Evolution conflict and division

[The Barbarian]

It might have gone better for you, if you had done a bit of research first.

It might go better for you if you researched how many scientists reject evolution theory.

Actually, there's a way to check that. Start with the Discovery Institute's "Scientists who doubt Darwin."

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then compare to the list of scientists on Project Steve.

Project Steve - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To qualify, one has to have a doctorate in biology or a related field, and be named "Steve" or some variant of the name like Stephany or Estaban and accept evolutionary theory.
Last time I compared the DI list with Project Steve's list, it turned out about 0.3% of such people doubt or reject evolutionary theory. Not 3%, 0.3%. Kind of puts it all in perspective, doesn't it?

Unanimous agreement among experts is the appropriate measure of discerning truth with regard to anything that is a matter of truth.

Seems to me, 99.7% is pretty good agreement, don't you think?

 

[The Barbarian]

It is commonly believed that if a pathway of functional continuity can be envisioned, a plausible evolutionary pathway has been proposed. For example, the evolution of the eye is often explained by a pathway of gradually increasing curvature of the retina, with each step resulting in slightly increasing visual acuity.

No, you're way too far in. It starts well before that.
First off, all organisms are somewhat sensitive to light.

1.If you close your eyes and walk out of the shade into bright summer sunlight, your skin will detect the light.

2, If there's a dark p spot on skin, the skin will be more sensitive to the light.

3. If the spot is in a slightly recessed pit, It will be more sensitive to the direction of the light.

4. If the pit has a smaller opening, it will produce a rough image. (Think pinhole camera)

5. If the pit has clear covering, it will enhance the image.

6. If the covering is slightly thicker at the center than at the edges, the image will be even better.

7. If some of the pigment is slightly different, then the structure will be able to distinguish wavelengths of light. (color)

A very plausible evolutionary pathway. But it's more than plausible. That pathway is still demonstrated by different organisms. All of them still live in the phylum mollusca.

However, the probability of those 1829 mutations appearing in a given population of fish over a specified number of generations is not calculated.

See above. The probability is 1.0. We still see the stages in living organisms.

Although the numbers used in this calculation, may be disputed, it is apparent that the probability of such a pattern of mutations appearing in a finite population over a limited number of generations can be rounded off to zero. Think about achieving 60% heads with 10,000 coin tosses. With mathematical certainty, random mutations will not deviate from predictable random outcomes to preferentially effect specific genes.

Probability mass (f): 1.43 × 10−1423.
Lower cumulative distribution (P): 1.
Upper cumulative distribution (Q): 1.53 × 10−142
Although the numbers used in this calculation, may be disputed, it is apparent that the probability of such a pattern of mutations appearing in a finite population over a limited number of generations can be rounded off to zero.

Well, let's look at your assumption for a moment. Take a deck of cards, shuffling it well. Deal out the cards one at a time, noting the order. The likelihood of that order is 1/52! or about...
1/8X10^65, which is so unlikely we can round it off to zero.
And it happens every time. So your argument just "proved" that poker games are impossible.

But there's an even bigger error. You see, Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't random. So you need to go back and work on that in your simulation. Let us know what you find. If you're not sure, I can show you a simple way to put natural selection into the process. Fact is, engineers have been simulation Darwinian evolution for some time; these "genetic algorithms" turn out to be more efficient at solving complex engineering problems than design would be. Reality itself disposes of calculations such as the above. God, as usual, knows best.

 

[The Barbarian]

Common descent is not the issue that violates this principle: only devolution is possible, a loss of functionality.

Well, that's a testable belief. First off, there is no "devolution." There is only change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Evolution. Second, there are many cases of new functions evolving. Would you like to learn about some of them?

And third, loss of function may actually enhance the likelihood of an organism surviving. Would you like some examples of that?

 

[River Jordan]

For example, Nilsson and Pelger proposed a model of eye evolution in fish,

No they didn't. Their estimates did not assume the eye first evolved in fish.

https://www.rctn.org/bruno/animal-eyes/nilsson-evolution.pdf

Assume that one point mutation results in one step of an increasingly curved retina (a very generous assumption).

A fundamentally ignorant assumption that ignores different types of mutations such as gene copying.

Assume a population size of 20,000.

20,000? Even with fish that's an extremely small number for an entire species. If we're talking about annelids and/or molluscs (as Nilsson and Pelger, see Discussion section) there are at least that many in a cubic yard of habitat.

Assume 1000 viable offspring per generation.

See above.

Assume a mutation rate of 150 point mutations per generation.

An ignorant assumption (see above).

Assume a fixation rate of 0.002 for each favorable mutation. Using the binomial distribution formula, the probability of such a pattern of mutations over 364,000 years is 1.5 × 10−1423 (see calculation below*).

*Binomial Distribution:
Calculation of probability of the evolution of a globe-shaped eye (Nilsson and Pelger) in a population of fish:
Probability mass: f(x,n,p)=nCxpx(1−p)n−x
Probability of success: inverse of genome size (1/1.5 × 109) × 0.33 (3 possible nucleotide substitutions for each position) x fixation rate (0.002) = 4.4 × 10−13.
Number of trials (n): number of reproducing pairs in population (20,000/2) = 10,000 × number of mutations per generation, per germ cell (150/2 = 75) × number of offspring per generation (1000) × number of generations (364,000) = 2.73 × 1014 success number: 1829 (incremental steps of eye evolution).

Results

Probability mass (f): 1.43 × 10−1423.

Lower cumulative distribution (P): 1.

Upper cumulative distribution (Q): 1.53 × 10−1423.

Given the fundamental errors identified above, the result is meaningless.

Although the numbers used in this calculation, may be disputed, it is apparent that the probability of such a pattern of mutations appearing in a finite population over a limited number of generations can be rounded off to zero. Think about achieving 60% heads with 10,000 coin tosses. With mathematical certainty, random mutations will not deviate from predictable random outcomes to preferentially effect specific genes.

This is unfortunately a common error among creationists. They assume if an event is extremely improbable it can't happen, yet unbelievably improbably events happen every second of every day.

What are the odds that I would exist right here and now and have a drivers license with a specific license number? The odds exceed the number of atoms in the universe (or something like that)! But here I am, existing and holding my drivers license with a very specific number on it.

How can that be?

 

[River Jordan]

Evolution theory is less an empirical science than an historiographical one.

Says who?

The former include repeatable experiments and deductive reasoning to arrive at alternate hypotheses.

Like the entire field of experimental evolution.

I entered this "Christians Only" debate thread expecting a civilized discussion on the merits demerits of evolution theory.

Why here? If you want to discuss the science of evolutionary biology, go to an actual science site.

I find the evolution ideologists here not very different than the atheist/secular evolutionists in the threads on the same topic in the open forum so I'll leave you as I found you.

I bet you'd see the same thing if you asked atheists and Christians about the science of chemistry. Think about it for a sec and you'll realize why that is.

only devolution is possible

Very, very wrong (see experimental evolution link above).

 

[The Barbarian]

No they didn't. Their estimates did not assume the eye first evolved in fish.

https://www.rctn.org/bruno/animal-eyes/nilsson-evolution.pdf

In fact, they were well aware of this:

Lamb TD, Arendt D, Collin SP. The evolution of phototransduction and eyes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Oct 12;364(1531):2791-3

What is undeniable is that photoreceptor cells employing rhodopsin-like photopigments linked to G-protein cascades had already evolved prior to the divergence of cnidaria (e.g. jellyfish and anemones) from our own bilaterian line, possibly more than 600 Myr ago.

 

[o_mlly]

It might have gone better for you, if you had done a bit of research first.


Actually, there's a way to check that. Start with the Discovery Institute's "Scientists who doubt Darwin."

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I would have to give your effort at research on this matter an "F". Wikipedia, really ... when the prime source, always preferred, is readily available?

​

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”​

​

This was last publicly updated May 2023. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position."​

https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2023/05/Scientific-Dissent-List-05012023-2.pdf

Approximately 45 signatories per page on 28 pages gives us ~ 1,260 dissenting scientists. All courageous.
I'll leave the precise counting of the names on 28 pages. Let me know what you come up with.

Evolution theory does not have unanimous agreement in the scientific community as I claimed, wouldn't you agree?

Seems to me, 99.7% is pretty good agreement, don't you think?

Nonsense. The project was a joke, still is. A Random sample of scientists named "Steve"? I must now adjust that grade to "F-".

Like the entire field of experimental evolution.

Did you not read what you cite? From the first entry: "... but its initial evolution remains poorly understood". So the authors decide to abandon "natural selection" to invent a human controlled experiment.

Ten replicate populations of initially isogenic S. cerevisiae were grown in nutrient-rich liquid medium with shaking to stationary phase (∼109 cells/replicate population) before subculturing and daily transfer to fresh medium. All replicate populations were allowed to stand for 45 min before transfer to 10 mL fresh medium, during which time cells settled toward the bottom of the culture tube. Cells in the lower 100 μL were then transferred to fresh medium. After the first week, we modified the settling step to be more time efficient by using 100 × g, 10-s centrifugations of 1.5-mL subsamples from the shaken 10-mL tube to settle population fractions for transfer to fresh medium. We expected these conditions to select for clusters of cells, whether by postdivision adhesion or by aggregation.

Show us just one ape in the wild who uses simple sentences to communicate with other apes and then you'll have my attention.