Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[Meadmaker]

May I suggest that with all due respect to the training of your ear, it is oversensitive and far more likely to give false-positives than false-negatives in the "test for creationism"..

 

[articulett]

May I suggest that with all due respect to the training of your ear, it is oversensitive and far more likely to give false-positives than false-negatives in the "test for creationism"..

Sure, and my I suggest in return that there are many people who think they know how creationists work, but they haven't a clue.

Try asking yourself what the goal of the person speaking is-- and compare it to the stated goal or the questions they ask. My conclusions never come from one post. There is a pattern that comes through loud and clear through all the posts. It would be very easy to show me I'm wrong--answer questions clearly-- incorporate what others who do know the subject ARE saying... it ain't just me trying to show why certain explanations are bound to fail and why creationists are dishonest and in what manner--this is especially true in regards to the OP about more scientists becoming creationists (they wish).

And truly Jim Bob-- you think you understand the problem and you think your explanation is better than, say, Dawkins or Myriad... but you don't; and it isn't.

 

[jimbob]

I don't think I understand evolution better than Dawkins.

When he talks about "a selection pressure as low as 1:1000" he is using a probabilistic abnalysis, and he there would be no disagreement. When he is making a rhetorical point, counter to Behe's rhetoric, he ignored the nuances.

The nonrandom part is that optimisation occurs, and that poor designs will be weeded out.

Just look at the numbers. If a cod has four-million offspring n average, and the cod populatoin is stable (it is falling) then the average number of reproducing offspring per parent cod is one. Even a thousandfold selective advantage in a single small fry will only improve the chances of survival to reprduction to about 0.025%.

Successfull traits will be still be selected for, but there is nothing remotely inevitable about which will be selected for, as there is such "attrition".


ETA:

Articulett, am I misrepresenting your argument below, and where?

Mutation is "randomish" but those organisms which survive are by definition the best optimised and thus natural selection works because only the best optimised will reproduce​

 

[articulett]

I don't think I understand evolution better than Dawkins.

When he talks about "a selection pressure as low as 1:1000" he is using a probabilistic abnalysis, and he there would be no disagreement. When he is making a rhetorical point, counter to Behe's rhetoric, he ignored the nuances.

The nonrandom part is that optimisation occurs, and that poor designs will be weeded out.

Just look at the numbers. If a cod has four-million offspring n average, and the cod populatoin is stable (it is falling) then the average number of reproducing offspring per parent cod is one. Even a thousandfold selective advantage in a single small fry will only improve the chances of survival to reprduction to about 0.025%.

Successfull traits will be still be selected for, but there is nothing remotely inevitable about which will be selected for, as there is such "attrition".


ETA:

Articulett, am I misrepresenting your argument below, and where?

Mutation is "randomish" but those organisms which survive are by definition the best optimised and thus natural selection works because only the best optimised will reproduce​

You've got it backwards and muddled. Mutations happen whether they are good for the life involved or not--in that way they are random. If they benefit the organism (increase reproductive success) they have the chance to multiply exponentially-- if they're bad (decrease reproductive success), we never see them-- the worse the mutation the less likely we are to ever know it happened--the more useful, the quicker it multiplies. It's a simple algorithm.

You are just so garbled... you think you are summing up Dawkins or clarifying his point, I imagine... but you are garbling it as many people have tried to tell you. Yes, probability plays a role--but it's the easy part to understand-- Why do things look designed? It's not really helpful to say "that happens randomly or probabilistically"... like you do-- it helps to say it the way Darwin and Dawkins and the many experts say it-- because the way you say it makes it sound like you don't really "get" it-- and it's pretty damn simple to get. You just have a need to use the word "probabalistic" even when it is completely unnecessary and confusing. You have a backwards notion of evolution, but I don't know how to correct it because you are so sure that you are being clear and you can't seem to hear all the people who are saying it better. Read Myriad. Truly. And if you can't understand from that explanation why your explanation is garbled, then I don't think anyone will be able to explain it to you--you have too strong of a need to see yourself as being clear. I don't think you could teach the concept to anyone, because you have a bit of a mixed up way of understanding it and an overly confident assessment of your understanding and communication on the topic.

If you don't trust me, ask any biologist you respect or see if you can find any respected biologists that actually words things the way you do. Remember the MSNBC butterfly article-- it was only one mutation... but it brought the population of males back from being 1% of the population to 40% after a year. But that 40% all came from that single mutant.

 

[mijopaalmc]

If you don't trust me, ask any biologist you respect or see if you can find any respected biologists that actually words things the way you do. Remember the MSNBC butterfly article-- it was only one mutation... but it brought the population of males back from being 1% of the population to 40% after a year. But that 40% all came from that single mutant.

It would be easier to take the criticism if those who argue the evolution is non-random didn't lie by omission so easily.

The MSNBC said:

The proportion of male Blue Moon butterflies dropped to a precarious 1 percent as the parasite targeted males. Then, within the span of a mere 10 generations, the males evolved an immunity that allowed their population share to soar to nearly 40 percent — all in less than a year.

The whole crux of my argument rests on the fact that deleterious mutations are not completely weeded in one generation. While this is an extremely fast example of natural selection, it didn't occur in one generation nor did it completely weed out the deleterious wild-type allele. Furthermore, selection is rarely that strong. Thus, like most of articulett's examples, it is rife with misinterpretation and overgeneralization and does not demonstrate what she claims it does.

 

[six7s]

The whole crux of my argument rests on the fact that...

For the benefit of those who are rather confused by both what the argument is and which side is being backed by whom, perhaps the main protaganists could indicate:

• Their scientific background
• Their personal philosophy
  • How much weight they assign to the various 'schools of thought':

For example, I would declare myself as follows

• Science to secondary (high school) level
• Atheist
  • 0% Old Testament style Creationism
  • 0% Intelligent Design
  • 50% Dawkins
  • 50% Probably more Dawkins

 

[jimbob]

Andyandy, we agree that calling natural selection "random", whilst technically correct is potentially misleading (though calling natural selection nonrandom is also misleading as it is technically incorrect). That is why I prefer calling natural selection "probabilistic".

Taffer, here is my original set of questions, where I put forward (hypothetical) numeric examples.

When Dawkins talks about "a selective advantage as little as 1:1000" I would argue that he is implicitly using a probabilistic treatment of natural selection, if you disagree, what form of treatment is he using?

I prefer talking about traits, because if the selection pressures are for smaller individuals (e.g. on an island with a reduced population) individuals with this trait have the advantage, and it it doesn't matter what gene is different, as long as the end result is a smaller organism.

In this case about half the population of offspring would have a smaller mature size than their parents, and thus the selective advantages work for a larger number than ifo one is talking about a single mutation.

In the case of a single advantageous mutation arising initially in one individual; the best (only) way of assessing how likely this mutation is to spread through the population is to perform a probabilistic analysis. It would be more advanced than my simple versions, but it needen't be by much.

Articulett,

In a stable population, a single advantageous mutation provides a 10% selective advantage, and arises in a single (asexually reproducing) organism.

The average brood size for this type of organism is 10.

1) At the birth of this organism, what is the probability of the mutation spreading through the population?

2) The organism makes it through to breed,

a) What is the probability of the mutation spreading now?

b) What is the probaility of the mutation remaining for 5 generations?

3) The mutation is now in 1% of a large popluation, now what is likely to happen?

I think these are usefull types of questions, and ones that can be only answered probabilistically, how would you answer such questions?

If evolution is nonrandom, doesn't that mean that humanity (or sentience) was an inevitible consequence of life? I would argue that we are here by luck in an indifferent universe, to paraphrase Stephen J Gould


Finally what aspects of my quote of Stephen J Gould (link above) does anyone disagree with.

For me, I disagree with nothing in that quote. I suspect mijo, schneibester, and meadmaker don't either, which makes mijo a pretty wierd creationist who believes in an indifferent universe and no creator (supernatural or otherwise).