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

A whale of a tale

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Where did I fail to address a post you made with references on probability?

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Your responses to references in #1 and #5 in https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...same-againwere not adequate and your attempts to explain were refuted. You persist in citing ID authors like Behe where there use of statistics and probability which were determined to false by peer reviewed reference in this thread: https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...the-same-again.

    It is the same problem here when you present bogus arguments from the ID perspective, and The Lurch repeated documents him as wrong. One of the most humorous was your posts on Tree Galling, which you repeated refused to take responsibility for very bad and erroneous arguments.

    I outlined some of the very fundamental misuse of probability, whivh I documented in references in the following from the other thread.

    Source: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index....4/BIO-C.2018.4

    Remark. It should be noted that although Landman claims [8] that the number of possible states should be used as the replicational resources (scaling constant) r rather than the number of possible events, it should be clear that such a claim is mistaken, since the replicational resources represent the number of attempts a system is given to produce a given result (if every operation on every bit were a sampling attempt), which corresponds to the total number of sampling events possible since the Big Bang (and not to the number of possible states). In either case, since we are concerned with proving bounds for Dembski’s model, and he uses the scaling constant of 10120, we do so here as well.

    © Copyright Original Source


    If one understands statistics the efforts of this paper is 'front loaded' statistically to get the desired result. More comments may follow. Also basically neglects that the laws of nature constrains the outcome of each cause and effect event, and cannot be statistically projected as simply the probability of 'the total number of sampling events possible since the Big Bang.'

    I believe that Landman referred to this limitation as 'the number of possible states.' I comment with caution on Landman, because I lack his full reference. I may word this more completely as the limitations of the possible states of the outcome of each cause and effect outcome constrained by the laws of nature.

    I believe they have tried this before.


    Source: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/11/15/liars-figure/

    The old saying, that “figures won’t lie,” is true, without doubt; and the same may be said of letters, marks, and other signs of thought. But the mode in which many use figures, in order to carry a point, has sometimes tempted us to believe that the hasty remark of the Psalmist, if paraphrased thus – “all men” – who deal in statistics “are liars,” – is not far from the truth.

    © Copyright Original Source

    You tried to assert the low probability for whole chains of cause and effect events as many bogus ID advocates assert. The reference in the peer reviewed references clearly refuted this tactic.

    In the thread cited you raised objections, but these objections were already refuted if you read the sources cited.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-03-2020, 04:58 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


    • #77
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      You tried to assert the low probability for whole chains of cause and effect events as many bogus ID advocates assert. The reference in the peer reviewed references clearly refuted this tactic.
      Well, see this new thread with a low probability bound by a respected biologist.

      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


      • #78
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        Well, see this new thread with a low probability bound by a respected biologist.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        No, he makes the same mistakes as cited in detail in the bogus ID references as I referenced in the previous thread. It is unethical and dishonest statistics to calculate probability over this ridiculous length of time, which was detailed in the references previously provided. ID ENRON probability recycled and no less dishonest.
        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


        • #79
          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
          Ok, the whale argument phenomenally stupid for a variety of reasons, but i'm going to focus on the genetic aspect since it's the one i understand best. The mindnumbingly awful video and Lee's extensions to it are basically saying "specific mutations are rare, and so the specific mutations needed to make a whale must be REALLY rare, therefore whales could not exist due to mutations."

          Let's break that down a bit more. Specific mutations - changing A at position 347896 of chromosome 4 to a G probably doesn't happen often. That's the only thing that's right.

          Are specific mutations needed to make a whale? Nope. Whales largely have the same gene set as any other mammal. The genes are just deployed differently. How does that happen? By changes in the timing, level, and location of the genes. And doing so does not involve specific changes. The regulatory DNA that controls these aspects of gene activity is extensive, and changes in any of it generally produce incremental differences. As a result, you can typically have an enormous range of mutations (or combinations of mutations) that accomplish the same thing. Arguments based on a single, specific change are therefore completely irrelevant to speciation.

          Yet that's the only thing Lee's giving us numbers for. Because he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

          Do any of these mutations have to go to full fixation? Probably not. See, for example, the fact that many species of whale sporadically develop vestigial hind limb bones. Most traits allow a degree of flexibility, as does the fact that different combinations of mutations in regulatory DNA can accomplish the same thing. Some changes will undoubtedly end up fixed over time, just because that's how genetic drift works. But many of them don't necessarily need to be for a population to express a trait.

          But Lee has the numbers for fixation, so that's what he uses, since he doesn't know any better.

          Finally, there's the stupid argument that if one mutation takes this long, you can't have all the mutations you need to make a whale. Which of course is the difference between solving problems in sequence and doing so in parallel. Evolution works in parallel - you can lose hindlimb and redeploy your fat to form blubber at the same time. But Lee continues to ignore that fact no matter how often it gets pointed out to him.

          I could go on - the video says a lot of garbage about ghost lineages, apparently unaware that we KNOW they have existed thanks to genomic evidence. But the only one who thinks it isn't complete garbage here is Lee. And i've seen no evidence that Lee has ever recognized that he's wrong and changed his mind, no matter what evidence anyone else shares here.
          Yeah, different mutations can indeed result in the same effect. For instances, there were at least six completely different mutations in six different populations that made all of these groups lactose tolerant (able to digest milk). Likewise, there are three completely different mutations in three widely separated groups of people that made them all capable of surviving at high altitudes better than those without it.

          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


          • #80
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            Yeah, different mutations can indeed result in the same effect. For instances, there were at least six completely different mutations in six different populations that made all of these groups lactose tolerant (able to digest milk). Likewise, there are three completely different mutations in three widely separated groups of people that made them all capable of surviving at high altitudes better than those without it.
            So let's say 5 mutations would provide each feature, so 2 mutations in 200,000,000 years in humans would be about 40,000,000 for two features, and maybe half that for whales, which still doesn't fit in the timeframe of 10,000,000 years for the evolution of whales.

            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


            • #81
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              So let's say 5 mutations would provide each feature, so 2 mutations in 200,000,000 years in humans would be about 40,000,000 for two features, and maybe half that for whales, which still doesn't fit in the timeframe of 10,000,000 years for the evolution of whales.

              Blessings,
              Lee
              So wrong on so many levels.

              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


              • #82
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                Based on the fact that many mutations, whether in genes or in regulatory DNA, will be needed.
                You have no idea what the mutation rate per generation is, nor how many generations occur over millions of years, do you?

                The mutation rate for any species always vastly exceeds the number of mutations that we see, because most mutations are lost or selected against. The question is never "how can there be enough mutations?" It's always "why were the mutations we see retained?"

                Seriously, learn some biology.
                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  So let's say 5 mutations would provide each feature, so 2 mutations in 200,000,000 years in humans would be about 40,000,000 for two features, and maybe half that for whales, which still doesn't fit in the timeframe of 10,000,000 years for the evolution of whales.
                  Why should we say that? There is absolutely no reason to choose 5.

                  And again, you're doing things in series rather than in parallel. 1 feature in 200,000 years (a completely made up number with no relevance) is equal to 2 features in 200,000 years if the features are arising in parallel. Which again, they are.

                  "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    You have no idea what the mutation rate per generation is, nor how many generations occur over millions of years, do you?

                    The mutation rate for any species always vastly exceeds the number of mutations that we see, because most mutations are lost or selected against. The question is never "how can there be enough mutations?" It's always "why were the mutations we see retained?"

                    Seriously, learn some biology.
                    Yup. Everyone of us had literally dozens of mutations that our parent's didn't have. The same is true for our own children -- they've had dozens of mutations we don't have. The vast majority of these are neutral and won't be selected for but figuring a mutation every 100,000 years is just extraordinarily outlandish and reveals an abysmal understand of the topic that he seeks to lecture others on.

                    It's like watching a cat teaching English Literature.

                    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


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      So let's say 5 mutations would provide each feature, so 2 mutations in 200,000,000 years in humans would be about 40,000,000 for two features, and maybe half that for whales, which still doesn't fit in the timeframe of 10,000,000 years for the evolution of whales.
                      So, explain to us why the first mutation appearing in a whale living in the North Atlantic ocean prevents the second mutation appearing in a different whale living in the South Atlantic ocean and why those mutations prevent love blossoming on the equator and a baby whale with both mutations being born?

                      Mutations appear in parallel over the whole population. Your calculation ignores that fact.

                      Comment

                      Related Threads

                      Collapse

                      Topics Statistics Last Post
                      Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                      48 responses
                      135 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