Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Evolution of carnivorous plants

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, I'm saying that a back-of-the-envelope seems to contradict their conclusions. The paper is restricted, so I can't read it for myself.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Given your horrible history of understanding things like calculating plausibility I hope you understand it if I don't agree with your "back-of-the-envelope" calculations.

    And here is the entire paper (in PDF)

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Well, there are problems here, the first being the number of times this has supposedly evolved!

      Source: KnowableMagazine

      Quirky though it is, carnivory has evolved repeatedly over the 140 million-plus years that flowering plants have been around. The adaptation arose independently at least 12 times, says Tanya Renner, an evolutionary biologist at Penn State.

      © Copyright Original Source



      Let's say the probability of carnivory evolving is 10%, then it's less than 1% probable that this happened a dozen times.

      Then there is an overstatement here: "how carnivory evolved in plants". I note the following quote:

      Source: KnowableMagazine

      Many features of the carnivorous lifestyle have yet to give up their genetic secrets.

      © Copyright Original Source


      So we don't know how carnivory evolved, we only think we know about 2 features.

      Blessings,
      Lee
      As previous documented many times with accademi references it is determined that probability use of statistics by the Discovery Institute is not only terrible, but an unethical use of statistics to justify a religious agenda supported by non scientific sources,.

      'supposedly evolved' reinforces your religious agenda.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Alrighty, thanks.

        First of all, at step 6 a lens appears!

        then_a_miracle_occurs.jpg

        Then we have:

        Source: Claremont.edu

        The response obtained in each generation would then be R = 0.00005m, which means that the small variation and weak selection cause a change of only 0.005 % per generation. The number of generations, n, for the whole sequence is then given by 1.00005n = 80 129 540...

        © Copyright Original Source


        But isn't this assuming that the selectable variation per generation becomes fixed in each generation? But with a generation time of only 1 year, I don't think there is enough time for this to happen. I would propose then the following:

        1.0000 + (.00005 * (1 + .00005 * (1 + .00005 ... [n times] = 80,129,540

        So that each time, the variation for the next step occurs within the fraction of the population that varied in the current step.

        Finally, as they admit, the neural processing required for the more complex eyes was completely left out! This is a crucial factor, and would substantially reduce the probability.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Stoic View Post
          The fact that I said it doesn't make it an assumption. You might as well say that I "assume" that the earth is about 4 1/2 billion years old.
          Well, I'm sorry, but you are making an assumption, and then concluding your assumption, which is circular reasoning.

          If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on them eventually finding more.
          Which makes it all the more miraculous, if generating an eye is inordinately improbable.

          Blessings,
          Lee
          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Well, I'm sorry, but you are making an assumption, and then concluding your assumption, which is circular reasoning.
            You are making an assumption (that it is circular reasoning) and then concluding your assumption, which is in itself circular reasoning.

            I've had all I can take from you for now.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              Alrighty, thanks.

              First of all, at step 6 a lens appears!
              The ways various lenses can form have been extensively studied. Basically it is so easy for what will work as one to form it is darn near inevitable.

              then_a_miracle_occurs.jpg

              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              Then we have:

              Source: Claremont.edu

              The response obtained in each generation would then be R = 0.00005m, which means that the small variation and weak selection cause a change of only 0.005 % per generation. The number of generations, n, for the whole sequence is then given by 1.00005n = 80 129 540...

              © Copyright Original Source


              But isn't this assuming that the selectable variation per generation becomes fixed in each generation? But with a generation time of only 1 year, I don't think there is enough time for this to happen. I would propose then the following:

              1.0000 + (.00005 * (1 + .00005 * (1 + .00005 ... [n times] = 80,129,540

              So that each time, the variation for the next step occurs within the fraction of the population that varied in the current step.

              Finally, as they admit, the neural processing required for the more complex eyes was completely left out! This is a crucial factor, and would substantially reduce the probability.

              Blessings,
              Lee
              Again, they very deliberately choose to use very conservative (low), assumptions. It's kind of in the title of the paper -- "A PESSIMISTIC estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve." That included selecting a rather low fixidity rate.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                The ways various lenses can form have been extensively studied. Basically it is so easy for what will work as one to form it is darn near inevitable.
                Can you give me a reference?

                Again, they very deliberately choose to use very conservative (low), assumptions. It's kind of in the title of the paper -- "A PESSIMISTIC estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve." That included selecting a rather low fixidity rate.
                But my point is that they seem to assume that each new variation becomes fixed in a year, in one generation!

                And the point also remains that they did not include the neural processing required for the more complex eyes, it was completely left out! This is a crucial factor, and would substantially reduce the probability.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  But my point is that they seem to assume that each new variation becomes fixed in a year, in one generation!

                  And the point also remains that they did not include the neural processing required for the more complex eyes, it was completely left out! This is a crucial factor, and would substantially reduce the probability.
                  Nobody wants to challenge me on this?

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    Nobody wants to challenge me on this?

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    No need, because it is bofus repetition as in previous threads.

                    Evolution occurs in the diversity in populations and between populations that results in genetic drift in response to changing and static environments. Nothing is necessarily fixed nor becomes fixed.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-07-2022, 08:03 PM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Nothing is necessarily fixed nor becomes fixed.
                      Are you denying that mutations can become fixed?!

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        Are you denying that mutations can become fixed?!

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        No mutation is necessarily fixed over time. Mutations can persist over time as in having survival value in the population or being neutral and appear permanent. Genetic drift and change over time is fact documented. One generation?!?!?!
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-07-2022, 08:40 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Genetic drift and change over time is fact documented. One generation?!?!?!
                          That's my point, one generation is too short a timeframe for a change to become fixed.

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            That's my point, one generation is too short a timeframe for a change to become fixed.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            This us a meaningless point. Fixed is an illusion there is no such thing. One generation? Not relevant nor meaningful, though a mutation that has survival value or is neutral in one generation may persist for millions of years, but it is always subject to potential further mutation. Again it is important to note the diverse mutations in a population is how evolution takes place.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                            48 responses
                            136 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Sparko
                            by Sparko
                             
                            Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                            16 responses
                            74 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post shunyadragon  
                            Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                            6 responses
                            48 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post shunyadragon  
                            Working...
                            X