Evolution, one more argument against

[PrincetonGuy]

Did you not read the post? I expressly invited readers to "imagine". Similar to the beginnings of arguments from evolutionary biologists.

Here's some mathematical evidence:

Neo-Darwinism must Mutate to survive​

There has been limited progress to the modern synthesis. The central focus of this perspective is to provide evidence to document that selection based on survival of the fittest is insufficient for other than microevolution. Realistic probability calculations based on probabilities associated with microevolution are presented. However, macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) are shown to be probabilistically highly implausible (on the order of 10−50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms. ​

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610722000347

For precisely what do you believe this is mathematical evidence?

Here is some evidence that perhaps you will understand:

The biodiversity that we have today in land animals would necessarily have been aboard the ark in order for us to have it today. This biodiversity is so immense that the ark as described in Genesis would have been only a tiny fraction of the required size. Then there are all the marine and fresh water animals that would have perished in such a flood—not to mention the 369,054 species of vascular plants (tracheophytes) and the 17,000 species of bryophytes—most of which that would have perished in such a flood. Did I mention the dinosaurs, mammoths, ground sloths, and saber toothed cats?

 

[o_mlly]

For precisely what do you believe this is mathematical evidence?

?

Here is some evidence that perhaps you will understand:

The biodiversity that we have today in land animals would necessarily have been aboard the ark in order for us to have it today. This biodiversity is so immense that the ark as described in Genesis would have been only a tiny fraction of the required size. Then there are all the marine and fresh water animals that would have perished in such a flood—not to mention the 369,054 species of vascular plants (tracheophytes) and the 17,000 species of bryophytes—most of which that would have perished in such a flood. Did I mention the dinosaurs, mammoths, ground sloths, and saber toothed cats?

Red Herring alert!

 

[Job 33:6]

?

Red Herring alert!

Are you able to present and communicate the ideas of your article? Or are you simply copying a web link to the abstract, and that's the fullest extent of your understanding of it?

And I would ask the same. What are you arguing in favor of? The article suggests that the theory of evolution is incomplete. So I would wonder, what are they interested in adding to it?

 

[o_mlly]

Are you able to present and communicate the ideas of your article?

Partially, yes.

Simply put the idea is that evols need more time than science allows for the existence of life on earth to support macroevolution claims. Ironically, rather than "God of the Gaps", the math shows they need to resolve "Science of the Gaps".

Or are you simply copying a web link to the abstract, and that's the fullest extent of your understanding of it?

Would you understand what was presented?

 

[River Jordan]

Go through the thread and search the word "fact" and you'll find many examples.

NVM

 

[Job 33:6]

Partially, yes.

Simply put the idea is that evols need more time than science allows for the existence of life on earth to support macroevolution claims. Ironically, rather than "God of the Gaps", the math shows they need to resolve "Science of the Gaps".

Would you understand what was presented?

Of course I would disagree with your approach here, but go ahead and test me. What is the mathematical formula that they use to disprove the theory of evolution?

 

[sfs]

Did you not read the post? I expressly invited readers to "imagine".

Yes, I read it. As I said, I much more interested in discussing data and scientific reasoning than in fictional scenarios.

Here's some mathematical evidence:

No, it really isn't. That's a rambling (loooong and rambling) attack on evolution by non-experts(*) using the kind of really bad argument I mentioned previously. In this case, they're making the same fundamental error that was in the last paper you linked to: calculating the probability of evolution producing a given outcome while assuming that it's aiming for that outcome, i.e. that evolution has a target. It is, again, a very bad model for the actual process described by evolutionary biology.

(*) I believe one is a toxicologist and one an engineer (civil? mechanical? I forget -- I looked him up this morning).

 

[o_mlly]

Of course I would disagree with your approach here, but go ahead and test me.

I believe that test has already been given in your "lesson" to us on the probability of an adaptive organism mutating in a cycling environment.

As to other approaches, what precisely is your theistic-evolution position?

What is the mathematical formula that they use to disprove the theory of evolution?

• Mutations are random changes in genetic systems.
• Natural selection retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
• Consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts.
• Examine the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process.
• The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization.
• The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage.
• Since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up, each successive stage becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one
• A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" downward into a three-component system than into a five-component integrated system.
• If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
• Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely.
• Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations is beneficial, at the very most.
• But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad.
• The probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half.
• Statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060 (one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion).
• Even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
• Let us assume that earth history is 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds).
• Let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this).
• Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try.
• In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system.
• Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts.
• Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021
• The chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion.

(The format options do not allow exponents to show in their normal manner. I trust you will be able to recognize an exponent in context.)

Source: The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, I read it. As I said, I much more interested in discussing data and scientific reasoning than in fictional scenarios.​

As am I. As Neo-Darwinism lacks scientific reasoning, thus rendering its claims as "fictional scenarios".

No, it really isn't. That's a rambling (loooong and rambling) attack on evolution by non-experts(*) using the kind of really bad argument I mentioned previously. In this case, they're making the same fundamental error that was in the last paper you linked to: calculating the probability of evolution producing a given outcome while assuming that it's aiming for that outcome, i.e. that evolution has a target. It is, again, a very bad model for the actual process described by evolutionary biology.

(*) I believe one is a toxicologist and one an engineer (civil? mechanical? I forget -- I looked him up this morning).

Did not like the message so attack the competence of the messengers? Not smart or educated enough to comment on Neo-Darwinism?

OLEN R. BROWN, BS, MS, Ph.D. Expert Witness and Consultant in the Life Sciences, Professor Emeritus, Board Certified Toxicologist, PhD in Microbiology

David A. Hullender, Ph.D. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, MS, Oklahoma State University, Mechanical Engineering, BS, Oklahoma State University, Mechanical Engineering

"Utilizing the computer simulation tools that I learned at OSU and the stochastic algorithms I learned at MIT, I was immediately involved in simulating and analyzing inertial navigation and weapon delivery systems for the Cruise Missile, the F11 Bomber, and the B1 Bomber. I was using computer algorithms that none of my fellow workers understood or had ever used".​

 

[River Jordan]

I believe that test has already been given in your "lesson" to us on the probability of an adaptive organism mutating in a cycling environment.

As to other approaches, what precisely is your theistic-evolution position?

• Mutations are random changes in genetic systems.
• Natural selection retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
• Consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts.
• Examine the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process.
• The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization.
• The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage.
• Since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up, each successive stage becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one
• A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" downward into a three-component system than into a five-component integrated system.
• If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
• Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely.
• Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations is beneficial, at the very most.
• But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad.
• The probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half.
• Statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060 (one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion).
• Even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
• Let us assume that earth history is 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds).
• Let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this).
• Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try.
• In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system.
• Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts.
• Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021
• The chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion.

(The format options do not allow exponents to show in their normal manner. I trust you will be able to recognize an exponent in context.)

Source: The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research

Since you typically don't reply to most of what I've posted to you, rather than point out the flaws in the above I have just one question. That ICR article is 22 years old, yet unless I've missed something it hasn't had any effect on evolutionary biology. In fact I'd bet an overwhelming majority of evolutionary biologists have never even seen or heard of the article.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Job 33:6]

I believe that test has already been given in your "lesson" to us on the probability of an adaptive organism mutating in a cycling environment.

As to other approaches, what precisely is your theistic-evolution position?

• Mutations are random changes in genetic systems.
• Natural selection retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
• Consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts.
• Examine the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process.
• The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization.
• The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage.
• Since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up, each successive stage becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one
• A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" downward into a three-component system than into a five-component integrated system.
• If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
• Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely.
• Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations is beneficial, at the very most.
• But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad.
• The probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half.
• Statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060 (one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion).
• Even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
• Let us assume that earth history is 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds).
• Let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this).
• Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try.
• In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system.
• Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts.
• Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021
• The chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion.

(The format options do not allow exponents to show in their normal manner. I trust you will be able to recognize an exponent in context.)

Source: The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research

This isn't a formula, it's just a list of bullet points.

And I'm not asking about an ICR article, I'm asking about the research paper you shared.

 

[o_mlly]

Since you typically don't reply to most of what I've posted to you ...

I try not to respond to emotional or uncivil posts.

... rather than point out the flaws in the above ...

Sure. Of course you'd rather not.

That ICR article is 22 years old, yet unless I've missed something it hasn't had any effect on evolutionary biology.

Really? Got some evidence to support your claim?

In fact I'd bet an overwhelming majority of evolutionary biologists have never even seen or heard of the article.

If true, then that would not surprise many ...

Why do you think that is?

Gee, I don't know ... maybe if one has invested much time and money in an erroneous theory, they might suffer from confirmation bias.

This isn't a formula, it's just a list of bullet points.

Um, hmm. See above: "... rather than point out the flaws in the above ..."

I'm asking about the research paper you shared.

I did.

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. Generally ignored is the calculation of the probability of the mutations that create a curved retina to appear in a given population. For example, Nilsson and Pelger proposed a model of eye evolution in fish, beginning with a flat photo-sensitive spot [4]. They proposed 1829 steps of incrementally increasing curvature of the retina and narrowing of the pupil, and demonstrated that each step would have been functionally superior to the preceding step. In the article, they conclude that a camera eye could have easily evolved in 364,000 years. However, the probability of those 1829 mutations appearing in a given population of fish over a specified number of generations is not calculated.​

​

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

​

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 × 10−1423.​

​

​

I will now leave this thread as there is "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."

 

[River Jordan]

Really? Got some evidence to support your claim?

Yes, the absolute absence of citations or references to the article in any scientific journal related to biology, the absolute lack of any college biology program teaching its contents, and the absolute lack of any private bio firm incorporating the material into their work.

If you disagree and believe the article has had an impact in evolutionary biology, then it falls on you to show where that's occurred.

If true, then that would not surprise many ...

Gee, I don't know ... maybe if one has invested much time and money in an erroneous theory, they might suffer from confirmation bias.

You're evading the obvious explanation. The reason evolutionary biologists aren't even aware of the article is because the ICR has done absolutely nothing to show it to them. For the last 22 years it's existed solely as a page on a website and nothing more, which is the case for all kinds of fringe things.

So why do you think the ICR has just been content to let this article sit on their website, completely unnoticed by actual scientists? Has it occurred to you that maybe it's because the ICR's intended audience isn't biologists and is instead laypeople who lack the expertise to spot its flaws but are predisposed to believe it regardless (because it tickles their ears)?

Are you okay with it wallowing in obscurity, never affecting science, and eventually fading away like so many others of its kind?