Monday, January 9, 2017

Graur and Martin Explain Monumental Failure in Molecular Clock Uncertainty Estimate

Mirages Contain No Water

The scientific evidence contradicts evolutionary theory. Consider, for example, the problem of tracing out the mammalian evolutionary tree. According to evolution similar species should be neighbors on the evolutionary tree. For example, the flying squirrel and sugar glide certainly are similar—they both sport distinctive “wings” stretching from arm to leg. Shouldn’t they be neighboring species? The problem is that, while they have incredible similarities, they also have big differences. Most notably, the flying squirrel is a placental and the sugar glider is a marsupial. So they must be placed far apart in the mammalian evolutionary tree. The problem in this example is that different characters, across the two species, are not congruent. Here is how evolutionists rationalize the contradiction:

Flying squirrels and sugar gliders are only distantly related. So why do they look so similar then? Their gliding "wings" and big eyes are analogous structures. Natural selection independently adapted both lineages for similar lifestyles: leaping from treetops (hence, the gliding "wings") and foraging at night (hence, the big eyes).

This is a good example of how contradictory evidence drives evolutionists to use irrational just-so stories. Natural selection cannot “adapt” anything. Natural selection kills off the bad designs. It cannot influence the random mutations which must, somehow, come up with such amazing designs. This is the hard reality, but in order to rationalize the evidence, evolutionists must resort to this sort of teleological language, personifying and endowing natural selection with impossible powers. As usual, the infinitive form (“for similar lifestyles”) is a dead giveaway. Natural selection becomes a designer.

This example is by no means exceptional. In fact, this sort of incongruence is rampant in biology. Evolutionists have attempted to deny it in the past, but it is undeniable. It is the rule rather than the exception. As one recent paper, entitled “Mammal madness: is the mammal tree of life not yet resolved?” admitted:

Despite the keen interest in mammals, the evolutionary history of this clade has been and remains at the center of heated scientific debates. In part, these controversies stem from the widespread occurrence of convergent morphological characters in mammals.

In addition to the morphological characters, evolutionists make extensive use of molecular sequence data using the so-called molecular clock method. The molecular clock method, however, has a long history of problems. You can see here and here how the molecular clock method has failed, but an entirely different problem is the non-scientific, misuse, of this approach. Consider how evolutionists have misused it in the mammalian evolutionary tree problem:

Two articles in this issue address one such node, the root of the tree of living placental mammals, and come to different conclusions. The timing of the splitting event—approximately 100 Ma based on molecular clocks—is not in debate, at least among molecular evolutionists. Rather the question is the branching order of the three major lineages: afrotherians (e.g., elephants, manatees, hyraxes, elephant shrews, aardvarks, and tenrecs), xenarthrans (sloths, anteaters, and armadillos), and boreoeutherians (all other placentals; fig. 1).

Such overly optimistic interpretation of the molecular clock results unfortunately has a long history. Dan Graur and William Martin have showed how such over confidence became common in evolutionary studies. They write:

We will relate a dating saga of ballooning inapplicability and snowballing error through which molecular equivalents of the 23rd October 4004 BC date have been mass-produced in the most prestigious biology journals.

Graur and Martin chronicle how a massive uncertainty was converted to, err, zero, via a sequence of machinations, including the arbitrary filtering out of data simply because they do not fit the theory:

A solution to the single-calibration conundrum would be to use multiple primary calibrations because such practices yield better results than those obtained by relying on a single point. Indeed, it was stated that “the use of multiple calibration points from the fossil record would be desirable if they were all close to the actual time of divergence.” However, because no calibrations other than the 310 +/- 0 MYA value were ever used in this saga, the authors must have concluded that none exists. This is not true. Moreover, deciding whether a certain fossil is “close to the actual time of divergence” presupposes a prior knowledge of the time of divergence, which in turn will make the fossil superfluous for dating purposes.

Not only are uncooperative data discarded, but tests are altogether dropped if they don’t produce the right answer:

The results indicated that 25% of the homologous protein sets in birds and mammals failed the first part of the consistency test, that is, in one out of four cases the data yielded divergence times between rodents and primates that were older than those obtained for the divergence between synapsids and diapsids. One protein yielded the absurd estimate of 2333 MYA for the human–chicken divergence event, and as an extreme outlier was discarded. For the remaining proteins, the mean bird–mammalian divergence estimate was 393 MYA with a 95% confidence interval of 471-315 MYA. In other words, the 310 MYA landmark was not recovered. Because neither condition of the consistency test was met, it was concluded that the use of the secondary calibration is unjustified.

In one example, a monumental dating uncertainty, roughly equal to the age of the universe, is magically reduced by a factor of 40:

Were calibration and derivation uncertainties taken into proper consideration, the 95% confidence interval would have turned out to be at least 40 times larger (~14.2 billion years).

Now of course there is little question that evolutionists will resolve their evolutionary tree problems. A combination of filtering the data, selecting the right method, and, of course, deciding there is nothing at all improbable about natural selection “adapting” designs in all manner of ways, can solve any problem. But at what cost? As the paper concludes, “Unfortunately, no matter how great our thirst for glimpses of the past might be, mirages contain no water.”

94 comments:

  1. "Natural selection cannot “adapt” anything."

    True. Has anyone said that it can? I must have missed that day in class.

    "Natural selection kills off the bad designs."

    Calling it 'design' doesn't make it so. But you get an A for effort.

    "It cannot influence the random mutations which must, somehow, come up with such amazing designs."

    Sure it can. If you think about it I am sure that you can see how.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sure it can.

    I'm sorry, but rules are rules. No teleology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No teleology involved. Please. Think about the process. I am not trying to trick you.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. OP: "It cannot influence the random mutations which must, somehow, come up with such amazing designs."

    WS: "Sure it can. If you think about it I am sure that you can see how."

    William, I'm afraid not. As far as we know, natural selection has no influence on random mutations. The OP is correct.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly ... the random nature of mutations is the greatest weakness of evolutionary theory. Misdirection is common, and works by focusing upon natural selection. But natural selection creates nothing, it can only select from what came about from chance.

      Delete
    2. "William, I'm afraid not. As far as we know, natural selection has no influence on random mutations. The OP is correct."

      Really? So, if selection removes a gene from a population's genome, can there be any mutations to the removed gene? Seems to me like NS has an influence on possible future mutations.

      Delete

    3. CH:"It cannot influence the random mutations which must, somehow, come up with such amazing designs."

      William: "Sure it can. If you think about it I am sure that you can see how."

      I may be mistaken but I think CH intention is that NS cannot influence the nature of future random mutations, which would be necessary for evolution to advance along the line of common descent. If NS can have such an influence then the the process would not be random but guided, and if it is guided it must be guided via intelligent input.

      Delete
    4. Nic, I agree. Furthermore, the creation of new COMPLEX information by random process (mutations) is contrary to everything we know on a daily basis. Natural selection creates nothing, it only selects from a palate of chance happenings. Yet NS, as counter-intuitive as it is, is accepted as the driving force of evolution because it is natural …. The alternative is teleology, which is rejected because it implies intelligent design.

      Delete
    5. Nic: "I may be mistaken but I think CH intention is that NS cannot influence the nature of future random mutations,..."

      Sure it can. Any mutation(s) that results in the loss of a specific structure or chemical pathway will effectively eliminate a future "direction" for future advantageous mutations. Conversely, any mutation(s) that result in a novel structure or chemical pathway opens the door for new beneficial mutations along that "direction".

      We still have most of the DNA sequence necessary for us to produce vitamin C, but it would be extremely improbable for this to occur. But, please don't confuse the probability that something may happen with the probality of something happening that has already happened. I know that my wording is not the best, but an analogy would be the probability of you existing. Since you exist, the probability is 1. But, step back 500 generations and it can be demonstrated that the probability that the exact you will be born is astronomically small.

      Delete
    6. WS - To clarify ...

      NS does not affect the nature (i.e. generation) of future mutations - that process is purely random and subject to known probability constraints.

      NS can only affect the path that future mutations may lead to.

      But that is not really the question, and I don't know anyone who disputes it.

      On the other matter of the probability of our existence ... that question is not relevant if you are using it as an analogy to explain evolutionary theory, as it begs the very question under discussion.

      I think that this question approaches the heart of the matter.

      Delete
    7. Natural selection is blind and mindless. It does not plan for the future.

      Removing genomes from the population- via the elimination of individuals- does not influence any future mutations. Just because the mutations won't happen to the dead organism doesn't mean NS influences anything.

      Wee Willie isn't very good at understanding English...

      Delete
    8. So, if selection removes a gene from a population's genome, can there be any mutations to the removed gene?

      That doesn't have anything to do with influencing future mutations.

      Delete
    9. William,

      "But, step back 500 generations and it can be demonstrated that the probability that the exact you will be born is astronomically small."

      So, you're comparing me to a random mutation? I thought we were friends. :(

      I get the drift of your analogy, but as with all analogies it is flawed. Going back 500 generations you will find my ancestors to be human beings. As such, one would expect them to produce more human beings, which is exactly what we observe. If you wish to view the variations which could possibly occur during this process; ie, the choice of different mates somewhere along the time line; affecting the final outcome which is me; as equivalent to random mutations, I suppose you may have an argument. However, I would not see it as a very strong argument as it really does nothing to support the idea of common descent as it shows no transition from one form to another. It simply shows the minor variations which occur via reproduction.

      "Sure it can. Any mutation(s) that results in the loss of a specific structure or chemical pathway will effectively eliminate a future "direction" for future advantageous mutations."

      The key word here is 'advantageous'. In the non-directed, goalless process which is evolution, how does one determine the difference between advantageous and disadvantageous? Survival cannot be the criterion as that simply is begging the question.

      Delete
    10. Nic: "So, you're comparing me to a random mutation? I thought we were friends. :("

      Random mutations do not honour the friendship barrier.

      "If you wish to view the variations which could possibly occur during this process; ie, the choice of different mates somewhere along the time line; affecting the final outcome which is me; as equivalent to random mutations, I suppose you may have an argument."

      Not equivalent. I am just using it to point out the flaws in the probability arguments used by IDists. The unique sequence of DNA (influenced by the environment) that is you was never the goal (sorry for the ego kill). If it was, the probability of this occurring is so astronomically low as to be impossible. The same applies to the flagellum, eye and any other biological structure. Given the starting point of the first single celled organism containing DNA, the probability of humans evolving is also so astronomically improbable as to be as close to impossible as you can get.

      Delete
    11. Nic: "In the non-directed, goalless process which is evolution, how does one determine the difference between advantageous and disadvantageous? Survival cannot be the criterion as that simply is begging the question."

      The evolutionary process is goalless, but it certainly is not non-directed, or at least limited in available directions. But this 'direction' is not intelligently directed. The directions available will be limited by the available material (DNA, Genes, genetic variation, etc.) and the environment it finds itself in.

      Delete
    12. So the "direction" is nothing more than contingent serendipity. Got it

      Delete
    13. Given the starting point of the first single celled organism containing DNA, the probability of humans evolving is also so astronomically improbable as to be as close to impossible as you can get.

      And that is why it didn't happen. Given starting populations of prokaryotes the posited mechanisms cannot produce anything other than more prokaryotes- endosymbiosis doesn't help you and wrt mitochondria and chloroplasts the claim amounts to nothing more than "they look like they coulda been bacteria".

      As for the flaggellum, the eye and any other biological structure, no one knows how to test the claim that natural selection and drift didit. So, yes, we can do away with the probabilities as yours doesn't have any supporting evidence nor a testable methodology.

      Delete
    14. Joke: "And that is why it didn't happen."

      Joe is displaying his lack of understanding of probability again. From a point 10,000 years ago, even within the same human lineage, the probability of a person with your unique DNA being alive today would be so astronomically improbable as to be indistinguishable from impossible. Yet, you exist. Why is that?

      Delete
    15. Wee Willie- It has nothing to do with probabilities. Your position doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing humans starting from prokaryotes. Tat is because, as I said, yours can't even get beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes.

      You do know that blatantly quote-mining someone is a sure sign that you are a clueless loser? So why do you continue top do so?

      Delete
    16. Joke: "Tat is because..."

      What does making lace have to do with probability? Please stay on topic.

      Delete
    17. The topic is your desperation and cowardice forcing you to equivocate and quote-mine. Probability arguments are useless as you can't even demonstrate a feasibility- meaning yours doesn't even deserve a seat at the probability table.

      Delete
    18. William,

      "the probability of a person with your unique DNA being alive today would be so astronomically improbable as to be indistinguishable from impossible. Yet, you exist. Why is that?"

      It is true that Joe, or you or I would exist exactly as we do can be presented as low in probability. But the probability of humans in general existing as a result of human reproduction is astronomically high, in fact, it is inevitable. Therefore, the idea that the existence of any unique individual human being can be seen as support for the belief that the astronomically impossible odds which must be overcome in order to facilitate common descent is, again, a fallacious argument.

      Delete
    19. Nic: "It is true that Joe, or you or I would exist exactly as we do can be presented as low in probability."

      Winning the lottery would be a low probability. My example has a probability so low that it is effectively zero.

      "But the probability of humans in general existing as a result of human reproduction is astronomically high,..."

      That is why the starting point in my example were modern humans.

      "Therefore, the idea that the existence of any unique individual human being can be seen as support for the belief that the astronomically impossible odds which must be overcome in order to facilitate common descent is, again, a fallacious argument."

      No, it was an example of how the way that ID is using probabilities is wrong.

      Delete
    20. William,

      "No, it was an example of how the way that ID is using probabilities is wrong."

      I simply don't agree.

      Humans will produce more humans, the particular pattern of the genes is moot to that point. The probability that a human male and human female will produce human offspring, if they produce anything, is guaranteed. The specific genetic make up of that offspring; ie, is it me; is irrelevant to the question.

      This is not the case when discussing the probability of amino acids forming a protein or of reptiles becoming non-reptiles over eons of reproductive time. The possible outcomes of amino acid combination are almost infinite and, as such, the probability they will combine to form complex proteins, which will in turn produce complex living organisms is very much in question in terms of probability. The nature by which ID proponents use probability is 100% legitimate and does indeed deal a severe blow to the argument of life arising from non-life and the subsequent descent from a common ancestor.

      Delete
    21. wee willie proclaims without evidence:
      No, it was an example of how the way that ID is using probabilities is wrong.

      It is safe to say that wee willie doesn't know nor understand how IDists are using probabilities. Wee Willie doesn't understand that even giving evolutionism a seat at the probability table is more than it deserves.

      Delete
    22. Joke: "It is safe to say that wee willie doesn't know nor understand how IDists are using probabilities."

      Which, if true, should be easy to demonstrate. Please educate me.

      Delete
    23. William Spearshake

      Joke: "It is safe to say that wee willie doesn't know nor understand how IDists are using probabilities."

      Which, if true, should be easy to demonstrate. Please educate me.


      I know how IDiots use probabilities. "This is soooooo complex, the odds of it evolving are umpty-gazillion to one. Therefore GAWDDIDIT!"

      Delete
    24. GR: "I know how IDiots use probabilities. "This is soooooo complex, the odds of it evolving are umpty-gazillion to one. Therefore GAWDDIDIT!"

      I agree that there are many that use that approach (Joe). But I suspect that many have been taken in by Stephen Meyer's combinatorial nonsense. He presents his probability concerns as if they are scientifically based. But anyone with a fairly basic knowledge of probability (and evolution) would know that the argument starts from a false premise.

      Delete
    25. wee wiliie BSer:
      I agree that there are many that use that approach (Joe).

      Wrong again. As I said I don't use probabilities because yours doesn't even deserve a seat at the probability table.

      Look, you losers don't have anything and that is the sole reason probability arguments are made in the first place. If you had an actual methodology and some supporting evidence then we could assess those, but you don't even have that- hence the probability arguments.

      You don't have the basic knowledge of evolution. If you did you could say how to test the claims. But you don't have any idea.

      Delete
    26. wee willie:
      Which, if true, should be easy to demonstrate. Please educate me.

      You are impossible to educate. And you cannot make a case that IDists are using probabilities incorrectly. And I am OK with that.

      Delete
    27. Joke: "You are impossible to educate."

      Quite possibly.

      "And you cannot make a case that IDists are using probabilities incorrectly."

      Already did. Don't blame me because you don't understand probabilities, or evolution.

      "And I am OK with that."

      Most people aren't satisfied with their own ignorance. But if it makes you happy, I am OK with that.

      Delete
    28. Already did.

      Then you failed as you didn't provide any references to support your claims.

      Most people aren't satisfied with their own ignorance.

      You are, obviously.

      Make your case and provide references. I dare you

      Delete
    29. wee willie- the only reason the probability arguments exist in the first place is because your position doesn't have anything to test- no testable hypotheses, no testable metrics and no testable methodology.

      Evos seem to be happy with their own ignorance. Go figure...

      Delete
    30. Joke: "Then you failed as you didn't provide any references to support your claims."

      I don't have to. I provided you a means to test it yourself.

      "wee willie- the only reason the probability arguments exist in the first place is because your position doesn't have anything to test- no testable hypotheses, no testable metrics and no testable methodology."

      If you are going to use probability arguments, it is always a good idea to ensure that they are being used properly.

      Delete
    31. Umm if you cannot provide any references to anyone using probabilities incorrectly then what are you blathering on about?

      From what I have read of your posts it appears that you don't understand the probability argument.

      You are not an authority on the subject. You haven't even shown that you understand it. You cannot reference anyone using it improperly.

      You embarrass Canada

      Delete
    32. WS:

      I am just using it to point out the flaws in the probability arguments used by IDists.

      Can you give an example. What IDist did this? Not saying there are none, but am not familiar with them.

      Delete
    33. Can you give an example. What IDist did this? Not saying there are none, but am not familiar with them.


      Here's one by an ID-Creationist who butchered Bayes' Theorem trying to use probability so show evolution didn't happen.

      Delete
    34. Felsenstein is obviously confused as he failed to reference a scientific theory of evolution.

      Delete
    35. "Can you give an example. What IDist did this? Not saying there are none, but am not familiar with them."

      You, Stephen Meyer, Louis Savain(sp?), Behi, Dembski, Foster, Hoyle, Lennox, Mullings...

      Delete
    36. OK, so given that you are here, can you give an example from Darwin's God, or failing that, an explanation of this flawed probability argument that you are sensing?

      Delete
    37. Wait, Behe made one probability argument and it was taken from the work of an evolutionary biologist. It was an empirical finding based on research.

      It wasn't even Behe's numbers.

      Delete
    38. CH: "OK, so given that you are here, can you give an example from Darwin's God,..."

      GR already provided it.

      Evolution: A One-in-a-Billion Shot

      Delete
    39. Joke: "Wait, Behe made one probability argument..."

      And he failed at it. Your point?

      Delete
    40. WS:

      Perhaps you are not familiar with the rules here. Evolutionists who comment here are useful because more often than not they comments are own goals. Therefore for every point we make, we usually end up with two points. Your approval of GR's own goal makes for two own goals. IOW, your referencing an own goal constitutes, itself, an own goal. So we got two points in quick succession. Sorry but rules are rules.

      Delete
    41. Perhaps you are not familiar with the rules here. Evolutionists who comment here are useful because more often than not they comments are own goals. Therefore for every point we make, we usually end up with two points. Your approval of GR's own goal makes for two own goals. IOW, your referencing an own goal constitutes, itself, an own goal. So we got two points in quick succession. Sorry but rules are rules.
      Heads I win, tails you lose.

      ***APLAUSE***

      Delete
    42. wee willie- obviously you have a reading issue. It's as if you are a total lying coward who can only drool.

      If Behe failed then so did the experimental work of evolutionary biologists.

      As I said, you are an embarrassment to Canada

      Delete
    43. CH: "Perhaps you are not familiar with the rules here. Evolutionists who comment here are useful because more often than not they comments are own goals. Therefore for every point we make, we usually end up with two points. Your approval of GR's own goal makes for two own goals. IOW, your referencing an own goal constitutes, itself, an own goal. So we got two points in quick succession. Sorry but rules are rules."

      Yet, nobody has attempted to explain to me why my claims about the false premises used by IDists when using probability arguments are wrong. I wonder why that is.

      Delete
    44. As Dr Behe explains:

      "Durrett and Schmidt (2008) compare the number they got in their model to my literature citation1 that the probability of the development of chloroquine resistance in the malarial parasite is an event of order 1 in 10^20, and they remark that it "is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given.""

      Behe's number came from a peer-reviewed paper:

      (1) White, N. J., 2004 Antimalarial drug resistance. J. Clin. Invest. 113: 1084-1092.

      Dr Behe didn't get anything wrong wrt probabilities. The empirical result is what it is.

      Methinks wee willie is cornered and desperate. They can only link to Felsenstein as if Felsenstein actually refuted what Dr Hunter said.

      But now we understand why they invent so many sock puppets- could you imagine if their neighbors knew how dishonest, ignorant and desperate they are?

      Delete
    45. Joke: "Dr Behe didn't get anything wrong wrt probabilities. The empirical result is what it is."

      It is the arguments he made with the probability that are wrong. And the assertion that the mutations must be simultaneous.

      "But now we understand why they invent so many sock puppets- could you imagine if their neighbors knew how dishonest, ignorant and desperate they are?"

      Yes Joe/Frankie/Virgil. Maybe you should have used a sock when you got fired for using a work computer to post offensive comments on-line.

      Delete
    46. It is the arguments he made with the probability that are wrong.

      And yet you cannot make your case. So either you are a coward, you are lying or you are stupid.

      And the assertion that the mutations must be simultaneous.

      Except he didn't make that assertion.

      Maybe you should have used a sock when you got fired for using a work computer to post offensive comments on-line.

      wee willie, desperate liar to the core.

      Delete
    47. wee willie:

      Yet, nobody has attempted to explain to me why my claims about the false premises used by IDists when using probability arguments are wrong.


      Umm no one has attempted to explain, with evidence, that IDists use false premises with probability arguments.

      Merely repeating your asinine claim doesn't make it so. You actually have to make a case and use references that support it. But you can't- I wonder why that is?

      Delete
    48. William,

      "Yet, nobody has attempted to explain to me why my claims about the false premises used by IDists when using probability arguments are wrong. I wonder why that is."

      Perhaps you missed it, so here it is again.:)

      Humans will produce more humans, the particular pattern of the genes is moot to that point. The probability that a human male and human female will produce human offspring, if they produce anything, is guaranteed. The specific genetic make up of that offspring; ie, is it me; is irrelevant to the question.

      This is not the case when discussing the probability of amino acids forming a protein or of reptiles becoming non-reptiles over eons of reproductive time. The possible outcomes of amino acid combination are almost infinite and, as such, the probability they will combine to form complex proteins, which will in turn produce complex living organisms is very much in question in terms of probability. The nature by which ID proponents use probability is 100% legitimate and does indeed deal a severe blow to the argument of life arising from non-life and the subsequent descent from a common ancestor.

      Delete
    49. Nic: "The specific genetic make up of that offspring; ie, is it me; is irrelevant to the question."

      It is very relevant to the question. I was talking about the improper use of probabilities, not really about whether or not evolution is true.

      Any organism is the product of its specific DNA sequence and environment. I think that we can both agree on that (although Joe has some strange ideas about this). And any structure is also the product of specific DNA sequences and environment. ID attempts to use probability to prove that something specific could not evolve through natural processes. Whether it is a protein, a flagellum, an eye or a human does not matter for the purpose of this example.

      Most ID examples start from some starting point and attempt to calculate the probability of something developing through natural processes and arrive at astronomically high improbabilities. My example did the exact same thing, except that rather than starting from a population of some undefined life-form, I am starting from a population of humans that lived a few thousand years ago. Using the same approach to probability that ID often uses, I have demonstrated that the DNA sequence that currently resides in all of your cells is so improbable as to be impossible. But we know this not to be true.

      Delete
    50. Joke: "Merely repeating your asinine claim doesn't make it so."

      For once we agree.

      Delete
    51. wee willie:
      Any organism is the product of its specific DNA sequence and environment.

      Evidence please. See that is the problem, wee willie. You have some idea that you cannot support with any science.

      ID attempts to use probability to prove that something specific could not evolve through natural processes.

      Again the only reason probabilities are used is there isn't anything else- no testable hypotheses, nothing.

      And again all you are doing is merely repeating your asinine claim. You have yet to provide an example and you have yet to show your example is the same as IDists use.

      Delete
    52. William,

      "ID attempts to use probability to prove that something specific could not evolve through natural processes."

      I don't think that is the intent. The intent is to show that amino acids combining into the right sequence to result in proteins through randomness is highly improbable and it most certainly is. In fact, it is beyond improbable.

      Again, there is a difference between how probability is used in the two cases. Human reproduction is certain to produce human offspring, there is no question of probability there. The only probability application is in regards to the exact genetic combination of the offspring. That amino acids combining randomly will produce a protein which in turn will lead to living organisms is very improbable.

      Delete
    53. Nic: "I don't think that is the intent. The intent is to show that amino acids combining into the right sequence to result in proteins through randomness is highly improbable and it most certainly is. In fact, it is beyond improbable."

      Who has said that it is the result of randomness? Natural selection is anything but random.

      "Again, there is a difference between how probability is used in the two cases. Human reproduction is certain to produce human offspring, there is no question of probability there."

      I don't see that there is a difference in the way that probability is used. The fact that I can show that your existence is effectively impossible using the same approach used by ID, should raise serious red flags about the ID approach to probability. The bottom line is that you and your DNA sequence were never the goal in the reproductive process (my apologies to your parents). The same is true for any protein or biological structure.

      Delete
    54. William,

      "Who has said that it is the result of randomness? Natural selection is anything but random."

      You can't have natural selection work on that which does not exist. If amino acids do not form to create proteins and proteins do not combine to form organisms, natural selection has nothing from which it can select. Until a living entity exists, natural selection cannot even enter the discussion.

      "The fact that I can show that your existence is effectively impossible using the same approach used by ID, should raise serious red flags about the ID approach to probability."

      But you cannot in fact do so. My existence is quite probable in light of human genetic recombination. Yes, there are many possible outcomes, but human reproduction will produce some outcome, that is a given. Amino acids floating around in whatever environment they may find themselves are not guaranteed to produce anything at all. There is nothing driving them to combine as is the case with human reproduction. The probability of amino acids forming proteins is not even in the same universe of probability as is my existence.

      Evolutionists speak of amino acids combining to form proteins as if it was an inevitable outcome. It's not, it's not even a slightly probable outcome. Therein lies the difference between my existence and the spontaneous arise of proteins in the realm of probabilities.

      Delete
    55. WS:

      "Really? So, if selection removes a gene from a population's genome, can there be any mutations to the removed gene?"

      Mutation would be required before NS could begin this process. Besides, in the unlikely scenario you present there's even less for NS to work with in the future. It's a one-way ticket to extinction.

      Delete
    56. Nic: "You can't have natural selection work on that which does not exist."

      But we are not talking about the origin of life. We are talking about the way ID uses probability to argue against evolution.

      "My existence is quite probable in light of human genetic recombination."

      No it isn't. The existence of "someone" is. The probability of that person being you is not. Even if we ignore the probability of your parents meeting and getting busy, the probability of that one sperm cell out of millions fertilizing that one egg cell that produced your unique DNA sequence is extremely low. But as probabilities go, nowhere close to zero. Take that process back a generation, or two, or ten, and you will see that the probability approaches zero very quickly.

      That is my argument. The premise of my probability example is wrong. As is that of most ID arguments that use probabilities. It is not whether I can use probabilities to conclude that, with a from a starting point of a few thousand years ago, you can't exist. It is whether I can use probabilities to conclude that, from the same starting point, that no human can exist. Obviously I can't.

      ID proponents often use probability, with the same flawed premises, when they argue that starting from population A, what is the probability that it would develop a flagellum using natural processes, given the finite time frame that we are dealing with? The question is not whether it can produce a flagellum (a Nic). The question should be whether it can produce "something" of equal complexity given an "infinite" number of possible "somethings". I put scare quotes around "infinite" so that Joe wouldn't respond with something stupid like "provide a reference that there are an infinite number of "something's"."

      Delete
    57. BC: "Mutation would be required before NS could begin this process. Besides, in the unlikely scenario you present there's even less for NS to work with in the future."

      True, but any future changes, at least for many generations, would be along lines different than those possible before that gene was removed.


      "It's a one-way ticket to extinction."

      Given that extinction has been the rule for most multicellular life forms, I don't get your point.

      Delete
    58. But we are not talking about the origin of life.

      Except that CSI (biology) refers to the origin of biological information

      We are talking about the way ID uses probability to argue against evolution.

      That is incorrect. ID doesn't argue against mere evolution and the probabilities are what they are given the mechanisms.

      The question should be whether it can produce "something" of equal complexity given an "infinite" number of possible "somethings".

      Who cares? The real question is what can test given your position's blind and mindless processes?

      We wouldn't even be discussing probabilities if you could fulfill that minimum scientific requirement. But then again you don't seem to understand science.

      Delete
    59. WS:

      "True, but any future changes, at least for many generations, would be along lines different than those possible before that gene was removed."

      This is nonsense. Any differences to an organism with the deleted gene could still occur if it was present.

      WS:

      "Given that extinction has been the rule for most multicellular life forms, I don't get your point."

      The point is that natural selection doesn't influence mutations (as per the OP). At least unless it drives the organism to extinction (by your own admission).

      Delete
    60. William,

      "But we are not talking about the origin of life. We are talking about the way ID uses probability to argue against evolution."

      The probability argument can rightly be applied to the formation of proteins from independent amino acids. In that application it is a spot on use of the probability argument. I personally would not apply it to evolution in general as it would not be required. Once the probability argument decimates the possibility of protein formation the rest of the question is rendered moot. If you can't get proteins, you can't get life on which RM/NS can work.

      "the probability of that one sperm cell out of millions fertilizing that one egg cell that produced your unique DNA sequence is extremely low."

      Not really. Taking the largest number of sperm likely to be competing to fertilize an egg at one billion that would mean the probability of my existence is, at the extreme, one in one billion. Compared to the estimate of one protein forming by random accumulation of amino acids, which by some estimates is in the 1 in 4 to 400 range, you quickly see the probability of me is quite high compared to the probability of one protein forming by chance. Even if you wish to increase the probability against me a 100 fold, it still does not even begin to approach the probability against protein formation.

      Delete
    61. Joke: "Except that CSI (biology) refers to the origin of biological information."

      I prefer my red herrings cooked over s flaming strawman.

      "That is incorrect. ID doesn't argue against mere evolution and the probabilities are what they are given the mechanisms."

      And using probabilities in the same way proves that you can't exist.

      Delete
    62. "This is nonsense. Any differences to an organism with the deleted gene could still occur if it was present."

      Why don't humans produce vitamin C.

      "The point is that natural selection doesn't influence mutations (as per the OP)."

      Correct. It acts on the variations in a population caused by them and other mechanisms.

      "At least unless it drives the organism to extinction (by your own admission)."

      And, according to the fossil record, this is often the case. Again, I don't get the point trying to be made.

      Delete
    63. Nic: "The probability argument can rightly be applied to the formation of proteins from independent amino acids."

      True. But that is OoL stuff. I don't know how life formed and neither does anyone. I am only arguing about how probability is being used by ID in arguing against how evolution works in a DNA based system.

      "Once the probability argument decimates the possibility of protein formation the rest of the question is rendered moot. If you can't get proteins, you can't get life on which RM/NS can work."

      But the probability argument can't decimate a natural OoL theory until there is some level of scientific consensus on how it happened. We are nowhere close to that yet. And may never get there.

      But, I am not sure that I get your point. Are you conceding that the way ID uses probabilities to argue against the evolution of specific complex structures, given an ecosystem full of DNA based life forms, is flawed? That is all that I have been arguing about.

      "Not really."

      Nic, please don't try to use quote mining to argue a point. That is a Joe tactic, not something that you have a history of doing. My next sentence was "But as probabilities go, nowhere close to zero." However, when you extend the probabilities back hundreds or thousands of generations, and add in all of the other probabilities involved (eg, probabilities of miscarriages, the right two people getting together, etc.) the probability number quickly becomes far lower than that of any specific protein evolving.

      But, again, I have admitted that the use of probabilities in my example is flawed. Even if I admitted that evolution doesn't happen, my use of probability to prove that you couldn't exist would only be valid if your unique DNA sequence was an outcome that was specified at the time of the first appearance of humans. Which, obviously, is absurd.

      As I mentioned in my previous comment, the ID probability arguments against the evolution of any specific complex structure is flawed because it requires that that evolution pre-specifies these specific complex structures. All these arguments prove is that evolution can't pre-specify the evolution of complex structures. Something that evolution theory has never claimed. The ultimate strawman argument

      Delete
    64. William,

      Nic: "The probability argument can rightly be applied to the formation of proteins from independent amino acids."

      "True. But that is OoL stuff. I don't know how life formed and neither does anyone. I am only arguing about how probability is being used by ID in arguing against how evolution works in a DNA based system."

      The origin of life is where I see the probability argument being most applicable and effective and it appears on this we agree.

      "Nic, please don't try to use quote mining to argue a point."

      That was not my intent, I was just using a portion of your statement to indicate to what argument I was replying.

      "However, when you extend the probabilities back hundreds or thousands of generations, and add in all of the other probabilities involved (eg, probabilities of miscarriages, the right two people getting together, etc.) the probability number quickly becomes far lower than that of any specific protein evolving."

      Even going back that far we do not approach a number even close to 1 in 4 to 400. As such, the probability argument still goes in my favour.

      Also, I still think the weakness in this argument is that human reproduction is going to produce nothing but humans and the exact genetic makeup is secondary to that fact. Using the probability of the process to produce 'me' as opposed to 'me other',as it were, is not relative to reptiles becoming non-reptiles, which, if I understand you properly, is how you're applying the probability argument in this case. Please correct me if I am wrong.

      Delete
    65. wee willie:
      I prefer my red herrings cooked over s flaming strawman.

      So you admit ignorance of the fact that CSI refers to origins. Read "No Free Lunch", he even has a section on that very subject.

      And using probabilities in the same way proves that you can't exist.

      You don't get to baldly assert that you are using probabilities in the same way. You have to actually show it and you can't.

      From No Free Lunch:

      "Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems. Darwinist Richard Dawkins cashes out biological specification in terms of the reproduction of genes. Thus, in The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins writes, “Complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by random chance alone. In the case of living things, the quality is specified in advance is…the ability to propagate genes in reproduction.”



      The central problem of biology is therefore not simply the origin of information but the origin of complex specified information. Paul Davies emphasized this point in his recent book The Fifth Miracle where he summarizes the current state of origin-of-life research: “Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity.” The problem of specified complexity has dogged origin-of-life research now for decades. Leslie Orgel recognized the problem in the early 1970s: “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.”



      Where, then, does complex specified information or CSI come from, and where is it incapable of coming from? According to Manfred Eigen, CSI comes from algorithms and natural laws. As he puts it, “Our task is to find an algorithm, a natural law that leads to the origin of [complex specified] information.” The only question for Eigen is which algorithms and natural laws explain the origin of CSI. The logically prior question of whether algorithms and natural laws are even in principle capable of explaining the origin of CSI is one he ignores. And yet it is this very question that undermines the entire project of naturalistic origins-of-life research. Algorithms and natural laws are in principle incapable of explaining the origin of CSI. To be sure, algorithms and natural laws can explain the flow of CSI. Indeed, algorithms and natural laws are ideally suited for transmitting already existing CSI. As we shall see next, what they cannot do is explain its origin." (bold added)


      Wee willie, your ignorance, while amusing, is neither an argument nor a refutation.

      Delete
    66. Nic: "The origin of life is where I see the probability argument being most applicable and effective and it appears on this we agree."

      Yes we do. Unfortunately that is not where it is being used. Which is no fault of ID. At this point there is no theory to test it on.

      "Even going back that far we do not approach a number even close to 1 in 4 to 400. As such, the probability argument still goes in my favour."

      Even if you are correct, which I don't think you are, it still doesn't go in your favour. How can it when it is an improper use of probability.

      Delete
    67. Joke: "You don't get to baldly assert that you are using probabilities in the same way. You have to actually show it and you can't."

      If you have a problem understanding a simple concept, that is not my fault.

      Delete
    68. William,

      "Even if you are correct, which I don't think you are, it still doesn't go in your favour. How can it when it is an improper use of probability."

      I am, it does, and we will just have to agree to disagree as we have so many times in the past.:)

      Delete
    69. Nic: "I am, it does, and we will just have to agree to disagree as we have so many times in the past.:)"

      And will again in the future. But, being Canadian, we feel bad about it.

      Delete
    70. William,

      "And will again in the future. But, being Canadian, we feel bad about it."

      Who knows, maybe I will get you to agree with me on something.

      It is true, we Canadians do tend to be apologetic for holding contrary views.

      Delete
    71. wee willie the projectionist:
      If you have a problem understanding a simple concept, that is not my fault.

      You are the one having the difficulties, wee willie. You have yet to support anything you have said wrt probabilities.

      And thanks for admitting that you were ignorant of the fact CSI pertains to origins.

      Delete
    72. ***APLAUSE***

      The use of sarcasm when your position is absurd is also an own-goal. Rules are rules.

      Delete
    73. Nic: "Who knows, maybe I will get you to agree with me on something."

      I am sure that we agree on many things. For example, we probably have the same opinion of Joe.:)

      Delete
    74. CH: "The use of sarcasm when your position is absurd is also an own-goal. Rules are rules."

      This one is definitely a keeper. The ultimate in absurdity is to declare a position absurd without providing anything in the way of an argument as to why it is absurd. And then, using sarcasm, you claim that using sarcasm when your position is absurd is an own goal. Sorry Cornelius, but rules are rules.

      Or would you like to actually contribute something to the discussion that could shed light on the disagreement here.

      Delete
    75. wee willie:
      The ultimate in absurdity is to declare a position absurd without providing anything in the way of an argument as to why it is absurd.

      And yet that is all that you do. This probability fiasco is just another example.

      BTW Behe's use of probabilities came from the empirical evidence in a peer-reviewed paper- and they weren't his numbers. The number he used was from evolutionary biologists who I am sure understand evolution and biology much better than you ever will.

      Delete
    76. WS:

      Yet, nobody has attempted to explain to me why my claims about the false premises used by IDists when using probability arguments are wrong. I wonder why that is.

      Because you cited a comment by GR which cited a post at a religious blog (named "Panda's Thumb," which is a reference to a classic, fundamentalist argument for evolution). Religion drives science.

      Delete
    77. CH: "Because you cited a comment by GR which cited a post at a religious blog (named "Panda's Thumb," which is a reference to a classic, fundamentalist argument for evolution). Religion drives science."

      So, because you don't like the site, or Gould and one of his collection of essays, you think that it is an argument in your favour? Forgive me, because I realize that this is your site and you are entitled to make the rules, but that has to be one of the most pathetic responses I have ever read.

      All I have asked for is a defence of the flawed way in which probability estimates are used by ID to discredit evolution. And your response is that because you don't like "The Panda's Thumb" web site or the collection of papers from a scientist who you don't respect, that an article posted in that site must be beneath contempt.

      I have provided very detailed reasons as to why I think that the way ID has used probabilities is flawed. Can you respond to these details in a logical fashion? Or are you going to continue to respond with sarcasm? As a wise man once said:
      "The use of sarcasm when your position is absurd is also an own-goal."

      Delete
    78. So, because you don't like the site, ...

      This isn't a matter of personal taste, it is about a major failure in your argument. You made a claim, and when asked for the details and basis of your claim, your referred (indirectly) to a religious website. That is an absurd response (because it invokes a religious site to support what was ostensibly a scientific claim of yours), and an own-goal.

      Delete
    79. CH: "This isn't a matter of personal taste, it is about a major failure in your argument. You made a claim, and when asked for the details and basis of your claim, your referred (indirectly) to a religious website. That is an absurd response (because it invokes a religious site to support what was ostensibly a scientific claim of yours), and an own-goal."

      Translation: I can't defend the manner in which ID uses probabilities to debunk evolution so I will just dissemble and insult.

      Delete
    80. so I will just dissemble and insult.

      Sorry if you took it as an insult. I tried to explain objectively, and did not mean an insult. Lest I remind you, (i) I asked you for the details of your critique, (ii) you referred to a post which went nowhere, on an explicitly religious site. One of the themes here is that religion drives science, and it seems you just demonstrated it, no?

      Delete
    81. Wee Willie:
      All I have asked for is a defence of the flawed way in which probability estimates are used by ID to discredit evolution.

      You have yet to demonstrate that a flaw exists. And you have already proven that you don't have a clue

      I have provided very detailed reasons as to why I think that the way ID has used probabilities is flawed

      Nonsense. In order to do that you have to reference an IDist and show that the reasoning is flawed. And you have failed to do so. And the way you are talking you don't have the slightest idea how IDists use probabilities.

      Delete
  5. Well this yEC insists marsupials are just placentals with pouches due to migration to areas and issues thereof in the old days.
    I also deny there is such a group as mammals. God didn't make mammals. only kinds. the like traits in creatures is for like needs from a common blueprint.
    Classification can be done better then the one from the 1700's.
    Anyways they are grouping traits.
    So why not group the thousands of points that make a sugar glider and flying squirrel alike rather then the dozens of traits that separate them?
    I don't know if they are the same creature. probably are.
    Creationism needs to explain such likeness too IF they are saying marsupials are not placentals with pouches.
    However concentrating in Australia etc etc does make a issue that yEC fails to deal with strongly. Also the others not being there HMMM. figure it out everybody.
    A squirrel is a squirrel pouch or not.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If I may, with all due respect to both sides, it seems to me the argument boils down to what is the chance that the computer I am typing this on could form by natural processes. I sure everyone would agree it is so improbable as to be be impossible. WS would reply, I imagine, that a computer doesn't reproduce therefore doesn't have natural selection to gradually increase its complexity. As a thought experiment, if a robot was built that could reproduce itself, would it gradually become more complex? I don't think it would.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "As a thought experiment, if a robot was built that could reproduce itself, would it gradually become more complex? I don't think it would."

      If there were a small number of small errors in the reproduction, and if those errors persisted to the subsequent generations, it might become more complex. Or it might become simpler. Evolution does not predict either. Only that there will be change.

      But the question being asked is not analogous to the probability of the robot becoming more complex. Your analogy, with my caveats, would actually be the proper use of probability in this context. But that is not the way that ID uses probability. Continuing on the robot theme, the ID argument is the equivalent of arguing that evolution is not possible because the probability of a robot evolving an electroplated six bladed egg beater with a geared drive mechanism as an appendage is extremely low. This entire argument presupposes a goal. A specified outcome. This kind of probability argument can only be valid if evolutionary theory proposes and predicts pre-defined outcomes. It doesn't, and it never has.

      Delete
    2. So what Willie is saying is that change just happens and if a bacterial flagellum comes out of it, then so be it. You cannot go back and try to determine the probability of something that just happened to happen and ended up looking and acting like a motor. Nice story but devoid of scientific merit.

      But anyway, Willie refuses to provide examples of an IDist misusing probabilities and it's a given he has never read "NO Free Lunch" nor "Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability : A Call to Scientific Integrity

      Delete
    3. Joke: "But anyway, Willie refuses to provide examples of an IDist misusing probabilities..."

      I provided several. Please try to keep up.

      Delete
    4. No, you have not. You just provided your say-so. You have NEVER referenced Dembski, Meyer or anyone else misusing probabilities.

      Delete
    5. Joke: "No, you have not. You just provided your say-so. You have NEVER referenced Dembski, Meyer or anyone else misusing probabilities."

      This isn't Sunday school Joey. We stop reading stories aloud to kids when they became smart enough to read on their own.

      Delete
  7. I didn't have time to read through all comments, but does anyone else see that the massive amount of information encoded even in a prokaryote cell is positive evidence of an amazing intelligence behind the design? A simple analogy is finding a box of alphabets tumped on the table, and among the scattered letters is spelled out the message, "Please take out the garbage. Love, Mom." Would anyone doubt that the message is the result of an intelligent mind making that coherent statement, rather than a random process bringing together that collocation of letters? How much more so, then, for the millions of bits of precisely organized, multi-layered information encoded in DNA? The information in our DNA is positive evidence of an intelligent behind the design.

    ReplyDelete