You need to make up your mind. One moment you are talking with me like normal. Next minute you're calling me a troll or telling me to "see my way out , twat". Though that's on the other thread
John.... don't keep playing silly buggers with me.
When a person on the internet who's angry because I dared challenge their beliefs tells me they want to fuck my severely disabled 65 year old mother, then YES, that person is a TWAT.
So the onus is on you to stop being a twat. If you act like a twat, then do feel free to point your facehole towards the exit and perambulate - if you can manage to engage with good faith, then I will meet you there. But don't fucking pretend I'm the one being mercurial here.
Having said that. The mathematical impossibility of universal common ancestry.
First off. It's not like some formula that you just out in the numbers and it goes "disproven... impossible".
So you don't contend that it's mathematically impossible? Because if it WAS mathematically impossible, then yes, you would be able to pull out some numbers, plug them in, and prove (this being math, rather than science) that it's mathematically impossible - that's the entire value of mathematics.
It's more like taking the likelihood of the variables involved. Calculating the odds. Then determine the end result. It's the way I see it. And of course. I'm not claiming that I'm correct.
I asked you for the math, not explanation about what you think could possibly maybe be...
You stated "I think it's mathematically impossible for a scenario like a small land mammal became a whale." - thus, I don't think it's at all unreasonable of me to expect you to provide some math here.
What likelihood?
What variables?
What odds?
These are not just terms, they necessarily have values to be considered 'mathematics'.
The way I see it. You start with any animal. Let's use Pakicetus and whale evolution ,as most people are familiar with it. Now. A mother Pakicetus has to give birth to offspring. We must determine how often a mutation that will be beneficial in the environment will happen in the offspring.
I answered ALL of this in your other thread. In detail.
I'm not sure if you could even give this part an exact number, but I think we agree it's rare.
Rare for it to be beneficial? But it doesn't need to be beneficial. It only needs to not be detrimental. Selection will obviously reward a beneficial mutation, but neutral mutations occur all the time and are retained through drift because they're not 'seen' by evolution. In turn, those mutations offer novel opportunities for further mutations.
But regardless, we can't calculate odds without numbers, can we?
Then we must consider how many will survive to reproductive age. This again is where the odds are against.
The odds are against offspring surviving to reproductive age?
Clearly, this is only true of a species that is on its way to extinction.
Again, I addressed all of this already.
Let's say some make it.
Now , will the mutation be passed. The offspring of the survivors have a more likely chance of getting the other parent or either grandparents genes.
Untrue, just flat wrong. They have nigh on exactly 50% chance of getting either parents' genes.
Let's say the one mutation makes it through some generations. Let's say it's the one that moves the nostrils back on the snout to start to become a blowhole. It would be barely noticeable from the parents. So why would this get selected? Why would it spread throughout an entire population ?
Either because a) it confers an immediate advantage, which means that there's a strong selection pressure benefiting the possessor of that gene, or b) because it doesn't confer any disadvantage.
The first answer is the part you're referring to with respect to selection: because some is better than none.
Now we have to get more mutations to move the nostrils backwards more and more. The affected offspring must beat the odds of survival. They must beat the odds of passing it along. This has to happen over and over.
If the mutation is conferring a selection advantage, John - then definitionally, they've got superior chances to survive and reproduce, and statistically to pass on those favourable genes. That means that the gene will become MORE represented in future populations, and this process is exponential - the more offspring with the favourable gene, the more offspring they're likely to produce with those favourable genes. That's the entire point and power of selection, yet you're querying it as if positively selected genes disfavour the possessors - this is obviously wrong.
Now we have to consider the rest of the transition. Front legs to fins. Now this is a problem. I'm told that a reptile became a mammal bit a mammal can't return to a reptile.
Time only flows one way. It's nothing to do with Biology, purely Physics. A reptile is a class of animals that evolved at a specific time. A non-reptile could evolve all a suite of characteristics identical to a reptile, but still not be a reptile - it will never be a reptile - it will be another grade of organisms which are just very similar to reptiles.
So why can a fin become a limb. Then a limb CAN go back to a fin ?
A fin is a limb, a fin that became a leg can go back to being used as a fin - who said otherwise?
A whale's great-ancestor was a fish, it's slightly more proximate ancestor was a terrestrial tetrapod walking on legs. The whale's more immediate ancestors' legs began to adapt to their aquatic environment and lost their smaller appendages - the whale's fin today looks unlike a foot on the outside, but looks very much like a foot in its skeletal morphology: finger bones, but just no fingers as the flesh is all fused together.
But let's ignore that and say it can. We must consider front leg to fin, hind legs gone, hair gone, add blubber, become waterproof, increase 100's of percentage in body size and so many others.
And?
So we now must consider how many mutations, how many survivals, how many genes passed .
Are you planning to offer any numbers here at any point?
How's "10 million years"?
How's "millions of generations"?
Where's the mathematics showing that millions of generations CAN'T produce these changes?
Why does the fossil record SHOW this transition you say is impossible? How do you marry your denial with the physical evidence?
Then we add in why did this lineage get so many mutations?
Uh?
As opposed to....?
Why was each step never suitable for its environment?
?
I'm lost - we're supposedly talking about selection, which necessarily means that retained mutations are extremely beneficial to the reproductive fitness of the organism carrying it - so this would be directly opposite the idea that "each step never suitable for its environment".
Why in 50 million years do snakes change very little, but this one kept changing drastically all the time?
Who says that snakes changed very little in 50 million years? What measurements are you using?
I can show you plenty of snakes that changed dramatically in 50 million years.
Why did other land mammals living in the same environment not change ?
They did John - all of your questions are predicated on the wrong idea, so you're asking me questions that are not relevant.
This is to give you a rough idea of how I started this. I still have to get home to show you the actual numbers so far. My memory isn't that great these days.
I'm not really sure what to say - the above indicates you haven't really grasped a lot of the central concepts of evolutionary theory, so if you can be this mistaken, it's hard to understand how numbers are going to resolve anything.
But still, none of the above contains any of the mathematical proof you said you'd show, so I guess I will just wait for that.