Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Prove an interpretation?

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 5
 [ 98 posts ] 
Prove an interpretation?
Author Message
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Nesslig20 wrote:I have written quite more than that, bear in mind. I have demonstrated that the echolocating mechanism in bats and dolphins are quite different, but the similarities are due to common descent like they use their mammalian hearing to receiver the echo. I also showed that the gene prestin is more similar between close relatives of the echo locators rather than between the echo locators themselves, which contradicted your statement that the genes were identical and that the trees build from these genes would show that echolocating bats and dolphins are more closely related than their non echolocating relatives.

You only mentioning my wings example as to show what convergence as if this is the only thing I said, while omitting this important part with the gene comparison, just shows how dishonest you are. Any honest person would at least admit his errors and never use old refuted point again and again, but you are not honest.

And convergent evolution ain't irrelevant since your dolphin/bat example is exactly that, whether you want to accept it or not. Even you own citations mention convergent evolution. It is in the DAMN title!! Don't pretend this is irrelevant.





To over simply irrelevant information is not dishonest, the fact is that you didn't denied any of this 3 points, at least tacitly you are granting them, the reason why hackenslash didn't corrected you is because we all agree with the same, we all agree that this 3 points are true.

1Accepting Common Ancestry and our current phylogenetic tree, implies that bats and dolphins suffered from the same mutations in the same loci 200 independent times
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 12511.html

2 There is no current explanation on how could 2 independent clades could have sufferer form the same mutations 200 independent times, even assuming strong selective pressure, it is very unlikely for 2 organisms to have the same random mutation in the same place. (let alone 200)

3 evolution (common ancestry) predicted that similarities in echolocation would have been superficial (like wings in bats and birds) similarities where not expected at a genetic level.


at most you corrected minor details but in the general sense we all agree with the accuracy of these 3 points, we even have similar conclusions.

we all 3 agree that universal common ancestry is the best explanation for the data, but there are a few things that have been found that where not predicted or even expected by common ancestry.

just a comment on point number 2
leroy wrote:
2 There is no current explanation on how could 2 independent clades could have sufferer form the same mutations 200 independent times, even assuming strong selective pressure, it is very unlikely for 2 organisms to have the same random mutation in the same place. (let alone 200)


Nesslig20 wrote:
Very unlikely as in 200 out of 805,053 (0,024%) of the time, which don't need to be identical mutations



well consider this analogy, pretend that each of us is told to rewrite a text that contains 805,053 letters. obviously we are expected to have some mistakes once in a while,

but nobody would expect that we both made the same mistakes just by chance in the exact same letter, and sentence, 200 times. anyone who observes this would argue that this mistakes where not caused by chance, anyone would at least consider the possibility that maybe these mistakes where not completely random.

I am not suggesting that therefore "God did it" all I am saying is that at least sometimes mutations are not fully random, sometimes mutations are biased, and sometimes things might evolve through bias mutations.

Nesslig20 wrote:Still can't figure out the difference between hindsight and foresight.?? Let me explain it once again. The likely hood of you being born before your parents met was extremely unlikely, however since you are now existing being wrong on the internet all the time, the odd of you existing is 100% (sadly enough...joking of course).


The likelihood of chimps and humans sharing somee many genetic markers before life evolved in extremely unlikely, however since chimps and humans are now existing with shared genetic markers the odds of them existing is 100%


using your logic to dismiss the probabilistic problem that I mentioned (about neutral mutations and genetic drift) is as fallacious as using your logic to dismiss the similarities chimps and humans, so ether drop that logic or drop the argument for common ancestry that involves shared genetic markers..

Nesslig20 wrote:Do I really need to copy paste all those articles.....again....??? That is what I have to put up with when arguing with someone suffering from short term memory



it would be much better if you copy paste articles that actually meat the burden that I am asking for, up to this point you haven't provided a single example of how a step could have occurred.


Well what i would call a step requires 3 things
1 a genetic change achievable in 1 generation (like a gene duplication for example)
2 it has to be beneficial (something that would be selected by natural selection)
3 it has to represent a step closer towards modern eyes



I asked, which of the 2 mechanisms predominated (related to the evolution of sight)


1 neutral mutations + genetic drift

or

2 beneficial mutations + natural selection

anyone can read you answer and note that you haven't answered to the question.

Nesslig20 wrote:1. No I said BOTH, that is not ambiguous. Natural selection and genetic drift are NOT mutually exclusive mechanisms in the sense of no 100% this or 100% that. They can both contribute to the fixation or elimination of mutations in a population with varying degrees depending on the population size. Stop thinking in black or white.
2. Neutralism doesn't have a probabilistic problem as I have already explained. There are extremely unlikely events like us being born if you calculated it as if with foresight, but that is the problem. We note this things in hindsight, thus it doesn't matter how likely the event that happened could happen. Once it happened, the odds of it happening are 100%........

So drift dominates mostly during evolution of species, especially when the population size is small, which it often is. So you might think that the way life evolved in this particular way is very unlikely, you would be right. If you rewind the tape to about 1 billion years ago and let everything play out on its own, chances are that familiar species won't ever evolve. You would still have bacteria and maybe even eukaryotes if they already existed 1 billion years ago, however there would be other things that would be unrecognizable. Maybe similar in the same way a dolphin is similar to a shark or a bat is to a bird, but you won't find anything that you could say that is a mammal or a bird. Just like if you rewind the tape back before you were a zygote, when you mom and dad had that very special night, changes are that a different sperm cell fertilized the egg, so instead of you being born, a different human being equivalent to your brother or sister would have been born which was FAAARRR more likely. ...................
So I did answer your question, then why tell me I didn't? And I already did answer that. Drift mostly dominates in evolution, especially when population sizes are small. Read the whole response before you come back again with this bogus "probability problem" of yours.

But again, there is a different in noticing improbable events in foresight and hindsight.



nobody is implying that natural selection and drift are mutually exclusive, I am just asking is which of the 2 predominated "both" is not an answer unless you say that each mechanism contributed more less with 50%

So granted, both mechanism contributed, but rwhen talking about the genetic changes related to the evolution of sight.....which of these 2 mechanisms predominated?..............why don't you simply admit that you don't know, instead of pretending that you already answered?



However, there is no reason why we should live in such universe, unlike living in a universe that allows us to live. Thus the multiverse argument for why we live in such a universe cannot be used to argue why we live in a universe where we share genetic orthologs with other species.
There is a missing part in your argument, WHY should we live in such a universe??

I have spelled this out many different way, how many times do I have to tell you this again before you leave for a while and come back with the same thing??


there is no reason why we should live in a universe with very low entropy and so many galaxies and stars, a universe with just 1 galaxy (or just 1 solar system) would be enough. ............observers could have lived in a much simpler and more probable universe. in the same way chimps and human can exist without sharing genetic markers.


so yes, to say that we live in an improbable universe with very low entropy, many stars etc.. just by chance is a fallacious as saying that we share genetic markers with chimps by chance.................both are equally fallacious, both observations require an explanation.

lets see if you agree with this statement....

Mere improbability doesn't prove anything and doesn't require any sort of explanation, examples of mere improbability would be the probability of me being born, or the probability of me breathing the exact combinations air molecules that I just breath.


but when you have improbability + a pattern you do need some sort of explanation

any combination of genetic markers is equally unlikely to have occurred by chance, but to have apes and humans with the same shared genetic markers (a pattern) requires an explanation, something different from "it happened by chance"

in the case of the universe and the probabilistic problem that I mentioned related to neutral mutations and genetic drift, we are talking about improbability + a pattern.

any combination of neutral mutations that where selected by genetic drift is equally unlikely, but to have the exact combination that would eventually produce an eye and sight (a pattern) requieres an explanation, something different from "it happened by chance"


Wrong.

To make it analogous.

1. Observers can only exists in a universe that allows for them to live, otherwise they wouldn't exists in the first place (correct multi verse argument)

2. Observers can only exists in a universe that includes them sharing orthologs with other species, otherwise they wouldn't exists in the first place (premise one is false, observes don't need to have shared orthologs with other species in order for them to exists....IF they are unrelated to other species, thus the multiverse argument doesn't apply here)
[/quote]

observers don't need to live in a universe with many galaxies, the analogy is valid,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:28 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2354Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote: the reason why hackenslash didn't corrected


Don't put words in my mouth, idiot troll.
Fri Mar 31, 2017 7:51 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

hackenslash wrote:
leroy wrote: the reason why hackenslash didn't corrected


Don't put words in my mouth, idiot troll.




:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't worry, I did not, ...................we all agree that you did not corrected Ness, because he was correct on those 3 points. ..............sometimes I feel that you disagree with me just for the sake of disagreeing,



BTW, your attention is needed in the conversation about fine tuning, (I send a private message)........your services are requested to correct HWN
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:24 pm
RumraketUser avatar
Online
Posts: 1170Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

well consider this analogy, pretend that each of us is told to rewrite a text that contains 805,053 letters. obviously we are expected to have some mistakes once in a while,

but nobody would expect that we both made the same mistakes just by chance in the exact same letter, and sentence, 200 times. anyone who observes this would argue that this mistakes where not caused by chance, anyone would at least consider the possibility that maybe these mistakes where not completely random.

As usual the creationist does not understand in what way mutations are thought to be random.

They're NOT thought to be random with respect to the particular position in the genome.
They're NOT thought to be random with respect to the particular type of mutation.

They're ONLY thought to be random with respect to fitness, that's it.

What that means is mutations are not thought to become more likely to be beneficial, just because that might coincidentally be useful. Mutations will happen regardless of how adaptive they are.
But how frequently they are adaptive(or the extend to which they are adaptive) will not be determined by the environment. We say, therefore, that they are random with respect to their effect on fitness.

But it is entirely possible that there are common, non-random, biochemical causes of mutations in particular genes that makes it significantly more likely that the same two mutations will happen independently in many individuals in the populations of two different lineages.

Yes, the same mutations, statistically speaking, could happen by chance, independently in both lineages due to a common biochemical cause. It is not that those biochemical causes are somehow "guided" or "intended", they're still just mindless chemical reactions. But given the right conditions, the same chemical reactions can take place independently in wildly different organisms.

We know of examples of this. For example, one of several biochemical causes of the type of mutation called gene-duplication, is unequal crossing over during homologous recombination. Repetitive DNA regions are very prone to recombination errors, because they can be aligned "out of order" easily, and the chromosomes recombined unequally so one chromosome now contains even more repeats. The bigger the repeat-region, the greater the chance of unequal crossing over, because there's simply more opportunity for misalignment. And with a big repetitive region, entire genes can be copied. That mutant chromosome can then be passed on to the offspring.

Another high-likelihood type of mutation with a well-known biochemical cause is Trinucleotide repeat expansion.

It is entirely plausible that a host of genes involved in the sense of hearing, for mammals in general, are prone to undergoing a host of similar mutations, independently in many lineages, for some underlying structural and biochemical reason.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:22 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Damn Leroy, can you at least remember the things I just said?

Previously You said this:
leroy wrote:Alll your comments about wings, convergent evolution, etc. are very interesting but irrelevant, there are 3 facts that any honest person has to grant, and that you haven't done anything to disprove them.


After I pointed out convergent evolution is definitely relevant to this issue with you not understanding the relationships between echolocation in bats and dolphins....

leroy wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:I have written quite more than that, bear in mind. I have demonstrated that the echolocating mechanism in bats and dolphins are quite different, but the similarities are due to common descent like they use their mammalian hearing to receiver the echo. I also showed that the gene prestin is more similar between close relatives of the echo locators rather than between the echo locators themselves, which contradicted your statement that the genes were identical and that the trees build from these genes would show that echolocating bats and dolphins are more closely related than their non echolocating relatives.
You only mentioning my wings example as to show what convergence as if this is the only thing I said, while omitting this important part with the gene comparison, just shows how dishonest you are. Any honest person would at least admit his errors and never use old refuted point again and again, but you are not honest.
And convergent evolution ain't irrelevant since your dolphin/bat example is exactly that, whether you want to accept it or not. Even you own citations mention convergent evolution. It is in the DAMN title!! Don't pretend this is irrelevant.

To over simply irrelevant information is not dishonest,


The fact that I have demonstrated that it is relevant, as you own citation proves that to be true, you still pretending that it is not irrelevant, is very dishonest indeed.

leroy wrote:the fact is that you didn't denied any of this 3 points, at least tacitly you are granting them,


The fact that I didn't jus denied them, I showed why those points are vacuous, showing your own misunderstanding about mutations and your lack of knowledge to tell the difference between an identical amino acid substitution and an identical mutation and that you forgot to take the amount of data (of the amino acid sequence, not DNA) they had to sort through to see the small faction of convergence (about 0,024%), which means that these events were indeed quite rare.

This means I did NOT grant them by any measure. Stop trying to speak for me.

Also Hackenslash correct you (instead of me) on your misunderstanding that surprises or things that were not expected from a theory, does not mean that the theory is in error. For example Einstein thought that gravitational waves were to weak to be ever detected and that black holes don't exists, yet we did and they do! Even though these things were not expected to have happened, the theory of relativity is still central to modern physics.

leroy wrote:the reason why hackenslash didn't corrected you is because we all agree with the same, we all agree that this 3 points are true.


I don't! And neither did hackenshlash!

leroy wrote:at most you corrected minor details but in the general sense we all agree with the accuracy of these 3 points, we even have similar conclusions.


Still don't agree, I didn't just corrected minor details either. Each and every point were contained an error such that the points are vacuous.

leroy wrote:we all 3 agree that universal common ancestry is the best explanation for the data, but there are a few things that have been found that where not predicted or even expected by common ancestry.


Sure, but we don't agree that these are problems of theories. Many new discoveries (that were not expected or not predicted or both) have supported evolution, enhanced our understanding of it or both.

Like last week there came an article out with a new hypothesis on the evolution of Dinosaurs, that goes totally against the status quo that was held for over 130 years. I sure didn't expected that, but did the article concluded that common descent is wrong. No, it didn't.

There have never been anything that goes against common descent, which is the point you want to make but are trying to hide it with softer words that don't mean the same thing.

It is exactly the same thing they did with "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" where they asked scientists whether they were "skeptical about darwinism accounting for the complexity of life". If I had not idea about the source of that question, I would agree, yes I am skeptical about everything including the things I generally agree with (although I don't consider myself a darwinists for the same reason I don't consider myself a Newtonian or an Einsteinist). But the intention to this question was a bait and switch. Scientists who agreed with THAT statement were presented as scientists who represented a controversy, while in reality the majority of science who signed that petition did not agree that there was a controversy.

That is you exact same intention here. Were are not falling for that.

leroy wrote:just a comment on point number 2
2 There is no current explanation on how could 2 independent clades could have sufferer form the same mutations 200 independent times, even assuming strong selective pressure, it is very unlikely for 2 organisms to have the same random mutation in the same place. (let alone 200)
Nesslig20 wrote:
Very unlikely as in 200 out of 805,053 (0,024%) of the time, which don't need to be identical mutations

well consider this analogy, pretend that each of us is told to rewrite a text that contains 805,053 letters. obviously we are expected to have some mistakes once in a while, but nobody would expect that we both made the same mistakes just by chance in the exact same letter, and sentence, 200 times. anyone who observes this would argue that this mistakes where not caused by chance, anyone would at least consider the possibility that maybe these mistakes where not completely random.


But evolution does not occur randomly and those don't have to be identical mutations! as I have explained multiple times, it is the amino acid sequence show convergence, not the genetic "letters".

But let's say for the sake of argument that it is random and that there were 200 identical changes among. Although you analogy of rewetting a text with intend, is not a good analogy since that isn't random.

Let's say we both are given a string of 805,053 letters that are identical and let's assume that there are only 20 letters (20 corresponding to that total different amino acids) and let us both randomly substitute each and every letter with another one or the identical one.

So to get an idea, the change of the first letter to be substituted by the same letter is 1 / 20 or 5%. Very low indeed. Thus most of the sequence, about 95% of it, will not be identical to the original after each letter is randomly substituted.

However, what is the change that we both substitute the first letter for the same letter. Well if you calculate the different possible outcomes there are 20^2 = 400 different possible outcomes with us both subtituting letter 1 with any of the 20 letters. Only 20 of the 400 possible outcomes will be an event where we both substituted the letter with the same letter. So 20 out of 400 is the same as 1 / 20 or 5% again.

This means that while in both of us, 95% of all the letters are different between us (as well as that of the original string) about 5% IS the same!
How much is that? 5% of 805,053 is 40252. So that means we will both make the same mistake 40252 of the time!
That seems rather large, but bear in mind, that is just 5% of the total amount, so even though it is quite rare, there are so many random events that just a few odd cases are bound to happen.

To have another analogy, lets say that we both try to copy a string of 805053 letters (again with only 20 possible letters), however we both make about 4000 random mistakes, that is about 0,5% of the time that we both make random mistakes, thus a very small error margin.

What is the change that we make the same mistake at one site? 1/20 or 5%.
How many will that amount to among 4000 random mistakes? About 200......say from where does that number remind me of?

This is still not an perfect analogy to what happens in genetics, for one thing if we let an entire sequence of genes to be randomly mutated at every point, the whole gene would be non functional. Natural selection prevents this form happening, thus they will stay largely the same except for a few cases that do produce a benefit as in the adaption toward something like...uh...I don't know.....echolocation??

leroy wrote:I am not suggesting that therefore "God did it" all I am saying is that at least sometimes mutations are not fully random, sometimes mutations are biased, and sometimes things might evolve through bias mutations.


Citation please. The Lederberg experiment demonstrated that mutations are random, but if you have your own experiment, please provide.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... tations_07

leroy wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:Still can't figure out the difference between hindsight and foresight.?? Let me explain it once again. The likely hood of you being born before your parents met was extremely unlikely, however since you are now existing being wrong on the internet all the time, the odd of you existing is 100% (sadly enough...joking of course).


The likelihood of chimps and humans sharing somee many genetic markers before life evolved in extremely unlikely, however since chimps and humans are now existing with shared genetic markers the odds of them existing is 100%


Yup and the fact that they exists means they are descended from a common ancestor.

leroy wrote:using your logic to dismiss the probabilistic problem that I mentioned (about neutral mutations and genetic drift) is as fallacious as using your logic to dismiss the similarities chimps and humans, so ether drop that logic or drop the argument for common ancestry that involves shared genetic markers..


Again, you don't get it. An argument that is used to conclude that Hot dogs sucks doesn't mean it can be used to argue that hamburgers are discussing as well. You have to understand the argument, FIRST, before you are applying it to something else.

Saying that the chance that you existed viewing it in foresight, is very small, in hindsight, 100%.
Which is not the same as
Saying that we share genetic markers, which only can happen due to common descent (or the designer just did that way for some reason or to test our faith).

To get the point across again, the odds of you being born is very small, however after the fact that you were born, your genetic markers that you have demonstrates that you are the child of your mom and dad as well as the fact that we both are related. Those genetic markers can only come from one places, unless you think that those genetic marks can also be accounted for a designer, such that a paternity tests might as well prove that the designer made you this way with all those genetic markers that you have.

leroy wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:Do I really need to copy paste all those articles.....again....??? That is what I have to put up with when arguing with someone suffering from short term memory

it would be much better if you copy paste articles that actually meat the burden that I am asking for, up to this point you haven't provided a single example of how a step could have occurred.

Well what i would call a step requires 3 things
1 a genetic change achievable in 1 generation (like a gene duplication for example)
2 it has to be beneficial (something that would be selected by natural selection)
3 it has to represent a step closer towards modern eyes


Damn you are blind:
Rumraket wrote:Why would it have to be achievable in 1 generation? Why not 2, or 5, or a hundred? The answer is that it doesn't.
Why would it have to be "positive" rather than neutral? It doesn't. It could even be slightly deleterious and still fix by drift in a small population, or substantially deleterious yet hitchike with another beneficial allele.
Why would someone have to provide a step by step path at this level of detail? Do you even have any other beliefs which are supported by such a level corroboration? Of course you don't.
Isn't it obvious you're deliberately setting the bar irrationally high? Yes, yes it is.
......................
No. I'm obviously not claiming all of eye-evolution was achieved by genetic drift, that would be preposterous. Rather, I'm merely saying that not all of the "steps" have to be beneficial. We know for a fact that there are complex phenotypes who's evolutionary history include necessary neutral mutations that fixed by genetic drift.
For example, the evolution of chloroquine resistance in plasmodium falciparum requires multiple neutral mutations along the way.
And in the Long-Term Evolution Experiment, the cit+ phenotype requires at least one neutral, potentiating mutation.


hackenslash wrote:
thenexttodie wrote:each change (or at least most of them) would have to be beneficial

This is simply not true, and the fact that it isn't true has been pointed out six ways from Sunday.
You're operating from an entirely false premise. Not only are they not required to be beneficial, they're not even required to be beneficial in the context of their environment. There's no sense in which your contention isn't fundamentally wrong.


Me wrote:And you admitted that requirement #2 isn't necessary.
thenexttodie wrote:granted, not all of the steps have to be beneficial.

So why include that requirement again? Suffer from short term memory? From looking at old discussions between you and others and from my own experience by arguing with you, I think you do.
You frequently bring up points back even though they have been refuted before, like that Bat/Dolphin echolocation thing that you brought back some time later after I have shown that to be flawed. Stop using PRATTS.


Stop using this debunked thing over and over gain!!

leroy wrote:I asked, which of the 2 mechanisms predominated (related to the evolution of sight)

1 neutral mutations + genetic drift

or

2 beneficial mutations + natural selection

anyone can read you answer and note that you haven't answered to the question.


Anyone, except you, can read that I have.

((((START REPEAT)))))

leroy wrote:So please answer this question, any objection that I might have depends on how you answer this question.
talking about the evolution of sight...........are you a neutralist or a selectionist?
Both. Since there are so many neutral mutation (some that do lead to changes in phenotypes) that get inherited, genetic drift has been proven to be a larger role in the evolution of species. Does that mean natural selection played no role? No, it still does.

nice try, so your strategy is to keep your answer ambiguous, because you know that neutralism has a probabilistic problem that you cant solve, and selectionism has a burden proof that you don't what to carry, namely identify the mutations that could have occurred and prove that they had a benefit.


1. No I said BOTH, that is not ambiguous. Natural selection and genetic drift are NOT mutually exclusive mechanisms in the sense of no 100% this or 100% that. They can both contribute to the fixation or elimination of mutations in a population with varying degrees depending on the population size. Stop thinking in black or white.
2. Neutralism doesn't have a probabilistic problem as I have already explained. There are extremely unlikely events like us being born if you calculated it as if with foresight, but that is the problem. We note this things in hindsight, thus it doesn't matter how likely the event that happened could happen. Once it happened, the odds of it happening are 100%.

"That a particular specified event or coincidence will occur is very unlikely. That some astonishing unspecified events will occur is certain. That is why remarkable coincidences are noted in hindsight, not predicted with foresight."
—David G. Myers

leroy wrote:My question is which of these mechanisms predominated
1 neutral mutation + genetic drift
2 beneficial mutation + selection
I know that you believe that both mechanisms took place, my question is which of these 2 mechanisms predominated in the evolution of eyes.
lets see how long does it take you to answer this question clearly and ambiguously.....or you can simply admit that you don't know .....


You don't have to wait long, since I already have answered that question, though not clearly. I said this
Both. Since there are so many neutral mutation (some that do lead to changes in phenotypes) that get inherited, genetic drift has been proven to be a larger role in the evolution of species. Does that mean natural selection played no role? No, it still does.


So drift dominates mostly during evolution of species, especially when the population size is small, which it often is. So you might think that the way life evolved in this particular way is very unlikely, you would be right. If you rewind the tape to about 1 billion years ago and let everything play out on its own, chances are that familiar species won't ever evolve. You would still have bacteria and maybe even eukaryotes if they already existed 1 billion years ago, however there would be other things that would be unrecognizable. Maybe similar in the same way a dolphin is similar to a shark or a bat is to a bird, but you won't find anything that you could say that is a mammal or a bird. Just like if you rewind the tape back before you were a zygote, when you mom and dad had that very special night, changes are that a different sperm cell fertilized the egg, so instead of you being born, a different human being equivalent to your brother or sister would have been born which was FAAARRR more likely.

But again, there is a different in noticing improbable events in foresight and hindsight.

((((END REPEAT)))))

And here below you can see my answer again!!

leroy wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:1. No I said BOTH, that is not ambiguous. Natural selection and genetic drift are NOT mutually exclusive mechanisms in the sense of no 100% this or 100% that. They can both contribute to the fixation or elimination of mutations in a population with varying degrees depending on the population size. Stop thinking in black or white.
2. Neutralism doesn't have a probabilistic problem as I have already explained. There are extremely unlikely events like us being born if you calculated it as if with foresight, but that is the problem. We note this things in hindsight, thus it doesn't matter how likely the event that happened could happen. Once it happened, the odds of it happening are 100%........

So drift dominates mostly during evolution of species, especially when the population size is small, which it often is. So you might think that the way life evolved in this particular way is very unlikely, you would be right. If you rewind the tape to about 1 billion years ago and let everything play out on its own, chances are that familiar species won't ever evolve. You would still have bacteria and maybe even eukaryotes if they already existed 1 billion years ago, however there would be other things that would be unrecognizable. Maybe similar in the same way a dolphin is similar to a shark or a bat is to a bird, but you won't find anything that you could say that is a mammal or a bird. Just like if you rewind the tape back before you were a zygote, when you mom and dad had that very special night, changes are that a different sperm cell fertilized the egg, so instead of you being born, a different human being equivalent to your brother or sister would have been born which was FAAARRR more likely. ...................
So I did answer your question, then why tell me I didn't? And I already did answer that. Drift mostly dominates in evolution, especially when population sizes are small. Read the whole response before you come back again with this bogus "probability problem" of yours.

But again, there is a different in noticing improbable events in foresight and hindsight.

nobody is implying that natural selection and drift are mutually exclusive, I am just asking is which of the 2 predominated "both" is not an answer unless you say that each mechanism contributed more less with 50%


Read closely to the comment you just quoted here. You ignoramus!!

leroy wrote:So granted, both mechanism contributed, but rwhen talking about the genetic changes related to the evolution of sight.....which of these 2 mechanisms predominated?..............why don't you simply admit that you don't know, instead of pretending that you already answered?


I did answer it! As you can see, IN YOUR OWN QUOTE OF ME!!

leroy wrote:
However, there is no reason why we should live in such universe, unlike living in a universe that allows us to live. Thus the multiverse argument for why we live in such a universe cannot be used to argue why we live in a universe where we share genetic orthologs with other species.
There is a missing part in your argument, WHY should we live in such a universe??

I have spelled this out many different way, how many times do I have to tell you this again before you leave for a while and come back with the same thing??


there is no reason why we should live in a universe with very low entropy and so many galaxies and stars, a universe with just 1 galaxy (or just 1 solar system) would be enough. ............observers could have lived in a much simpler and more probable universe. in the same way chimps and human can exist without sharing genetic markers.


Actually, we do. We need the heavy elements that make up our own body like carbon, which require lots of stars producing them and going nova. Gravity, which we also need, produce galaxies as a by product.

But besides that, this is a total red herring. You have admitted that the multi verse theory doesn't apply to humans and chimps sharing genetic markers. Thus you argument doesn't hold anymore. The argument that humans need a universe with specific conditions to live in, which is why we live in such a universe is NOT the same as saying we need to live in a universe were we find ourselves with genetic markers that we share with all life, since we don't need them at all!!

leroy wrote:so yes, to say that we live in an improbable universe with very low entropy, many stars etc.. just by chance is a fallacious as saying that we share genetic markers with chimps by chance.................both are equally fallacious, both observations require an explanation.


But then again, we don't find ourself in such a universe by change, we need to live in such a universe, which is why we find ourself in such a universe...according to the argument.

There is nothing to indicate we need to have genetic makers, that is the distinction you KEEEP missing!!

leroy wrote:lets see if you agree with this statement....

Mere improbability doesn't prove anything and doesn't require any sort of explanation, examples of mere improbability would be the probability of me being born, or the probability of me breathing the exact combinations air molecules that I just breath.


It depends in the context, if you are calculating the probability of an event happening that already happened, (like your birth or the molecules you just have breathed in) that is pretty redundant.
If you are calculating the probability of something that may or may not be true (like you being the child of your parents, or being related to me and chimps based on those markers) that is productive and not the same thing as the previous thing.

leroy wrote:but when you have improbability + a pattern you do need some sort of explanation
any combination of genetic markers is equally unlikely to have occurred by chance, but to have apes and humans with the same shared genetic markers (a pattern) requires an explanation, something different from "it happened by chance"


Like common descent?

leroy wrote:in the case of the universe and the probabilistic problem that I mentioned related to neutral mutations and genetic drift, we are talking about improbability + a pattern.

any combination of neutral mutations that where selected by genetic drift is equally unlikely, but to have the exact combination that would eventually produce an eye and sight (a pattern) requieres an explanation, something different from "it happened by chance"


Sure, which is what I have explained previously. When you only speak of mutations that are inherited ONLY by drift, you are correct. It was unlikely that those were inherited, if they were, some other mutations could have been inherited (just like instead of you being born, the equivalent of your brother or sister was born) some of those could still lead to the same phenotype or a completely different phenotype with the same function.

In another scenario, vertebrate eyes could have evolved differently, or not at all, just like if you were not born, someone else could've been or your parents didn't had kids at all.

leroy wrote:
Wrong.

To make it analogous.

1. Observers can only exists in a universe that allows for them to live, otherwise they wouldn't exists in the first place (correct multi verse argument)

2. Observers can only exists in a universe that includes them sharing orthologs with other species, otherwise they wouldn't exists in the first place (premise one is false, observes don't need to have shared orthologs with other species in order for them to exists....IF they are unrelated to other species, thus the multiverse argument doesn't apply here)


observers don't need to live in a universe with many galaxies, the analogy is valid,


But then again, the multi verse argument isn't about galaxies. Though galaxies exists due to gravity and we need gravity, thus there is a link with the fine tuning argument that is applicable. It is not applicable in the case with genetic markers.

Holy shit, I just explained everything I already did.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Nesslig20 on Sat Apr 01, 2017 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:02 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2354Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:BTW, your attention is needed in the conversation about fine tuning, (I send a private message)........your services are requested to correct HWN


Several things here.

First, don't send me private messages. I have absolutely no interest in interacting with you away from the public forum.

Second, I'm not at you beck and call, and you should be aware that, since many of your positions are rooted in scientifically illiterate drivel, I'm unlikely to provide any support.

Finally, if your position is that the universe is fine-tuned and therefore required a tuner, then you won't find any support here.

http://reciprocity-giving-something-bac ... -dial.html
Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:32 am
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Rumraket wrote:
well consider this analogy, pretend that each of us is told to rewrite a text that contains 805,053 letters. obviously we are expected to have some mistakes once in a while,

but nobody would expect that we both made the same mistakes just by chance in the exact same letter, and sentence, 200 times. anyone who observes this would argue that this mistakes where not caused by chance, anyone would at least consider the possibility that maybe these mistakes where not completely random.

As usual the creationist does not understand in what way mutations are thought to be random.

They're NOT thought to be random with respect to the particular position in the genome.
They're NOT thought to be random with respect to the particular type of mutation.

They're ONLY thought to be random with respect to fitness, that's it.

What that means is mutations are not thought to become more likely to be beneficial, just because that might coincidentally be useful. Mutations will happen regardless of how adaptive they are.
But how frequently they are adaptive(or the extend to which they are adaptive) will not be determined by the environment. We say, therefore, that they are random with respect to their effect on fitness.

But it is entirely possible that there are common, non-random, biochemical causes of mutations in particular genes that makes it significantly more likely that the same two mutations will happen independently in many individuals in the populations of two different lineages.

Yes, the same mutations, statistically speaking, could happen by chance, independently in both lineages due to a common biochemical cause. It is not that those biochemical causes are somehow "guided" or "intended", they're still just mindless chemical reactions. But given the right conditions, the same chemical reactions can take place independently in wildly different organisms.

We know of examples of this. For example, one of several biochemical causes of the type of mutation called gene-duplication, is unequal crossing over during homologous recombination. Repetitive DNA regions are very prone to recombination errors, because they can be aligned "out of order" easily, and the chromosomes recombined unequally so one chromosome now contains even more repeats. The bigger the repeat-region, the greater the chance of unequal crossing over, because there's simply more opportunity for misalignment. And with a big repetitive region, entire genes can be copied. That mutant chromosome can then be passed on to the offspring.

Another high-likelihood type of mutation with a well-known biochemical cause is Trinucleotide repeat expansion.

It is entirely plausible that a host of genes involved in the sense of hearing, for mammals in general, are prone to undergoing a host of similar mutations, independently in many lineages, for some underlying structural and biochemical reason.




well it is unfair to call it a "creationists" misunderstanding when many evolutionist argue for random mutations with respect to the particular position in the genome, including Nessiling in this particular conversation. .......


except for Ness, I guess we all agree that mutations (at least sometimes) are biased with respect to the location in which the mutations occurs and that this bias (at least sometimes) plays a mayor role in the development of complex structures and systems (echolocation for example)
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:06 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

hackenslash wrote:
leroy wrote:BTW, your attention is needed in the conversation about fine tuning, (I send a private message)........your services are requested to correct HWN


Several things here.

First, don't send me private messages. I have absolutely no interest in interacting with you away from the public forum.

Second, I'm not at you beck and call, and you should be aware that, since many of your positions are rooted in scientifically illiterate drivel, I'm unlikely to provide any support.

.

http://reciprocity-giving-something-bac ... -dial.html


The only reason I send a PM is because your intervention what required in a post that you where probably not following.

Since you claim that correcting atheist is one of your current interest, I simply gave you the opportunity to correct HWN, whenever you tell that you are no longer interested in correcting atheist, fell free to tell me and I wont send you atheist mistakes anymore,

Finally, if your position is that the universe is fine-tuned and therefore required a tuner, then you won't find any support here


Don't worry, you don't have to support the idea that the universe is FT nor that there is a Tuner.

all you have to do is explain to HWN that counterfactuals are not necessarily fallacious and that nowhere in this source does it says (let alone prove) that counterfactuals are necessarily fallacious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfa ... onditional


to give you some context HWN, claims that CF are necessarily fallacious and that this source proves it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfa ... onditional al you have to do is correct him and explain to him that CF are not necessarily fallacious, .....


you don't have to agree that the universe is FT, not that there is a tuner, all you have to do is grant that CF are not necessarily fallacious,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:15 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2354Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:The only reason I send a PM is because your intervention what required in a post that you where probably not following.


This statement does nothing except acknowledge mine. Not interested in why. Besides, it's obvious I'm following thread, because I've fucking commented in it.

Since you claim that correcting atheist is one of your current interest, I simply gave you the opportunity to correct HWN, whenever you tell that you are no longer interested in correcting atheist, fell free to tell me and I wont send you atheist mistakes anymore,


That I spend most of my time correcting atheists doesn't mean I'm going to correct everybody that you think is wrong, and that would be true even if it weren't the case, which it is, that you're wrong almost exclusively. If ever you're right, I'll say so.[


all you have to do is explain to HWN that counterfactuals are not necessarily fallacious and that nowhere in this source does it says (let alone prove) that counterfactuals are necessarily fallacious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfa ... onditional


to give you some context HWN, claims that CF are necessarily fallacious and that this source proves it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfa ... onditional al you have to do is correct him and explain to him that CF are not necessarily fallacious, .....


Why would I do that, when it's clear you have either not read or not understood the article you're citing?

Listen carefully: You're a fucking cretin, wrong about pretty much everything, and you will find no support from me, regardless of how correct you think you are.

Now fuck off, and don't darken my door again.

Have I made myself clear?
Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:14 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

hackenslash wrote:

Why would I do that, when it's clear you have either not read or not understood the article you're citing?



All I am asking is for an opinion, do you think the article proves that Counterfactuals are necessarily fallacious? .......why?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:36 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2354Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

I think the article has nothing to say about the topic, because it isn't about counterfactuals, it's about counterfactual conditionals. Understanding what these are requires that you have some grasp of logic, and you clearly do not.
Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:28 am
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

hackenslash wrote:I think the article has nothing to say about the topic, because it isn't about counterfactuals, it's about counterfactual conditionals. Understanding what these are requires that you have some grasp of logic, and you clearly do not.


however, the article does not prove that counterfactuals (nor counterfactual conditionals) are necessarily fallacious.........agree?.........this is a simple yes or no question
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:33 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2354Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:however, the article does not prove that counterfactuals (nor counterfactual conditionals) are necessarily fallacious.........agree?.........this is a simple yes or no question


When I want your opinion about how to answer a question, I'll give it to you.

Counterfactual conditionals have nothing whatsoever to do with counterfactuals, not least because a counterfactual conditional isn't an argument, so cannot be subject to accusations of fallacy. A counterfactual conditional is an heuristic tool formulated for the purpose of raising a different set of questions to aid investigation. The article is entirely unrelated to your question.

What is it I'm supposed to be saying HWIN got wrong, and where did he say it? I'm entirely unwilling to comment untilI see it in context, so link to his statement and maybe I'll look at it.

Given that you linked an article having nothing to do with your question, I don't hold out much hope that you got anything correct. Again.
Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:44 am
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

hackenslash wrote:
leroy wrote:however, the article does not prove that counterfactuals (nor counterfactual conditionals) are necessarily fallacious.........agree?.........this is a simple yes or no question



Counterfactual conditionals have nothing whatsoever to do with counterfactuals, not least because a counterfactual conditional isn't an argument, so cannot be subject to accusations of fallacy. A counterfactual conditional is an heuristic tool formulated for the purpose of raising a different set of questions to aid investigation. The article is entirely unrelated to your question.

What is it I'm supposed to be saying HWIN got wrong, and where did he say it? I'm entirely unwilling to comment untilI see it in context, so link to his statement and maybe I'll look at it.

.


Yes I´ve told HWN múltiple times that his tendency of providing unrelated articles is annoying, but for some reason he doesn't understand it..


this is the context (feel free to contact HWN for verification)


HWN claims that all the arguments for FT are based on counterfactuals ..............I agree with this statement,

He claims that counterfactuals are necessarily fallacious, (all counterfactuals are logical fallacies he would argue) I disagree with this statement and he used that article to as evidence for his statement...............so based on your own personal opinion, who do you think is wrong?



What is it I'm supposed to be saying HWIN got wrong, and where did he say it? I'm entirely unwilling to comment untilI see it in context, so link to his statement and maybe I'll look at it.


sure

leroy wrote:
First you said that CF are necessary fallacious


HWN replied...
he_who_is_nobody worte
They are ....(using this source as evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfa ... onditional)

I have no idea on how to link to a specific conversation, but that specific quote was written on Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:26 pm (page 13) in the conversation about fine-tuning.



I am not misquoting HWN, he truly believes that counterfactuals are always fallacious and he believes that this article proves it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfa ... onditional

all I am asking is for your own personal opinion, who do you think is wrong about this specific statement?
He claims that counterfactuals are necessarily fallacious, (all counterfactuals are logical fallacies he would argue) I disagree with this statement and he used that article to as evidence for his statement



If you don't have time to look at the conversation to understand the context, you can answer based on the assumption that I am not misrepresenting HWN and clarify in your answer that you are making that assumption.,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:41 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2354Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

OK, I've tracked that back to its source and, quelle surprise, you're misrepresenting what was said.

What HWIN actually said (HERE) was that your entire argument hinged on a counterfactual conditional, which is a fallacy. He is correct in this. When your argument relies on a conditional being true when that conditional is not true, you have indeed committed a fallacy.

I wouldn't have linked to the article on counterfactual conditionals, because it muddies the waters somewhat, but he is correct that your reliance on an 'if' statement that doesn't hold (I don't know if your argument was of this sort, because I've wasted more time on you already than your dreck warrants) commits a glaring fallacy, and this should be obvious even to somebody whose grasp of logic is a shit as yours is.

So, again, and reflecting what I said above, yes, an argument that relies on a counterfactual premise IS ALWAYS FALLACIOUS, because it's unsound. Simple as that.

You're still wrong, regardless of the fact that the article on counterfactual conditionals doesn't really make the case.
Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:26 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2354Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Oh, and I should add that I won't respond to any more of your attempts to play us off one against the other. I'm not your ally, and I have no intention of playing the part. I correct what I see fit to correct, and it isn't your place to direct me. I'm not at your beck and call.

Now heed my prior instruction.
Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:41 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

hackenslash wrote:OK, I've tracked that back to its source and, quelle surprise, you're misrepresenting what was said.

What HWIN actually said (HERE) was that your entire argument hinged on a counterfactual conditional, which is a fallacy. He is correct in this. When your argument relies on a conditional being true when that conditional is not true, you have indeed committed a fallacy.

I wouldn't have linked to the article on counterfactual conditionals, because it muddies the waters somewhat, but he is correct that your reliance on an 'if' statement that doesn't hold (I don't know if your argument was of this sort, because I've wasted more time on you already than your dreck warrants) commits a glaring fallacy, and this should be obvious even to somebody whose grasp of logic is a shit as yours is.

So, again, and reflecting what I said above, yes, an argument that relies on a counterfactual premise IS ALWAYS FALLACIOUS, because it's unsound. Simple as that.

You're still wrong, regardless of the fact that the article on counterfactual conditionals doesn't really make the case.



however it is still a fact that this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfa ... onditional) does not prove that a counterfactual premise IS ALWAYS FALLACIOUS..................agree?

Oh, and I should add that I won't respond to any more of your attempts to play us off one against the other. I'm not your ally, and I have no intention of playing the part. I correct what I see fit to correct, and it isn't your place to direct me. I'm not at your beck and call.


the only reason this is a play, is because you are not providing direct answers, all you have to do is grant that the particular article that HWN quoted does not prove that a counterfactual premise is always fallacious.




I'm not at your beck and call



anytime I find a mistake made by an atheist I will let you know, you are always free to answer or to ignore it,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:35 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2354Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:however it is still a fact that this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfa ... onditional) does not prove that a counterfactual premise IS ALWAYS FALLACIOUS..................agree?


I agree that the article doesn't support that claim, and I've already said this.

the only reason this is a play, is because you are not providing direct answers,


I have provided direct answers.

all you have to do is grant that the particular article that HWN quoted does not prove that a counterfactual premise is always fallacious.


I'd already done that, and premises are never fallacious, because a fallacy is an error in reasoning, and a premise contains no reasoning.

anytime I find a mistake made by an atheist I will let you know, you are always free to answer or to ignore it,


No, don't fucking contact me by PM. This is a clear instruction not to do so, and I've already said that I have no interest in interacting with you away from the open forum. If it were down to me, your sorry arse would have been consigned to oblivion as the idiotic troll you clearly are yonks ago. You are not welcome to contact me.
Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:44 pm
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 5
 [ 98 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests