Discussion for AronRa and OFNF exclusive thread

[Rumraket]

I've already asked you, what the heck you mean by "prove"? What I've shortly described above is the best it is possible to offer using science. If you want more, go somewhere else. No one here is in the business of offering certainty.

Just provide objective evidence that shows that complex things can “evolve” by Darwinian mechanisms.

That has already been done.

You never responded to my post about your "complexity" equation. Why is that, dandan? Really?

If Darwinism is not certainly true, then why shouldn’t teacher teach the controversy?

Nothing in science is certainly true, that doesn't mean every opposing viewpoint merits equal time in science class. There is no controversy about evolution outside of conservative religious institutions, a lack of absolute certainty does not imply there is either.

You see the problem is that evolutionists typically compare the “theory” of evolution with other true theories like atomic theory, gravity, relativity, germ theory etc.

That's not a problem, because evolution has just as much evidence in support of it. The real problem here is that you fail to understand how the logic of that evidence works.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that other scientific theories are "certain" or at least, more certain than the theory of evolution. Prove it. Give us the actual numbers.

If you what to say that evolution has the same level of certainty than any other of those theories the list you can show is objective and falsifiable evidence.

I have. The evidence offered is both objective and falsifiable. You seem to be mixing up your terms here. Evidence can be both objective and falsifiable without entailing absolute certainty about what that evidence implies. No scientific theory is absolutely certain.

If you can´t then you should expect and tolerate skepticism.

You can be skeptical about everything you please and I will tolerate it, that doesn't mean you're being rational in your skepticism. On a related note, accepting atomic theory, or the germ theory of disease but rejecting evolution is to have a double standard. Either that, or you simply don't understand how the how the logic of the evidence for the theory of evolution works.

If I ask a “relativist” to prove that gravity alters space and time, I am sure he would provide a testable model that proves with near 100% certainty his claim.

Near 100% certainty? How near is "near 100% certainty"? 98%, 99.9%, 99.9999999% ??

why can´t you do the same

Do what, provide a testable model that "proves with near 100% certainty". What does that even mean?

You have already been given the models and the statistics of phylogenetic inferences at least 6 times in this thread. You have given exactly ZERO responses.

, or simply admit that evoluton is not a scientific theory?

Because that would be diametrically opposite to demonstrable fact. Evolution is a falsifiable scientific theory (as the above links all testify), that explains an extremely large data set.

 

[AronRa]

ARONRA

No, as I already explained, the Osnabrück study did list the mutations with regard to the necessary changes in structure, but they were only discussing the assembly of the structure itself. They identified those mutations by the ubiquitous genes and the variations in the genome that were recorded, but they didn't identify the type of mutations involved, nor the mechanics of how each mutation prompted the specific changes described. That's why I added the 2nd citation from Upstate Medical, because their study does talk about the type of mutations and not so much about the incidental chemistry or the architecture. You should take both studies together for a more complete picture.

Ok, Do any of the other papers that you presented show the mutations required to evovle an ATP Motor, from a simpler system?

That's why I added the 2nd citation from Upstate Medical, because their study does talk about the type of mutations and not so much about the incidental chemistry or the architecture. You should take both studies together for a more complete picture.

Do you have problems with reading comprehension? That's the nice thing about talking to you, dandan. I don't have to say anything new; I can just copy-and-paste what I already told you. Because you have the curious habit of asking questions after they've already been answered.

 

[dandan]

RUMRAKETThat has already been done.

You never responded to my post about your "complexity" equation. Why is that, dandan? Really?

Do you honestly think that your bacteria experiment proves that eyes evolved (or could have evolved) by Darwinian mechanisms? Don´t you think you require additional evidence?

In the experiment is not like multiple codependent systems evolved from a simpler basic system

Besides one of the conclusions of the experiment was that selection plays a more important role than drift, so in any case your world view is in conflict the conclusions of the paper.

I believe neutral theory is superior to selectionism. I don't see how there could be any doubt about what my thoughts were on that subject at this stage, but whatever

So are you a neutralist or a selectionists

AN other interesting conclusion was that natural selection was selecting low mutations rates and rejecting high mutation rates, ¿remember when I said that mutations degradate genomes? Isen´t is funny that your own sources confirm my statements?

Besides how do you solve this paradox? If natural selection selects low mutations rates, and life is 3.6B years old, shouldn’t mutations be eradicated from the genome long ago? Why do we still have mutations?



I already told you what I mean by complexity (low entropy) you are just nitpicking, if you don´t what to call it complexity don´t call it complexity, you can provide an other name.

Nothing in science is certainly true, that doesn't mean every opposing viewpoint merits equal time in science class. There is no controversy about evolution outside of conservative religious institutions, a lack of absolute certainty does not imply there is either.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that other scientific theories are "certain" or at least, more certain than the theory of evolution. Prove it. Give us the actual numbers.

But you are making the positive claim; you are the one who is saying that evolution is comparable to scientific theories in terms of certainty and amount of evidence. You are the one who has to provide his testable and falsifiable evidence.



Talking specifically about the eye, you are the one who makes the positive assertion that Darwinian mechanisms build the eye, so provide your testable and falsifiable evidence, provide your statistical model that includes all the variables that you think are relevant like natural selection, mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift etc.

I have. The evidence offered is both objective and falsifiable. You seem to be mixing up your terms here. Evidence can be both objective and falsifiable without entailing absolute certainty about what that evidence implies. No scientific theory is absolutely certain.

And please stop posting random articles, the talkorigins article that you quoted has absolutely NOTHING to do with the evolution of the eye, nor the evolution of complex systems.

I will have a debate with Inferno about phalogenetics, if he mentions that article I will adress it,

 

[dandan]

ARONRA

That's why I added the 2nd citation from Upstate Medical, because their study does talk about the type of mutations and not so much about the incidental chemistry or the architecture. You should take both studies together for a more complete picture.

Do you have problems with reading comprehension? That's the nice thing about talking to you, dandan. I don't have to say anything new; I can just copy-and-paste what I already told you. Because you have the curious habit of asking questions after they've already been answered.

So talking the Upstate Medical article, can you please explain in what sentence(s) paragraph(s) does the author meniones the mutations that would have had to take place to build an ATP Motor form simpler basal systems?

I read the paper and all I saw was an explanation of how one variant of a fully formed ATP motor “evolved” in to a different variant of another fully formed ATP Motor. But I never found an explanation of how an ATP motor evolved from a simpler system, and the authors had no intention of proving such thing.

 

[scalyblue]

The analogy isn't that one individual will win the lottery 100 times in a row. It is that the lottery shall be won on a regular basis. By anybody. If only one drawing is made a day, three and a half billion years gives us 1,278,350,000,000 drawings. Even if only %0.0000005707 ( Current powerball win chance ) of those are winners it is still over 7000 winners ( Not simulated, just divided ), and given that there are hundreds, if not thousands of "drawings" every time a cell divides, and the probability is much, much better than winning the powerball for getting a neutral or beneficial mutation, because it isn't a damned random drawing with a simple win:lose ratio.

ok so provide your statistical considering all the variables that you mentioned

You fail at reading comprehension forever. It's clear that you either can't comprehend your own argument well enough to understand when it's been refuted, or you are being intellectually dishonest.

Don't hurt yourself dragging that goalpost around.

 

[Rumraket]

RUMRAKETThat has already been done.

You never responded to my post about your "complexity" equation. Why is that, dandan? Really?

Do you honestly think that your bacteria experiment proves that eyes evolved (or could have evolved) by Darwinian mechanisms?

What? How the fuck can you even say that at this stage?

We have been over this now at least 5 goddamn times. HOW ABOUT YOU START READING?

http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=157960#p157960

The problem that I have is your logic “Bacteria where capable of using citric acid by Darwinian therefore eyes evolved by Darwinian evolution”

Where the hell did you extract that statement? You really don't get much about my position it seems.

The experiment with bacteria evolving anaerobic citrate metabolism cements a number of things, that:
1. The evolutionary process really happens, because:
2. Mutations happen
3. Those mutations affect physiology, biochemistry and behavior of carriers, creating variation
4. That variation is subject to genetic drift and natural selection.
5. The long-term result of this process is diversification.
6. That diversity can be sorted into multiple nested hierarchies with a high degree of congruence, which recapitulates the evolutionary history of the individual organisms.

I don't conclude simply because of this, that "therefore eyes evolved by Darwinian evolution".

However, it does imply that, If some organ found in multiple species evolved from a common ancestor, we should be able to arrange the attributes of the organ and the associated genes into similar such nested hierarchical arrangements and trace it's evolutionary history.

I conclude that eyes evolved because of the massive congruence of the multiple nested hierarchical arrangements of genetic, morphological and developmental attributes of organisms with eyes. Because, just like everything else, eyes are heritable organs subject to variation and encoded in genes, which are subject to all the same basic effects listed above. It is simply the best supported and simplest explanation allowed by the evidence. </I>

<I>
Let me go even further here. I'm not making a deductive argument at all, I'm making an inference to the best evidentially supported explanation. Do you get this?

You're leaving out that the evolutionary process predicts nested hierarchies in genetics and morphology. You're leaving out that we have confirmed these predictions. You're leaving out that we have different organisms showing eye morphologies that fit with what could have been different stages in the development of eyes like ours. That, in combination with our models of population genetics fitting with the phylogenies from comparative genetics, is what allows us to infer that the structures we see in living organisms are most probably due to the evolutionary process.

I'm getting tired of reading you getting the basics of the logic behind this wrong every time.

How the fuck can you keep failing to comprehend this?

 

[Rumraket]

In the experiment is not like multiple codependent systems evolved from a simpler basic system

False. A gene duplication spawned a copy of the citrate transporter protein and put it under control of an already existing promoter, which allowed utilization of critate as a energy source under aerobic conditions. This system is now more complex than the antecedent system, it has more parts that need to be present to function in it's additional roles.

Besides one of the conclusions of the experiment was that selection plays a more important role than drift, so in any case your world view is in conflict the conclusions of the paper.

Where the hell did you extract that conclusion? Show me.

I believe neutral theory is superior to selectionism. I don't see how there could be any doubt about what my thoughts were on that subject at this stage, but whatever

So are you a neutralist or a selectionists

Can you read?

AN other interesting conclusion was that natural selection was selecting low mutations rates and rejecting high mutation rates, ¿remember when I said that mutations degradate genomes? Isen´t is funny that your own sources confirm my statements?

Diametrically opposite to demonstrable fact. A mutator phenotype that boosted the mutation rate almost a hundred fold, evolved at approximately generation 35.000 and persisted in the population following that.

Are you seriously, like, reading the thing backwards for something? How do you extract these ludicrous conclusions?

Besides how do you solve this paradox? If natural selection selects low mutations rates, and life is 3.6B years old, shouldn’t mutations be eradicated from the genome long ago? Why do we still have mutations?

Easy, low mutation rate =/= zero mutation rate. Mutations is what allows a population to adapt to changing conditions instead of going extinct, so would actually be required for life to persist. Done.

There was no actual paradox there.

I already told you what I mean by complexity (low entropy) you are just nitpicking, if you don´t what to call it complexity don´t call it complexity, you can provide an other name.

I'm not nitpicking, I demonstrated by example why your "entropy" calculation is counter intuitive and functionally useless. That's not nitpicking, that is direct refutation.

Nothing in science is certainly true, that doesn't mean every opposing viewpoint merits equal time in science class. There is no controversy about evolution outside of conservative religious institutions, a lack of absolute certainty does not imply there is either.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that other scientific theories are "certain" or at least, more certain than the theory of evolution. Prove it. Give us the actual numbers.

But you are making the positive claim; you are the one who is saying that evolution is comparable to scientific theories in terms of certainty and amount of evidence. You are the one who has to provide his testable and falsifiable evidence.

I already have multiple times.

Here it is again:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html
A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry
Douglas L. Theobald

Abstract
Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory1. As first suggested by Darwin2, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past3, 4, 5, 6. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to ‘local’ common ancestry—for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life—and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing7, 8, 9, 10, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope1, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Furthermore, several researchers have proposed that early life was characterized by rampant horizontal gene transfer, leading some to question the monophyly of life11, 14, 15. Here I provide the first, to my knowledge, formal, fundamental test of UCA, without assuming that sequence similarity implies genetic kinship. I test UCA by applying model selection theory5, 16, 17 to molecular phylogenies, focusing on a set of ubiquitously conserved proteins that are proposed to be orthologous. Among a wide range of biological models involving the independent ancestry of major taxonomic groups, the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life.

As written on Panda's Thumb about this one:

Theobald’s enormous probability that life did not have a common ancestor is misquoted (understated by 180 orders of magnitude) by both National Geographic and PZ. The odds are 10 to the 2,860th power in favor according to the paper (not 10^(2,680) as reported with the 6 and 8 transposed—a mistaken difference of 10^180, itself much larger than the so-called Borel’s Law). Theobald’s paper itself:

According to a standard objective Bayesian interpretation of the model selection criteria, the scores are the log odds of the hypotheses. Therefore, UCA is at least 10^(2,860) times more probable than the closest competing hypothesis. Notably, UCA is the most accurate and the most parsimonious hypothesis.
Humorously, Theobald also includes in Table 1 on page 220 the hypothesis that all life except animals and humans have a common ancestor—essentially a test of Genesis 1:20–27. According to the figures reported in Theobald’s paper, the odds of animals arising by separately as in Genesis 1:20 are one in 10 to the 5,264th power, and the odds of humans arising separately as in Genesis 1:27 are one in 10 to the 6,105th power.

The numbers all come from Table 1, “Class I hypothesis of single versus multiple ancestries” on page 220, in the column ΔAIC, the natural log-likelihood of the probability minus the total number of parameters in the model. Just convert to base 10 these base e likelihoods comparing the common ancestry “ABE” hypothesis to the other noncommon hypotheses:

“AE+B” hypothesis (most likely uncommon ancestry): 10^(–2,860) = 10^(–6,586/log(10))

“ABE(–M)+M” hypothesis (common ancestry, except animals): 10^(–5,264) = 10^(–12,120/log(10))

“ABE(–H)+H” hypothesis (common ancestry, except humans): 10^(–6,105) = 10^(–14,057/log(10))

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0069924
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences
W. Timothy J. White, Bojian Zhong, David Penny

Abstract

We demonstrate quantitatively that, as predicted by evolutionary theory, sequences of homologous proteins from different species converge as we go further and further back in time. The converse, a non-evolutionary model can be expressed as probabilities, and the test works for chloroplast, nuclear and mitochondrial sequences, as well as for sequences that diverged at different time depths. Even on our conservative test, the probability that chance could produce the observed levels of ancestral convergence for just one of the eight datasets of 51 proteins is ≈1×10[sup]−19[/sup] and combined over 8 datasets is ≈1×10[sup]−132[/sup]. By comparison, there are about 10[sup]80[/sup] protons in the universe, hence the probability that the sequences could have been produced by a process involving unrelated ancestral sequences is about 10[sup]50[/sup] lower than picking, among all protons, the same proton at random twice in a row. A non-evolutionary control model shows no convergence, and only a small number of parameters are required to account for the observations. It is time that that researchers insisted that doubters put up testable alternatives to evolution.

Talking specifically about the eye, you are the one who makes the positive assertion that Darwinian mechanisms build the eye...

*facepalm*

Actually I'm making the positive assertion that of all the competing models working from observed mechanisms, the evolutionary model is the best evidentially supported. The evidence for this has already been provided, no more is needed to rationally justify belief in the proposition.

I have. The evidence offered is both objective and falsifiable. You seem to be mixing up your terms here. Evidence can be both objective and falsifiable without entailing absolute certainty about what that evidence implies. No scientific theory is absolutely certain.

And please stop posting random articles, the talkorigins article that you quoted has absolutely NOTHING to do with the evolution of the eye, nor the evolution of complex systems.

Horseshit, the talkorigins article deals specifically with the theory of evolution, the evidence in favor and possible avenues of falsification. You asked for evidence and means of falsification, so It is manifestly relevant.

I will have a debate with Inferno about phalogenetics, if he mentions that article I will adress it,

Maybe you should have one on Phallos genetics? :lol:

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

But that can be tested, we can objectively calculate the chances for somebody to win the lottery, we know how many probabilistic resources we have. There are statistical models that show ho9w likely is it to win the lottery.

And so there are statistical models that can show that it is unlikely for a genome to across multiple generations.

Let's put in some numbers.
Lets say s population of about 1000 organisms mutation rate 5% (i.e. a couple orders of magnitude less frequent than the average 100), and for simplification lets say that there can only be neutral or deadly mutations, and its it is about 50/50 each.
To simplify even further lets see what happens to those who have deadly mutations, if about 2.5% have deadly mutations it would mean that out of a 1000, 25 would die. this 25 will have to be replaced by remaining 975. Since we decided not to make any distinction between those with neutral mutation and those without, so any of them are equally likely to replace them. So lets make the replacement representative of the population, i.e. the ratio of the replaced between those with mutation and those without is the same as the ratio of the rest of the population.
So it means that in terms of ratio between those with mutations and those without per succession isn't changed by the fact that there are those with detrimental mutation.
So we only have to keep track of those with mutation and those without.
So if we have X individuals without mutation and Y individuals with a mutation, the expected value of the subsequent generation will be equal to
Those without mutation: E(X_+1) = X (1 - Pm)
Those with mutation: E(Y_+1) = Y + XPm
Where Pm is the probability of mutation, in this case 2.5.
So now the only thing left is to crank up the numbers and the expected value per generation is as follows:

G: 0
X: 1000
Y: 0

G: 1
X: 975
Y: 25

G: 2
X: 951
Y: 49
...
G:10
X: 776
Y: 224
...
G: 40
X: 363
Y: 637
...

G: 100
X: 102
Y: 898
...

G: 200
X: 6
Y: 994

By generation 270 there is less than 0.1% for any individual to have the original genome. If we were to raise the probability of mutation to 20% then the number of generation drop to a merely 62, if we change it to 50% the number of generation is 24.
And I am just talking neutral with very very small chance for an organism to develop a single mutation (let alone 100), because if we are going to consider beneficial mutation, that spread faster than other types of genome. By Generation 300 it is almost impossible for that population to be the same.
This is what the probabilities look like if we demolish the fallacy that evolution has a specific goal.

So please provide your statistical model considering all the variables that you mentioned like natural selection.

Then I would have to tell you to go to a fucking take a career in biology. Because this sort of complete statistical models are the sort of thing that doctoral thesis are made of. I am not a biologist, nor do I intend to spend months on a biology thesis just for a random troll on the internet.

But let me instead give you this:

However for any practical purpose we know that it is impossible to win the lottery 100 times in a row. If someone wins the lottery 100 times in a row, then fraud (intelligent design) would be the best explanation.
An individual winning the lottery 100 times in a row is as unlikely as any other combinations of 100 individuals winning the lottery one time each. However design will still be the best explanation for winning the lottery 100 times in a row.

You are forgetting a very important detail. That living things reproduce.
So if a specific mutation is very improbable like 1 in a million, and that this mutation gives a reproductive advantage over the others, in a population of about a 1000 it would take about 1000 generations before any individual is capable of getting this. But here is what happens when they do get it, when before there was only 1 individual, on the next generation now there is 2, and on the next there is 4 and so on.
Where by generation 1000 you had the equivalent of a 1 to 1 million lottery ticket drawn 1 million times, by generation 1002 you have the equivalent of the same lottery drawn 4 million times.
Lets say that by generation 1200 50% of the population has this mutation, now you have a configuration that is 500 million to 1 against, which is equivalent to 500 million lottery tickets with a 1 to 1 million odds against, there is just one problem to, there only has ever been 1 million 200 thousand individuals over all the generations. Now if we add another 1 to 1 million odd mutation on top of this, by generation 3000, you would have a configuration that is 5000 billion to 1 against and yet only 3 million individuals ever total.

As an analogy lets say that each extraction is a generation, that each mutation is a guy with a lottery ticket and life is a lottery with a 1 in a million odds against.
You fail to consider how natural selection and reproduction is not like a lottery, and you fallen flat in the trap of survival biased.
Because those who fail to win the lottery get eliminated and those who win get keep playing. And those who get to keep playing will have clones of themselves, all of those clones considered automatically winners. Think of it as if the participants of the next extraction were winners taken from a "parallel universe". And now that you have a million winners you get to take another lottery ticket. This is how you win 100 lotteries in a row. Because the winners get to copy themselves, which is identical to just taking the lottery winner from an otherwise identical parallel universe into this one and then repeat, and behind each 1 winner of a round there the equivalent of a million participants, and per each participant is a winner of the previous round which itself represent another million other participants each. And this while you are only capable of seeing the participants extraction that occurs in one Universe per extraction.
So it is irrelevant that winning the lottery 100 times in a row is a million million million million..... to 1 odds against, because behind the winner of this lottery, there is the equivalent of a million million million million..... other participants that never were.

And in case you haven't noticed in this analysis I have committed the fallacy that there is supposed to be a goal to evolution. Account for that and you now multiple winning tickets per extraction. And with that, your argument that is "just to unlikely" doesn't look to be in such a good shape any more (if you consider being blasted into oblivion is a shape).

 

[dandan]

RURAKET

Abstract
Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory1. As first suggested by Darwin2, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past3, 4, 5, 6. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to ‘local’ common ancestry—for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life—and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing7, 8, 9, 10, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope1, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Furthermore, several researchers have proposed that early life was characterized by rampant horizontal gene transfer, leading some to question the monophyly of life11, 14, 15. Here I provide the first, to my knowledge, formal, fundamental test of UCA, without assuming that sequence similarity implies genetic kinship. I test UCA by applying model selection theory5, 16, 17 to molecular phylogenies, focusing on a set of ubiquitously conserved proteins that are proposed to be orthologous. Among a wide range of biological models involving the independent ancestry of major taxonomic groups, the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life.

You do understand my frustration right? I am asking for evidence that the eye was build by Darwinian mechanisms and you are posting articles that are completely unrelated to the topic, as I said before, for the sake of this particular discussion we are assuming that common ancestry is true

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

You do understand my frustration right? I am asking for evidence that the eye was build by Darwinian mechanisms and you are posting articles that are completely unrelated to the topic, as I said before, for the sake of this particular discussion we are assuming that common ancestry is true

Actually no. You have been asking if evolution can build an eye, not that it did. Only now you are asking the right question, which that it did.
But I commend you for having at least learned the difference.

 

[dandan]

Master_Ghost_Knight

And so there are statistical models that can show that it is unlikely for a genome to across multiple generations.

Let's put in some numbers.
Lets say s population of about 1000 organisms mutation rate 5% (i.e. a couple orders of magnitude less frequent than the average 100), and for simplification lets say that there can only be neutral or deadly mutations, and its it is about 50/50 each.
To simplify even further lets see what happens to those who have deadly mutations, if about 2.5% have deadly mutations it would mean that out of a 1000, 25 would die. this 25 will have to be replaced by remaining 975. Since we decided not to make any distinction between those with neutral mutation and those without, so any of them are equally likely to replace them. So lets make the replacement representative of the population, i.e. the ratio of the replaced between those with mutation and those without is the same as the ratio of the rest of the population.
So it means that in terms of ratio between those with mutations and those without per succession isn't changed by the fact that there are those with detrimental mutation.
So we only have to keep track of those with mutation and those without.
So if we have X individuals without mutation and Y individuals with a mutation, the expected value of the subsequent generation will be equal to
Those without mutation: E(X_+1) = X (1 - Pm)
Those with mutation: E(Y_+1) = Y + XPm
Where Pm is the probability of mutation, in this case 2.5.
So now the only thing left is to crank up the numbers and the expected value per generation is as follows:

G: 0
X: 1000
Y: 0

G: 1
X: 975
Y: 25

G: 2
X: 951
Y: 49
...
G:10
X: 776
Y: 224
...
G: 40
X: 363
Y: 637
...

G: 100
X: 102
Y: 898
...

G: 200
X: 6
Y: 994

By generation 270 there is less than 0.1% for any individual to have the original genome. If we were to raise the probability of mutation to 20% then the number of generation drop to a merely 62, if we change it to 50% the number of generation is 24.
And I am just talking neutral with very very small chance for an organism to develop a single mutation (let alone 100), because if we are going to consider beneficial mutation, that spread faster than other types of genome. By Generation 300 it is almost impossible for that population to be the same.
This is what the probabilities look like if we demolish the fallacy that evolution has a specific goal.

And what is your point? Sure organisms change and mutate, and eventually nearly 100% of a given population won´t have their original genome any more.

What you have to prove with your statistical model is that mutations (ether neutral or benefitial) can accumulate and build complex stuff like the human eye.


About the lottery thing you are missing the point, I am not saying that winning the lottery is analogous to evolution, I was trying to explain the difference between a specific combination and a specified combination.

In the last 100 weeks there where 100 specific winners of a given lottery, the chances of having that exact combination of 100 winners are as small as having 1 single winner winning 100 times in a row…agree?

However if someone wins the lottery 100 times in a row, fraud (design) would be the best explanation…. agree?

However fraud (design) would not be the best explanation for a specific combination of 100 individuals winning the lottery, even though this is as unlikely as winning the lottery 100 times in a row ….agree?

I understand your logic, you are saying that the combination of mutatons required to evolve an eye, is as unlikely as any other combination, since any other combination is possible, you automatically conclude that it´s also possible to evolve an eye….¿is this your logic?

However your logic is flawed, think about this, this combination of letters (h fhuf hisao) is as unlikely as this combination of letters (I like pizza) however it would be fallacious to conclude that since both combinations are equally unlikely, and the first one was obtained by random chance, therefore the second was also a result of random chance.

I honestly encourage you to understand the concept of “specified complexity” if my explanation was not clear, please look for a better explanation in other sources.

In the blid wathc maker Dawkins explains the concept of specified complexity (but he calls it “complexity”) I encourage you to reed the book its free
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/new_work_by_richard_lenski027101.html
to understand the concept of what creationists call specified complexity, and Dawkins calls complexity start reading form this sentence:

So, what is a complex thing? How should we recognize it? In what
sense is it true to say that a watch or an airliner or an earwig or a person
is complex, but the moon is simple

?

 

[dandan]

You do understand my frustration right? I am asking for evidence that the eye was build by Darwinian mechanisms and you are posting articles that are completely unrelated to the topic, as I said before, for the sake of this particular discussion we are assuming that common ancestry is true

Actually no. You have been asking if evolution can build an eye, not that it did. Only now you are asking the right question, which that it did.
But I commend you for having at least learned the difference.

WORD GAMES

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

In the last 100 weeks there where 100 specific winners of a given lottery, the chances of having that exact combination of 100 winners are as small as having 1 single winner winning 100 times in a row…agree?

If the participant is pre-selected, then it is extremely improbable for that person to be the winner of the lottery 100 times in a row. And I grant you that it would be more likely for that person to have cheated.
But you are not pre-selecting the person, you are selecting the winner after the extraction of the lottery can claim that this specific person couldn't have won the lottery and must in fact have cheated because it is extremely unlikely for any single person to have one.
Do you understand why your argument is fallacious?

However if someone wins the lottery 100 times in a row, fraud (design) would be the best explanation…. agree?

No, because some will always eventually win the lottery. You just don't get to see everybody else that didn't.

And what is your point? Sure organisms change and mutate, and eventually nearly 100% of a given population won´t have their original genome any more.
What you have to prove with your statistical model is that mutations (ether neutral or benefitial) can accumulate and build complex stuff like the human eye.
I understand your logic, you are saying that the combination of mutatons required to evolve an eye, is as unlikely as any other combination, since any other combination is possible, you automatically conclude that it´s also possible to evolve an eye….¿is this your logic?

What I am saying is, that if we had evolved a complex system of antennas instead of eyes to see the world, then you would have been arguing how those antennas would be extremely unlikely to evolve, and how they are specifically complex. Just because the eye is very complex it doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened. You must not that reproduction and natural selection, that changes the system to have this multiplication factor as described.

However your logic is flawed, think about this, this combination of letters (h fhuf hisao) is as unlikely as this combination of letters (I like pizza) however it would be fallacious to conclude that since both combinations are equally unlikely, and the first one was obtained by random chance, therefore the second was also a result of random chance.

I honestly encourage you to understand the concept of “specified complexity” if my explanation was not clear, please look for a better explanation in other sources.

The problem is. I understand it better than you do, "specified complexity" is nothing more than just subjectively picking and choosing a specific winner forgetting all the other possible combination that is just as likely, and then saying how extremely improbable that is. It's the the same fallacy as I have just explained with the added motion of appeal to common sense.
You call an eye specified complexity because it has a meaning to you, because you have eyes. the same way you attribute a meaning to the phrase (I like pizza), the problem if you had evolved a complex system of antennas then you would say that is what you mean by specified complexity the same way as if you had a language in which the combination (h fhuf hisao), then this would be what you would call specified complexity and not (I like pizza).

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Actually no. You have been asking if evolution can build an eye, not that it did. Only now you are asking the right question, which that it did.
But I commend you for having at least learned the difference.

WORD GAMES

You think it would be a word game, but this distinction is a very important one. This is one of the reason why science has to be very careful and precise with language, and because being very precise in what you mean is very important is the reason why we insist in satelliting definitions in advance. it is not because we want to appear smart by using big words, or that we are arguing over semantics, its because those distinctions are important or else you just muddle everything and can't get anything right.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

However your logic is flawed, think about this, this combination of letters (h fhuf hisao) is as unlikely as this combination of letters (I like pizza) however it would be fallacious to conclude that since both combinations are equally unlikely, and the first one was obtained by random chance, therefore the second was also a result of random chance.

What are you basing this off of? Did you run both of those combinations of letters through the equation you provided us with?

dandan[/url]"]

S = entropy (more entropy = less complexity)

k is the Boltzmann Constant = 1.380 6504(24) X 10-23 J K-1

strage thing after LN is the number of equivalent equally probable configurations

Let see the math needed to show that “I like pizza” is indeed more unlikely than “h fhuf hisao”. I can wait.

 

[Vivre]

Hello Miracle,
I'm sorry I couldn't reply earlier, but I see you've been well provided with much supportive communication.

I'm also sorry that you used my lack of knowledge and context about Dawkin to confirm your statement by quote-mining him in your reply and thus circumventing the point I made.

Thanks to Mugnuts for providing the longer statement

Miracles4Real[/url]"]I think most people at least agree that organisms look designed.

I doubt that. First one needs to learn what design means and by what attributes it can be distinguished. Only then it is recognizable. Depending on what the premises are an organism may apear as half-baked trial.*
[sarcasm]*or even worse as 'fucked up logic'[/sarcasm] :mrgreen:

Being aware of the automatism [jumping to conclusion] is already the most important realization to free oneself from this trap. If it happens, stopp and try to figure out the various motivations that pushed the conclusion. It takes courage to train this reconsidering habit.

Being aware of it may also be a means of learning if it is or isn't a trap or if someone really is trying to tell you something.

It's a tool to get to know yourself and helps to differentiate between your own experiences with their conclusions and the adopted arguments.

I do want to clarify that I don't think morality can be said to come from culture when there are cultures which advocate immoral things like slavery for example. I agree that we can, as you said, "enhance" our moral stand. We can make it better than it was. But in relation to what? our culture? no. This intuition for what is right helps us to get closer to God's moral stand.

Whatever a culture supports (like e.g. slavery, cannibalism, rape, eating cows) will be morally smooth to them. It's you stepping on a highground to judge it as immoral. ... and if they see you standing there they might 'intuitively' find you deliciously appealing.

If you can't figure out the difference between slavery and freedom and what benefit would come from moving from the first to the later then you surely need a leader to tell you what you have to assume as to be good or bad. I'm sorry that you didn't choose Gandhi as inspiring example.

I'm asking the question by using philosophy: Is there a designer? Is science capable of answering this?
Maybe it is, but I don't think it is. I'm convinced there is a designer by using my intuition, my personal judgement- its all I have left because I have no science for this one!

You are very confused!!!
a: science is NOT answering philosophical questions
b: you assume it could and can't at the same time
c: you already have generated your fixed conclusion, but still doubt it and re-address its questioning to the wrong/inappropriate medium.

You do not want an answer.

However, if I learn that it is more likely that order in the universe actually is an emergent property, and not at all due to any kind of conscious design, then I will change my mind.

Order is no property but a descriptive state of being.
Or do you mean 'tidiness'? - which I too don't see therein.
Or do you mean 'causality'? - which also is no property.
I do not see a sing of a plan in that 'endless' mess ... not even one orbit is in a perfect state of a circle.
If some consciousness had triggered the whole proccess it didn't care for all the cruelty and devastations that came with it.

I still don't see that you want an answer.

I promise you, I value having my mind changed and learning. Everyone I've known for long enough, knows this about me. That I have changed my entire outlook many times.

That sounds all but promissing. How long does your average point of view last? Why struggle with learning something new as its half life is presumably rather short. Why bother with unsteady revision conclusions?

I'm sure it's easier to stick with self-convincing biased intuitions but to investigate why they don't comfort you.

W. v. Goethe - FAUST[/url]"]
One impulse art thou conscious of, at best;
O, never seek to know the other!

Two souls, alas! reside within my breast,
And each withdraws from, and repels, its brother.

greets ~ Vivre

 

[AronRa]

So talking the Upstate Medical article, can you please explain in what sentence(s) paragraph(s) does the author meniones the mutations that would have had to take place to build an ATP Motor form simpler basal systems?

I read the paper and all I saw was an explanation of how one variant of a fully formed ATP motor “evolved” in to a different variant of another fully formed ATP Motor. But I never found an explanation of how an ATP motor evolved from a simpler system, and the authors had no intention of proving such thing.

So even if they show a multi-stage advance in that system, if the thing they started with concerned ATP then even if it was simpler and less efficient, it still doesn't count as that. You would still call it 'fully' developed even though the paper describes that it isn't. Gotcha.

 

[Rumraket]

RURAKET

Abstract
Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory1. As first suggested by Darwin2, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past3, 4, 5, 6. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to ‘local’ common ancestry—for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life—and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing7, 8, 9, 10, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope1, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Furthermore, several researchers have proposed that early life was characterized by rampant horizontal gene transfer, leading some to question the monophyly of life11, 14, 15. Here I provide the first, to my knowledge, formal, fundamental test of UCA, without assuming that sequence similarity implies genetic kinship. I test UCA by applying model selection theory5, 16, 17 to molecular phylogenies, focusing on a set of ubiquitously conserved proteins that are proposed to be orthologous. Among a wide range of biological models involving the independent ancestry of major taxonomic groups, the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life.

You do understand my frustration right? I am asking for evidence that the eye was build by Darwinian mechanisms and you are posting articles that are completely unrelated to the topic, as I said before, for the sake of this particular discussion we are assuming that common ancestry is true

No, you asked for evidence that the theory of evolution had a comparable level of "certainty" as other scientific theories. Please learn to read and learn to remember which questions you are asking, I even included the question to which I was responding when I posted that article.

 

[Rumraket]

However your logic is flawed, think about this, this combination of letters (h fhuf hisao) is as unlikely as this combination of letters (I like pizza) however it would be fallacious to conclude that since both combinations are equally unlikely, and the first one was obtained by random chance, therefore the second was also a result of random chance.

What are you basing this off of? Did you run both of those combinations of letters through the equation you provided us with?

dandan[/url]"]

S = entropy (more entropy = less complexity)

k is the Boltzmann Constant = 1.380 6504(24) X 10-23 J K-1

strage thing after LN is the number of equivalent equally probable configurations

Let see the math needed to show that “I like pizza” is indeed more unlikely than “h fhuf hisao”. I can wait.

To be fair that is not what dandan said. He actually stated they are equiprobable, but that this should not lead us to conclude that both of them is "a result of random chance".

I agree, but it's an empty statement. He seems to think the "I like pizza" statement is somehow special just because it is something meaningful to him.

 

[dandan]

MASTER GOHOST KNIGHT

No, because some will always eventually win the lottery. You just don't get to see everybody else that didn't.

Well if someone wins the lottery 100 times in a row you wouldn´t conclude fraud (design), we obviously disagree on a very fundamental level.

Did you read the blind watch maker? Did you read at least the portion that I recommended you? Dawkins explains the concept of specified complexity, (he calls is complexity) there he explains why is the concept objective rather than subjective as you suggested.