DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution

[Jetboy2]

Here's my dog experiment.

Dogs. You name it in terms of variety, yet, they're all the same species. Look at a pug vs. a German Shepard...get the drift. Extreme variety within a species.

Say you have 3 islands that will converge and join due to plate tectonics in 10 million years in a temperate climate zone. Each variety of dog is wild and has their prey of choice (No humans involved - these dogs get to evolve naturally) Island-1 starts out in a semi-arctic world with German Shepherds. Island-2 starts in a sub-tropical zone with Pugs. Island-3 starts out in an equatorial zone with Fox Terriers.

In 10 million years, do you have dogs? Or 3 new species?

Please apply the Bayes theory to this. I'm not a math guy, but interested to know what Baye's will predict.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would think so.


[/ QUOTE ]

So how can the probability of A be less than A?

And how would you calculate the probablity of the second part if it's the same as the first?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it have to be less?

Take the probability of all the atoms and molecules in a volume of water behaving in such a way as to form a parting of the Red Sea.

Even if the odds for such an event to occur naturally by random chance were the same as "God did it", it would still be astronomically low.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, NotReady is correct on this one. Just because science expands its ability to explain things, thus ruling out magical intervention where the explanation of science applies, does not mean that magical intervention can't be taking place in areas still left unexplained by science. We don't even know what all those areas might be.

Futhermore, If "God" were tinkering with the universe, his magical tricks would be indistinguishable from natural events for which there are shortfalls in scientific explanation.

This is fundamental. There is no way science can know if such magic tricks are even taking place. Either they are or they are not, and there is no mathematical model to even talk about the "probability" for whether they are or aren't. The question is therefore fundamentally a Religious one. Science and psuedo-probabilility do not apply. Either you Believe or you don't.

However, reports of miracles like the parting of the Red Sea are a different matter. These are not scientific observations which science cannot explain. These are reports in a book filled with symbolism, allegory, metaphors and story telling. If we had video tape of the Red Sea's parting it would fall in the category I describe in bold above. But we don't have that. It's an event like nobody has ever seen since. In this case the focus is on the meaning of the text and the credulity of the report if taken literally. That's a different thing than the principle of whether God might or might not be doing magical tricks in general.

PairTheBoard

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even if the odds for such an event to occur naturally by random chance were the same as "God did it", it would still be astronomically low.


[/ QUOTE ]

Trying to calculate the probability of an event for which there is no known natural explanation is basically the same as doing it for an event caused by God. Even if you could how could you compare it to the same event caused by God?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certainly not the best person to correspond with on this one, because I am terrible at math.

However, I'm pretty sure that it is theoretically possible for all the molecules to align up in such a way as to cause the parting of the Red Sea as described in the bible. That you would need an almost infinite amount of time before we would expect a single occurance, is irrelevant. The fact is, it is theoretically possible and given enough time (infinity?), we shouldn't be surprised if it happened once.

As a side subject, I think this puts evolution in perspective. People don't realize (or can't fathom), the odds for life originating by chance on our planet. They can't comprehend the BILLIONS of years it took for evolution to produce life as we now see it. But in an infinite universe, over the course of billions of years, a lot of things that might seem impossible to the human mind can happen.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Futhermore, If "God" were tinkering with the universe, his magical tricks would be indistinguishable from natural events for which there are shortfalls in scientific explanation. </font>

Of course, I, nor anyone else can falsify such a statement, but it is too convenient to merit serious discussion.

"Let's apply logic for everything else we do, except... We'll place a god outside the physical universe and give him magical powers. This way, we are not bound to logic and anything we say about such a god is untouchable for falsification or refutation."

I used to, but I don't engage is such arguments anymore.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

However, I'm pretty sure that it is theoretically possible for all the molecules to align up in such a way as to cause the parting of the Red Sea as described in the bible.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which would make it a natural event. The issue isn't whether something can happen naturally. The issue is how do you apply probability to God's activity. That applies to any natural event, even if we think we can explain it completely scientifically, we don't know that God isn't involved, even necessary - the Bible indicates that He is involved in everything. But how can probability be applied to God? What's the probability that an apple falls to the ground without God's involvement?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, please explain to me how birds, reptiles, and primates are not different from one another.

If you tell me it's because they're all made up of G's T's C's and A's, you're not going to win any points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, they are definitely different. Just as a heap and a grain of sand are different. But there was never a first heap, and there was never a first bird. The point is, we call them "birds" and "primates" based on their endpoints. These endpoints are very easy to distinguish from each other, because they are thousands/millions of generations apart. The point is, if we had followed them, generation to generation, there would never have been an animal that we would call a BIRD and one we would call a REPTILE sitting next to each other. Just as, if we add one grain of sand at a time, there is never a point where we say "NOW this is a heap."

As RDuke mentioned, ring species are fascinating and illustrate this as well, but we'll see what questions you have with this first before moving on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the thing. You could define a heap of sand to be something like "any pile with more than 5,000 grains in it." Then, there would be a clear point at which your pile became a heap, and this paradox is resolved. But most people would think your definition was ludicrous. But lets just pretend we accept it, and apply it to evolution.

A bird is any organism that, defined a posteriori, has 50% of the genes that modern birds have. Under this definition, there probably WAS a first bird, although maybe his offspring weren't birds, and then theirs were, as they hovered around the 50% point for a few generations. But we can ignore that. There was now a first bird. I'm going to call him Tweety. Who did Tweety mate with? Why, all these reptiles, of course. Because he isn't going to be reproductively isolated from them, not in the least, he is WAY to closely related. He had little birdtile babies with all the reptiles, and he probably never knew he was (some idiots definition of) the first bird ever!

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a good example of a "birdtile":

Archaeopteryx

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a good example of a "birdtile":

Archaeopteryx

[/ QUOTE ]



To that I say this:




[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[Lestat]

I understand what you're saying now, and I have to agree. There doesn't seem to be any way to assign a probability of God's involvement for event.

Of course, I'm going to say that's because we're dealing with an unfalsifiable made up entity. What's the probability that an apple falls without Wotan's involvement? But I think your point stands and look forward to David's response.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Futhermore, If "God" were tinkering with the universe, his magical tricks would be indistinguishable from natural events for which there are shortfalls in scientific explanation. </font>

Of course, I, nor anyone else can falsify such a statement, but it is too convenient to merit serious discussion.

"Let's apply logic for everything else we do, except... We'll place a god outside the physical universe and give him magical powers. This way, we are not bound to logic and anything we say about such a god is untouchable for falsification or refutation."

I used to, but I don't engage is such arguments anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such are matters of Religious Belief. If you want to avoid such matters, fine. But in that case it behoves you to be aware of when a subect is of such a nature. Thus the point of my statement above.

PairTheBoard

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated, while it is an unprovable theory, it is certainly not a disputed theory because it can be tested and demonstrated.


[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that evolution is completely undisputed, right? That 99%+ of scientists, and almost all intelligent people, completely accept it?

You do realize that the ONLY dispute comes from Theists, right?

Edit: What would your explanation of that be?