77. ...

Reference to this study by scientist Doug Axe who calculateddd the probability of 1x10^77
Https://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

Curiously Dr Axe is talking about folds in the proteins not sequences.

More of interest is that calculations like this require assumptions and premises that have to be validated for valid conclusions.

Let me ask you a question: I have two dice in my hand: what is the probability that I will throw a 7? Before you can calculate the probabilities you have to know all the possibilities.

Big number probabilities from IDologists are notorious for faulty incomplete assumptions, be careful if you can’t replicate the calculations and validate the assumptions. Try looking up PRATTs before using them.

The biggest mistake is usually assuming that the current arrangement is the only goal, and not one of many similar arrangements that accomplish the same function. Evolution is not goal driven, it is response feed-back driven, and if it works it is used, and when it is used then the result is what it is. It could be any one of a number of possible solutions that accomplish the survive and reproduce function of life.

You can walk from Maine to California, and the probability of using one specific path with one specific sets of footprints to get there would be astronomical ... but so are the number of paths that get there.

Look up sharpshooter fallacy.

Enjoy

References

1. the old improbable probability problem
2. Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy
3. The Probability of Life


Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : ...

Edited by RAZD, : refs

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Porkncheese, posted 11-30-2018 7:06 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 257 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 294 (844542)
12-01-2018 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
12-01-2018 1:24 PM


Re: Nicely Done First Post
Out of curiosity, what science courses are you studying?

Mechanical Engineering.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 12-01-2018 1:24 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 12-01-2018 2:45 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2018 9:40 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 257 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 10 of 294 (844545)
12-01-2018 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Phat
12-01-2018 2:45 PM


Re: Nicely Done First Post
No Phat, he is a mechanical engineering student.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 12-01-2018 2:45 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 12-01-2018 3:08 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 257 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 54 of 294 (844783)
12-05-2018 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by JoeT
12-04-2018 4:30 PM


It is rare that following a recipe results in a new dish.
... While we took some science courses in school and my job does involve using scientific principals, engineering is not science. ...

I like to say that science is the art\process of understanding the diversity of the universe

Engineering is the art\process of making practical use of scientific knowledge.

Using science procedures to , for example, test samples of steel to ensure they are within design specification means using science procedures, but it doesn't make engineering A science.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by JoeT, posted 12-04-2018 4:30 PM JoeT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Diomedes, posted 12-05-2018 11:58 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 257 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 76 of 294 (845178)
12-12-2018 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Pressie
12-10-2018 6:02 AM


I think that Porkncheese abandoned us. ...

He's done that before.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Pressie, posted 12-10-2018 6:02 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-12-2018 10:45 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 257 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 251 of 294 (848772)
02-14-2019 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by WookieeB
02-14-2019 12:34 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
Hi Wookie, welcome to the fray,

Design" is at best an undetected and probably undetectable detail in standard biological evolutionary theory.

No. Design would be detectable, or at least inferred from the data. Standard evolutionary theory would not be the mechanism for bringing about many of nature's features.

How do you know that?

Please see Is ID properly pursued? -- an old thread but still valid methinks.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by WookieeB, posted 02-14-2019 12:34 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by AZPaul3, posted 02-14-2019 7:34 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 254 by WookieeB, posted 02-21-2019 3:17 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 257 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 267 of 294 (849064)
02-23-2019 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by WookieeB
02-21-2019 3:17 PM


problems with detecting design
Thanks WookieeB,

Please see Is ID properly pursued? -- an old thread but still valid methinks.

Yes, an old thread. From the OP, I can say there are some parts that I agree with, but I also was finding some things that are badly mis-characterized. On the whole, unfortunately, since I was finding many of the axioms put forward are not true, it ends up being a flawed argument.

And yet neither you nor anyone else on that thread actually identifies any mis-characterising or axioms that are not true. It is facile to make a criticism without substantiating it. I'd be happy to discuss it further on that thread if you actually have an argument.

If you are asking about how "Design would be detectable", it is a technique that is used in other scientific endeavors. Information theory has a big hand in it, but design detection is used in Archaeology, Forensics, Crytography, search endeavors like SETI, and in many historical sciences.

Where we have known examples of things created by humans to compare them to. We have no examples of anything created by an IDr to use for comparisons. Appealing to information theory has other problems, such as definition of information and ways to actually measure it.

If you are asking about what Standard evolutionary theory can produce? It can produce some things very easily, but they are usually small changes that correspond to minor phenotypic traits, what is often referred to as micro-evolution. This is demonstrable, has an empirical justification, and ID doesnt dispute this kind of natural change.

And yet "microevolution" is the only mechanism of change used in the study of biology and evolution. I can walk across the room and I can walk from Maine to California: one is micro-trekking the other is macro trekking, but the process - putting one foot after the other, even if it is not on a direct path - is the same. This is demonstrable, has an empirical justification, and doesn't need ID to accomplish or justify it.

There are other features though that would be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, for it to produce. Things that would be considered irreducibly complex would rarely, if ever, be able to be formed. ...

And yet we have evidence of evolution producing such systems. Not one such system proposed by IDolgists has stood up to testing. See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments for an example where a purported irreducibly complex function evolved.

... Things like new body plans ...

Please define what you mean by a "new body plan" so that we may discuss this further and be on the same page.

As far as I can see all quadrupeds have the same body plan with modification via microevolution, and we can see it's origin in Tiktaalik. This does not seem to be a real problem for evolution for the development of diversity in the biological world.

... and regulatory networks. ...

Again, please define what you mean by a "(new) regulatory network so that we can discuss this further and be on the same page.

Similar argument that this is not a problem for evolution. Perhaps you can elucidate more what you mean?

... Anything that require an measure of complex and specified information ...

SO how do you actually measure that, something you obviously need to be able to do in order to make this assertion anything more than an empty claim: what is your metric?

... have never been demonstrated to be formed via a random process, ...

Nothing in the known biological world has been demonstrated to be incapable of being formed via evolution. Perhaps you have an example?

... but in all cases where we do have knowledge of the origins, it has always been by a mind, intelligence. M + NS are just not up to the task of producing such things.

A bland assertion. Can you provide and example of an instance where evolution is not up to the task?

The BIG problem for ID is nested hierarchies:

Why do modified features in the evolution of species fall into nested hierarchies if design is involved? As a designer myself I can say that design elements are frequently borrowed from one system to another, which would show up in cross-fertilization from one line of descent to another and not in nested hierarchies.

For instance the eye. Mammal eyes use a lens that can be flexed to change the focal length to make images focus on a fixed retina. The Cephalopod eyes use a fixed lens and a flexible eye/retina to change the position of the retina to put images in focus. A design eye could combine these two mechanisms to make a zoom lens eye that could see microscopic items (bacteria) and telescopic items (planets) with equal clarity, but such an eye does not exist in any biological species known.

There is no known evidence of borrowed features.

Instead of borrowed features, what we see is convergent evolution: the flying squirrel and the sugar-glider for one of many examples.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added

Edited by RAZD, : clarity


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by WookieeB, posted 02-21-2019 3:17 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by WookieeB, posted 02-26-2019 5:33 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 257 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 294 of 294 (849228)
02-28-2019 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by WookieeB
02-26-2019 5:33 PM


Re: problems with detecting design
I'll try to be brief to keep this from exploding ...

Touchy! You ask me to look at a LONG thread from like 15 years ago and with 10 years of comments on it. Then when I simply state I have some issues with the premises, you castigate me for not immediately detailing them in a somewhat unrelated thread?

Sorry I only expected you to deal with the initial post, should have been more specific. What I see is that you seem to be having the "kaleidoscope problem" when you see design everywhere:

quote:
The search for the evidence of design must be done by those with the most capable trained "eyes" free of constrained perspectives - the most open and complete knowledge of the physical workings of the universe and all it contains ... matter, energy, life. Anything less will likely lead to mistakes or a lack of understanding to see the actual fingerprints of design.

Without as complete a base of knowledge as possible we could be looking at a watch with the mind of a frog, or we could be like a child, bemused by a kaleidoscope of pattern when there is none ... we could be unable to properly observe and evaluate the evidence before us.


Italics added for emphasis.

This fixation on living things is the same. Any designed thing should (obviously) be able to display the characteristics of design, and that thing would be distinct in some properties from non-designed things (again obviously). The only thing that is unique for humans in this endeavor is that we are the only available thing that is able to rationally identify the differences. But what designed a thing is a distinctly different question as to whether or not a thing is designed. ID aims to address only the latter.

Actually not obvious at all, as noted in the "kaleidoscope problem" -- if you are applying belief confirmation bias your results are biased. Observing known designs (from crow tools to whale bubble nets) involves knowing and understanding the sources of these designs, not in just looking at the end results, because there are no common design elements that say they are designed.

Ahh, but if you want to analogize your micro-trekking and macro-trekking to evolution, they are very different animals.

For one, evolution doesn't have a target. When you start from a point in your room, you cannot specify ahead of time a successful journey target, even if such a successful journey would take you to the other end of the room. Same applies to a trek across the US. You could not pre-specify that getting to CA from Maine is a successful trip, even if that happens to be true.

The analogy is to show how one, macro, is just an accumulation of the other, micro, not to be a perfect analogy of evolution.

Evolution has been compared to a drunken walk, and yes it has no target, but it does build up to the point that species have recognizably changed (which is what scientific macro evolution is). This has been observed to occur and thus it is factual, and not some untested hypothesis.

Unfortunately, the numbers for macro-evolution appear to be much worse than your trekking across the US.

An assertion like this without substantiating evidence is worthless babble. What numbers? What paradigm are these numbers based on? How is it measured and quantified?

Operative word is "purported" Turns out it isn't all that impressive as to evolving IC.https://www.discovery.org/a/441/
I listed some of the systems proposed by ID in another thread. You mean those haven't stood up to testing? Really?!? Where?

Indeed, I know of no IDologist's purported IC system that stands up to testing for being incapable to evolve. Your link to respond has also been refuted by Kenneth Miller. Look further than confirmation bias sites.

Body plans comprise the specific arrangements of specialized organs and tissues.
For networks, things like developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs) that control the timing and expression of pre-existing genes during animal development.

All easy for evolution to explain:

And Tiktaalik isn't such a great example anymore, since tetrapod tracks were discovered that are 20 million years older than Tiktaalik.

The timing is irrelevant, what is relevant is the development of the quadraped body plan from the fish body plan, which is why it is easy for evolution to explain new body plans without resorting to ID interaction/s.

No, design elements would not have to be done via cross-fertilization. Unless you are assuming evolution is the method, there is no reason why that would have to be so.

The issue is that such cross-fertilization would show definite design that would differentiate it from evolution: if you don't have any test that differentiates design from evolution then you have an unnecessary embellishment and not a testable differentiation hypothesis (see Occam's Razor), again with apparent confirmation bias and kaleidoscope eyes.

I doubt this. If it was viable, I'm not sure why we don't have human inventions that do this. ...

Actually we do have human inventions that do this, they are called zoom lenses for cameras and binoculars, which is why I use it as an example of a designed eye.

... Any design has to take into account certain trade-offs. You can't do everything equally well at the same time or via the same mechanisms.

Why not if design is involved?

Evolution exquisitely explains why each system is stuck within the nested hierarchy where they evolved, unable to cross-over to appear in an organism from a different nested hierarchy, and also why elements that are "good enough" are seen rather than optimized elements. Design should also seek to optimize rather than make do.

As mentioned by Tanypteryx (Message 286) you might also want to look at Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... particularly Investigator: Eye's Silly Design for a different viewpoint.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by WookieeB, posted 02-26-2019 5:33 PM WookieeB 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 © 2021