where else can you find us?

The League of Reason still 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 4 of 4
 [ 73 posts ] 
Prove an interpretation?
Author Message
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 189Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:I will make a reply on the rest of your post within a few days.


Probably going to be the same question, Again and again and again.....and again.

leroy wrote:That comment is irrelevant since Behes concern has nothing to do with common ancestry, as far as I know Behe accepts common ancestry, his only concern is that according to him Darwinian mechanisms (mutations and natural selection) cant account for the diversity and complexity of life that we have.


You mentioned Irreducible complexity, as if it wasn't disproved, which it is for more then 10 years now!. And now you are pretending that this has nothing to do with Behe, which it obviously does.

He does indeed accept common ancestry, however he is still wrong with irreducible complexity. He has been shown to be wrong and I have shown you to be wrong with the citations I provide that you still are trying to ignore.

leroy wrote:the comment is also a straw man because those who deny common ancestry do not claim that the similarities between humans and other species are a product of chance.


It is not "just similarities" as I have explained before, but again, you have short term memory. It is the pattern of both the presence of similarities or common traits and the absence of them, the differences. And this pattern forms a twin nested hierarchy (an evolutionary tree) that taxonomy revealed a hundred years before Darwin was alive and just become more robust over time.

But this get conclusive with genetics. Just like we can calculate, based on a paternity test, that the probability (or better yet, the certainty) of the child being that of the father (or not) is 99% Thus practically certain that he is the father.

The certainty of all life related is >99,999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999...etc

And the certainty that humans are related to other species is >99,999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999....etc

And that is just from genetics alone and no competing hypothesis that explains why we even have common genetic markers with other life forms that form the same twin nested hierarchy. Design doesn't predict this, just like design doesn't predict that two unrelated people would be tested as 99% certain to have a parental relationship on a paternity test.

"Unless the designer made it such to give the illusion that all life is related just to test our faith."

But common design DOES predict this.

leroy wrote:But why cant I simply use the anthropic principle (multiverse theory for example) to explain that probability? .............if we wouldn't have 97% similarities with chimps we wouldn't be wondering why chimps and humans have a 97% similarity. ..........in other words observers that ask this question can only exist in universes where chimps and humans have a 97% similarity.


Now you are just rambling nonsense. The anthropic principle relates to either of these two things.
1. Humans require a specific environment within the universe to live.
2. Humans require a specific universe (with specific physical properties) to exists.

How the fuck are either of these related to genetics at all??

And we don't just say that we are related with chimps just because we are 97% similar genetically, though that is a strong indication, but it wasn't the definitive factor. It is shared genetic markers that we have: orthologs, ERVs, shared pseudogenes (how does design explain that). Fusion of chromosome number 2, which was predicted by common descent.

leroy wrote:I am not accusing you in particular, but many atheist (Dawkins for example) use the anthropic principle to get away with the probabilities that theist provide, so why cant I do the same?..........this is really an honest question, I really what to know about your thoughts on the anthropic principle and on weather if we should use it or not to explain away probabilistic problems.


Because you have no idea what those things even are. You are literally saying something absurd like this.
"If fishermen can use a rod catching fish, why can't I use a rod to fix my car?"
"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
Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:47 pm
leroyPosts: 646Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Nesslig20 wrote::Mutations that change a necessary function a gene would be harmful if there was only one of it, but duplications negate this harmful effect, thereby allowing the copy to freely mutate without any harm to the organism.
This has (at least) two implications. The copy can change its function to fulfill a novel role which is beneficial. Of course this is an indirect benefit of a mutation that creates the potential for some future mutation to be beneficial (which would still count as beneficial). But this alone would probably not be enough, so what direct benefits has. It creates redundancy. Organisms that have many duplicated forms of their genes don't suffer from the harmful effects of mutations as much.


Those mutations by definition are neutral, redundant mutation are neutral..............I could grand that in the long term (after adding other mutations) the effect could be positive, this is the neutralist view, but the fact is that if an individual has a gene duplication it wont be selected by natural selection unless it has a benefit, natural selection doesn't have a mind, natural selection wont have a bias in keeping a mutation just because the mutation has potencial long term benefits.

the fact is that the probability of fixation of a neutral mutation (even if it has long term benefits) is 1/2N

N = size of the populaton

so even in a small population of 1000 individuales, the probability of fixation is 1/2,000...............this is why we know that in the majority of cases a specific neutral mutation will be removed by genetic drift. .....the only way to reduce this probability is if the mutation has a benefit. and this is why adding to many neutral mutations would produce a probabilistic problem.


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?


Neutralist> you believe that most mutations, (related to the evolution of sight) where neutral and selected by random genetic drift

Selectionists>, Most mutations (related to the evolution of sight) where positive and selected by natural selection.
Aronra:
“There is no free will" "I am a free thinker”
Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:37 pm
leroyPosts: 646Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Nesslig20 wrote:

It is not "just similarities" as I have explained before, but again, you have short term memory. It is the pattern of both the presence of similarities or common traits and the absence of them, the differences. And this pattern forms a twin nested hierarchy (an evolutionary tree) that taxonomy revealed a hundred years before Darwin was alive and just become more robust over time. ......


yes, and all I am saying is that those who deny common ancestry, don't argue that the pattern was a product of chance, therefore any probabilistic arguments are irrelevant. and strawman.





Now you are just rambling nonsense. The anthropic principle relates to either of these two things.
1. Humans require a specific environment within the universe to live.
2. Humans require a specific universe (with specific physical properties) to exists.

How the fuck are either of these related to genetics at all??

And we don't just say that we are related with chimps just because we are 97% similar genetically, though that is a strong indication, but it wasn't the definitive factor. It is shared genetic markers that we have: orthologs, ERVs, shared pseudogenes (how does design explain that). Fusion of chromosome number 2, which was predicted by common descent.



How about this answer....

We live in a multiverse, with a potentially infinite number of universes, in most of these universes humans and chimps, don't have all these shared ERVs pseudogenes, proteins.....etc......but in a small minority of these multiverses just by chance, we happen to have all this shared stuff with chimps. We simply happen to live in such universe, if we weren't living in such universe we wouldn't be wondering why we have all this shared stuff and similarities with chimps.


Obviously this is a stupid answer, but my point is that some atheist use the same kind of answer to explain away some theistic arguments, why cant we simply reject those atheists answers for the same reason you would reject my answer?


this is really an honest question, I don't have any hidden motives, I honestly what to know about your thoughts
Aronra:
“There is no free will" "I am a free thinker”
Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:58 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 956Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:Obviously this is a stupid answer, but my point is that some atheist use the same kind of answer to explain away some theistic arguments, why cant we simply reject those atheists answers for the same reason you would reject my answer?

We can, I absolutely agree, reject such an answer as completely idiotic and unsatisfying. One can basically explain away everything with that kind of "answer".

Some atheistic arguments, or responses, are in fact stupid and silly. I have no compunction agreeing to that. I'm an atheist yet it is entirely obvious to me that some atheists are atheists for bad reasons, or have no, or bad answers to some theistic arguments. In becoming an atheist, one does not magically transform into some sort of flawless logic-computer that only make correct arguments.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:22 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 956Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote::Mutations that change a necessary function a gene would be harmful if there was only one of it, but duplications negate this harmful effect, thereby allowing the copy to freely mutate without any harm to the organism.
This has (at least) two implications. The copy can change its function to fulfill a novel role which is beneficial. Of course this is an indirect benefit of a mutation that creates the potential for some future mutation to be beneficial (which would still count as beneficial). But this alone would probably not be enough, so what direct benefits has. It creates redundancy. Organisms that have many duplicated forms of their genes don't suffer from the harmful effects of mutations as much.


Those mutations by definition are neutral, redundant mutation are neutral..............I could grand that in the long term (after adding other mutations) the effect could be positive, this is the neutralist view, but the fact is that if an individual has a gene duplication it wont be selected by natural selection unless it has a benefit, natural selection doesn't have a mind, natural selection wont have a bias in keeping a mutation just because the mutation has potencial long term benefits.

the fact is that the probability of fixation of a neutral mutation (even if it has long term benefits) is 1/2N

N = size of the populaton

so even in a small population of 1000 individuales, the probability of fixation is 1/2,000...............this is why we know that in the majority of cases a specific neutral mutation will be removed by genetic drift.

Yes. So what? In the majority of cases. Key word there is majority. Not all. Majority.

You seem to be somehow trying to conclude that, if the mutation is neutral, it won't fix at all (this is basically what you want to get to). You seem to be trying to get at that conclusion so that you can say that the eye could not evolve if it involved steps that required neutral mutations.

Again, we know of situations with REQUIRED neutral mutations fixing in populations with BILLIONS of individuals. Some times fixing before the next mutation happened that was beneficial. Some times hovering around at a low frequency (meaning it hadn't fixed yet) before the next mutation happened, which in conjunction with the neutral one, was benficial. For example, the evolution of chloroquine resistance in the Malaria parasite Plasmodium Falciparum, requires at least one neutral mutation to evolve before additional beneficial mutations can happen. To get at the highest levels of chloroquine resistance requires some times three to four neutral, or even deleterious mutations.

Here look at this:
Image
The blue horizontal arrows are neutral mutations. The green ones are beneficial, the red are deleterious. The Y-axis denotes levels of resistance. Notice how, to even get ANY resistance to chloroquine, neutral mutations have to happen first. Only in conjunction with the +75E, or +76T mutations, both of which are neutral, can chloroquine resistance even arise. Then several additional beneficial ones become possible, but to get even higher from those, the route again involves neutral or even deleterious steps. Steps observed having evolved in nature, in real Plasmodium populations.
Source of the figure:
Summers, R. L., Dave, A., Dolstra, T. J., Bellanca, S., Marchetti, R. V., Nash, M. N., Richards, S. N., Goh, V., Schenk, R. L., Stein, W. D., Kirk, K., Sanchez, C. P., Lanzer, M. and Martin, R. (2014) Diverse mutational pathways converge on saturable chloroquine transport via the malaria parasite’s chloroquine resistance transporter. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. published online April 11, 2014. [doi: 10.1073/pnas.1322965111]


So your desired conclusion simply doesn't follow. The fixation probability is low, but it's not zero, nor is it "borderline infinitesimal". Or "so low as to be virtually identical to zero and so we can basically dismiss it". Are you somehow trying to say that events with a probability of 1 in 1000, or 1 in 50.000, or 1 in 1 million, never take place? That would be idiotic, because that's obviously not what a probability means. A probability of occurrence is a RATE of occurence. It means it actually occurs, as opposed to not at all occurring.

You need to make your argument more explicit instead of this sort of trying to handwave it away with "the odds are sorta low". Yes, they are, but it could still happen (and has been observed happening), so you can't reject evolution for that reason alone.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:45 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2136Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Rumraket wrote:Some atheistic arguments, or responses, are in fact stupid and silly. I have no compunction agreeing to that. I'm an atheist yet it is entirely obvious to me that some atheists are atheists for bad reasons, or have no, or bad answers to some theistic arguments. In becoming an atheist, one does not magically transform into some sort of flawless logic-computer that only make correct arguments.


This.

In fact, these days, I spend far more effort in correcting these bad arguments than I do arguing with theists.
Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:14 pm
surreptitious57Posts: 207Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:09 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

I agree with this. Those on our side know you re one of the best when it comes to identifying flaws in argumentation. So are only too happy
to learn from you. Whereas those on the other side have no such obligation. I think it more psychologically satisfying from your perspective
because some are actually paying attention to what you are saying. Though having said that it would not surprise me if you also had some
from the other side given the popularity of the blog. Especially as the most read post was one on evolution. So keep up with the good work

A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:18 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2136Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

That's very kind of you, mate.
Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:25 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 189Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote::Mutations that change a necessary function a gene would be harmful if there was only one of it, but duplications negate this harmful effect, thereby allowing the copy to freely mutate without any harm to the organism.
This has (at least) two implications. The copy can change its function to fulfill a novel role which is beneficial. Of course this is an indirect benefit of a mutation that creates the potential for some future mutation to be beneficial (which would still count as beneficial). But this alone would probably not be enough, so what direct benefits has. It creates redundancy. Organisms that have many duplicated forms of their genes don't suffer from the harmful effects of mutations as much.


Those mutations by definition are neutral


No they are not, and I explained that in that very quote that I highlighted. It has one benefit creating genetic redundancy. I also mentioned right next to this quote genetic dosage, meaning duplication can have an EFFECT that can be beneficial, thus NOT neutral.

I wrote:A mutation that occurs within one organism that has only one copy of each gene would be more likely to be harmful compared to a mutation that occurs with an organism that has many copies of each gene. There are many duplications that have been lost as a result of being redundant, we have 49 duplicated Cytochrome C pseudogenes for example.
Another way is that duplication provide gene dosage which amplifies the effect of a gene (which may or may not be beneficial), thus duplications can be favored if increase in gene dosage is beneficial.

Thus duplications are beneficial (in many different ways) and thus provide a clear advantage that can be favored by natural selection.


leroy wrote:, redundant mutation are neutral..............


No, I didn't say redundant mutation, I said duplications that create redundancy, which can be beneficial. I have shown you peer reviewed articles (copy pasted) to you.
Loss of Genetic Redundancy in Reductive Genome Evolution wrote:Biological systems evolved to be functionally robust in uncertain environments, but also highly adaptable. Such robustness is partly achieved by genetic redundancy, where the failure of a specific component through mutation or environmental challenge can be compensated by duplicate components capable of performing, to a limited extent, the same function. Highly variable environments require very robust systems. Conversely, predictable environments should not place a high selective value on robustness. Here we test this hypothesis by investigating the evolutionary dynamics of genetic redundancy in extremely reduced genomes, found mostly in intracellular parasites and endosymbionts. By combining data analysis with simulations of genome evolution we show that in the extensive gene loss suffered by reduced genomes there is a selective drive to keep the diversity of protein families while sacrificing paralogy. We show that this is not a by-product of the known drivers of genome reduction and that there is very limited convergence to a common core of families, indicating that the repertoire of protein families in reduced genomes is the result of historical contingency and niche-specific adaptations. We propose that our observations reflect a loss of genetic redundancy due to a decreased selection for robustness in a predictable environment.

Evolution of genetic redundancy wrote:Genetic redundancy means that two or more genes are performing the same function and that inactivation of one of these genes has little or no effect on the biological phenotype. Redundancy seems to be widespread in genomes of higher organisms1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Examples of apparently redundant genes come from numerous studies of developmental biology10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, immunology16,17, neurobiology18,19 and the cell cycle20,21. Yet there is a problem: genes encoding functional proteins must be under selection pressure. If a gene was truly redundant then it would not be protected against the accumulation of deleterious mutations. A widespread view is therefore that such redundancy cannot be evolutionarily stable. Here we develop a simple genetic model to analyse selection pressures acting on redundant genes. We present four cases that can explain why genetic redundancy is common. In three cases, redundancy is even evolutionarily stable. Our theory provides a framework for exploring the evolution of genetic organization.


leroy wrote:I could grand that in the long term (after adding other mutations) the effect could be positive,


That is called potentiating mutation. A mutation that leads to the potential for another mutation to have a beneficial effect. Of course in this case, duplications can be both potentiating and beneficial.

leroy wrote:this is the neutralist view, but the fact is that if an individual has a gene duplication it wont be selected by natural selection unless it has a benefit, natural selection doesn't have a mind, natural selection wont have a bias in keeping a mutation just because the mutation has potencial long term benefits.


Of course, I have shown to you the benefits. But will ignore that anyway. If potentiating mutation don't have a benefit, they can be fixed in the population by GENETIC DRIFT!! Which does happen.

leroy wrote:the fact is that the probability of fixation of a neutral mutation (even if it has long term benefits) is 1/2N
N = size of the populaton
so even in a small population of 1000 individuales, the probability of fixation is 1/2,000...............this is why we know that in the majority of cases a specific neutral mutation will be removed by genetic drift. .....the only way to reduce this probability is if the mutation has a benefit. and this is why adding to many neutral mutations would produce a probabilistic problem.


Humans have 49 Cytochrome pseudogenes as a result of many duplication events. What is the chance? The reason why is because so many duplications happen, it is CERTAIN that some will be inherited just by genetic drift alone. The same is with all mutations. There are so many mutations that are largely neutral that it is guaranteed that some of them will spread or even get fixed in the population. That is why we have variations among individuals that don't seem to be of any benefit. If you are or your family members have blond hair and blue eyes or red heads, those traits have no benefits.

"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: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.

leroy wrote:Neutralist> you believe that most mutations, (related to the evolution of sight) where neutral and selected by random genetic drift
Selectionists>, Most mutations (related to the evolution of sight) where positive and selected by natural selection.

[/quote]

Both, there probably were many neutral mutations that are involved in the evolution of eyes (duplication among of them, although duplications CAN also be beneficial) and there were indeed mutations that had a selective benefit for better sight.

leroy wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:It is not "just similarities" as I have explained before, but again, you have short term memory. It is the pattern of both the presence of similarities or common traits and the absence of them, the differences. And this pattern forms a twin nested hierarchy (an evolutionary tree) that taxonomy revealed a hundred years before Darwin was alive and just become more robust over time. ......

yes, and all I am saying is that those who deny common ancestry, don't argue that the pattern was a product of chance, therefore any probabilistic arguments are irrelevant. and strawman.


Wrong, because design doesn't predict that these patterns of genetic markers, only common descent does. I challenge you to explain how design predict this, without having to say that the designer just did this way to make it look like everything had evolved from a common ancestor.

For example, a genetic paternity test provides that Individual A is the father of Individual B with a certainty of 99%
How does design provide a competing explanation for this result if these are unrelated?

Of course you can say, but design doesn't mean that a father is unrelated to the child, but when does it stop and how would we know when it stops while the genetic evidence keeps saying, yes these organisms are all related?

leroy wrote:
Now you are just rambling nonsense. The anthropic principle relates to either of these two things.
1. Humans require a specific environment within the universe to live.
2. Humans require a specific universe (with specific physical properties) to exists.

How the fuck are either of these related to genetics at all??

And we don't just say that we are related with chimps just because we are 97% similar genetically, though that is a strong indication, but it wasn't the definitive factor. It is shared genetic markers that we have: orthologs, ERVs, shared pseudogenes (how does design explain that). Fusion of chromosome number 2, which was predicted by common descent.

How about this answer....
We live in a multiverse, with a potentially infinite number of universes, in most of these universes humans and chimps, don't have all these shared ERVs pseudogenes, proteins.....etc......but in a small minority of these multiverses just by chance, we happen to have all this shared stuff with chimps. We simply happen to live in such universe, if we weren't living in such universe we wouldn't be wondering why we have all this shared stuff and similarities with chimps.


That answer has been shown to be idiotic as I have explained in that quote that the anthropic principle DOES NOT relate to genetics. It only refers to the conditions that require for the existence of humans.
According to the multi verse theory, there are many universes and some have conditions that allow for humans (or just life in general) to exist. And since humans can only exists within a universe with specific conditions, it is not a surprise that we find ourselves in a universe with those conditions. It is a tautology really and that is it.
There is no indication that we should find ourselves within a universe where all life shares genetic markers that indicate common ancestry....if we are somehow not related.

leroy wrote:Obviously this is a stupid answer, but my point is that some atheist use the same kind of answer to explain away some theistic arguments, why cant we simply reject those atheists answers for the same reason you would reject my answer?


So just to escape this problem that you can't solve, you resort to arguments that don't apply to the same thing. I can use an argument that argues that cars are better than motorcycles, but the same argument probably doesn't apply to whether hotdogs are better than hamburgers. Similarly the multiverse argument that explains the anthropic principle does not mean it explains shared genetic orthologs, which is a non sequitur. Try an argument that better than "if they play with a toy, why can't I play with it too?"

I will try to help by asking you to answer this question:
According to the genetic markers we share with all life, the certainty that humans are related to other species is 99,99999999999999...etc% I challenge you to explain how design predict the same result, without having to say that the designer just did this way....or the designer just did this way to make it look like everything had evolved from a common ancestor as a test of faith.
"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 Sun Mar 12, 2017 2:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:44 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 189Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

hackenslash wrote:
Rumraket wrote:Some atheistic arguments, or responses, are in fact stupid and silly. I have no compunction agreeing to that. I'm an atheist yet it is entirely obvious to me that some atheists are atheists for bad reasons, or have no, or bad answers to some theistic arguments. In becoming an atheist, one does not magically transform into some sort of flawless logic-computer that only make correct arguments.


This.

In fact, these days, I spend far more effort in correcting these bad arguments than I do arguing with theists.


If I have flaws in my argument, please let me know.
"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
Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:45 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2136Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Not spotted anything yet. ;)
Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:43 pm
leroyPosts: 646Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Nesslig20 wrote:


No they are not, and I explained that in that very quote that I highlighted. It has one benefit creating genetic redundancy. I also mentioned right next to this quote genetic dosage, meaning duplication can have an EFFECT that can be beneficial, thus NOT neutral.



ok with beneficial effect I mean any effect that makes the organism more likely to survive and reproduce.............hopefully you mean the same.


Granted, duplicación might be beneficial, but what you have to do is prove that this specific duplications are beneficial...
Our results entail a simple scenario of opsin evolution. The first opsin originated from the duplication of the common ancestor of the melatonin and opsin genes in a eumetazoan (Placozoa plus Neuralia) ancestor, and an inference of its amino acid sequence suggests that this protein might not have been light-sensitive. Two more gene duplications in the ancestral neuralian lineage resulted in the origin of the R, C, and Go/RGR opsins. Accordingly, the first animal with at least a C, an R, and a Go/RGR opsin was a neuralian progenitor.


if you do that, you will show that at least 1 of the millions of steps required for evolving an eye is possible...

remember this is what I mean with step
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



So do you want me to demonstrate all millions of steps? I thought you wanted to keep this simple?
We don't need to explain ALL the steps that happened. As I said we don't know everything about any subject. We know enough what happened. Eyes evolved and we (the scientists) know the big picture that shows how they evolved and I have the citations to demonstrate this.


No, you don't have to explain how each one of the millions of steps took place, all you have to do is select a statistically significant sample and just explain that sample.....


but the fact that you can not even explain how a single step took place puts your theory in to a very uncomfortable position.


Humans have 49 Cytochrome pseudogenes as a result of many duplication events. What is the chance? The reason why is because so many duplications happen, it is CERTAIN that some will be inherited just by genetic drift alone. The same is with all mutations. There are so many mutations that are largely neutral that it is guaranteed that some of them will spread or even get fixed in the population. That is why we have variations among individuals that don't seem to be of any benefit. If you are or your family members have blond hair and blue eyes or red heads, those traits have no benefits.



Granted, the probability that some neutral mutations become fixed is almost 100%.............however the probability for a specific mutation to become fixed is nearly zero.

If you what to evolve an eye, you need a very specific set of mutations, therefore you do have a probabilistic problem if you what to argue that neutral mutations a genetic drift are responsable for the evolution of the eye.

leroy
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?


ness
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.


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 .....

ness
According to the multi verse theory, there are many universes and some have conditions that allow for humans (or just life in general) to exist. And since humans can only exists within a universe with specific conditions, it is not a surprise that we find ourselves in a universe with those conditions. It is a tautology really and that is it.
There is no indication that we should find ourselves within a universe where all life shares genetic markers that indicate common ancestry....if we are somehow not related
.


leroy
According to the multi verse theory, there are many universes and some have conditions that allow for humans to observe genetic similarities between chimps and humans. And since this observations can only exists within a universe with specific conditions, that allow humans and chimps to have such similarities it is not a surprise that we find ourselves in a universe with those conditions. It is a tautology really and that is it.

my only point is that using atheist logicone can dismiss the genetic similarity argument very easily. no matter how improbable is it to have similarities just by chance, according to the multiverse hypothesis there are universes where we have all this similarities

hopefully we both agree that this logic is flawed, a very bad response.............well at least Rumraket agrees with me
Remarket
We can, I absolutely agree, reject such an answer as completely idiotic and unsatisfying. One can basically explain away everything with that kind of "answer".

Some atheistic arguments, or responses, are in fact stupid and silly. I have no compunction agreeing to that. I'm an atheist yet it is entirely obvious to me that some atheists are atheists for bad reasons, or have no, or bad answers to some theistic arguments. In becoming an atheist, one does not magically transform into some sort of flawless logic-computer that only make correct arguments.


ness
will try to help by asking you to answer this question:
According to the genetic markers we share with all life, the certainty that humans are related to other species is 99,99999999999999...etc% I challenge you to explain how design predict the same result, without having to say that the designer just did this way....or the designer just did this way to make it look like everything had evolved from a common ancestor as a test of faith.



Granted, Universal Common ancestry is the best explanation for the data, (better than design) my only claim is that there is room for reasonable doubt, for example we do find countless gene trees discordances, that cant be explained and where not predicted by universal common ancestry (echolocation in bats and whales for example)................


as for how could this be explained without common ancestry....

well maybe chimps and humans have these genetic markers in the same place, because they both need them in the same place...........this is obviously an ad hoc, but the thing is that the data is not irreconcilable with design. No one is arguing that these similarities are just happened by chance, it could be that the designer had a bias in creating his creatures with similar genetic markers. (even though I agree, common ancestry explains the data better than design.)

I mean if a designer creates 1000 computer programs independently it wouldn't be surprising to find similarities among these programs, and it wouldn't be surprising to fin that some of these programs are more similar to each other than to the rest of the programs.


so just to be clear...

yes common ancestry is the best explanation for sheered genetic markers, but I don't see why this data should be devastating for intelligent design, and any honest person should admit that there are incorrect predictions in the universal common ancestry, which leave the door open for reasonable doubt
Aronra:
“There is no free will" "I am a free thinker”
Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:18 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3096Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:Granted, Universal Common ancestry is the best explanation for the data, (better than design) my only claim is that there is room for reasonable doubt, for example we do find countless gene trees discordances, that cant be explained and where not predicted by universal common ancestry (echolocation in bats and whales for example)................

[emphasis added]


:docpalm:

On July 19th, 2014 Inferno wrote:In the exact way Dr. Whittington explained that the amino acids converged in platypus and snakes, meaning the protein sequence, so also do the protein sequences in bats and toothed whales. This is what you get wrong and that's why your example is not valid. Let me make this absolutely clear: When comparing the gene or nucleotide sequence, bats and toothed whales are correctly classified. If the protein sequence is compared, bats are classified with toothed whales. That's the whole deal. The gene sequences are not the same. This is made absolutely clear in a paragraph I quoted earlier:

Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins (2010) wrote:To test whether convergent changes in bat Prestin genes have also occurred in echolocating whales, we sequenced the entire gene in a range of echolocating toothed whales and non-echolocating baleen whales, as well as additional bats (see Table S1 in the Supplemental Data available on-line with this issue). Trees based on nucleotide alignments from this larger dataset strongly supported the accepted species tree topology, albeit with the clustering of echolocating bats reported earlier [3]. However, in trees based on amino acid sequences, constructed using a range of different phylogenetic methods, we found that the echolocating dolphins now formed a well-supported group with echolocating horseshoe and Old World leaf-nosed bats (node posterior probability = 0.99 or 0.94 depending on the analysis), members of which emit Doppler-sensitive signals dominated by a constant frequency (CF) component [6] ( Figure 1A). Intriguingly, the addition of the sperm whale, which appears to echolocate at much lower frequencies [7], was seen to decrease support for this convergent signal, leading to the cetaceans and bats both forming monophyletic groups. The extent of sequence convergence between bats and whales was thus not sufficient to unite these clades when non-dolphin odontocetes were included in the analysis.


Do you understand your mistake, can we move on?

It's even more fun that you accuse me of not reading the article when you make a grave mistake:
However, in trees based on amino acid sequences, constructed using a range of different phylogenetic methods, we found that the echolocating dolphins now formed a well-supported group with echolocating horseshoe and Old World leaf-nosed bats.


You quote the passage that disproves what you claim, yet you fail to register that. Reading comprehension fail if ever there was one.

Now as I said, you can have the same amino acid sequence even if the underlying genetic code is different (I even showed that using the BLASTed sequences) and you can have very similar amino acids forming basically identical proteins, which is what they found. Don't let the pop-science articles cloud your judgement on this.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:45 pm
YIM WWW
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 4
 [ 73 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests