evolution calculations

But the difference of a biotic and an abiotic presentation still errs for the theorist even in the possesion of actual graphed data making it clear to me at least why there is no maths yet on the reptile mammal class jump that Dakwins denies to Gould's correct conceptual relation of current utility and nonformal necessity of PE.It all depends if a "tracing" a human invention"" is being read from the probability that the metaphysical research programme of Darwinism Does yield fairly probably results. That the final cause being put inquestion does not make the defense offensive however fails the student who wants the time to seperate out the hierarchical thermodyanmics that spans this conceptual issue divided by the history of thought on geneotypes and phenotypes with a newer hierarhically true view of the DURATION of biological change.Agai, I will have to beg off and start more work on the program to simulate some faked chemical kinetics but illustrative of what I just said nonetheless. Loudmouth gave a response to the orginal poster and I dont want to get postal here just yet nor make it too complicated when a more simple answer might have been what was specifically being requested. There is a differnce between a cycling time and the time of cycles so should a human invention not adapt this environment to the actual tracing in nature it will not be clear aposteriori if the match was in the first manifestation but a mimic or polymorphic statistic. this starts the evophilosophy up all over again to the determent of the objection but the subject of final cause would have been found TO remand some utility currently thought nonnecssary by the present DIFFERNCE atomically (in two senses) of genetic outlays.

quote:

---

With your background and grounding in math, can you tell me which is larger, 3 or a few?

---

They are loosely equivalent."3" is a concrete number while "a few" is a colloquial estimation. They can not be compared in a quantitative manner.

It gets even more interesting. Can you point out where in the full text or abstract of the linked article it even mentions beneficial mutations?From the content of the linked article how can we determine how many beneficial mutations there were?The statement made is frankly, false and misleading on several levels.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Exactly, and I haven't quite wrapped my mind around the math used to estimate what portion of mutations are deleterious. Part of it involves labeling non-coding sequence differences as neutral, and the majority of coding sequence differences deleterious.I have a problem with using this sort of logic when comparing the sequence of two different species, since we would expect to see coding sequence differences, many of them selected for or establishing species-based difference. In other words, why is it estimated that ~90% of coding sequence differences between human and chimp are harmful in humans (doesn't that make the assumption that chimp sequence is "better" than human?)In any case, these studies don't utilize functional studies to determine if sequence differences are beneficial or deleterious (or neutral).

Agreed, It goes back to the question I asked in Message 10.Calculations and formulas are fascinating and lovely to look at, but they are not reality. Nothing in either the abstract or full text of the article dealt with what is as opposed to what is estimated.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Of course, comparison of chimp DNA and human DNA will provide tremendous mathematical fodder for analyzing rates of mutations to those who presuppose that we evolved from chimps. However, to those of us who are convinced of creation, you are putting the cart before the horse. No one disagrees that mutations occur. However, mutations do not necessarily form information. I would be very impressed if an evolutionist would cite an example that identifies the specific formation of new information from mutation. Please keep the following quote in mind. From Michael Behe in the foreword to "Intelligent Design" by Dembski."If we turned a corner and saw a couple of Scrabble letters on a table that spelled AN, we would not, jsut on that basis, be able to decide if they were purposely arranged. Even thought they spelled a word, the probability of getting a short word by chance is not prohibitive. On the other hand, the probability of seeing some particular long sequence of Scrabble letters, such as NDEIRUABFDMOJHRINKE, is quite small (around one in a billion billion billion). Noentheless, if we saw that sequence lined up on a table, we would think little of it because it is not specified - it matches no recognizable pattern. But if we saw a sequence of letters that read, say, METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL, we would easily conclude that the letters were intentionally arranged that way. The sequence of letters is not only highly improable, but it also matches an intelligible English sentence. It is a product of intelligent design"I would think, if evolution is true, that it would be easy to identify "new information" by the process of mutation. Please don't answer with a historical response like, "we can calculate the difference between chimps and humans" because it presupposes what it is trying to prove. Rather, please point to research that would show meaningful information developed by mutation in a creature that is "evolving."Thanks,Saddleback

Well, it may or may not be a "fundamental issue". It IS off-topic for this thread. There are a bunch of still-open threads on the board that discuss the information question. You might want to consider reposting this in one of them. You're likely to get better answers to your statements there.Just a thought.

Oh dear, some much misinformation (pun intended) - anyone point a good thread to discuss those comments?

Of course, and no one here is arguing that analyzing sequence differences between chimps and humans stands alone as evidence for evolution. You are very off-topic for this thread, which is why you seem to think "the cart is before the horse". This thread isn't about setting the order of the cart and the horse.I and others will be happy to discuss the information issues you bring up, but in other more appropriate threads (and perhaps you could propose one yourself).Welcome to the forum - hopefully you'll stick around a while...

Mathematician William Dembski calculated that if the probability of something occurring is less than one in 10 to the 150th power, it has no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. He further estimates that the probability of evolving the first cell is no better than one in 10 to the 4,478,146 power.Thank you for your kind redirections. I will gladly repost if there is a more appropriate forum. I am attracted to this site simply because it seems there are so many evolutionists on it. As to the topic at hand, "Is there a mathematical formulation that can prove evolution", I have several thoughts. Creationists would be very impressed if evolutionists would create a mathematical model that would prove the possibility of evolution. Such a model would not conceptually appear to be very difficult to create. But it would need to show some basic steps. I propose a few just for the sake of concept to present a creationsists mindset.
1) It would need to identify what constitutes new information by mutation. As far as I know, it is only the intelligent design folks who are proposing these questions and answering it by joining the concepts of complexity and specification. (Please see my quote on the previous post.) This is what I meant by putting the cart before the horse.
2) It would need to calculate the rate at which such "informational" and "beneficial" mutation occur. "Evolution relies heavily on mutation to produce improvements in organisms through random chance. But, the evidence doesn't support this. Instead of improvements, mutations tend to show deterioration. Indeed, 99.99 percent of mutations are harmful, even lethal. As explained by Parker in his book (14, pgs. 95-104), almost every mutation we know is identified by the disease or abnormality it causes, not its benefits. For example, in humans hemophilia is a mutation of a clotting factor. Tay-Sach's Disease is apparently a mutation in the gene for producing an enzyme crucial to brain function."
3) It would need calculate how often such mutations create advantage in the species.
4) It would need to calculate how often such mutations get passed and preserved thorugh generations.
5) It would need to show the number of generations necessary to accumulate the information necessary to produce a human (the most complex creature on the planet.)
6) Finally, it would need to be defensible within approximatley a 4.6 billion year timeframe assuming a propsed evolutionary timeframe.Unless evolutionists are honestly willing to dialog with the material from creationists/IDers like Dembski and Behe, we will remain like two trains passing in the night. Creationsists are proposing such models all the time. Hugh Ross has done one as well. What have the evolutionsists done that looks at the actual rates and doesn't simply extrapolate information from differences between pre existing creatures. I hope we can keep it from being simply an "in house" evolutionist discussion.Just a "misinformed" creationsist waiting to be informed.Sincerely,Dan

Dembski's argument has some problems, notably that he has yet to full ysolve the issue of specification and the probability argument is only valid for specfied events.If Dembski really has a demonstrably correct calculation for the probability of the evolution of the first cell that would be a major achievement. I don't believe that he does (it is unlikely that ANYONE has such a a calculation and Dembski is not an expert in the relevant field). If you really want to argue otherwise then I suggest that you start a new thread.

Dembski is propsing a model by which to evaluate evolution. His numbers are his best estimate of what it would take for a cell to develop by chance. Please don't reduce your response to an "argument from authority" by questioning his credentials as it will impress only evolutionsists (Most of whom think creationist are closest to the missing link - ha). Dembski is a brilliant mathematician. In fact, his model is probably lite on the immense improbabilities since it is nearly impossible for any one person to harvest all the variables into one mathematical formula.What is the evolutionary formula to explain the possibility of evolution? What do evolutionists propose? Do they just dabble in theory or are they willing to tie some of their specicfic findings into a more unified theory concerning probability?This message has been edited by Saddleback, 02-09-2005 18:41 AM

Hi Saddleback,Just what are these probabilities on? What were the criteria used?You mention all the variables, what ones DID he use and how did he choose? What is his specific and unified theory?

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Dembski has, alas, abandoned mathematics for lunacy.You have his bound wrong ... it's supposed to be 1 in 10⁵⁰⁰. Either way it's ludicrously wrong. Get four decks of cards. Shuffle them together. Lay them out face up on the floor. The probability of the arrangement you are looking at is much less than 1 in 10⁵⁰⁰. Reflect on whether the arrangement you are looking at is possible or impossible. Reflect on whether the event you just witnessed happened by chance at any time. (Hint: the answers are "possible" and "yes", respectively.) You can witness events that you claim are impossible in your own home! Garbage in, garbage out. Nobody knows enough to calculate the probability of the first cell evolving. Dembski calculated the probability of the first cell appearing by chance (which no-one proposes as a possibility) rather than evolution (which is far more than chance). He compounded his mistake by assuming a particular way in which the cell assembled by chance instead of considering all possilbe ways, making an already wrong calculation even more wrong. (Of course, nobody knows all the ways that a cell could have assembled by chance, either).All such calculations are wrong, no matter who does them.

This research makes its calculations by comparing the genome between chimps and humans. That is great for an evoltuionsist who presupposes this relationship, but useless to convince a creationsist of the existence and frequency of beneficial mutations. For those of you who are more studied in this field, is there a way for such celluar and dna researchers to make such calculations without using such comparative presuppositions. Is the technology to examine the very foundations of information within living creatures in a comparative way there yet?