Dr Rick

The term astronomical is descriptive; an event whose probability is unlikely (approaches zero) can be said to have probabilities that are astronomical, but your use of the word was nonsensical.

Perhaps you meant to say, "The number of design options is astronomical" (astronomical can also be used to describe large numbers as well as events with low probabilities) rather than your original non sequitur?

Your terminology is still bizzare; what are "design options"? How can a "design" option be "useless garbage" unless some designer is planning trash? And if he's planning it, why is he planning something "useless"?

Continued use of idiosyncratic phrases suggests a desire to obfuscate, a common creationist tactic, but an inherently dishonest one.

At any rate, now you're posting more nonsense, referring to "design options" as arising from "random biologic variations." apparently unaware that design is not a random event.


You posted:

...a non sequitur that was a reference to evolution. This thread is about evolution, afterall; surely you weren't talking about something else.

You're disavowing the erroneous assertions you previously posted, but at least that means you are seeing some of your errors, even if you can't be honest about them.

You have changed the wording, leaving out what you originally posted which included the following phrase:

It's nice to see you have partially corrected your phrasing. You have conspicuously changed your wording to no longer include your erroneous references to selective pressure; "the universe of design options which the random biological variation must find its way through...' as you so ackwardly phrase it and characterizing them as "astronomical."

The mutations "find their way through" under selective pressures.

There's nothing "astronomical" in the description you give above.
And if I missed your point, what was it, then? Was it that mutations are astronomical or that selective pressure is astronomical, or are you going to imply that you were once more posting about something other than evolution?

Of course the experiment was conducted over a shorter period of time than evolution's course to date: most research grants run-out long before the several-hundred million years it took for some fish species to evolve into giraffes. It's useful in that it is illustrative of evolution's feasibility.

Charles Darwin

My point was that your theory requires a large amount biological variation to occur (non of which was *created* by selective pressures) in a design space with untold number of dimensions, and untold number of useless or harmful variations. And each variation is an experiment which takes a generation to test out. It may or may not become fixed, even if it is reasonably helpful. And it may require many generations to become fixed. This all for just one variation.

Selective pressures don't *create* any variation; they *fix* the variations that enhance reproduction (or atleast are not too negative). The entire design of the giraffe had to have come from your random biological variation (no, I'm not saying the *process* is random). Sorry, but that's your theory. Do you know how large the design space is? Do you know how many mutations were required? How many were neutral, negative and positive? How many were fixed vs how many were not? How many generations were required for the fixing? And finally, putting all these factors together, what exactly is the probability that this could actually happen? Notice I am laying aside entirely the question of whether a sufficiently finely-graded series of species actually exists between the fish and giraffe. In this question, I'm allowing us to swallow that whopper. I'm asking, what is the probability that this evolution could occur assuming reasonable numbers?

The problem is, we really don't know. Sure, we can assume reasonable numbers for mutation rates and fixation dynamics. But when it comes to the more difficult questions of the design space, fraction of mutations that are neutral or positive, and narrowness of the path leading to the giraffe, we really don't know the precise details. I would argue that even bounding the problem shows that we're nowhere close (ie, the probability would be very small). But since we don't have hard numbers, evolutions can appeal to ignorance. Awhile back some mathematicians pointed out this problem and they were told that since we know evolution occurred, there must be a solution to the problem.


What research grant? The point of the web page you cited is that the immune system demonstrates evolution's feasibility. The "experiments" in question here is the testing out of the binding affinity of a cell's antibody (which occur extremely fast and over a tiny design space with precisely *zero* intermediates). The page's claim is that this process demonstrates evolution's feasibility, but in fact it is nowhere close. This is ludicrous.

Muad'Dib

Who and when was this? I'd like to take a closer look.

Thanks,
Muad'Dib

Dr Rick

And what a large amount of biological variation there is! It's huge! There are literally millions of species composed of trillions of individual variations alive today, and they were preceded by many more species composed of still many more variations.

"My" theory (it's not really mine, though I wish I could take credit for it) requires accepting reality. The number of biologic variations that there were and even are now in existence is incomprehensibly large.

What is with the "design space" and "dimension" stuff? I'm not claiming that evolution occured in my living room; is the "design space" something more than that? Is it a reference to something bigger like our country, our planet, or our cosmos? Really, your terminology is incredibly vague. What is the point of being so obtuse?

That would sure help account for the "untold number" of living creatures and species that have died.

Let's be clear; experiments are designed; evolution is not. And while a generation may seem like a long time for those of us whose existence is more or less confined to a generation, it's really, really small compared to the number of species generations that have passed on this Earth.

Selective pressures do not fix anything. They make it harder for some variations than others to survive and reproduce, that's all.

No, because in part I'm uncertain what your term, "design space" even means. What are you talking about?

No, no, no, no, what do you mean by "fixed"?, huh, and I don't know.

So noted

Didn't you just claim to be "laying aside" your personal bias and incredulity?

The evidence shows that evolution did and still is occuring; there is no good evidence to suggest that it didn't or isn't happening while there exists overwhelming evidence that it did and still is.

You are questioning the probability of an event occuring that has and is occuring. The probability or an event having occured that has occured is one. The answer to your question is "one."

The argument from ignorance is not really an argument; that's why we call it a fallacy.

What makes you "sure" we can assume anything? What reason do we have to assume that your assumptions are accurate?

Agreed

You have it backwards; your whole argument is an appeal to ignorance.

You are essentially arguing, since we can't account for every detail of evolution, it must be wrong; therefore, creationism.

It demonstrates the feasibility of evolution, as "ludicrous" as that may seem by your own indefensible, unquantifable, unsupported belief system.

Prince Vegita

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Charles Darwin

Quote:

But evidential interpretation, from the evolution perspective, is that signals are homologous. This is not, in my view, such a strong evidence as finding dormant teeth genes in birds. Also, the homology argument has several other problems. More later on that.

So basically you just restated your view without providing any elaboration whatsoever. Thanks, that's extremely helpful.

RufusAtticus

Hey Charles,

We're still waiting for those references.

Charles Darwin

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any case, you say that blind fish get no use out of their eyes. Why is this evidence for evolution?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well said. The "useless" eyes are not a specific prediction of evolution; rather, they fulfill a general prediction. Thus, if/when a function is discovered evolution won't be falsified. In fact, as evolutionists have pointed (including here in this thread), a vestigial structure need by no means, in fact, be functionless. This is a smart move since function (or lack thereof) is hard to measure in the first place, and since we seem to keep on finding function for those "vestigial" structures. So I could ask you how you know the eyes are of no use. I'm pretty sure you don't know that they are of no use, but rather are assuming such given your belief in evolution. But I'll not ask the question since it is moot. Even if a function is discovered it won't count against the vestigial status of the eyes, and their service as evidence for evolution. In the minds of evolutionists, they are evidence regardless of function. So this "prediction of evolution" of yours is too vague.

Charles Darwin

Hang on, I'm making my way to your post.

Charles Darwin

I appreciate these, and other, attempts to explain how echolocation could have evolved. However, they are entirely miss the point. Yes, of course, having echolocation is better than not having it. And presumably having a poor man's version of it is better than none at all. And yes, the bat has a brain, and the ability to make noise and hear noise, so you have all the parts, right? Well, maybe. The noise maker has to be designed a certain way and in coordination with the noise receptor. And the brain part of it entails all kinds of designs, as I indicated in an earlier post. This stuff makes our military systems look simple. These bats are chirping at a thousand Hertz and tracking the returns in the presence of all kinds of noise.

I can make and hear noises, and I've got a brain, but so far that hasn't helped much in catching mosquitos. What you guys are providing here are what are affectionately called "just-so" stories. You say you can't provide the details of the mutations, designs, etc. because you don't know that much about echolocation. I have news for you, no one else can provide the details either. They aren't there. Not for echolocation. Not for a thousand other complexities. Am I asking for too much? Sorry, but you are the one making the claim, not me. I can't help it if you are claiming the incredible to be a fact.

Now, I have been accused of arguing from personal incredulity. Sorry, but this is science not religion. Skepticism and science go hand in hand. If you think you have a theory worth considering, then you have to put up or shut up. Complaining about too much skepticism doesn't cut it. Especially when we are talking about rather fundamental aspects of your theory. The problem with evolution is not that you cannot spin fine-sounding stories about how this would lead to that, and so forth. Sure, it all makes sense at a high level. The problem is that underneath it all you are making an incredible claim. You can't just say "well, we haven't solved that bit yet, and anyway you are too skeptical, but anyway our idea is fact."

Charles Darwin

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I fully understand someone such as Beagle disagreeing with me and concluding that evolution is a good theory and a fact, due to these metaphysical considerations. As I see it, because metaphysics is involved, it is more of a "your opinion vs my opinion" situation. There is no fraud or dishonesty here.

But since a scientific theory (and fact) is something that is far more constrained, in my view, I do not believe there is this sort of free play. There are specific evidences, and a specific, common, understanding of natural laws, forces, etc. We ought to be able to have a fairly objective discussion of how the evidence stacks up, and whether evolution is a fact or not. There is no question that in this more limited paradigm (ie, just science), evolution absolutely fails to qualify as a compelling scientific theory, much less a fact. What happened in this thread is evolutionists routinely took the discussion out of the scientific realm and into metaphysics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have made a subtle but critical mistake. Expunging metaphysics from science does not mean science must announce a solution to all things. Certainly not ludicrous solutions.

As for including metaphysics into the equation, I do not agree that descent with modification is the only reasonable explanation.