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.

 

[The Barbarian]

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?

The Wikipedia articles have links to the actual sources. If you doubt the information, why wouldn't you just check the original sources I gave you?

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.

But to match them with Project Steve you have to remove those without doctorates, those who don't have doctorates in biology or a related field, and those who aren't named "Steve" or some variant thereof. And you end up with about 0.3% who don't accept evolutionary theory.

Nonsense. The project was a joke, still is.

It's kind of a way to mock the DI list of "Staff Scientist", "Ph.D. Philosophy", "Physics tutor", and the like. They had to pad the list with people who aren't PhDs, aren't biologists, and so on for a good reason.

Feel free to count the number of actual doctorates in biology named "Steve"; there aren't many. On the other hand, Project Steve has (Barbarian checks) 1504 Steves who have doctorates in biology or a related field and accept evolutionary theory. The DI list has 4 Steves with Doctorates in biology or a related field.

Pretty much says it all, um?

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

Well, let's see... 4 divided by 1054... roughly 0.4%. Seems to me that 99.63% is rather overwhelming agreement. You get an "F" in math, as well as in biology.

 

[sfs]

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

The principle as normally understood in no way prohibits a gain of functionality. If you have some other understanding of the principle, you haven't explained it.

Apparently you also do not understand the difference between the methods of historiographical and empirical sciences.

On the contrary, I understand them quite well, and know that evolutionary biology falls squarely into the latter. What fields of science have you engaged in?

 

[sfs]

Approximately 45 signatories per page on 28 pages gives us ~ 1,260 dissenting scientists.

Out of 8 million scientists in the world?

 

[o_mlly]

The Wikipedia articles have links to the actual sources. If you doubt the information, why wouldn't you just check the original sources I gave you?

A serious researcher does his own research. A weak attempt at deflection.

Feel free to count the number of actual doctorates in biology named "Steve"; there aren't many. On the other hand, Project Steve has (Barbarian checks) 1504 Steves who have doctorates in biology or a related field and accept evolutionary theory. The DI list has 4 Steves with Doctorates in biology or a related field.

Why would I? The study is a joke. No serious scientist would take a poll to take a stand.

Well, let's see... 4 divided by 1054... roughly 0.4%. Seems to me that 99.63% is rather overwhelming agreement. You get an "F" in math, as well as in biology.

GIGO. Sound familiar?

The principle as normally understood in no way prohibits a gain of functionality. If you have some other understanding of the principle, you haven't explained it.

On the contrary, I understand them quite well, and know that evolutionary biology falls squarely into the latter.

Nope. Your posts show otherwise. Feel free to educate yourself and get back to me.

Out of 8 million scientists in the world?

I did not claim that the majority of scientists have serious questions on evolution theory. The cards are presently stacked against that, for now. Stay tuned. All science claims are merely provisional -- all science has a future.

 

[sfs]

The following is a calculation of the probability of these changes to appear in the genome.

Let's see if it is...

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

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

Assume a genome size of 1.5 billion base pairs. Assume that one point mutation results in one step of an increasingly curved retina (a very generous assumption). Assume a population size of 20,000. Assume 1000 viable offspring per generation. Assume a mutation rate of 150 point mutations per generation. Assume a fixation rate of 0.002 for each favorable mutation.

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.

Although the numbers used in this calculation, may be disputed

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.

Mathematical Challenges to Macroevolution​

Explore the mathematical challenges to the modern synthesis of evolution, based on current understanding of mechanisms and experimental molecular biology.

www.scirp.org

Uh huh...

The Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is a predatory[1][2][3] academic publisher of open-access electronic journals, conference proceedings, and scientific anthologies that are of questionable quality

 

[The Barbarian]

A serious researcher does his own research.

You could have done it. But I did it for you. As you see, one can compare opinions by matching the DI list to the list at Project Steve. And the DI list is about 0.37% of Project Steve. Do you now see why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for YE?

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.

GIGO. Sound familiar?

Well, I wouldn't have put it that way. I prefer to say "padding the list."

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

 

[River Jordan]

And you end up with about 0.3% who don't accept evolutionary theory.

Actually you don't. The statement they signed doesn't say "we don't accept evolutionary theory", it says they're skeptical that mutation and selection alone are fully sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth.

There isn't a single evolutionary biologist in the world who thinks mutation and selection are the only mechanisms to 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.

That's very unethical of you. You initially said that evolution isn't empirical science because it doesn't include repeatable experiments, but after I show you how it does you wave away the entire concept of experimentation because experiments are "human controlled".

You were wrong (again) but instead of acknowledging and correcting your error you just doubled down and made it even worse.

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually you don't. The statement they signed doesn't say "we don't accept evolutionary theory", it says they're skeptical that mutation and selection alone are fully sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth.

There isn't a single evolutionary biologist in the world who thinks mutation and selection are the only mechanisms to evolution.

This is true. They don't specifically reject evolutionary theory as such. But I suspect that most of these guys have religious objections to biology, and are on that list thereby. (At least one of them was surprised to be included, and at his request, was removed) The hint is that they were willing to sign such a document, as though mutation and natural selection were the whole story.

There isn't a single evolutionary biologist in the world who thinks mutation and selection are the only mechanisms to evolution.

That would include Darwin. He discusses how different lineages have solutions to the same problems, but in different ways. Those differences are in the random variations available to natural selection in each lineage.

 

[o_mlly]

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... So your argument just "proved" that poker games are impossible.

I don't know of any poker games that require a single player's hand to hold 52 cards. Kindly enlighten us?

On the contrary, that's an completely unrealistic assumption ...

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

For a morphological trait like this one especially, there are generally numerous mutations that could produce a similar change. ... Second thing wrong: the population size is too small ... if the earlier version of the eye started working suddenly), there would almost certainly be existing genetic variation in this trait in the population ... The Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is a predatory ...

Have you run simulations? Assumptions are necessary. So, tell us precisely how many "numerous mutations" are necessary? What sample size would be necessary? And "earlier versions" mutations did not work ... so what's your point?

Wikipedia again? Attack the messenger instead of the message? SCIRP merely republished the cited article:

Mathematical Challenges to Macroevolution​

• January 2022
• Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics 10(11):3385-3391

 

[o_mlly]

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

Always knew that. Since you brought that fallacious argument to the thread, the real question is do you now see it as a loser?

It's not actually a study ...

So why pretend that it is?

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

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

 

[o_mlly]

That's very unethical of you. ...

I've reported your attack on my personal integrity.

The accusation follows the evolutionists' pattern of defending their "science". 1) You're ignorant, 2) You're not ethical, 3) then the strawmen. (The order may change.)

 

[River Jordan]

I've reported your attack on my personal integrity.

Explain why you initially chastised evolutionary biology as not being empirical science because it didn't include experimentation, but after you were shown it does include experimentation you waved away experimentation as a whole because it's "human controlled".

Why didn't you just acknowledge that your initial claim was wrong?

The accusation follows the evolutionists' pattern of defending their "science". 1) You're ignorant,

It wasn't an empty accusation, it was in direct response to the contents of your posts. You have so far failed to address those fundamental errors.

2) You're not ethical

Same thing. It's not a baseless claim, it's a direct response to your posts.

3) then the strawmen. (The order may change.)

What strawmen?

 

[o_mlly]

Explain why you initially chastised evolutionary biology as not being empirical science because it didn't include experimentation, but after you were shown it does include experimentation you waved away experimentation as a whole because it's "human controlled".

Why didn't you just acknowledge that your initial claim was wrong?

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".