Evolution is mathematically impossible

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is what I get when I go looking. This is an example of the overall confusion that takes place around the ToE. Here a long-held evolutionary concept is being questioned.

Edge.org

That's saying that mutations are stochastic - individually unpredictable, but the likelihood of them occurring and the likelihood of them being repaired varies across the genome and according to the internal cell state and external environmental conditions. IOW, the means to vary mutation rates in various advantageous ways have evolved.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I dont think you understand probability.

Also, mathematical models for the evoultionary process would be incredibly complex, involving multidimensionel diferential calculus, do you have the math skills?

Perhaps you can help me with that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's saying that mutations are stochastic - individually unpredictable, but the likelihood of them occurring and the likelihood of them being repaired varies across the genome and according to the internal cell state and external environmental conditions. IOW, the means to vary mutation rates in various advantageous ways have evolved.

How did this advantage evolve? What was the process?

 

[Speedwell]

Perhaps you can help me with that.

Start here:
Models of DNA evolution - Wikipedia

 

[pitabread]

But I need all the information in order to formulate the odds of evolution occurring/not occurring.

One, that information will never be fully available, since it would involve complete knowledge of the entire probability space of outcomes. Such knowledge is beyond the realm of what can be known.

Second, calculating probabilities after the fact is a meaningless exercise. Even if a specific event is highly improbable, if it occurs then any probability after the fact is irrelevant.

 

[Jimmy D]

But I need all the information in order to formulate the odds of evolution occurring/not occurring. For example, what are the odds of any single molecular change occurring, and, how many molecular changes are needed for the most minute evolutionary change? And what are the odds of the necessary chain of these changes occurring to make even a small change in an organism? And what is the mechanism for these changes in the first place?

And finally, are these changes random or by design?

It's almost as if it's impossible to calculate isn't it?

 

[dad]

Yes.

I find it interesting that when I express my view that people have a duty to take measures that involve minimal effort and risk to protect themselves and others from serious harm - a duty that seems reasonably well aligned with Christian values, you conclude that I advocate the mandatory killing of babies...

Some people do..so you clarified you only want to force people against their wil in some areas, not all. Let's not misrepresent what was said.

When a simple ethical proposition on vaccination is presented, and instead of producing a rational counter-argument, produces inchoate invocations of pollution, war, atomic catastrophe, and suggestions that being in favour implies advocacy of mandatory child sacrifice, overreaction and the 'Backfire effect' spring to mind. 'The Oatmeal' comics have a particularly good treatment of this: Believe.

When talking about the good science has brought to the world, we must balance that with the bad it also brought here. You see when you advocate a blind life and death trust/faith in the medical profession/science/vaccinations, it is a sound proposition to look at what you are selling.

 

[dad]

Second, calculating probabilities after the fact is a meaningless exercise. Even if a specific event is highly improbable, if it occurs then any probability after the fact is irrelevant.

'The fact'? Looking at the variety of life on earth many see this as the fact of creation. That would be evos who are looking at things after the fact, and trying to reexplain how it possibly could have happened without God.

 

[dad]

I dont think you understand probability.

Also, mathematical models for the evoultionary process would be incredibly complex, involving multidimensionel diferential calculus, do you have the math skills?

The biggest thing those models need is leaving the creator out of the picture. Then, all the imaginary time, and cosmic coincidences, and unending series of fortunate events seem semi plausible.

 

[Speedwell]

The biggest thing those models need is leaving the creator out of the picture. Then, all the imaginary time, and cosmic coincidences, and unending series of fortunate events seem semi plausible.

So put God in the picture. Nobody's stopping you. It certainly doesn't stop me. but you have to get the science right.

 

[dad]

So put God in the picture. Nobody's stopping you. It certainly doesn't stop me. but you have to get the science right.

Science is too small to ever be gotten right on creation issues. It does not cover creation at all or the spiritual. What science covers is fantasy factory stories that were constructed to grasp at straws of alternate 'explanations' for creation. Explanations that could never be tested or explored or proven. Like a child trying to do a 100 piece puzzle with only 30 pieces, they rearrange, cram, guess and imagine a lot! When they are shown that one piece could never actually fit where they placed it, they simply rearrange their fantasy, and say it fits over in the middle of nowhere, because it didn't fit the other place and it has to fit somewhere.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Start here:
Models of DNA evolution - Wikipedia

The opening paragraph sent me around the bush and down the rabbit hole.

 

[tas8831]

That needs clarification.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....17/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls

 

[tas8831]

I'm still researching the subject.

Really? Odd then that you make so many proclamations and refuse to accept that you might be wrong.

Are you through with all your research?

Nope, but then, I do not declare that my non-scientific opinions are TRUE no matter what. Do I?

And why have you set yourself up as the arbiter of things not yet discovered?

I haven't - why would you hurl a false accusation at me?

Would you tell an archeologist playing a hunch to forget it as in your opinion "there's nothing out there but sand"?

No, but I have told a non-scientist that claimed repeatedly that vocalizations can originate in the gut or the aorta and send their instructions to the larynx via the recurrent laryngeal nerve that he didn't know what he was talking about, and then supported my position with references to Gray's Anatomy and multiple online sources on anatomy and physiology, including those specifically explaining the function of the nervous system. And the non-scientist actually pulled the 'we don't know everything yet' gambit to try to save face. He did that with several other naive 'opinions', and in each case, the result was the same.

Some people, despite claiming to be 'researching' things, never learn.

Why discourage scientific exploration?

I am not doing so. But scientific exploration has to be .... scientific. One cannot just have a hunch, then do google searches for keywords and declare victory.

I mean, this one guy actually wrote:

" This is a visceral reaction (the 'mind' of the body) influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain."

and had a hissy when I explained - with documentation - over and over that this was not how things work.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....17/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls

That's what I meant. Of course we have to go deeper, examining each individual case.

 

[tas8831]

My incredulity is a conclusion, not a starting point. I gave evolution a fair shake but it came up wanting.

Well, when your "conclusion" includes nonsense like vocalizations being initiated by the aorta, forgive us all for not thinking you know what you are talking about.

 

[tas8831]

Prove that the eye wasn't purposefully designed.

View attachment 253498

Cool burden shifting fallacy, pops!

How about you explain how it was created from dust?


" If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response."

Yeah... that ^^^ is why I don;t expect much from you, in terms of making sense of producing scientifically valid opinions.

 

[tas8831]

The greatest evidence for design is the improbability that it came about by any other means.

Then you have exactly ZERO evidence for 'design' then.

Does this convince you:

"The greatest evidence for evolution is the improbability that it came about by any other means."

How about:

"The greatest evidence for evolution is the improbability that creation really happened."

No? why not? Those statements are just as supported as yours is.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I haven't - why would you hurl a false accusation at me?

You reject creation outright don't you?

I mean, this one guy actually wrote:

" This is a visceral reaction (the 'mind' of the body) influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain."

and had a hissy when I explained - with documentation - over and over that this was not how things work.

Well, it's plain that science isn't too concerned with my theory at this time (and I don't do hissys).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then you have exactly ZERO evidence for 'design' then.

Does this convince you:

"The greatest evidence for evolution is the improbability that it came about by any other means."

How about:

"The greatest evidence for evolution is the improbability that creation really happened."

No? why not? Those statements are just as supported as yours is.

You're entitled to your opinion as I am mine.