Does evolution have a chance?

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I was hoping evolutionists could tell me.

Why do I have an image of a super computer called Deep Thought and the number 42?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I was hoping evolutionists could tell me.

Perhaps in the future you should understand your own questions before asking them.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I turn over a pack of card that I claim was shuffles. It starts with the ace of spades, and all the spades in consecutive order ie. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,J,Q,K, then the same order with clubs, and hearts and finally diamonds. The pack is laid out in from on me in perfect order.

1. What is the probability of this happening?

Approximately 8*10^67 to 1, if I'm reading my scientific calclator correctly.

2. Would you believe that this was a random deal?

The odds are exactly the same as any other random deal. The odds of a deck being drawn in any particular order is approximately 8*10^67 to 1, if I'm reading my scientific calclator correctly.

Good thing Natural Selection is not random, but trial and error. What was your point again?

3. How low would the probability have to be before you would conclude that an event such as this was not the result of random chance.

A probability of zero.

Anything that has a chance of happening, has a chance of happening. You need to have that explained to you?

You know what the odds are of winning the lotto? Yet every week, people win -- sometimes more than one person wins a week.

Impossible you say?

 

[trunks2k]

Approximately 8*10^67 to 1, if I'm reading my scientific calclator correctly.

8.0658175170943878571660636856404e+67 to 1 if you want to be more precise.

 

[Micaiah]

That would be 1/52!.

 

[Tomk80]

Just to clarify my position
I think the following argument is wrong but I claim nobody in this thread has made an argument like this so people should stop talking about it

*The argument that is like dice and being born*
a human has 3 billion base pairs each of these base pairs could be 1 of four things so the chance of getting a human without divine intervention is
(1/4) to the power of 3 billion. This is incredibly low so their must have been divine intervention.

Only if you view humans, exactly the way they are now, as a necessary outcome. I fail to see why humans should be anything other than a possible outcome in a range.

 

[Tomk80]

Here is the first question again regarding probability. It has been slightly rephrased.

1. What is the probability of a gamete mutation occuring in a certain nucleotide that meets the requirements of the Neo Darwinian thoery of evolution (the most common theory in vogue).

[/i]

Any takers?

I am going to assume here that you mean a neutral or beneficial mutation as 'the requirements of neo Darwinian theory of evolution'. In that case, the only possible answer is that this depends completely on the environment, and hence is impossible to calculate unless we know the exact circumstances and number of mutations that can be beneficial compared to the number of mutations that is detrimental. I have no idea how anyone would be able to calculate something that complex. I even fail to see how anyone would be able to approximate this for past situations, which is what you'll have to do to calculate what you want to calculate (I think).

 

[perplexed]

Only if you view humans, exactly the way they are now, as a necessary outcome. I fail to see why humans should be anything other than a possible outcome in a range.

Sorry dude, you simply did not read what I said the first time round. You have to go with what people say if actually want a discussion.

 

[vipertaja]

That would be 1/52!.

Well gee wiz...

 

[Nathan Poe]

Well gee wiz...

Which still beats out 0/52!

 

[Aron-Ra]

The problem with evolutionists is that they think that if something is even remotely probable, then it probably did happen.

Not quite. In this case, evolution is not only certainly probable, but a directly-observable fact which is an inevitable certainty in the realm of population genetics. We know evolution happens generation-to-generation. We've seen it produce new breeds, demes, ring species, completely new species, and (arguably) new genera as well. So there's no question as to its probability. That much has been established. What you'e effectively arguing against is something similar to the argument that if you can take a few steps and travel a few yards, that you could not walk a mile given more time and repitition, despite the fact that we can actually follow your tracks at least that far.

Conversely, The problem with creationists is that if something is totally impossible then they think it must be absolutely true that it had to have happened, and there's no option to consider whether it really didn't.

 

[Tomk80]

Sorry dude, you simply did not read what I said the first time round. You have to go with what people say if actually want a discussion.

I did read it. I just misread it, upon second reading. My bad.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Thankyou for the quote. Mutations do occur in the human genome, so in one sense I agree with you that the probability is 100 % that a mutation will occur.

Allow me to rephrase question 1:

1. What is the probability of a gamete mutation occuring in a certain nucleotide that meets the requirements of the Neo Darwinian thoery of evolution (the most common theory in vogue).

I have already answered that question. It is 100%, if I understand the "neo-darwinian" requirements. I know what evolution requires, and it definitely does not require any "net gain" in "information", as you said it did. That's why I would need you to define your question with specifics and sources.

With regard to mutation rates mentioned above, some further things should be kept in mind. The type of mutation needs to be compatible with NDT.

I don't know what you mean by "NDT". I can only assume that when you say "neo-Darwinian", you're probably referring to the "modern synthesis"; of Mendelo-Darwinian environmentally-selective population genetics. If you mean something else by that, then please clarify. Also, since you're claiming these to be their requirements, (and not your own parodied version of them) then you should probably produce some source identifying that criteria in thier own words. Once you've done that, I promise that I -and other qualified people here- will provide an adequate answer.

Also, we know that after replication the DNA is checked for copying errors. This substantially reduces the incidence of copying errors. The rates you gave seem far too high and I suspect do not meet the requirements of the first question posed.

Yet I have already substantiated them with documentation from genetics research laboratories.

As has already been explained, that would be meaningless. Every week, someone wins a lottery despite staggering odds. Alternatively, how probable is magic?

Not true in this context.

Yes it is. How could you ever calculate the probability of anything that ever happened to you? And how could that be objectively verified?

Remember that the Torah, the gospels, the Qu'ran, the Adi-Granth, the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Vedas, the Avestas, and the book of Mormon -are each claimed by millions to be the "absolute truth", and the "revealed word" of the "one true god". Now think about your probabilities for a moment. Which is more probable? That all of these conflicting religious doctrines are indeed what they claim to be? Or that all of them are inaccurate? Because the least probable position I can imagine is that all of these are absolutely wrong -except one, and that one is absolutely without error of any kind. That is a statistical impossibility given the circumstances.

The existence of error is evidence for the truth, not that the truth does not exist.

See? That's your problem. The existence of error is evidence of error, not truth.

Let me hit this to you again. Let's say we have nine people, each representing the millions of proponants for each of these books. All of them claim thiers to be perfectly accurate, and absolutely infallible because each claims to have been delivered personally by God himself, whether he be known as YHWH, Jesus, Allah, Guru Nanak, Krsna, Brahma, the god of Bahá'u'lláh, or his messenger angel, Moroni. All of them base their assertions about thier particular books of dogma, not on evidence of any kind, but on the contradictory words of highly-dubious scribes. Not a one among them can show anything to back or verify any of thier claims. And the very nature of faith, (belief that defies reason) indicates that all of them might well have come about the same way, out of the minds of men who didn't really know what they were talking about.

All of them could be partially right, or all of them could be absolutely wrongl. But only one of them, (at an absolute maximum) even could be absolutely right compared to the others, and all of them share the same fundamental flaws. So if each of the others was either inspired but inaccurate, or made-up out of whole cloth, then all of them can be. And that's the most proabable explanation by far.

It is also possible that all of them are right to some variable degree. But given these circumstances, the most improbable option is that any of them really knows the absolute truth while all the others are absolutely wrong.

I had a look at your first example, and note it states the following:

On the basis of less contentious evidence, 12000 years ago seems to be a reasonable estimate of the earliest substantial human activity on the altiplano, although whether these people were the direct antecedents of the current indigenous populations is unknown. This duration is an important parameter in considering the role of evolution in these populations as it establishes the time frame over which evolutionary changes would have had to occur.

The author then states:

It is unlikely that genetic adaptation has occurred in Andean populations as a result of the generation and promulgation of new alleles over the last 12000 years. The mutation frequency in humans is approximately 10-6 per meiosis per gene, and the probability of a beneficial variant arising is much lower. Furthermore, unless the interbreeding population was quite small, any new allele would have to confer a considerable advantage to avoid being eliminated by genetic drift (the stochastic variation of allele frequencies within a population) within the first few generations and, as there is no evidence for a unique and extremely adapted phenotype in human high-altitude populations, this scenario seems unlikely. However, the appearance of new alleles is not a prerequisite for adaptation. There is substantial genetic variability in humans. Extensive sequencing of the human genome indicates that between two people, on average, there is a single nucleotide polymorphism every thousand bases, or approximately 3 million per genome (Bentley, 2000). By convention, a polymorphic locus has at least two variants that are present in more than 1% of the population (Sunyaev et al., 2000). While most variants are silent and do not affect the coding or regulatory sequences of genes, many have associated phenotypes and thus contribute to human phenotypic variability.

In other words he does not believe that this is a candidate to use as an example of NDT.

No sir. He said he doubted their adaptation resulted from a mutation. And he worded this badly, because no matter how you slice it, the Andean genetic defense against appoplexia can only be described as an adaptation, and he even describes it as such in the remainder of his text.

All of the direct examples I listed, you dismissed collectively after reading one mentioned only periphrially. I guess I was right about your faith being of the type that you have decided in advance that no amount of evidence will ever convince you, no matter what the quantity or quality of that is.

I also note that the mutation rate during meiosis mentioned is much higher that the rate stated above. In commenting on this point in his book "Not by Chance", Dr Lee Spetner notes that in mammals rate of copying errors is about 1 in 10,000,000,000.

If he can't even debate me, don't try to use him as an authority against me. While I certainly wouldn't belittle a physicist in their field, a physicist is not a geneticist, and a creationist isn't a scientist at all, since science requires objectivity. And I have already shown you multiple sources within genetics research itself which shows that the number your authority made up is wrong.

 

[Micaiah]

Not quite. In this case, evolution is not only certainly probable, but a directly-observable fact which is an inevitable certainty in the realm of population genetics. We know evolution happens generation-to-generation. We've seen it produce new breeds, demes, ring species, completely new species, and (arguably) new genera as well. So there's no question as to its probability. That much has been established. What you'e effectively arguing against is something similar to the argument that if you can take a few steps and travel a few yards, that you could not walk a mile given more time and repitition, despite the fact that we can actually follow your tracks at least that far.

Conversely, The problem with creationists is that if something is totally impossible then they think it must be absolutely true that it had to have happened, and there's no option to consider whether it really didn't.

We witness some change in animal populations, but not on the scale required to explain common descent ie. "goo to you via the zoo".

I know evolutionists will disagree and stand by their claim. Since they know that evolution is not only possible but did happen, they will be able to give an estimate of the number of nucleotides that would need to be changed/added in order for a bird wing to evolve.

 

[perplexed]

I know evolutionists will disagree and stand by their claim. Since they know that evolution is not only possible but did happen, they will be able to give an estimate of the number of nucleotides that would need to be changed/added in order for a bird wing to evolve.

Quote your source of this question. Your last question was based on Spetner's claim which was a blatant lie.

 

[notto]

I know evolutionists will disagree and stand by their claim. Since they know that evolution is not only possible but did happen, they will be able to give an estimate of the number of nucleotides that would need to be changed/added in order for a bird wing to evolve.

And since you believe in the flood, you should be able to tell us exactly how many gallons of water were released from the deep, right? If you can't, remember, that means the flood didn't happen.

Your baiting question is typical of the shifting goalposts used by creationists. You ignore the evidence we do have and request evidence that is impossible to obtain.

Would you like to discuss the actual evidence we have related to the evolution of the wing or do you just want to continue to hide behind out of context questions that are simply debate tactics and ask questions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Lets say we give you an estimate. How would you be able to determine if it is valid or not? Perhaps you can provide us with some criteria that you would accept as valid so you can't simply hand wave it away as the evidence is discussed because they don't meet the 'requirements of NDE' or some other made up construct you develop adhoc.

 

[Aron-Ra]

We witness some change in animal populations, but not on the scale required to explain common descent ie. "goo to you via the zoo".

Yes we do. We can prove several layers of common ancestry for certain. For instance, we know for sure, (for example) that we ourselves have bred over 200 distinct sub-species of dog from common ancestors within Asiatic wolves, and that they too also share common ancestors with other canids who are neither dogs nor wolves. That's just a few levels of common ancestry right there. And look how much our own species has diversified in just a few thousand years of temporary isolation.

In each case, the mechanism is the same as that seen in the divergence of ring-species, and each of the distinct species who's origins we've actually witnessed in real time. This same method, which can now be verified to be a functional reality of isolated populations is the same processed proposed for deeper levels of common ancestry which can be verified in other ways.

And its the only option which even tries to explain any of this. For example, if evolution from common ancestry is not true, and some flavor of special creation of different (as yet unidentified "kinds") is true, then there would be some surface level(s) in a cladogram where you would accept an actual evolutionary ancestry. But there must also be subsequent levels in that twin-nested hierarchy where life-forms would no longer be the same "kind", and wouldn't be biologically related anymore. At that point, they would be magically created separate "kinds" from those listed around it, and they would only be in those categories "in the mind of man". Throw away any ideas you have about the importance of any other argument you might be thinking about. None of them compare to this. If creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all living things, or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there MUST be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart, where what we see as related to everything is really unrelated to anything else. And unless you're a Scientologist or a Raelian, that criteria must apply to other animals besides ourselves. So my challenge to you is this, point out any two example animal species, genus, families, etc, which science considers closely-related but which you think were created -by whatever incantation spell you're argung for.

For example,
Is the short-tailed goanna related to the Perentie and all other Australian goannas?
Are all Australian goannas related to each other and to the other monitor lizards of Indonesia and Africa?
Are today's varanids related to the giant goannas of Australia's past?
Are terrestrial monitors related to the mosasaurs of the Cretaceous?
Are Varanoids related to any other Anguimorphs including snakes?
Are any Anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?
Are all Scleroglossa also related to iguanids and other squamates?
Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?
Are all lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs?
Are Lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids?
Are all diapsids related to anapsids, or synapsid "reptiles" like dimetrodon?
Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?
Are all amniotes related to each other and to all other tetrapods?
Are all tetrapods related to each other and to all other vertebrates?
........and so on.

I know evolutionists will disagree and stand by their claim. Since they know that evolution is not only possible but did happen,

...And is still happening, both in the lab, and in naturally-controlled environments in the field.

they will be able to give an estimate of the number of nucleotides that would need to be changed/added

...and duplicated, disabled, or deleted.

in order for a bird wing to evolve.

You're right about that. The evolution of the bird wing has been well substantiated now, both morphologically, (with each sequential state substantiated in the fossil record) and with the parallel patterns verified in developmental biology.

This is what you consider improbable. What you evidently consider more probable is something that cannot be verified to have ever occured, nor can you explain any aspect of it, because it amounts to nothing more than magic words spoken by an imperceptible ghost we're expected to believe in for literally no reason at all. How can you even pretend that's even possible, much less probable?

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes we do. We can prove several layers of common ancestry for certain. For instance, we know for sure, (for example) that we ourselves have bred over 200 distinct sub-species of dog from common ancestors within Asiatic wolves, and that they too also share common ancestors with other canids who are neither dogs nor wolves. That's just a few levels of common ancestry right there. And look how much our own species has diversified in just a few thousand years of temporary isolation.

Ok great, you have argued that there are subspecies of dogs. Where is the subspecies of humans in the images of the kids you offered in the post?

Diversified? That is a stretch, between any two humans we have a diversity of one tenth of one percent at a nucleotide seqeunce level. In order to evolve from apes we would have had to change 6.6 nucleotides per year for millions of years and rearrange 3.5 per year on average in order to evolve from apes. That in addtion to the exponential growth of the brain as an effect, or the cause depending on how you look at it.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Micaiah]

Someone could perhaps tell me how a question can be a lie.

How many gallons? That would be 1245,128, 569, 589, 235, 589.125 with a 10% variation possible on the third decimal place dependent on the evaporation rate at the time. No seriously, off the top of my head I wouldn't have a clue. You know as well as I that it is accepted primarily because it is what Scripture teaches.

If I wanted to demonstrate it was scientifically feasible, I'd need to provide some quantitative assessment though. That is what I am asking you to provide. If you don't know then simply say so. Before you claim that evolution is mathematically plausible, you need to be able to demonstrate this is the case.

 

[notto]

Before you claim that evolution is mathematically plausible, you need to be able to demonstrate this is the case.

And that has been done and has nothing to do with determining how many nucleotide changes (from what starting point you don't say) to make a wing. But then you really don't want an answer to your question. You simply use it as a way to set the goalposts in a position where you don't need to address the actual evidence presented and can simply say what is presented isn't enough or isn't what you asked.

After all, anything we provide needs to match the 'requirments of evolution', whatever that may be. It's hard to know since you won't tell us what you mean nor the context of your questions.