Rumraket
Active Member
Hellooo, we have already been over this.dandan said:Ok, since my statistical models are wrong, please provide your own “correct” models
We already have a mathematical theory of evolution in population genetics, it deals exclusively with changes in allele frequencies in populations over generations. Since eyes are encoded by genes, and since the genomes of extant organisms contain the genes to make eyes, and since those genomes have been proved time and again to be consistent with population genetics, then we're done. You have what you have asked for, game over.
Which is why I said your posterior probabilities are irrelevant, because they allow you to conclude exactly nothing of relevance. What use is it to conclude that the probability of fixation of a neutral allele, say, is 1 in 10[sup]30[/sup] when hundreds of such mutations, all with a probability of fixation of 1 in 10[sup]30[/sup] are fixed in thousands of populations every generation?dandan said:I never meant to imply that a tornado is analogous to evolution, my intention was to demonstrate that even though some things are not 100% impossible, they are extremely unlikely and we can safely conclude that it never happened.Rumraket said:False analogy. The process of evolution it nothing like a tornado. For starters, there is no reproduction or natural selection.
This number you come up with is supposed to make us think "omg, that number is so small it seems absurd", but then the real world shows us they get fixed constantly in droves.
That means your obsession with posterior probabilities of specific events is misguided, it doesn't allow you to even IMPLY that evolution requiring some x number of mutations can't happen.