A question about evolution

[jgca]

Also, even their ridululously premised equation isn't even close to correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Next, since there are 3.2 billion nucleotides in the human genome, the probability of one particular nucleotide being altered is 3.2 billion to one. To determine the mathematical probability of the genetic changes necessary for the hypothesized “evolution” between chimps and people, it is necessary to multiply 3.2 billion times 48 million.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) There is no logical reason to set the probability of 1 nucleotide out of n being mutated (in the right way) at 1/n. These figures have no relationship whatsoever. It's like saying that the odds of my cousin Nathan sprouting fairy wings tomorrow, or eating breakfast tomorrow, are each 1/30, since I have 30 cousins.

2) The formula assumes that only a single organism is reproducing with mutation in each generation.

3) But the most egregious mathematical mistake leaves their bogus long odds dramatically shorter than they ought to be. The odds of a 1/n shot happening m times in a row is not 1/(n*m). It's (1/n)^m. 3.2 billion to the power of 48 million. They go through all this bad science and bad math to come up with a staggering "153 followed by 15 zeros", when the figure should have billions of decimal places.

[MaxWeiss]

That article has the feeling of "humans are the desired outcome" and thus all evolution had to be geared towards it. Write human on a pice of paper, and toss it in a hat with a gazillion other possible outcomes, and then pick out a piece of paper. Human happen to be drawn. SOMETHING was going to be drawn. (Something being a non-random evolutionarily fit being that came from natural selection but by no means had to be human.)

Understand that it doesn't matter how unlikely it is because we only have to prove that it can happen the show the mechanism by which is can happen to have a valid theory. And then, oh wait, we have all kinds of fossil records so verify it. Yes, it's quadrillions to one that it would happen the same way it did if it was done over again from the beginning, but so what. If you rolled a die and it came up 5, would you go on and on about how 5 was special because it only had a 1 in 6 chance of coming up?? You WERE rolling the dice, SOMETHING had to come up.

[Chromis]

Man did not evolve from the modern day chimp/great-ape.
He does however share a common ancestor with these animals.

This is an important distinction which is necessary to understand and properly interpret the data.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
The Human Genome Project, a joint international effort to unravel the structure of genetic material of humans, has determined that a genetic mutation of one billionth of a genome is always fatal.

[/ QUOTE ]


In an article just crawling with all kinds of wrong, this is one of the better pieces of wrongness.

Considering that much of our genetic code is in non-coding introns where no mutations can be lethal*, and that the genetic code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codon#RNA_codon_table) is redundant and some mutations dont actually change things, and that many mutations happen in non-active site amino acids and that even some amino acids in the active site are close enough to another to allow mutation, and still some mutations can be offset by a suppressor mutation, this comment is really just absurd.


EDIT: *technically speaking, not all mutations of introns are non-lethal, but the vast majority would be

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me that common descent didn't happen. You can then go back to your creationist websites and see them for what they are. Even if creation happened their arguments are horrible and misguided.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm in the process of reinterpreting all the information I have. I go through this every few years… gather - interpret.

I don't want to sound arrogant, but I kind of feel like I can understand anything if I put my mind to it, but it comes down to economics - I really don't know if I want to invest the time. I know I come across as arguing somewhat bizarre points, but I don't always believe in the point I'm arguing - I'm just exploring.

So I kind of mosey along with this issue, and it doesn't really bother me if someone calls me an idiot, ill-informed, clueless, etc… Like most of you, I'm just trying to figure the whole thing out.

But I do have a point of contention that I'd like to have addressed. Anyone in any sort of leadership role has dealt with the issue of communication, which really gets to the heart of my point - I feel calling people stupid is a sign of stupidity. And although I haven't been able to phrase it properly, I don't feel my conclusion is totally unjustified.

It's been a while, but with the tests I've had, I fall into the 140-150 I.Q. range. So from experience, I can ramp up to the arguments at the 170+ range, but I'm really not sure if I understand what the 180+ people are saying. However, I can and have related to what the people at the 100 and below level are saying. My point being, it's possible to extend your level of understanding down, but we (I) can only go up so far.

My question is: who bears this burden?

(Is this coming across right? My point is we (and they) can only extend up one or two degrees, but we can extend down four or five+ degrees.)

[Subfallen]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but why would you need any gather-interpret cycles to take a position on evolution? You can either side with the overwhelming scientific consensus or muck about with a few religious fundamentalists who masquerade as objective thinkers. Is this really a decision that requires a 145 IQ?

Also, I don't know what kind of IQ tests you're taking, but if you're really a 145, your capacity is somewhere between a Darwin and a Racine, and you owe it to humanity to do more than "mosey along", blindly giving every zealot's ravings equal consideration with scientific consensus. 145's are pretty damn close to one in a million.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but why would you need any gather-interpret cycles to take a position on evolution? You can either side with the overwhelming scientific consensus or muck about with a few religious fundamentalists who masquerade as objective thinkers. Is this really a decision that requires a 145 IQ?

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole issue might seem cut and dry for you, but take into consideration that it's not that simple from the outside looking in. From my perspective the concepts are fairly simple, but once you get into the meat of the argument, it gets extremely complex. I guess you can see it any way you like, but honestly with the dozens of objections and arguments I've brought up against this issue, it pretty much goes into the graduate level of understanding to build up the case.

I've really been trying to take the whole argument into perspective, and I feel I've come to some sort of intellectual harmony with it. While I don't claim to know each perspective intimately, I have a basic idea of what Dawkins is saying and a basic understanding of the Catholic Church's position, and I'm going from there.

Is it a question of I.Q? I don't think so. For me it's a question of integrity. And more to the point of your post, for me it's not about a position as much as a stance. I've taken my perspective into account and the situation as I see it, and I've concluded I need to fight against what I feel to be the biggest problem on my horizon, and here's where I'm at:

I have the domain,www.itsnotID.com;
I've hired a web designer;
I've retained my neer-do-well attorney cousin;
And I'm building my case.

And I'm going to win my case. When confronted with this type of situation, I fall back on two fundamental axioms that have carried me through life: Do what you can and do the best you can.
It might not be enough for you, but it's enough for me.

Although, it's from a different perspective, here's where I'm coming from and here's my objective Stephen Gould - NOMA

[Subfallen]

"And I'm going to win my case." What case? You're not making any sense, but you do seem to be preparing to waste an inordinate amount of time.

There is no debate on Intelligent Design. Every significant university science department, every important academy of science, every relevant judicial ruling flatly rejects ID. No ID "scientist" has every published a peer-reviewed journal article.

What is this pressing "problem on your horizon" that's bothering you so much?

Edit - And no matter how smart you may be, you sure as heck could stand a little humility. Face it: you're atrociously uneducated on every relevant field here, from genetics to philosophy. If you seriously think that you and your cousins are going to find some definitive answers that have eluded tens of thousands of actually educated scientists..well, I'm speechless.

[Phil153]

John,

I never called you stupid. I consider you very intelligent. But the argument you presented in the OP is very silly and the person who made the argument has no grasp of either math or biology. I suggest you could find better sources.

The question of our origins is an interesting one - I suggest reading the talkorigins archive, which is more or less a summary of the scientific position. Learning this stuff humbling and eye opening for atheists and theists alike.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Bull[censored].

The second half of their argument is totally ridiculous as well, as is easily understood by anyone who has read The Blind Watchmaker and knows about the WEASEL program.

Take any random string of letters:

ADKJFG AVIEUYRHV PIERNXCPKJG

And a target phrase:
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

There are 27 different characters that can fit in any one of those slots, of which there are 28, so there are 27^28 (about 1.2x10^40) different possible combinations. Take the original phrase an produce say 10 "daughter phrases" that vary from the parent by only one character each, which is randomly changed. Discard 10 of the now 11 strings, keeping only the one that is the closest to the target. Repeat. You will arrive at the target string in only a few dozen generations.

Don't misunderstand the analogy; there is no "target" in evolution. But the most important part of evolution is modelled: non-random selection. In the WEASEL program the selection is done by looking at a target; in the real world of living organisms, selection occurs simply by differential reproductive success.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect analogy.

In the weasel program, the selector references a desired final output as the basis of each selection.

The equivalent in evolution of species would be for each incremental adaptation to be, in addition to differentially reproductively successful in its own right, somehow also coordinated to efficiently converge toward a result with a novel adaptation absent in earlier stages (the same way the content of the final weasel sentence cannot be inferred from earlier scrambled phrases).

This would be the analogous process. Unless you're going to argue that sort of determinism, what remains is an astronomical ratio of trials to successes.