Evolution conflict and division

River Jordan · Sep 3, 2025

o_mlly said:
Because my statement is not wrong. Have the courtesy to use the quotation facility to back up your strawman claim that I posted: "... evolutionary biology as not being empirical science because it didn't include experimentation".

But it does include experimentation, as shown by the link I posted to the PNAS that shows thousands of examples of experimentation in evolutionary biology.

That's why you referred to the first paper as "a human controlled experiment", which makes this whole thing even more strange. On one hand you're claiming experimentation isn't included in evolutionary biology but on the other you're referring to a "human controlled experiment" in evolutionary biology.

It looks like you're contradicting yourself.

Job 33:6 · Sep 3, 2025

sfs said:
Let's see if it is...

On the contrary, that's an completely unrealistic assumption: there are usually many different mutations that could produce a similar phenotypic effect.

These assumptions imply that there are 1.5 billion germline mutations in the population per generation = per year (I gather). That means that each possible favorable mutation occurs once every three years, which is a reasonable ballpark to be in.

So what's wrong with the calculation? Quite a few things. One critical one I've already mentioned, which is the assumption that there is only a single possible mutation available at any one time that could cause these phenotypic change. This is biological nonsense. For a morphological trait like this one especially, there are generally numerous mutations that could produce a similar change. Even for more restrictive traits, we can easily see multiple mutations within a single population being selected for, e.g. all of the diverse set of mutations in humans that gave rise to lighter skin in humans after we left Africa (largely distinct sets of mutations in Asia and Europe, by the way), or the different mutations that conferred lactase persistence in different human populations after the advent of herding. This factor alone means that every generation almost certainly experiences multiple beneficial mutations.

Second thing wrong: the population size is too small, but more importantly, it assumes there's only one species that could benefit from curved retinas. In reality, there would be numerous species, each with its own extensive population. This also increases the chances per generation by orders of magnitude.

Third thing: it assumes only new mutations can contribute. In reality, if selection suddenly kicked in (e.g. if the earlier version of the eye started working suddenly), there would almost certainly be existing genetic variation in this trait in the population, which pretty much eliminates the 0.002 probability of fixation -- a variant that's present at any appreciable frequency will very likely fix in response to selection.

The entire calculation is useless as an attempt to model actual molecular evolution. With a more realistic genetic model, the hypothesized phenotypic change in the underlying model becomes almost inevitable.

Uh huh...

Scientific Research Publishing - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is wild. Headquarters in wuhan China. Can't make this stuff up.

Job 33:6 · Sep 3, 2025

Oh boy, this one looks a little radical.

BeyondET · Sep 3, 2025

River Jordan said:
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

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

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.

See above.

An ignorant assumption (see above).

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

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?

o_mlly · Sep 4, 2025

River Jordan said:
But it does include experimentation, as shown by the link I posted to the PNAS that shows thousands of examples of experimentation in evolutionary biology.

That's why you referred to the first paper as "a human controlled experiment", which makes this whole thing even more strange. On one hand you're claiming experimentation isn't included in evolutionary biology but on the other you're referring to a "human controlled experiment" in evolutionary biology.

Where is the requested quotation of my post that supports your claim? As I suspected and predicted you've descended to fallacious strawman argument.

Strange? What is strange is one who imagines that a human design of experiment (aka, intelligent design) could show that intelligent design is not probable.

River Jordan · Sep 4, 2025

o_mlly said:
Where is the requested quotation of my post that supports your claim? As I suspected and predicted you've descended to fallacious strawman argument.

If we both agree that evolutionary biology includes experimentation and is an empirical field of science, then I apologize for my error.

o_mlly said:
Strange? What is strange is one who imagines that a human design of experiment (aka, intelligent design) could show that intelligent design is not probable.

I don't recall ever posting anything about experiments into evolution showing that intelligent design isn't probable.

The Barbarian · Sep 4, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
They are reproductively isolated and they have undergone a chromosome duplication, making them significantly genetically unique and distinct from their ancestors.

Exactly so.

The Barbarian · Sep 4, 2025

Do you now see why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for YEC?

o_mlly said:
lways knew that. Since you brought that fallacious argument to the thread

I'm not the one who brought of the DI list. I just showed how few biologists reject evolutionary theory, or parts of it. I was debunking the attempt to show that many scientists reject evolutionary theory. Seems to me that 0.37% is a rather small minority.

o_mlly said:
Why would I? The study is a joke.

It's not actually a study. It's just a list of people compiled by the Discovery Institute to impress the gullible. As you see, many of the people on that list aren't even scientists, much less biologists. They added al sorts of people like "tutor" to pad the list.

o_mlly said:
So why pretend that it is?

I suppose whoever presented it here, was hoping it would be seen as such. As you saw, I debunked it rather easily.

As you now probably realize, "look at all the scientists who don't like evolution" is rather easily debunked by the facts.

o_mlly said:
Resorting to strawman arguments usually indicates the poster is out of arguments.

Perhaps you don't know what a "strawman argument" is. I was merely critiquing the claim, not the people making it. And I certainly didn't misrepresent what was said about the DI list. Go back and read it, carefully. BTW, I think you meant "ad hominem", but of course an argument isn't a person, so that won't work, either.

Hvizsgyak · Sep 4, 2025

if humans evolved from a single celled organism did plants evolve from the same single celled organism - Search Videos

www.bing.com

I'm sorry guys, I still find this whole evolution thing a bunch of baloney. Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to show why I don't believe it. It's like when you are a little kid (at least for some kids) and you see a flame. Most kids have that instinctive sense that they should not stick their hand in the fire because it won't feel pleasant. That is how I feel about the Theory of Evolution. It just seems idiotic and wrong.

The Barbarian · Sep 4, 2025

Hvizsgyak said:
I'm sorry guys, I still find this whole evolution thing a bunch of baloney.

It's observed going on in populations everywhere. You might as well call gravity "baloney."

Hvizsgyak said:
I'm not smart enough to show why I don't believe it.

"People are down on things they aren't up on." - Everette Dirkson

Hvizsgyak said:
That is how I feel about the Theory of Evolution. It just seems idiotic and wrong.

Reality always gets the last word. And it doesn't care what any of us think about it. I suspect that you've confused evolution ( a change in allele frequencies in a population over time) with universal common descent (a consequence of evolution, but not a necessary one).

sfs · Friday at 7:37 AM

o_mlly said:
Yes, that is why the authors noted the assumption as "extremely generous". How would you modify it?

By allowing for many possible mutations that would have the same effect -- as I already said.

o_mlly said:
Have you run simulations?

Yes. More to the point, I've written many simulations, including simulations of natural selection acting on beneficial mutations, simulations which I then used in various studies (all of which were published in genuine scientific journals, by the way).

o_mlly said:
Assumptions are necessary. So, tell us precisely how many "numerous mutations" are necessary?

Of course assumptions are necessary. But if you make assumptions that are obviously wrong in a way that will massively skew your results, you're not simulating reality -- you're just pretending.

o_mlly said:
So, tell us precisely how many "numerous mutations" are necessary?

Necessary for what? What are you talking about? The question is, how many mutations are possible that would lead to the same phenotype? No one knows for this phenotype, but the number is almost certainly much bigger than 1, and probably much bigger than 10. Since this choice, which is not justified in any way or based on any data, is critical to the result, why do you think it's the right one? What's your basis for thinking it's a good one?

o_mlly said:
What sample size would be necessary?

Sample size of what? Again, what are you talking about?

o_mlly said:
And "earlier versions" mutations did not work ... so what's your point?

Huh? I'm talking about the time when the eye with a flat retina (in this model) became functional -- that's when the selective pressure for a curved retina would have kicked in.

o_mlly said:
Attack the messenger instead of the message?

If you're going to use a peer-reviewed study as the basis for an argument, the fact that the study wasn't in a real peer-reviewed journal is indeed relevant.

o_mlly said:
SCIRP merely republished the cited article

No, SCIRP is the publisher of the journal in which the article appeared.

o_mlly · Friday at 8:53 AM

The Barbarian said:
Do you now see why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for YEC?

I'm not the one who brought of the DI list. I just showed how few biologists reject evolutionary theory, or parts of it. I was debunking the attempt to show that many scientists reject evolutionary theory. Seems to me that 0.37% is a rather small minority.

It's not actually a study. It's just a list of people compiled by the Discovery Institute to impress the gullible. As you see, many of the people on that list aren't even scientists, much less biologists. They added al sorts of people like "tutor" to pad the list.

I suppose whoever presented it here, was hoping it would be seen as such. As you saw, I debunked it rather easily.

As you now probably realize, "look at all the scientists who don't like evolution" is rather easily debunked by the facts.

Perhaps you don't know what a "strawman argument" is. I was merely critiquing the claim, not the people making it. And I certainly didn't misrepresent what was said about the DI list. Go back and read it, carefully. BTW, I think you meant "ad hominem", but of course an argument isn't a person, so that won't work, either.

Spare me these ridiculous high school debating tactics. Do let me know when your observe a talking ape or any other so claimed macro event. Until then, adios.

o_mlly · Friday at 8:59 AM

The Barbarian said:
It's observed ...

Readers, notice the passive tense. And, what exactly is "it"? I suspect he only means more micro events falsely portrayed as macro.

Why no subject? Because no one has observed a macro event.

o_mlly · Friday at 9:01 AM

sfs said:
By allowing for many possible mutations that would have the same effect -- as I already said.

Yes. More to the point, I've written many simulations, including simulations of natural selection acting on beneficial mutations, simulations which I then used in various studies (all of which were published in genuine scientific journals, by the way).

Of course assumptions are necessary. But if you make assumptions that are obviously wrong in a way that will massively skew your results, you're not simulating reality -- you're just pretending.

Necessary for what? What are you talking about? The question is, how many mutations are possible that would lead to the same phenotype? No one knows for this phenotype, but the number is almost certainly much bigger than 1, and probably much bigger than 10. Since this choice, which is not justified in any way or based on any data, is critical to the result, why do you think it's the right one? What's your basis for thinking it's a good one?

Sample size of what? Again, what are you talking about?

Huh? I'm talking about the time when the eye with a flat retina (in this model) became functional -- that's when the selective pressure for a curved retina would have kicked in.

If you're going to use a peer-reviewed study as the basis for an argument, the fact that the study wasn't in a real peer-reviewed journal is indeed relevant.

No, SCIRP is the publisher of the journal in which the article appeared.

You don't know much about statistics, do you? See above.

The Barbarian · Friday at 1:45 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
I'm sorry guys, I still find this whole evolution thing a bunch of baloney.

It's observed going on in populations everywhere. You might as well call gravity "baloney."

o_mlly said:
Readers, notice the passive tense. And, what exactly is "it"?

Is it possible that English is not your first language? Read it again, carefully.

o_mlly said:
I suspect he only means more micro events falsely portrayed as macro.

I think you have confused evolution (a change in allele frequencies) with universal common descent. We do observe both microevolution (evolution within a species) and macroevolution (new species evolving).

The Barbarian · Friday at 1:55 PM

o_mlly said:
You don't know much about statistics, do you? See above.

I think you've really, really picked the wrong person to say that to.

The Barbarian · Friday at 2:04 PM

It's not actually a study. It's just a list of people compiled by the Discovery Institute to impress the gullible. As you see, many of the people on that list aren't even scientists, much less biologists. They added al sorts of people like "tutor" to pad the list.

I suppose whoever presented it here, was hoping it would be seen as such. As you saw, I debunked it rather easily.

As you now probably realize, "look at all the scientists who don't like evolution" is rather easily debunked by the facts.

Perhaps you don't know what a "strawman argument" is. I was merely critiquing the claim, not the people making it. And I certainly didn't misrepresent what was said about the DI list. Go back and read it, carefully. BTW, I think you meant "ad hominem", but of course an argument isn't a person, so that won't work, either.

o_mlly said:
Spare me these ridiculous high school debating tactics.

I'm not making fun of you. I'm just pointing out that "strawman argument" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

o_mlly said:
s. Do let me know when your observe a talking ape

There are billions of them doing just that. But aside from our own species...

o_mlly said:
or any other so claimed macro event.

That's not a "macro event." Macroevolution is the evolution of new species. Apes capable of conversing with humans are still gorillas or chimpanzees or humans.

o_mlly said:
Until then, adios.

Adios y que Dios te de paz y comprensión.

sfs · Friday at 2:45 PM

o_mlly said:
You don't know much about statistics, do you? See above.

I see you've made no attempt to support the assumptions of the study you're touting or to rebut my criticism of it. Is this your idea of a serious discussion of evolution? Answer my questions in the post you just quoted. (And lay off the ridiculous attacks like this -- they don't do you any favors.)

o_mlly · Friday at 3:14 PM

No point in continuing. Debating with evolutionists is like debating about one's religious beliefs. No that's not accurate. It 's exactly the same. Macro- evolutionists also also believe in things not seen.

The Barbarian · Friday at 4:09 PM

o_mlly said:
Debating with evolutionists is like debating about one's religious beliefs.

The great thing about debating about things like evolution is that facts matter. If one bases one's objection to evolution in religious beliefs, one will always fail.

o_mlly said:
Macro- evolutionists also also believe in things not seen.

As you learn, we have observed cases of macroevolution. Even many creationists now admit new species, genera, and sometimes families. If they retreat a little more, we won't have anything to argue about.

Evolution conflict and division

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Earth Treasures

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Senior Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

“Behold, I make all things new.”

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Senior Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Crabby Old White Guy

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency