Evolution and Creation an Honest Question

[Skeptic Ginger]

So where is that genetic family tree incomplete, Ham?

 

[hammegk]

I admit I've never seen or even heard about a genetic family tree, so I have no idea how complete, or not, it might be. A question that comes to my mind about a genetic familiy tree is: "What confidence level do you have that only the correct areas, and all the correct areas, now characterized as junk dna are truly 'junk' for even the simplest organisms?" .

However, my completeness comment questioned how well the sufficiency consideration for the process is backed by actual data rather than by wishful expectations.

If the confidence level of heliocentrism or the yeast theory of bread rising is 100%-epsilon, so is the confidence level in the modern theory of evolution.

Why yes, yes it would be. The value of each epilson would be different. Demonstrating why each theory 'works' in each case ranges from 'crank the numbers & compare actual vs predicted', to an understanding of basic chemistry, to statistics and speculation based on iffy data spanning the gamut from physics to anthropology, with full regard to geology, biology, and many other disciplines as well.

You have no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that the uncertainty (the epsilon) involved with the theory of evolution is greater than the epsilon involved in a claim of heliocentrism or yeast-ism.

In fact, you have never shown that you have any evidence whatsoever to support the claim that there is any uncertainty at all involved in the theory of evolution; based on the knowledge of the subject that you have displayed, the certainty for the theory of evolution cannot be shown to be different from exactly 100%.

If you wish to state the epsilon you -- who purports to be expert in the field if I've read many of your posts correctly -- assign to be zero, congratulations. Has anyone yet agreed?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Eos, honey, shouldn't you be barefoot in the kitchen awaiting the next scientific pronunciamento you can swallow whole without thought?

Funny that I went to College and learned to think for myself, and understand the key concepts of evolution. Even more funny, I don't believe in conspiracy theories and use them as an excuse to not have to think.

 

[JollyRoger]

Hey I'm personally a christian who believes in evolution. One question I've often heard though I don't know a good answer for. Simply put a lot of creationists say that there is no known examples of a beneficial mutation. Can any one give me an example? I"m not saying it proves or disproves any thing but its a good question.

Lets see a beneficial mutation, how about the brain of a primate that mutated and became larger, causing level of intelligence of this primate to increase sufficiently to understand the value of story telling, and the first story they told was something about the Garden of Eden.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

KevinM re no beneficial mutations.... that argument is based in naivety. The word mutation in English has a connotation of "bad" but that has no relevance to the goodness or badness of genetic mutations. Likewise the word "error" connotates "bad" but again in the context of genetic mutations good and bad is not relevant.

Mutations are neutral. It is the selection pressures that then select a mutation or do not select it. Of course there are good mutations. How stupid to not notice them. Just look at bacteria. Mutations allow the bacteria to adapt to changes in the environment. It is mutations that allow drug resistance to develop.

I admit I've never seen or even heard about a genetic family tree, so I have no idea how complete, or not, it might be. A question that comes to my mind about a genetic familiy tree is: "What confidence level do you have that only the correct areas, and all the correct areas, now characterized as junk dna are truly 'junk' for even the simplest organisms?" ...

Actually, research indicates "junk DNA" probably isn't since it is conserved from offspring to offspring. If it were mere junk you would expect it to be full of variation and it isn't. We just don't know the purpose of it yet. But that unknown does not mean evolution's questions have not been answered by genetic science.

Genetic science is quite advanced. The mechanism for getting a wing from an arm is now understood with 100% confidence. Many genes can serve multiple purposes so we now understand how simple mutations account for big changes and how something novel evolves. It turns out the genetic basis for the novel thing served another purpose in prior organisms. Every question in evolution is answered in the genetic code.

We are on track to answer how life arose from inorganic material to replicating life forms as well, though there are still a few unanswered questions there.

 

[drkitten]

Why yes, yes it would be. The value of each epilson would be different. Demonstrating why each theory 'works' in each case ranges from 'crank the numbers & compare actual vs predicted', to an understanding of basic chemistry, to statistics and speculation based on iffy data spanning the gamut from physics to anthropology, with full regard to geology, biology, and many other disciplines as well.

If you wish to state the epsilon you -- who purports to be expert in the field if I've read many of your posts correctly -- assign to be zero, congratulations. Has anyone yet agreed?

Yawn.

And now we see more of the little hammy-dance.

I didn't ask what the epsilon I assign was. I'm not personally expert in the field, but I am familiar with much of the writings of those who are, and I already know what I assess the probability of accuracy as.

I asked what you assessed epsilon at. Because based on your apparent knowledge, you, personally, have no basis for rationally assigning any value to it. You mention a number of vague characteristics in a way that makes it obvious you have none of them -- "n understanding of basic chemistry, to statistics and speculation based on iffy data spanning the gamut from physics to anthropology, with full regard to geology, biology, and many other disciplines as well."

I will repeat my questions. On what basis do you assess the likelihood of the theory of evolution being correct to be less than 100%?

And on what basis do you assess the likelihood of the theory of evolution being correct to be less than the corresponding likelihood for the yeast theory of bread rising?

And on what basis do you consider "evolution" to be a "just-so story" when you have no evidence to suggest that it is any less accurate than the yeast theory?



And your first paragraph bears that up.

 

[Kaylee]

Also, it sounds like you're mixing up the concept of evolution with biogenesis. Evolution only covers the development of existing life. Where the very first bacteria came from is beyond the scope of evolution. Biogenesis is not nearly as well understood, and there is no one predominant theory the way there is in evolution.

Just want to doublecheck, this is a typo right? I'm assuming that evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis (life from nonlife or spontaneous generation of life), but that biogenesis (life from life) fits right in with the theory of evolution?

 

[hammegk]

Yawn.

And now we see more of the little hammy-dance.

Not too unlike the following pap.

I didn't ask what the epsilon I assign was. I'm not personally expert in the field, but I am familiar with much of the writings of those who are, and I already know what I assess the probability of accuracy as.

Damn. Which formula did you select to arrive at your numerically sound result?

I asked what you assessed epsilon at. Because based on your apparent knowledge, you, personally, have no basis for rationally assigning any value to it.

Perhaps my formula differs.

You mention a number of vague characteristics in a way that makes it obvious you have none of them -- "an understanding of basic chemistry, to statistics and speculation based on iffy data spanning the gamut from physics to anthropology, with full regard to geology, biology, and many other disciplines as well."

When will you try for the million as a psychic? Or do you have some numbers to back up that claim?

I will repeat my questions. On what basis do you assess the likelihood of the theory of evolution being correct to be less than 100%?

First, the fact that science never claims certainty. I do have other criteria in accord with my knowlege, understanding, and worldview.

And on what basis do you assess the likelihood of the theory of evolution being correct to be less than the corresponding likelihood for the yeast theory of bread rising?

Complexity of process, strength of predictions, for a start.

And on what basis do you consider "evolution" to be a "just-so story" when you have no evidence to suggest that it is any less accurate than the yeast theory?

Gee whiz, you actually think basic biochemistry is as shaky as the full grandeur of neo-Darwinism? Even I am not that skeptical.

And your first paragraph bears that up.

So you assert ....

 

[drkitten]

Damn. Which formula did you select to arrive at your numerically sound result?

You wouldn't understand it. It involves big words.

Perhaps my formula differs.

Or more likely, you don't have a formula. Or any evidence to plug into it.

I'm still waiting to hear anything that you have against the statement that "all mammals share a common ancestor."

 

[hammegk]

You wouldn't understand it. It involves big words.

Or more likely, you don't have a formula. Or any evidence to plug into it.

Which I suspect is the same probelm you have, so we are back to assigning a value to our respective epsilons on some other basis.

I'm still waiting to hear anything that you have against the statement that "all mammals share a common ancestor."

Does the 'shift the burden of proof ploy' often assist you?

But sure, let's chat about that statement, and the epsilons involved:

Big Bang, the First Ancestor. Epsilon=?

Cosmology resulting in the rocky planets with liquid water, burning suns, heavy elements (just the right mix of radioactives in at least 1 rocky planet) ;
Certainty 100% (for physicalists) with us chatting about (or at least we think we are chatting about) the subject.

Abiogenesis -- somewhere, somewhen -- again 100% certainty for physicalists. How many distinct events? Unknown. How do we factor that problem into our analysis? One method would be to have faith it's True (the only possibility for physicalists) and on that basis examine all data we come across. Euks, Proks & viruses should add some epilson.

And then we arrive at sexual reproduction, and wish to aver, what? A single pair of breeding critters, several of them, herds of them are common to all mammals. Epsilon=?

Your math to sort that out must be interesting, and I most likely would have difficulty following it. How many decimal places does your final result have?

 

[cyborg]

G. I. G. O.

 

[hammegk]

Ah you're a pessimist!

I have faith The Theory is a bit better grounded in that many, many factoids seem well verified.

Maybe you have a comment of merit in re the "completeness" of the previously mentioned genetic family tree? A definition, perhaps?

 

[jj]

Abiogenesis -- somewhere, somewhen -- again 100% certainty for physicalists. How many distinct events? Unknown. How do we factor that problem into our analysis? One method would be to have faith it's True (the only possibility for physicalists) and on that basis examine all data we come across. Euks, Proks & viruses should add some epilson.

Compared to a beneficent sky daddy that lets people suffer, who we can't detect, and who isn't interactive with the universe, well, pure chance seems like a very probable cause for life.

As for 100% certainty, please do not insist on placing words in others mouths, it's rude and inaccurate.

Or is it the new dominion calling you?

 

[drkitten]

But sure, let's chat about that statement, and the epsilons involved:

Big Bang, the First Ancestor. Epsilon=?

Yup, you have no formulae.

You don't even understand the theory of evolution to realize that it's a statement about biology, not about physics.

Cosmology resulting in the rocky planets with liquid water, burning suns, heavy elements (just the right mix of radioactives in at least 1 rocky planet) ;
Certainty 100% (for physicalists) with us chatting about (or at least we think we are chatting about) the subject.

Another totally irrelevant tangent,

Abiogenesis -- somewhere, somewhen -- again 100% certainty for physicalists.

Yawn. More irrelevance, now tied to an ill-defined "physicalism."

And then we arrive at sexual reproduction, and wish to aver, what? A single pair of breeding critters, several of them, herds of them are common to all mammals.

And the standard quibble about definitions to avoid actually answering the questions.

Evasions noted. Now, put up or shut up. What's the weak point in the statement that "All mammals share common ancestry"?

 

[cyborg]

Ah you're a pessimist!

No, I'm a realist.

I have faith The Theory is a bit better grounded in that many, many factoids seem well verified.

Whatever "The Theory" this is you're referring to I'm sure it is not knowing your usual arguments.

Maybe you have a comment of merit in re the "completeness" of the previously mentioned genetic family tree? A definition, perhaps?

The concept of genetic family tree's are for human benefit. You're arguing defintions as if somehow the defintions would change reality. They do not. They merely change our understanding and labeling of it.

If you start with the conclusions and try to work back to the premises it doesn't work. Your epsilon argument is fallicious. The likelihood that any particular state would occur is low, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a possible state if there is a path to it.

The way you argue you'd be playing a card game and then pronounce how ludicrous it was that the hand you got was given to you by shuffling because of how unlikely it was you'd get that particular hand.

So you give us the GIGO: "If we can't be confident that everything had to lead to this result then we must conlude that we must be wrong about the mechanisms that describe it."

 

[skepticdoc]

What is the predictive value of the Concept of Evolution?

I view it as the most rational explanation for the diversity of lifeforms, but I fail to grasp any practical value, since it cannot predict which will be the next antibiotic ( for example ) that will help treat antibiotic resistant TB.

 

[hammegk]

It provides physicalists with a religion to believe in. That, and allows them to identify effing retards who are not True Believers.

So you give us the GIGO: "If we can't be confident that everything had to lead to this result then we must conlude that we must be wrong about the mechanisms that describe it."

Burn your own strawman. My discussion concerns the confidence level one has in the completeness of the mechanisms involved to explain, and predict.

We are at a point where genetic engineering could provide the absolute antibiotic. And, we can hope it doesn't become deadly to all forms of rna/dna life.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is the predictive value of the Concept of Evolution?

I view it as the most rational explanation for the diversity of lifeforms, but I fail to grasp any practical value, since it cannot predict which will be the next antibiotic ( for example ) that will help treat antibiotic resistant TB.

That's just not accurate.

One predictive value is: given an exposure to a toxin (in this case an antibiotic, antiviral or other anti-infective drug) we know that rapid replication, selective pressures and mutations combined will almost always lead to toxin(anti-infective) resistance.

Genetic analysis is enabling researchers to find areas of an organism's DNA (or RNA in some viruses) that are more stable thus allowing production of anti-infectives to target the proteins or surfaces these areas of the DNA result in. There is some current work on influenza antivirals directed in this very area.

Genetic research has enabled researchers to discover the massive amount of gene sharing that goes on in the microbial world. Understanding how viruses interact with host DNA is the result of genetic research. And on and on.

If you are merely claiming you cannot predict the next mutation, who knows that we will not be able to do so in the future. We certainly monitor those mutations in many ways now. A pattern may emerge that is predictable. And some things are currently predictable. For example the mutations which turn a gene on or off can be found. Tinker with the DNA which is now being done all the time and you can turn a virus off.

And I haven't even touched on the work being done on genetically modified plants, bacteria, and insects. Hepatitis B vaccine is made by manipulating the evolution of yeast cells to produce the antigen for the vaccine.

This whole argument goes back to your failing to understand the comment, "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolutionary theory."

I started a topic in the Skeptic Forum about practical applications for Evolution (I believe there are none, I believe in Evolution as a tool to describe/explain the biological diversity and one explanation for antibiotic resistance, that is a different thread!!!) and some member made claims that "I was just discussing the opening post with a biologist. After expressing his amazement that a physician -- of all people -- would even ask such a question, he said, "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolutionary theory." Does it get any more practical than that? "

How do you dismiss the fact evolutionary theory is based on genetic theory? And genetic science is the newest door open to discovering the next medical "miracles"?

To claim evolutionary theory has no predictive value is incredulous. It's like saying evolution theory excludes the mechanisms by which it occurs and only includes the resulting organisms.

And even then there will be predictive value.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... My discussion concerns the confidence level one has in the completeness of the mechanisms involved to explain, and predict.

We are at a point where genetic engineering could provide the absolute antibiotic. ...

I'm at a loss as to how you can say this yet question evolution theory.


As to the fear of the death of mankind by our own hand, maybe, but it's more likely to be a slow death from multiple events, not some single sci-fi scenario. Just my personal opinion.

 

[skepticdoc]

So where is the next TB antibiotic? Trade secret? SSSure..!

What will be the next anti-viral effective against H5N1? methinks nobody knows!