DARWIN IS DEAD (Leave Him in the Grave)

He has a job, a wife, and 3 kids, ino other words, a life. Sometimes we don't hear from him for a week or so at a time.

Stephanie wrote:He has a job, a wife, and 3 kids, ino other words, a life. Sometimes we don't hear from him for a week or so at a time.

I suppose that could be the case. But I wouldn't be asking if he had not made other postings recently.

I'm almost certain Mike is a history prof. If not history, something in the social studies field. He may be brushing up on it. You guys lost me at least a page ago. Math is not my thing, neither is science.

I'd be up for a nice book discussion though. I enjoy the classics, true crime, and the last few years biographies. Don't ask me how I've managed to produce 4 math/science whizzes and not a single lit nut.

Hi Steph and bmd,

I always enjoy learning.

I don't see how, bmd, the m-s balance proves Darwinism. It appears helpful in estimating the mutation rate in a general population that already exists.

SheikBen wrote:bmd,

I want to get back to the math used. What I have been able to gather from looking into mutation-selection balance and allele neutrality (and I have enjoyed both topics and look forward to reading on them further) still does not give me any kind of "defense" for molecules to man evolution.

Mike, be careful there now, ..... don't be starting with "molecules" because that opens up a Pandora's Box ........ that I don't think you want to get into.

Because, therein lies the "answer(s)" to the evolution of all "life forms" ..... as we humans refer to them as.

Cheers

SheikBen wrote:What would you say is the overall rate of mutations in people? Amoebas? Cats?

Of those mutations, what is the overall rate of those being negative, neutral, or positive?

Mike, those are actually un-answerable questions. Now you can make a guesstimate of said and bmd can make a guesstimate of said ...... and then you can both argue about it ........ but no one will win the argument.

Determining the rate of mutations in people, amoebas or cats or determining whether mutations were negative, neutral, or positive ........ would be akin to taking a poll of "likely voters" ..... three months prior to an election.

Michael, there is absolutely, positvely, no reliable statistics on "negative mutations". For instance, how many females abort a zygote (fertilized egg) and don't even realize it, and how many miscarrages are there, or stillborns are there? And how many people are "allergic" to different things or even know that they have an allergic condition.

SheikBen wrote:Given the hypothesized existence of many, many neutral mutations (suggested by among others the Keith Sceptic of the previous forums, who I truly miss), what would the odds be that a given neutral mutation would be passed on to the next generation?

Mike, what are the odds a person with a given neutral mutation ........ will even partner with someone to create an offspring?

But Mike, if they do partner with someone ........ the odds are extremely different depending on whether the "neutral mutation" carrier is the female or the male. And Mike, there is even greater odds that one or both partners will "pass on" a neutral mutation that neither of them have.

Now, ..... how was that for throwing a monkeywrench into your "odds calculating"?

Michael, now you think about that for awhile ....... and if you can't resolve the "why" of said, be sure to remind me if I forget ....... and I will explain it to you.

Cheers, .... Sam



.

SheikBen wrote:Hi Steph and bmd,

I always enjoy learning.

I don't see how, bmd, the m-s balance proves Darwinism. It appears helpful in estimating the mutation rate in a general population that already exists.

What does m-s balance tell us about genetic variability within a population?

bmd wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Hi Steph and bmd,

I always enjoy learning.

I don't see how, bmd, the m-s balance proves Darwinism. It appears helpful in estimating the mutation rate in a general population that already exists.

What does m-s balance tell us about genetic variability within a population?

That there can be a high frequency of even deleterious mutations. But that's not a "bone of contention" with either the Darwinist or the skeptic. The assumption, as far as I can tell, is that there will be SUCH genetic variability that the somewhat rare positive mutation, or a series of neutral mutations, are bound to have a macroevolutionary effect.

I have heard it compared to winning the lottery. Sure the odds are horrible, but with so many players eventually someone wins. Now the creationist crowd has said that the odds are just insurmountable. BMD you told me that an umbrella mathematical problem does not exist. I should like to see Priest's math and hear how you believe it to be failing.

SheikBen wrote:
That there can be a high frequency of even deleterious mutations. But that's not a "bone of contention" with either the Darwinist or the skeptic.

Then why are creationists so hung up on mutation rates? Mutations-selection balance demonstrates that the mutation rate is only one predictor of the available variation upon which selection acts.

SheikBen wrote:The assumption, as far as I can tell, is that there will be SUCH genetic variability that the somewhat rare positive mutation, or a series of neutral mutations, are bound to have a macroevolutionary effect.

You asked for a mathematical treatment that explains how selection can operate, m-s balance is part of that treatment. In effect, the availability of genetic variants afforded my m-s balance increases the probability (rather dramatically) of a particular trait, or variant, becoming "fixed" in a population via natural selection.

SheikBen wrote:I have heard it compared to winning the lottery. Sure the odds are horrible, but with so many players eventually someone wins. Now the creationist crowd has said that the odds are just insurmountable.

There are several problems with the way creationists calculate such odds. First, they, so far as I have ever seen, neglect to take into account the effect of m-s balance (which, as you have discovered, improves the odds of such a trait being available for selection rather dramatically). Second, creationists almost always ignore the functionality of intermediate steps. Creationists' treatment of the evolution of the vertebrate eye is a classic example of such thinking. Third, they rarely consider (or, at least acknowledge) the effect that population size has on calculation such probabilities. And, fourth, creationists almost never give enough detailed information as to how they calculate their probabilities for the reader to make an informed critique of their methods.

SheikBen wrote:BMD you told me that an umbrella mathematical problem does not exist.

And as for as I know, there is no such treatment. Many, many, many...(insert just about as many iterations as you want here)... steps in the evolutionary process have been mathematically modeled, however.

SheikBen wrote:I should like to see Priest's math and hear how you believe it to be failing.

Well, now, therein lays the problem. If Mr. Priest would make is thesis available, I would be glad to take a look at it. But, alas, he appears to be saving it for some reason. I could guess as to what the reason might be, but I think I'll just point out that it is an all too familiar pattern.

Since we can't pick apart Priest's logic until he produces it for our inspection, why don't we look at how the logic of a much better known knucklehead?

Michael Behe is considered to be one of the leaders of the ID movement. Surely, he would be able to apply the techniques of mathematics to "prove" that some steps are essentially impossible (or at least wildly improbable) to have occurred via natural selection. Behe's most famous example is the bacterial flagellum; but that one is rather complicated, consisting of many proteins and hence many different steps. Besides, I don't believe he ever actually calculated all the probabilities. A better, and simpler, example to which Behe has applied his mathematical mojo is that the disulfide bond. This is quite a bit closer to a single evolutionary step, and so much more amenable to an analysis of the probabilities involved.

So, why don't you Google "Behe" and "disulfide bond", and tell us all how that line of inquiry worked out for the good professor?

"Second, creationists almost always ignore the functionality of intermediate steps."--bmd

I am very interested in this and how it relates to the topic of irreducible complexity. The debate as I read it has on the one side the question of functionality for that specific function (say, cellular transportation) and on the other side the issue is whether ANY function exists. I was directed by your google suggestion to a debate between Dembski, Behe, Miller, and someone else whose name escapes me, in which a lot of fun was had with a mousetrap. Behe (who I think did the worst in the debate, for what it is worth) suggested that while the parts have other functions taken seperately, they are not functional as a mousetrap until all the parts are in place.

As far as the bacterial flagellum goes, I understand why natural selection may choose cellular transportation over secretion; however, it seems to me extraordinarily "lucky" for just the right mutations to take place, even in a theoretically huge population. We can with our intelligence rearrange letters from one long sentence to form a shorter one. That would surely not mean that the long sentence came from the shorter one. Many different cars have the same parts as well, but we'd never call that natural descent.

I really have no idea why any sane logical person would bother to become involved in said "irreducible complexity" discussion, except for maybe self entertainment.

Engineering, construction, evolution, etc., .... proceeds from the bottom up, ..... not from the top down.

Some older gasoline engines used an up-draft carburetor ........ but one can not install an up-draft carburetor on a new fuel injected Lexus.

And yes, one can take the spring and the piece of wood of a spring loaded mousetrap ......... and use the two to make a simple water-can mousetrap out of them.

And yes, humans were using the dead-fall for thousands of years to kill vermine before some someone applied a similar trigger mechanism to the standard mousetrap. And you can reduce the standard mousetrap back to a dead-fall if you want to.



.

SheikBen wrote:"Second, creationists almost always ignore the functionality of intermediate steps."--bmd

I am very interested in this and how it relates to the topic of irreducible complexity. The debate as I read it has on the one side the question of functionality for that specific function (say, cellular transportation) and on the other side the issue is whether ANY function exists. I was directed by your google suggestion to a debate between Dembski, Behe, Miller, and someone else whose name escapes me, in which a lot of fun was had with a mousetrap. Behe (who I think did the worst in the debate, for what it is worth) suggested that while the parts have other functions taken seperately, they are not functional as a mousetrap until all the parts are in place.

As far as the bacterial flagellum goes, I understand why natural selection may choose cellular transportation over secretion; however, it seems to me extraordinarily "lucky" for just the right mutations to take place, even in a theoretically huge population. We can with our intelligence rearrange letters from one long sentence to form a shorter one. That would surely not mean that the long sentence came from the shorter one. Many different cars have the same parts as well, but we'd never call that natural descent.

Let's just worry about disulfide bonds for the moment. We can address the rest later.

BMD,

It would appear that Behe was either presumptuous or outrightly wrong when he called disulfide bonds irreducibly complex. How does that unravel everything else?

SheikBen wrote:BMD,

It would appear that Behe was either presumptuous or outrightly wrong when he called disulfide bonds irreducibly complex. How does that unravel everything else?

OK, what role did the evolution of the disulfide bond have in Behe's thesis?

Well, if the disulfide bond itself is irreducibly complex, then any higher evolutionary activity becomes irrelevant to the question of intelligent design.

I do notice that cysteines were placed in a fortuitous spot by the researchers out to debunk Behe's position. What I don't know is the prevalence of cysteines normally. Just because something is not irreducibly complex does not necessarily mean that it came about by chance and selection.

I can see that I have been wasting my time injecting logical posts into your all's disgustion ........ because it appears you are doing nothing more than playing a cat n' mouse game attempting to "trip" one another up on something.

Just like Aaron and Ziggy, ....... only a little more civil like.

The bigger point about disulfide bonds is that they were Behe's "best" example of a single evolutionary step that he deemed to be so improbable as to be essentially impossible without the intervention of "Intelligent Design." In fact, the disulfide bond was so important to Behe that he claimed to have explicitly calculated the odds of such a thing evolving via natural selection. As far as I know, this was the exemplar used by the ID crowd which comes closest to actually using scientific methods and conventions. It was important enough to IDers for Behe to include it in his book, and for many others to point to it as a (perhaps "the") prime example of how scientific ID, and irreducible complexity, really are. Since Behe is the "designer" of irreducible complexity, one would think that this would be about as close to the "holy grail" of ID as could be reasonably expected.

Alas, the evolution of the disulfide became a rather embarrassing example of how IDers conduct their "science". By now you should have come across the transcript of Behe's testimony at the Dover creationism/ID trial a few years ago. Why don't you tell us, Sheik, how his testimony at that trial reflects upon ID and irreductible complexity; particularly with regard to how he judged the disulfide bond to be irreducibly complex?

bmd, I was back looking thru the posts to see the basis for yours and Mike’s tit for tat and foud this comment from you, to wit:

bmd wrote: So, why don't you Google "Behe" and "disulfide bond", and tell us all how that line of inquiry worked out for the good professor?

I did as you suggested and the 1st link that appeared was this one.

http://ncseweb.org/resources/part-6-dr-michael-behe

After reading said I extracted this paragraph, to wit:

Suppose we wanted to evolve a mouse trap as something like a Darwinian process. What would we start with? Would we start with a wooden platform and hope to catch mice inefficiently, perhaps tripping them [ laughter]. And then add say the holding bar, hoping to improve the efficiency. No, of course we can't do that, because irreducibly complex systems only acquire their function when the system is essentially completed. Thus, irreducibly complex systems are real headaches for natural selection, because it is very difficult to invision how they could be put together, that is put together without the help of a directing intelligence, by the numerous successive, slight modifications that Darwin insisted upon.

bmd, my opinion of Behe is that he is a Dr. Dino preaching ID. Preaching to the immature, inexperienced numbnuts who are more amused with his stupid examples than anything else.

Someone should tell Behe that if that “wooden platform” originally had a handle it would have been effective at tripping mice …. kinda flat like.

bmd, I also found the following via another search.

Disulfide bonds play an imporant protective role for bacteria as a reversible switch that turns a protein on or off when bacterial cells are exposed to oxidation reactions. Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) in particular can severely damage DNA and kill the bacterium at low concentrations if it weren't for the protective action of the SS-bond.

What does it mean by “reversible switch”? The Db switches or what?

.

SamCogar wrote:I can see that I have been wasting my time injecting logical posts into your all's disgustion ........ because it appears you are doing nothing more than playing a cat n' mouse game attempting to "trip" one another up on something.

Just like Aaron and Ziggy, ....... only a little more civil like.

Hi Sam,

I don't think I'm likely to "trip" bmd. I'm looking to learn what has actually been shown and what has merely been suggested through the research.

SheikBen wrote: Hi Sam,

I don't think I'm likely to "trip" bmd. I'm looking to learn what has actually been shown and what has merely been suggested through the research.

Mike, you are not going to learn anything by studying/discussing mathematical models and/or equations. I mean like, fer sure, there is a mathematical model for calculating the odds of winning tonights Powerball Drawing, .... but pulling numbers out of your aboral end will prove just as successful at winning it.

Nor by discussing screwball claims of such as Behe or any other ID'ist, New Earth Creationists or Bible believing creationists.

It is silly, stupid an asinine ..... to FIRST determine the exact results you want ...... and then attempt to make all the pieces of the "puzzle" fit together so that they create/produce said pre-defined result.

Even the Jews in Israel, etc. know such is silly, stupid an asinine ...... and they are big believers in the God of the Bible.

Mike, how many years has it been now that they have been trying to "put the pieces together" of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Almost 60 years, RIGHT. They are wanting to know what they look like, ........ not what they want them to look like. And that is why their work has been kept pretty much secret all these years, they were not sure what it was going to look like.

Mike, you should never learn something "to be a fact".

You should always logically think and reason if it has the potential to be a fact and then only learn it for the purpose of using it as a "reference" for judging the potential factuality of the next "piece of evidence" that you encounter. Just like putting a puzzle together. Pick up a piece, look it over to see if it has potential to be used, ...... if not, reject it, .....if so, try to see if it fits, ..... if not, discard it, ....... is so, add it to the puzzle or if it fits better than a previously added piece, replace that piece with it.

Never learn something "to be an absolute fact", because if you do, you will never be able to "replace it" if something new comes along, ..... is discovered.

cheers

Your contributions to these Forums do not substantiate your claim.

You are entitled to your incorrect opinion.

Behe is changing the definition of irreducible complexity, but then again, so too does the evolutionist often change the definition of evolution.

Many seem to want to accuse Behe of dishonesty when it would seem that he has been sloppy. I read the NCSE transcript of the debate between Behe and others (the debate which Sam cites above) and I see much quibbling.

It is worth noting that Behe's claim is not that natural selection explains nothing but merely that it does not explain everything. He was apparently wrong about the disulfide bond being irreducibly complex, although I still find the environment "convenient" for which it had been shown not to be so.

Still, it is fine that Behe was wrong about the disulfide bond, but that merely takes the problem elsewhere. Obviously if it were irreducibly complex, any evolutionary step above that would be irrelevant as far as purely known material explanations go. However, just because the disulfide bond can be explained does not mean that everything else has.

SheikBen wrote:It is worth noting that Behe's claim is not that natural selection explains nothing but merely that it does not explain everything.

Mike, and just what specifically are you referring to?

.

SheikBen wrote:Behe is changing the definition of irreducible complexity, but then again, so too does the evolutionist often change the definition of evolution.

Got any examples of that? Biological evolution is a heritable change in a species or population. You may have seen slightly different wordings of this, but I have absolutely no idea where you got the notion that scientists "often change the definition of evolution."

SheikBen wrote:Many seem to want to accuse Behe of dishonesty when it would seem that he has been sloppy. I read the NCSE transcript of the debate between Behe and others (the debate which Sam cites above) and I see much quibbling.

That's not the "peak behind the wizard's curtain" moment to which I was referring. Why don't you talk about what happened at the Dover trial? Or is that little exchange too embarrassing?

SheikBen wrote:It is worth noting that Behe's claim is not that natural selection explains nothing but merely that it does not explain everything. He was apparently wrong about the disulfide bond being irreducibly complex, although I still find the environment "convenient" for which it had been shown not to be so.

Still, it is fine that Behe was wrong about the disulfide bond, but that merely takes the problem elsewhere. Obviously if it were irreducibly complex, any evolutionary step above that would be irrelevant as far as purely known material explanations go. However, just because the disulfide bond can be explained does not mean that everything else has.

But, if the disulfide bond was Behe's best evidence of irreducible complexity, and that idea is nothing but smoke and mirrors (not even much smoke, or very good mirrors, at that), what does that say about irreducible complexity???? After all, Behe is the inventor if I.C. (notice, I didn't say the discoverer); if he can't come up with any good examples of such a phenomenon (i.e., there is ZERO empirical evidence for its support) why should it even be considered as an hypothesis??????????????????????

Behe's entire pathetic attempt to weasel his religious notions into the scientific dialog is a golden example of the difference between science and religion. To the scientist the "acid test" of any explanation of how the natural world functions is the agreement between that explanation and the empirical evidence. To a creationist (or any other religiously driven "investigator") the test is how well the explanation agrees with what she/he already "knows" to be "true".

A lot of hay was made out of Behe's Catholicism, to be sure. But why is it not within possibility that he was presumptuous and wrong but not particularly motivated by his faith? He testified at Dover that his faith (just like Miller's, incidentally) could coexist just fine with Darwinism.