Quotes critical of evolution

Billions and Billions

The argument by probability is the weakest anti-evolution argument. Probability is assigned to something prior to it happening. Once an event has occurred, it's probability of occurring is always 1.

wollery said:
This is because there are 1024 possible sequences. You got just one of them, but because we didn't specify before we started which sequence we expected, that probability calculation is utterly meaningless in the context of the coin tosses.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

If we're going to discuss evolution and probability, we need to do it right.

Let's say we have a galaxy with 3 billion planets, and the probability of life occurring on any one these planets in 5 billion years is 1 in 1 Billion.

My friend Harry has a die with 3 billion sides, each one corresponding a different planet in the galaxy. He proposes a wager. He rolls the die and in 5 billion years we check-out the planet and see if there is life there. If there is life, he gives me $1,000,000. If there is no life, I give him $1,000,000. Should I take the wager?

No. A 1 in 1 billion chance? I'd be better off betting on green in roulette. Also, the die could easily come-up with planets that don't stand any chance of developing life. For example the randomly selected planet could be:
  • A Gas Giant
  • A Brown Dwarf
  • Orbiting neutron star
  • Orbiting a pulsar
Or any number of things that don't make the trip back in 5 billion years worth the wait.

So, I propose a counter wager. Instead of randomly selecting from all the planets in the galaxy, I suggest we limit our group to terrestrial planets with water and an atmosphere orbiting a main sequence star aprox. 1 solar mass and are aprox 1AU from their star. If we randomly selected a planet from that group, my chances of winning go way up.

Also, all I need to win is a single prokaryote cell. I'm looking pretty good with this wager and Harry is suddenly no longer interested in betting me.
 
fanboy said:
The argument by probability is the weakest anti-evolution argument. Probability is assigned to something prior to it happening. Once an event has occurred, it's probability of occurring is always 1.
Click to expand...
Not the point, since that only shows that we are here, not how we got here. If evolution were a series of conditional events then the argument from probability would be a good one.

Exactly.

If we're going to discuss evolution and probability, we need to do it right.

Let's say we have a galaxy with 3 billion planets, and the probability of life occurring on any one these planets in 5 billion years is 1 in 1 Billion.

My friend Harry has a die with 3 billion sides, each one corresponding a different planet in the galaxy. He proposes a wager. He rolls the die and in 5 billion years we check-out the planet and see if there is life there. If there is life, he gives me $1,000,000. If there is no life, I give him $1,000,000. Should I take the wager?

No. A 1 in 1 billion chance? I'd be better off betting on green in roulette. Also, the die could easily come-up with planets that don't stand any chance of developing life. For example the randomly selected planet could be:
  • A Gas Giant
  • A Brown Dwarf
  • Orbiting neutron star
  • Orbiting a pulsar
Or any number of things that don't make the trip back in 5 billion years worth the wait.

So, I propose a counter wager. Instead of randomly selecting from all the planets in the galaxy, I suggest we limit our group to terrestrial planets with water and an atmosphere orbiting a main sequence star aprox. 1 solar mass and are aprox 1AU from their star. If we randomly selected a planet from that group, my chances of winning go way up.

Also, all I need to win is a single prokaryote cell. I'm looking pretty good with this wager and Harry is suddenly no longer interested in betting me.
Click to expand...
Lovely little scenario. Sadly it's about abiogenesis, not evolution, but it's an easy mistake to make.

ps, a brown dwarf is not a planet.

pps, how do you know that there's no life in gas giant atmospheres?

ppps, bacteria can exist in all sorts of environments that were previously thought to be too hostile for life. They're called extremophiles. So can you be sure that there aren't bacteria on planets around neutron stars?

pppps, a pulsar is a neutron star, just one whose magnetic axis gets regularly pointed at us by its rotation around the spin axis.
 
Rodney said:
No, it's more like the dealing of an entire deck coming out the exact same way 1000 times in a row.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It is looking at the result of dealing a deck of cards 1000 times and saying what are the odds of that happening?

You are assuming that because the particular result is unlikely that getting a result is unlikely.

What you are doing is looking at a deck that has been delt out, and saying Wow the odds against that pattern are astronomical, it can't be random it must be by design.
 
Last edited:
Rodney said:
I can if you can cite one example in the history of mankind wherein a new species has been created that is physiologically incapable of interbreeding with the prior species.
Click to expand...

That is not something that the thoery of natural selection would be likely to happen during the very brief time period of modern humans. Now if we incklude the three million years for the development of homio spaiens sapiens that might be likely.

But why would the theory of natual selection say it would happen within 60,000 years?
 
Rodney said:
I can if you can cite one example in the history of mankind wherein a new species has been created that is physiologically incapable of interbreeding with the prior species.
Click to expand...

What you're trying to argue, here, is definitions.

But the fact of the matter is that species DO evolve, whether or not YOU can tell they're a new species or not.

How about that nylon bacteria ??
 
Rodney said:
Yes, I read about ring species and I'm still looking for an example of a new species coming into existence in the history of mankind. For example, a dog-like creature evolving from dogs so that it can no longer interbreed with dogs.
Click to expand...

Some dogs don't interbreed with other races of dogs.

The probabilities required for a single-celled organism to evolve into man are incalculable
Click to expand...

That's because you are either deliberatly or innocently trying to make that evolution a single event. Get this : any evolutionary path would have been possible, depending on the circumstances. Ours is NOT special in any way, shape or form. Your argument is a strawman.
 
Belz... said:
Some dogs don't interbreed with other races of dogs.
Click to expand...
And some creationists (wisely ;)) don't interbreed with members of the Randi Forum. That doesn't mean it's physiologically impossible.

Belz... said:
That's because you are either deliberatly or innocently trying to make that evolution a single event. Get this : any evolutionary path would have been possible, depending on the circumstances. Ours is NOT special in any way, shape or form. Your argument is a strawman.
Click to expand...
Any path? So it's plausible that random mutations consistently favored greater complexity and added information, irrespective of the odds?
 
Rodney said:
And some creationists (wisely ;)) don't interbreed with members of the Randi Forum. That doesn't mean it's physiologically impossible.
Click to expand...
So the fact that they do not interbreed is not enough for you? If the chihuahua explodes when it carries irish wolfhound pups, is that physiologically impossible enough for you?
 
Rodney said:
And some creationists (wisely ;)) don't interbreed with members of the Randi Forum. That doesn't mean it's physiologically impossible.
Click to expand...

Well, firstly your definition of species is not the one that I've seen used. The normal definition is that species are considered seperate simply if they do not breed, not if they cannot. Physiology is only one reason for this, geography and time have just as much effect. Horses and Zebra are considered seperate species, yet they are capable of producing viable offspring together. They are seperate species because they don't do this unless forced by human intervention. There are even fish, I think described in one of Dawkins' books, that live in exactly the same place as each other, are identical in every way except colour, and yet they don't breed purely because they only choose partners of the same colour. If you manipulate the lighting so they can't tell the colour they happily interbreed, yet they are seperate species in the wild because they never interbreed there. Physiological inability to breed is just one very narrow definition of species, and not a very useful one.
 
Rodney said:
Any path? So it's plausible that random mutations consistently favored greater complexity and added information, irrespective of the odds?
Click to expand...
:bwall

We've covered this. Please try to remember what was discussed two days ago! :rolleyes:

Mutations which disadvantage an organism will be rapidly bred out of the population, as that organism will be less efficient at producing offspring.

Mutations which are neutral will have no effect on the organism's ability to procreate, and will remain in the population.

Mutations which give the organism an advantage over others of its species will allow that organism to produce more offspring, and in a few generations will become dominant in the population as a whole.

A mutation that removes information from DNA or reduces complexity is unlikely to give an organism an advantage over others of its species.
 
Rodney said:
And some creationists (wisely ;)) don't interbreed with members of the Randi Forum. That doesn't mean it's physiologically impossible.
Click to expand...

So you are STILL playing with definitions ? Why are you demanding to know examples of non-interbreeding members of a previously "uniform" race if such speciation means nothing to you ? You're moving the goalposts with each of your posts, here.

What do YOU need in order to accept the fact of evolution ? A clear, definite and true answer would be appreciated, because then we can start getting to work.

As a first exercice, would you mind confirming that you know these statements to be true:

1) DNA is the principal factor of one's physical attributes
2) Mutations occur in one's DNA under certain circumstances (replication, radiation)
3) Environmental pressures can result in the elimination of organisms with physical attributes that are detrimental to those organisms in the current environment.
4) DNA between two organisms that are different to a certain degree is no longer compatible.

Comments on each point, if you disagree.

Any path? So it's plausible that random mutations consistently favored greater complexity and added information, irrespective of the odds?
Click to expand...

The "odds" have nothing to do with the outcome, here. We're talking about mutation and environmental pressures, the latter beign definitely non-random. In fact, of course, one could also argue that the mutations are also non-random, by definition, but the fact is that, for practical purposes they are. But it's the environment that regulates the outcome.

I don't know why you're saying that "mutations" favored greater complexity, since there are still very simple forms of life on Earth (bacteria come to mind), and they are overwhelmingly more numerous than us. Exactly how were more complex forms "favored" ?
 
Rodney said:
If pelicans evolve longer necks, are they no longer pelicans?
Click to expand...

Is a pelican with a long neck still a pelican?
Is a pelican with teeth still a pelican?
Is a pelican that eats plants instead of fish a pelican?
Is a pelican without feathers a pelican?
Is a pelican that can lean on its wings a pelican?
Is a pelican that walks on all fours a pelican?
Is a pelcian that lives in Africa a pelican?
Is a giraffe a pelican?

At what point do you draw the line and say something is a new species? Most of us realise that it is impossible to draw a general line, all we can do is look at each indiviual case and decide whether we think something is a seperate species. The fact that evolution works on a much longer timescale than humans are used to just makes things blurrier. Of course, what you fail to realise is that by simply admitting that pelicans can evolve longer necks and that there is a question over when we can define new species you have completely lost the argument.
 
Rodney said:
Any path? So it's plausible that random mutations consistently favored greater complexity and added information, irrespective of the odds?
Click to expand...

Eh, what?

Where is your proof of that, in some cases organisms carry more and in others they carry less information. This is a fallacy of progessive thinking as it applies to evolution.

You have to remember that if a gene allowed a creature to reproduce and have it's offspring survive but ended the individuals life 90% earlier , it would be naturaly selected. Take diseases like cholera that kill thier hosts, the strategty is that they cause thier hosts to spread copies of themselves, they don't care that the host dies. All that matters is reproduction.

Then you still have to prove the greater complexity issue, in a single species the complexity is a false issue.

Read Steven J. Gould please.

Then we look at the design of the human being, ah the pinnacle of creation ;) , we are designed like a microwave over that has a laptop computer ,a hose that waters the lawn, and a dishwasher all crammed into a single space.
 
Cuddles said:
Of course, what you fail to realise is that by simply admitting that pelicans can evolve longer necks and that there is a question over when we can define new species you have completely lost the argument.
Click to expand...

When I pointed this out, twice, somehow I never got an answer from Rodney.
 
Rodney said:
And some creationists (wisely ;)) don't interbreed with members of the Randi Forum. That doesn't mean it's physiologically impossible.


Any path? So it's plausible that random mutations consistently favored greater complexity and added information, irrespective of the odds?
Click to expand...

So you do not concider lions and tigers to be seperate species?
 
Rodney, I gave an example of speciation per your request. Would you care to comment on it?
 
Foster Zygote said:
You asked for it:

From Wikipedia
From Wikipedia

Quote:
Artificial speciation
New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended. Domestic cattle on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they willingly and readily reproduce, producing fertile offspring, with several related "other" species.

The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. Rice and Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies which came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring would not breed with each other even when doing so was their only opportunity to reproduce.

Diane Dodd was also able to show allopatric speciation by reproductive isolation in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose. Dodd's experiment has been easy for many others to replicate, including with other kinds of fruit flies and foods.
Click to expand...
link

Shall we all stand back as the goalpost is moved again?
Click to expand...

Didn't even try. He just ignored it.

It is all worth repeating.

(sorry, I put this up right as Foster was posting his reminder)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom