Freethought & Rationalism Archive

unworthyone · 04-05-2002, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Automaton:
Fair enough. But does this mean you agree that this was an observed speciation event, and thus speciation (or macroevolution), can occur? Or are you just sick of arguing this point and want to move onto something else?

No its just that I can't understand it. Thats why I'd like to see the probability of the eye evolving so I can see how complex it is.

copernicus · 04-05-2002, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unworthyone:
How it happened is not what I'm concerned with. What is the probability of it happening?

Unworthyone, The Blind Watchmaker is all about the probability of it happening. Give it a chance.

unworthyone · 04-05-2002, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by copernicus:


Unworthyone, The Blind Watchmaker is all about the probability of it happening. Give it a chance.

And what was the numerical probability?

copernicus · 04-05-2002, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unworthyone:
And what was the numerical probability?

Of what? The evolution of the eye? It is impossible to calculate an exact numerical probability for all of the environmental factors that could lead to the evolution of such a complex organ over geologic time. The Blind Watchmaker goes into great detail about the nature of such probabilities and why they can't be calculated as easily as a simple binary act such as flipping a coin. Dawkins goes into breathtaking detail on this subject. He even compares the startling similarities and differences between human eyes and octopus eyes--giving a clear explanation of how different evolutionary paths can converge on similar, but not identical, solutions. I can understand your lack of credulity about the probability of an eye evolving. Dawkins even goes into detail about why it is reasonable for humans to be incredulous about natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism.

Here is my point, unworthyone. You can ask your questions on an internet bulletin board and try to debate with non-specialists about the reasonableness of evolutionary theory. Nothing stops you from doing that. But, if you are really interested in clear, rational answers to your questions, why not read a detailed book on the subject by an author who is a world-renowned authority on Darwinian theory? The book was not written for specialists. It was written for people like yourself--who really want to know about the probability of evolution of complex mechanisms like the human eye.

Automaton · 04-05-2002, 10:18 PM

unworthyone: Say you shuffle a deck of cards. What is the probability of any particular arrangement of cards? Very low, however, each one is as likely as the other. Thus, it must be the case that you will get some combination of cards. Which particular one, is what is by chance.

What is the probability that you were born (as was previously stated)? I mean, what is the probability that your parents would meet eachother and have you? And your grandparents? And great grandparents? And so on. It is extremely unlikely, but it still happened, as you are obviously here. Are you starting to see the problem with your question?

Automaton · 04-05-2002, 10:22 PM

Quote:

No its just that I can't understand it. Thats why I'd like to see the probability of the eye evolving so I can see how complex it is.

Well, all my probability was supposed to show was that your statement that they could have merely "been related by chance" is false. Care to continue discussing the original issue?

unworthyone · 04-05-2002, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Automaton:
Well, all my probability was supposed to show was that your statement that they could have merely "been related by chance" is false. Care to continue discussing the original issue?

So you don't know the probability?

Would you say its less or more then the suggestion I proposed?

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: unworthyone ]

RufusAtticus · 04-05-2002, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unworthyone:


Oh I'm sorry it comes from:

Daniel Brooks, as quoted by Roger Lewin, “A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity,” Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240

unwortyone,

I do not believe you since that quote doesn't seem to appear in the text you just cited. A similar one does, but not yours. You apparently have never looked at the original paper and are repeating what you have heard from an anti-evolution website. If you do have the paper, please provide a larger quote, including the stuff missing from the middle, and we'll forgive you. Otherwise, tell us where you lifted the quote from and we'll forgive you.

-RvFvS

copernicus · 04-05-2002, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unworthyone:

So you don't know the probability?

Would you say its less or more then the suggestion I proposed?

Unworthyone, what suggestion did you propose? I can find no hint of an exact probability in any of your posts. Was automations question about the probability of your birth inappropriate? Obviously, your birth was extremely improbable. Yet, if you knew all of the factors that led up to it over geologic time, you might consider it to have been inevitable.

You are operating under the principle that Dawkins called the "Argument from Personal Incredulity". You seem to believe that because something seems improbable to you, it cannot have a natural explanation. The problem with the Argument from Personal Incredulity is that personal incredulity is very often a function of personal ignorance. Once you understand the cause of a phenomenon, it doesn't seem so incredulous.

unworthyone · 04-05-2002, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by copernicus:

Unworthyone, what suggestion did you propose?

Read the entire thread regarding the supposed macro-evolution of plants:

Quote:

In 1860, the American species of cordgrass (Spartina alternifloria) was introduced into Europe, which grew alongside the European variety (Spartina maritima). Ten years later, a hybrid (x townsendii) was discovered. A mutation allowed polyploidy, thus the hybrid had 122 chromosomes starting from alternifloria's 62 and maritima's 60. This hybrid was sterile and could produce no seeds, and spread very slowly via vegetative propagation. Then, in 1890's it speciated yet again to a fertile variety (anglica) with 124 chromosomes. It was more vigorous than the original two and spread much quickly. This change has also been confirmed experimentally.

So I stated:

Quote:

Well it seems you were using the reproduction quickness was a reason it was macro-evolution.

Could it not be that these two species were closely resembled by chance and one just so happened to start reproducing a little faster then the other 30 years later?

And besides, these are simple plants. I want to see some real evidence of animal macro-evolution.

and then he said:

Quote:

No, the unlikeliness of this is on the order of 3*10^81 (that's 3 with 81 zeros after it). My calculations don't factor in that some things will be common for life, plants, and cordgrass in particular, but this gives you a rough idea on how improbable such a thing is.

So which is more probable? My suggestion or the evolution of the eye?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-05-2002, 10:18 PM	#45
Automaton Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 717	unworthyone: Say you shuffle a deck of cards. What is the probability of any particular arrangement of cards? Very low, however, each one is as likely as the other. Thus, it must be the case that you will get some combination of cards. Which particular one, is what is by chance. What is the probability that you were born (as was previously stated)? I mean, what is the probability that your parents would meet eachother and have you? And your grandparents? And great grandparents? And so on. It is extremely unlikely, but it still happened, as you are obviously here. Are you starting to see the problem with your question?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.