Irreducible Complexity

[crazy-tiger]

1 in 50,000,000 is 1 in 50,000,000. Whether you apply the numbers to the genome, or "in general", the premise stands. Mutations are extremely rare. What you see as quote mining was actually just providing several secular sources which ackowledge this premise.

102760[/snapback]

Not really...

 

1 in 50,000,000 sounds rare and if there are only 50,000,000 possibilities to chose from, it is. Where things change is when the possibilities outnumber the odds to such a degree that they become a virtual certainty

For example, odds of 1 change from 50,000,000 neucleotides with 6,000,000,000 neucleotides per cell shows VERY clearly that "rare" doesn't mean rare...

 

 

You took a small part from that page, removed a lot of it's context and information, than dumped it here with the intent of showing that some secular sources show mutations hardly ever happen.

Since those sources show the exact opposite, you are guilty of quote-mining.

 

At this point I would normally bring your questionable honesty and integrity to the fore and make sure you knew that the lack of truth in your post had been spotted, but this isn't the Lion's Den, so I won't...

[txviper]

Mr. Neil,

 

"I did not say that beneficial mutations happen at every generations"

 

Good strategy on your part, but it did sound like you wanted to bolster the effectiveness of mutations. Materialists have to do this to some degree because after all, mutations are "considered the driving force of evolution".

 

 

"you...seem to have missed the...refutation...in one of the links that you provided, which clearly stated that each new cell contains some 120 mutations. Each new cell. Do the math"

 

Well, the math will indicate a lot of mutations. But the impact of them still has to be considered relative to the 120 events vs. 6 billion possibilities. Look at it like a 50 million cylinder engine with only one working spark plug. Not exactly a dragster would you think?

 

Further, you have to factor out all mutations which are not passed on to the next generation.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb98...90738.Ge.r.html

 

Further still, did you notice the last sentence? Where it mentions that "most mutations are harmful"? You have to factor this in also.

 

The premise really moves from rarity, to severely reduced rarity, then to an actual downward bias.

 

 

 

"...actually, I do know of one documented beneficial mutation. Not spectacular, but a beneficial mutation, nonetheless."

 

One? And a diputed one at that? Not spectacular is a good assessment. But I acknowledge that you did produce an example. It is still somewhat of a shame though, with so much riding on the believed effectiveness of mutations, that "Apo-AIM has often been used as an example of a beneficial mutation". As I noted earlier, if mutations are the engine of upward evolutionary mobility, the evidence should be profound and abundant.

 

 

"For more evidence of beneficial mutations, you're going to have ask a molecular biologist"

 

Well I'm disappointed. I hate being passed off to the clergy.

 

 

"Zach Moore..he'll be featured on a radio program soon"

 

I'll try and listen. But honestly, I watch and read this stuff all the time and it is always the same thing. Speculation and pronouncemnts with little or nothing in the way of empirical evidence.

 

 

"I've had 0 luck getting apologists to ask questions for that show, I decided to ask the question for you."

 

Ask him if he has ever seen the interview when Dawkins sat like a deer in the headlights for 11 seconds (before he had the cameras turned off) when he was asked a question about source evidence for new genetic information. If he has seen it, he will try and laugh it off. If he does, ask him how he would have responded in Richard's uncomfortable position. Post his response here and we'll analyze it.

 

 

"Shall I PM you when the show premieres?"

 

Feel free and thanks.

 

 

 

"Nice attempt at a bluff. Your tenacious inventiveness will do you no good here, I'm afraid."

 

I never bluff.

 

------------------------------

 

crazy-tiger,

 

"Not really...1 change from 50,000,000 neucleotides with 6,000,000,000 neucleotides per cell shows VERY clearly that "rare" doesn't mean rare..."

 

c-t, a word of advice. Stay away from futures and commodities.

[Mr. Neil]

"I did not say that beneficial mutations happen at every generations"

 

Good strategy on your part, but it did sound like you wanted to bolster the effectiveness of mutations. Materialists have to do this to some degree because after all, mutations are "considered the driving force of evolution".

It wasn't a strategy. It was a correction of one of the most common misconceptions about mutations. You were wrong.

 

Well, the math will indicate a lot of mutations. But the impact of them still has to be considered relative to the 120 events vs. 6 billion possibilities. Look at it like a 50 million cylinder engine with only one working spark plug. Not exactly a dragster would you think?

And your point would be... what? You're really digging here.

 

Why should we care about the relativity of 120 mutations to 6 billion? The fact that 120 mutations exist at all is quite significant. It's the 120 to 6 million that makes mutations "rare", and yet earlier you were trying to imply that "rarity" meant that mutations rarely happen. But using one of your own links, I showed you that it does happen quite frequently.

 

We have two contextual meanings for saying that mutations are rare, and you initially picked the one that sounded most damaging to evolution. That is called equivocation.

 

Further, you have to factor out all mutations which are not passed on to the next generation.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean here. You mean the mutations from all the other cells that don't get passed on as opposed to the one that does? I hope you realize that when we're talking about cells that go toward making new life, the next generation will inherit all of mutations from that cell.

 

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb98...90738.Ge.r.html

 

Further still, did you notice the last sentence? Where it mentions that "most mutations are harmful"? You have to factor this in also.

The quote you chose is poor. Instead of referencing an article about harmful mutations, you selected a question-and-answer page which was actually making a point that information doesn't jump from one cell to the next. The author only mentions harmful mutations in passing, and I'm afraid that the quote is far too brief to determine the full context of what he meant, although I have a pretty good idea.

 

An estemate done by Nachman and Crowell, shows that most mutations are, in fact, neutral. In fact, let's take a close look at a link which references their work, shall we?

 

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

 

...Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304.

From: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

 

So it would seem that the conclusion you drew from your reference was painfully over-simplified, largely because it wasn't even addressing the issue at hand. The information I've provided completely ruins your argument.

 

One? And a diputed one at that?

Disputed only by creationists, and only because they've quibbled over the actual findings. For those of us who can read scientific papers without creation-colored spectacles, there is little dispute. The mutation did produce a beneficial and more specified adaptation.

 

As I noted earlier, if mutations are the engine of upward evolutionary mobility, the evidence should be profound and abundant.

Only because you don't understand the science of genetics. Finding evidence of beneficial mutations is tricky business, because the beneficial mutations are out-numbered by the neutral.

 

Well I'm disappointed. I hate being passed off to the clergy.

What did you expect? I'm not a geneticist. I can only give you the information that is provided by people in the field. I don't see the difference between referring you to a journal and referring you to a radio program.

 

Most people would just run to Talk Origins and leave it at that. While I referenced Talk Origins, I also directed you to the best and most immediate resource I had available; a molecular biologist. That way, there can be no quibbling over context and evidence. You're getting it direct from the horse's mouth.

 

I'll try and listen. But honestly, I watch and read this stuff all the time and it is always the same thing. Speculation and pronouncemnts with little or nothing in the way of empirical evidence.

Speculating, are we? I wouldn't be accusing people of speculating, if I were you. When you accuse someone of speculating, you're making a knowledge claim about how that person arrives at his conclusions. Given how thorough you were in determining what percentage of mutations are harmful (i.e., not at all), you're not exactly in the position to make claims about how scientists do their work.

 

Ask him if he has ever seen the interview when Dawkins sat like a deer in the headlights for 11 seconds (before he had the cameras turned off) when he was asked a question about source evidence for new genetic information. If he has seen it, he will try and laugh it off. If he does, ask him how he would have responded in Richard's uncomfortable position. Post his response here and we'll analyze it.

Why don't you ask him yourself? I gave you the link.

 

Actually, according to a response sent to No Answers In Genesis, Dawkins states that the interview was a set-up, and he had actually asked them to stop the tape at that point.

 

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/creatio...tionexposed.htm

 

Of course, Dawkins' explanation isn't as attractive as the dubious creationist version, so most people in the creationist community will continue to tell the story as though Dawkins had been surprised by the question. After all, anyone who was actually interested to hear what Dawkins had to say about the interview could have found this page.

 

Talk about bringing up disputed cases. You picked an incident that is heavily disputed. I'm actually a little disappointed, if not totally annoyed, that you even brought it up.

[crazy-tiger]

crazy-tiger,

 

"Not really...1 change from 50,000,000 neucleotides with 6,000,000,000 neucleotides per cell shows VERY clearly that "rare" doesn't mean rare..."

 

c-t, a word of advice. Stay away from futures and commodities.

103385[/snapback]

Tell me... when you have a 1 in 50 million chance of winning but you've got 6 billion tickets, would you still say you winning would be a rare occurance?

It all depends on the context, and you are using the wrong context to try to make your point. (quote-mining at it's finest...)

 

You are persisting in using the context of chances to show that the occurances are rare... unfortunately, those are two different contexts and when the correct context is used, the word "rare" suddenly becomes the wrong word to use.

1 in 50 million is indeed rare, (context of chances) but 120 per cell per generation is commonplace. (context of occurances)

 

I don't know how many cells there are in the human body, but the sheer number of cells, times the number of generations of said cells, times the 120 mutations per cell per generation gives a number of mutatons that makes 50 million an insignificant number indeed.

 

 

Actually, I did a little checking... there are 600,000,000,000,000 cells in an adult human. 120 mutations per call means there are 72,000,000,000,000,000 mutations per human body at any one time!

That's a 72,000,000,000,000,000 in 1 chance of having a mutation...

 

Funny how you think that's rare...

[crazy-tiger]

Well, the math will indicate a lot of mutations. But the impact of them still has to be considered relative to the 120 events vs. 6 billion possibilities. Look at it like a 50 million cylinder engine with only one working spark plug. Not exactly a dragster would you think?

ANd your point would be... what? Why should we care about the relativity of 120 mutations to 6 billion? The fact that 120 mutations exist at all is quite significant.

 

You're really digging here.

103474[/snapback]

It'd be like having a 50 million cylinder engine with 72,000,000,000,000,000 working spark plugs...

 

 

Funny how the whole thing changes when the correct context is used.

[Mr. Neil]

Actually, I changed the wording of that quote shortly before you referenced it, CT. Fortunately, the context of what I said is pretty much the same.

 

Anyway, yeah! I elaborated a bit more to point out that his original intent in saying that mutations are rare was to make it appear as though the statement was that mutations rarely happen. In reality, the statement was that they are "rare" in the context that 120 occurances in 6 billion is rare, but that's still quite frequent in as far as regular occurances go. They happen all the time.

[txviper]

Mr. Neil,

 

“Why should we care about the relativity of 120 mutations to 6 billion?”

 

Perhaps we should not. I guess it depends on whether or not your world-view is dependent on mutations to account for the state of affairs on this planet. Mine is not.

 

“I showed you that it does happen quite frequently.”

 

Your “show” still happens on the short side of a 1 to 50 million ratio.

 

------------

[4] The human genome has 3 billion base pairs. The average rate of point mutations is about 20-30 in a billion per individual. Almost all point mutations in multi-cellular organisms are strictly neutral. In human beings 90-97% of the DNA is "junk DNA" that does nothing (as best as can be determined.) One third of the changes to codons (sections of DNA that code for proteins) are silent; that is, the DNA changes, but the the amino acid coded for remains the same. Thus 93-98% of all point mutations in humans are strictly neutral.

Of the remaining 2-7% almost all of them are also neutral. A typical protein is a sequence of about 1,000 amino acids which folds up around a reaction site consisting of about 50 amino acids. Changes in the reaction site have a strong effect on the properties of the protein; changes elsewhere often do not unless they affect the folding pattern. As a result, less than 1% of the point mutations are subject to selection.”

[9] If we use the numbers in appendix I the effective genome size (for humans) is about 80,000,000 base pairs and the average number of point mutations in the effective genome is about 4. This works out that each base pair in the effective genome will mutate about once in every 20,000,000 individuals.

This means that in species with large populations such as human beings (currently) every relevant point mutation appears in the species. On the other hand, given a small group such as a hunter/gatherer tribe, a given mutation probably will not appear in the tribe.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#

 

 

Mutations, like it or not, are still rare events. More importantly, they are overwhelmingly inconsequential events. This is why it is hard to make a plausible case for random mutation being the mechanism which “drives evolution”.

 

 

“For those of us who can read scientific papers without creation-colored spectacles, there is little dispute.”

 

More accurately, there is no desire or inclination to dispute.

 

Once again, evolution is solely reliant on random mutations to account for millions of living and extinct plant and animal species. From any standpoint regarding statistics and probabilities, this is an absurd thing to believe.

 

 

“Only because you don't understand the science of genetics.”

 

This has nothing to do with understanding genetics. This is about the likely vs. the preposterous.

 

 

“Finding evidence of beneficial mutations is tricky business, because the beneficial mutations are out-numbered by the neutral.”

 

Tricky indeed. Futile would be a better description.

 

 

“you're not exactly in the position to make claims about how scientists do their work.”

 

Scientists doing their work involves empirical evidence and repeatable experiments.

 

 

“Actually, according to a response sent to No Answers In Genesis, Dawkins states that the interview was a set-up, and he had actually asked them to stop the tape at that point.....Of course, Dawkins' explanation isn't as attractive as the dubious creationist version, so most people in the creationist community will continue to tell the story as though Dawkins had been surprised by the question. After all, anyone who was actually interested to hear what Dawkins had to say about the interview could have found this page.”

 

Unfortunately, what you have noted here is too much of what “scientists doing their work” has become.

 

“According to a response……

Dawkins’ explanation……

what Dawkins had to say about the interview”

 

Dawkins is a two-bit coward. He could have just responded to the guy’s question. Why didn’t he put this perceived creationist in his place with a rational answer? It was not that he didn’t want to, he just couldn’t. What he did want was the cameras turned off so he could compose himself after he realized his sack was in the gears. When he returned, all he had to talk about was the ordinary, nebulous horse-sh!t evolutionists usually offer. This is not the demeanor of a real scientist. This is a common punk. To think he is a high priest of the faith is laughable.

[Mr. Neil]

Mutations, like it or not, are still rare events.

No they're not. You are guilty of equivocation. Mutations happen all the time. The only "rarity" is the 1 in 50 million ratio, which is completely irrelevent. Mutation, regardless of this ratio, are quite common.

 

You are digging. Your entire argument is ruined by a simple equivocation error on your part. You are wrong.

 

“Only because you don't understand the science of genetics.”

 

This has nothing to do with understanding genetics. This is about the likely vs. the preposterous.

Again, your equivocation error makes your argument of likelihood entirely irrelevent, because mutations are entirely likely. They happen a significant number of time in every cell.

 

I don't know why you keep trying to manufacture an argument out of this whole ratio thing.

 

 

“Finding evidence of beneficial mutations is tricky business, because the beneficial mutations are out-numbered by the neutral.”

 

Tricky indeed. Futile would be a better description.

Nice snappy response. Too bad you couldn't forumate a counter-argument. Oh yeah, it's because you don't have one.

 

“you're not exactly in the position to make claims about how scientists do their work.”

 

Scientists doing their work involves empirical evidence and repeatable experiments.

Right, but had you quoted the rest of what I said, it's clear that I'm talking about your presumption about how evolutionary biologists (who are scientists) do their job. Given that you've had to be repeatedly corrected, you are in absolutely no position to make any such claim.

 

Let me remind anyone reading this that uou selected a quote that contextually had little to do with the point your were trying to prove. This is called "quote-mining", and it's among the most dubious of creationist tactics.

 

And you were wrong! Upon finding a much more acedemically researched page on the subject, I showed you that just the opposite was true. According an actual peer-reviewed scientific publication, most mutations are neutral. You seem to have forgotten about that part.

 

Thus, you are in absolutely in no position to make any claims about how biologists do their job.

 

Unfortunately, what you have noted here is too much of what “scientists doing their work” has become.

 

“According to a response……

Dawkins’ explanation……

what Dawkins had to say about the interview”

You seem to be missing the point. You didn't even consider Dawkins' side of the story, and you've ignored the fact that Dawkins doesn't admit interviews to creationists. This has been a long-established principle for Dawkins. To suggest that Dawkins would have invited these people into his home, knowing that they were creationists, is absolutely ridiculous! He stopped the interview, because he'd been set up.

 

Of course I'm going to direct you to a quote from Dawkins! What's your point? I can't imagine what you actually expected me to do. You didn't seem the least bit interested to find Dawkins' site of the story. You just accepted the word of someone who claims to have embarrassed Dawkins, simply because it was a pro-creation source.

 

Dawkins is a two-bit coward. He could have just responded to the guy’s question. Why didn’t he put this perceived creationist in his place with a rational answer? It was not that he didn’t want to, he just couldn’t.

As predicted, the explanation that Dawkins had been set up isn't as delicious as the idea that Dawkins couldn't answer the question, so you chose the latter.

 

Richard Dawkins makes it a point to not grant interviews with creationists, because of the propensity for creationists to misrepresent science, similar to what you've done here. Had Dawkins actually known ahead of time that the interviewer was a creationist, they wouldn't even have gotten into his home. Dawkins had every right to stop the tape and ask those people to leave, because he had been interviewed under false pretenses.

 

Furthermore, the tape is a cheesy tactic to make an evolutionary biologist look bad, and it was done out of desperation. If creationists actually did science, then they'd be able to present evidence of their own theory instead of spending all their effort to bash the proponents of evolution.

 

Besides, you hypocritically accused me of selecting a "desputed" example of positive evolution, and in the same post, you decided to bring up one of the single most dubious and cowardly attempts to humiliate a scientist. Ironic, wouldn't you say?

 

Why don't you try actually spending some energy refuting evolution rather than attacking a scientific figure. Bringing this topic up in this particular section of the forum is entirely inappropriate and uncalled for.

[MrSpooky]

Sweet god, neutral mutations are just that: NEUTRAL. They have little to no effect on a species.

 

The fact remains that BENEFICIAL mutations will be magnified and NEGATIVE mutations will be weeded out. Rarity is irrelevant: this simple fact of natural selection automatically creates a pressure that will as a whole improve a species in its ability to survive in a particular environment.

[Zach]

1) Aren't mutations extremely rare?

 

2) Aren't mutations almost exclusively associated with destructive alteration?

102504[/snapback]

 

From Drake et al., Genetics. 1998 Apr;148(4):1667-86.

 

"With 6.4 x 10^9 base pairs in the diploid genome, a mutation rate of 10^-8 means that a zygote has 64 new mutations. It is hard to imagine that so many new deleterious mutations each generation is compatible with life, even with an efficient mechanism for mutation removal. Thus, the great majority of mutations in the noncoding DNA must be neutral."

[MrSpooky]

Heck, I'm learning about the plasticity and redundancy of the genetic code right now. It's unusually elegent in its capacity to chug along even with an incorrect base pair as long as the end result doesn't exchange a polar with a nonpolar side chain in the protein or something.

[crazy-tiger]

Mr. Neil, 

 

“Why should we care about the relativity of 120 mutations to 6 billion?”

 

Perhaps we should not. I guess it depends on whether or not your world-view is dependent on mutations to account for the state of affairs on this planet. Mine is not.

 

“I showed you that it does happen quite frequently.”

 

Your “show” still happens on the short side of a 1 to 50 million ratio. 

103965[/snapback]

Ahem... 72,000,000,000,000,000 mutations in one human body at any one time is a result of that 1 to 50 million ratio. Guess 72,000,000,000,000,000 occurances is rare then...

 

But wait, what happens if we take account of the fact that there's more than one person? Lets do the math for the 6 billion people alive right now...

72,000,000,000,000,000 mutations per person multiplied by 6 billion people equals... (drumroll please) 432,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 mutations in the human genome RIGHT NOW!

How far do you want to stretch the meaning of "rare"?

 

Each neucleotide has a 1 in 50 million chance of mutating, yes... but with 6 billion neucleotides per cell and 6 hundred thousand billion cells per person and 6 billion people alive right now, the odds of it happening are quite different.

 

The chances of a single mutation are 432,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 50,000,000... Not exactly rare, is it?

[Amethyst]

The chances of a single mutation are 432,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 50,000,000... Not exactly rare, is it?

 

Just because the chance of mutation is small and happens slowly over time doesn't mean an intelligent creator of some kind did it.

[crazy-tiger]

The chances of a single mutation are 432,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 50,000,000... Not exactly rare, is it?

 

Just because the chance of mutation is small and happens slowly over time doesn't mean an intelligent creator of some kind did it.

104413[/snapback]

Sorry, but... was that meant to be sarcastic? (2.30am here and I'm getting tired... not able to pick up on subtleties right now )

[txviper]

Mr.Neil,

 

“Mutation, regardless of this ratio, are quite common”

 

In terms of raw numbers, I agree. Contextually they are still rare.

 

“According an actual peer-reviewed scientific publication, most mutations are neutral”

 

I agree with this also, to the tune of around 99%. I further acknowledge that the remaining 1%, most of which are harmful, are deselected. And I also recognize the difficulty in identifying obviously exquisitely rare beneficial mutations and, though I don’t believe it has been mentioned, quantifying the benefits.

 

So then, all points of agreement and fair concessions in place, why in hell would anyone believe that mutations alone could possibly account for millions of plant and animal species? Mutations are supposed to be the great and singular roaring engine of upward mobility in living things.

 

This is a completely ridiculous idea.

 

There is another problem with this absurd notion which I will note later.

 

----------------

 

“you've ignored the fact that Dawkins doesn't admit interviews to creationists”

 

Really? Is that why he is such a formidable opponent? I’m not sure how I could personally justify taking someone like this seriously.

 

 

“This has been a long-established principle for Dawkins”

 

Being spineless is not really what I would call principled. But you are making the point for me.

 

 

“You just accepted the word of someone who claims to have embarrassed Dawkins, simply because it was a pro-creation source”

 

No, I just watched the clip. It is a good thing, or perhaps a shame, that this was not a gunfight. Watch for yourself. Scroll half-way down the page to see it and enjoy the article.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0412zimmer.asp

 

 

“Dawkins makes it a point to not grant interviews with creationists, because of the propensity for creationists to misrepresent science”

 

Substitute “ask reasonable questions” and you’ll have Dawkin’s real reason; ivory tower cowardice.

 

 

“Dawkins had every right to stop the tape and ask those people to leave”

 

But he didn’t, He came back with a typical and predictable non-answer. Maybe he was scared stupid. Did you notice the question? His response was just precious.

 

 

“Why don't you try actually spending some energy refuting evolution rather than attacking a scientific figure”

 

We’ll get there. But you’ve already accused me of equivocation, quote-mining and dubious tactics. I figured that not dealing forthrightly with one of the cardinals would be a serious infraction also.

 

 

-------------------------------------------

 

 

MrSpooky,

 

 

“natural selection automatically creates a pressure that will as a whole improve a species”

 

 

So scarcity, neutrality, improbability and deletion makes for an upward bias? Okay. I get it now. What was I thinking?

 

 

------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Zach,

 

 

“Thus, the great majority of mutations in the noncoding DNA must be neutral”

 

 

Yeah, everyone, including me but excepting c-t, is pointing that out these days. I guess having a titan like that on the team is a real asset for evolutionary theory.

 

 

----------------------------------------

 

 

Crazy-tiger,

 

 

“The chances of a single mutation are 432,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 50,000,000... Not exactly rare, is it?”

 

 

You are totally lost. But hang in there, You’ll get a chance to apply your inverse principle.

 

 

--------------------------------------

 

 

 

Amethyst,

 

 

“Just because the chance of mutation is small and happens slowly over time doesn't mean an intelligent creator of some kind did it”

 

 

Well no. And finding fox tracks in the hen-house and a chicken missing does not prove that a S.W.A.T. team from Argentina didn’t take it. Evidence is not necessarily proof. We are all, except idiots like Richard Dawkins, hopefully trying to look as objectively as we can at the data and draw rational conclusions. I don’t think that it is rational to observe hyper-complex biological functions and conclude that there is no chance whatever that intellect is associated with them.

 

Socrates was involved in false humility.

[Fweethawt]

“Dawkins makes it a point to not grant interviews with creationists, because of the propensity for creationists to misrepresent science”

 

Substitute “ask reasonable questions” and you’ll have Dawkin’s real reason; ivory tower cowardice.

Does the 'tx' in your username stand for Texas?

[Mr. Neil]

In terms of raw numbers, I agree. Contextually they are still rare.

According to a completely irrelevent context, which is the 1 to 50 million ratio. (See Spooky's comments following my post)

 

So then, all points of agreement and fair concessions in place, why in hell would anyone believe that mutations alone could possibly account for millions of plant and animal species? Mutations are supposed to be the great and singular roaring engine of upward mobility in living things.

 

This is a completely ridiculous idea.

 

There is another problem with this absurd notion which I will note later.

Again, you're making mountains out of mole hills by blatantly ignoring the process of natural selection. Since Spooky's response in the next post was much better than my own, I'll just forgo the redundancy and direct you to what he said.

 

Onto the Dawkins issue...

 

“you've ignored the fact that Dawkins doesn't admit interviews to creationists”

 

Really? Is that why he is such a formidable opponent? I’m not sure how I could personally justify taking someone like this seriously.

Why do you keep snipping the part where I give the reason for Dawkins' principle about creationist interviews? It's because creationists are notorious liars and their "theory" has nothing to do with science. There is no theory of creation, so therefore, it should not be entertained as an alternative of evolution. That's reason enough to not grant such an interview.

 

In fact, since creationism is based primarily on attacking evolution, if one were to remove evolution from the debate, then you'd see that creationism is utterly meaningless and has nothing to say about the natural world except "Read the Bible".

 

Therefore, the very fact that creationists claim to do science is reason enough to disclude them from having debates and interviews with real scientists.

 

“This has been a long-established principle for Dawkins”

 

Being spineless is not really what I would call principled. But you are making the point for me.

Speaking of spineless, does the fact that you keep dogging this issue with Dawkins have anything to do with the fact that you have a very poor argument against evolution?

 

“You just accepted the word of someone who claims to have embarrassed Dawkins, simply because it was a pro-creation source”

 

No, I just watched the clip. It is a good thing, or perhaps a shame, that this was not a gunfight. Watch for yourself. Scroll half-way down the page to see it and enjoy the article.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0412zimmer.asp

Yeah, I've seen it, actually. It really says a lot about Answers in Genesis as a "reputable" scientific website that they would play to such childish whims by hosting a video that has so little to do with actual science.

 

You'll notice that as he's looking around the room, there's a very quick cut to the interviewer and then another cut back to Dawkins, where Dawkins' head is suddenly jerked back the other way. In fact, if you pay close attention to Dawkins, you'll see that before the cut-away, he isn't talking at all, but within the first few frames of the cut, he's suddenly talking! You know, I don't know if you pay much attention to what people do when they talk, but they usually open their mouth and take a breath a few seconds before they speak. This is a blantant sign of a cut!

 

“Dawkins makes it a point to not grant interviews with creationists, because of the propensity for creationists to misrepresent science”

 

Substitute “ask reasonable questions” and you’ll have Dawkin’s real reason; ivory tower cowardice.

Now you're just being snotty, and your contempt for the man shows. You don't care if there's an alternate explanation. You're infatuated with the idea that Dawkins was stumped, even if it's easily refutable, because you're committed to damaging his reputation.

 

“Dawkins had every right to stop the tape and ask those people to leave”

 

But he didn’t, He came back with a typical and predictable non-answer. Maybe he was scared stupid. Did you notice the question? His response was just precious.

Or maybe they lied to him, just as they had done to get in his house.

 

Furthermore, he gave the right answer, because the question was based on an ignorant misconception of evolution. It was an extremely stupid question.

 

As I've stated before, you are far more willing to accept the patently absurd notion that Richard Dawkins, a prominant evolutionary biologist, could have been stumped by such a simple question than the far more obvious answer, which is that, due to Dawkins' refusal to participate in discussions with creationists, the 11 second pause was him realizing that he'd been duped.

 

Of course, you don't even have to accept that explanation. The fact is that you don't have a god damn clue why he paused like that, but you're perfectly willing to read whatever context into his face that best suits your contempt for the man, as if you could actually infer such things.

 

This is an extremely dubious case, and I suggest you drop it. This is place to discuss science; not for making libelous claims about scientific figures.

 

“Why don't you try actually spending some energy refuting evolution rather than attacking a scientific figure”

 

We’ll get there. But you’ve already accused me of equivocation, quote-mining and dubious tactics. I figured that not dealing forthrightly with one of the cardinals would be a serious infraction also.

When responding to accusations of dubious tactics, it's not a good idea to continue the use of a dubious tactic.

 

Even if Dawkins had been stumped by the question, it still has nothing to do with the validity of evolution. To even bring it up is a dubious tactic, because it's a blatant argumentum ad hominem.

 

And just to drive the point home, I snipped a brief quote from a response you made to someone else...

 

We are all, except idiots like Richard Dawkins, hopefully trying to look as objectively as we can at the data and draw rational conclusions.

Look, we get it! You don't like Richard Dawkins!

 

I have an idea! Instead of attacking the man, why don't you try attacking his work? Or can't you do that? Why don't you reference some quotations out of his book and explain to us why he's not being objective?

 

Could you do that for us?

[MrSpooky]

MrSpooky,

 

 

“natural selection automatically creates a pressure that will as a whole improve a species”

 

 

So scarcity, neutrality, improbability and deletion makes for an upward bias? Okay. I get it now. What was I thinking?

 

This is a blatant Straw Man of the highest degree. You've admitted that there DO exist beneficial mutations, though they are rare. Most are neutral and have no real effect, and a good deal are negative in nature.

 

So let's break it down to this hypothetical situation:

 

Let's say there's a case where there are 10000 progeny. In that group of 10000 progeny:

 

8999 have neutral mutations

1000 have negative mutations

1 has a beneficial mutation (let's call this little guy "Bob" for convenience)

 

 

Because neutral mutations do nothing for the fitness of the species, they reproduce as normal. However, because negative mutations are bad for the fitness of the species, critters with negative mutations either die (either before they come to term or soon after birth).

 

However, the beneficial mutation is retained. So after all the critters with negative mutations die due to the forces of nature weeding them out, the population consists of 9000 creatures:

 

8999 have neutral mutations

1 has a beneficial mutation (or "Bob.")

 

One should note, however, that according to Thomas Malthus, there is a certain struggle for existence. Limited resources, other environmental factors, and predation will kill off many members of the species. So let's say the environment has enough food for only 5000 critters. However, because Bob is either stronger, faster, healthier, or smarter than the rest, his ability to survive is greater than that of his bretheren. As a result, he survives. So here's how it breaks down:

 

4999 have neutral mutations

1 has a beneficial mutation (or "Bob.")

 

Now suppose predators come along and eat a bunch of the critters, leaving only 2000 left alive. Again, because Bob is either stronger, faster, healthier, or smarter than the rest, he survives.

 

1999 have neutral mutations

1 has a beneficial mutation (or "Bob.")

 

So the survivors have survived the rigors of starvation and predation, and springtime rolls around. It's time for mating. But look, Bob's superior genetics spreads through the gene pool! If each member of the species has 5 kids (going back to our original population of 10000), that beneficial mutation spreads outwards by a factor of 5:

 

1000 have negative mutations

8995 have neutral mutations

5 have a beneficial mutations (or "Bob-kids")

 

Every generation, Bob-kids will disperse their superior genes across the gene pool. It doesn't matter how rare the original genes were in the first place, as you can see, Bob-kids are biased towards survival because the negative mutations are weeded out and they can survive hardships that are more difficult for those with neutral mutations to get through.

 

So at the 3rd generation, the spread could be like this (given that reproduction occurs exponentially):

 

1000 have negative mutations

8980 have neutral mutations

20 have a beneficial mutations (or "Bob-grandkids")

 

4th generation:

 

1000 have negative mutations

8700 have neutral mutations

300 have a beneficial mutations (or "Bob-great-grandkids")

 

5th generation:

 

1000 have negative mutations

4000 have neutral mutations

5000 have a beneficial mutations (or "Bob-great-great-grandkids")

 

 

Until eventually pretty much every member of the species has the beneficial gene.

 

ONLY by ignoring natural selection can you argue that "beneficial mutations are rare!" and appear to have a point.

[crazy-tiger]

Zach,

 

 

“Thus, the great majority of mutations in the noncoding DNA must be neutral”

 

 

Yeah, everyone, including me but excepting c-t, is pointing that out these days. I guess having a titan like that on the team is a real asset for evolutionary theory.

 

 

----------------------------------------

 

 

Crazy-tiger,

 

 

“The chances of a single mutation are 432,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 50,000,000... Not exactly rare, is it?”

 

 

You are totally lost. But hang in there, You’ll get a chance to apply your inverse principle.

104591[/snapback]

A few points...

 

First, I'm waiting for you to show me how odds of 432,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 50,000,000 in favour of mutations would result in mutations being a "rare" occurance... Do that, and then you can start talking about me being totally lost.

 

Second, all I'm talking about is the NUMBER of mutations... trying to discredit me by insinuating that I'm talking about benificial mutations isn't going to work. (fallacies of Argumentum Ad Hominem and Equivocation)

 

Third, If I was totally lost, as you claim, the people around here wouldn't hesitate to let me know in no uncertain terms just how lost I was and why. (that's the important part... the why.)

 

Fourth, I'm not the one managing to contradict himself...

We are all, except idiots like Richard Dawkins, hopefully trying to look as objectively as we can at the data and draw rational conclusions. I don’t think that it is rational to observe hyper-complex biological functions and conclude that there is no chance whatever that intellect is associated with them.

Are you looking objectively at the data? Are you drawing a rational conclusion based on that data? No...

 

You have ALREADY come to the conclusion that there must be some form of intellect behind life, yet never considered just where this intellect came from...

Put simply, you have an irrational conclusion that you are trying to find a rational explaination for.

 

If life is too complex to just evolve, if it's complexity demands that something of complexity had a hand in it, then whatever had a hand in it must ALSO be complex and must ALSO require that something complex have a hand in it's development, which would then also require something complex, which would also require something complex... and so on, without end. If you try to bring an end, if you try to say "this complex whatever is the start" then you violate your own assumption that complexity needs complexity to help it develop. (fallacy of Special Pleading)

Your own assumption show that your "argument" is irrational and invalid.

 

Thus, the only rational conclusion based on the data is that there is NO intellect out there giving biology a guiding hand.

[Zach]

Zach,

 

“Thus, the great majority of mutations in the noncoding DNA must be neutral”

 

Yeah, everyone, including me but excepting c-t, is pointing that out these days. I guess having a titan like that on the team is a real asset for evolutionary theory.

104591[/snapback]

What exactly is meant by this comment? Why do you think the incidence of mutations is detrimental to evolutionary theory?

[crazy-tiger]

Zach,

 

“Thus, the great majority of mutations in the noncoding DNA must be neutral”

 

Yeah, everyone, including me but excepting c-t, is pointing that out these days. I guess having a titan like that on the team is a real asset for evolutionary theory.

104591[/snapback]

What exactly is meant by this comment? Why do you think the incidence of mutations is detrimental to evolutionary theory?

104725[/snapback]

It's meant as a swipe at me...

[txviper]

Fweethawt,

 

“Does the 'tx' in your username stand for Texas?”

 

Loosely at this point, yes.

--------------------

Mr. Neil

 

“Again, you're making mountains out of mole hills by blatantly ignoring the process of natural selection”

 

Natural selection is antecedent to mutations Mr. Neil. They have to happen before they can be selected or dispatched.

 

 

“I give the reason for Dawkins' principle about creationist interviews”

 

All Dawkins had to do was answer a simple question. He could not do it.

 

 

“It really says a lot about Answers in Genesis as a "reputable" scientific website…hosting a video that has so little to do with actual science.”

 

So you would expect your debate opponent to hide your weak spots for you? Dawkins buckled under the scrutiny of one lousy question, which after mountains of whining, still has not been addressed.

 

.

“You don't care if there's an alternate explanation”

 

No, I don’t. Alternate explanations are not called for. The issue was and still is:

 

“example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome”.

 

There is no hiding behind commentaries and excuses about this. The evidence is either there or it is not.

 

 

“You're infatuated with the idea that Dawkins was stumped”

 

Not infatuated, just cognitive. I didn’t lose track of the question.

 

 

“even if it's easily refutable”

 

So refute away.

 

 

“because you're committed to damaging his reputation”

 

It’s a personal vendetta on my part. I think he stole my good sweater.

 

 

“Or maybe they lied to him, just as they had done to get in his house.”

 

Yeah, they posed as cable guys.

 

 

“Furthermore, he gave the right answer, because the question was based on an ignorant misconception of evolution.”

 

Yep, I think anyone who sees the clip would agree that Dawkins was spot on. Top flight. I’ve never seen a better performance under crushing circumstances like that.

 

 

“ It was an extremely stupid question.”

 

No doubt about it. Totally stupid. It’s hard to imagine someone with a mentality so disturbed that they would think to ask for evidence like that pompous jerk did. What a nerve he had.

 

 

“As I've stated before, you are far more willing to accept the patently absurd notion that Richard Dawkins, a prominant evolutionary biologist, could have been stumped by such a simple question”

 

Well, I guess I just forgot myself Mr. Neil. I have an objectivity problem which sometimes causes me to expect candor during interviews. If he hadn’t taken my sweater, none of this would have happened.

 

 

“than the far more obvious answer, which is that, due to Dawkins' refusal to participate in discussions with creationists, the 11 second pause was him realizing that he'd been duped.”

 

Duped? He was duped? How did I miss that? But what amazing wits he has. Hell, sometimes it takes me as long as two minutes to realize that I’ve been duped.

 

 

“Of course, you don't even have to accept that explanation. The fact is that you don't have a god damn clue why he paused like that,”

 

Well, I’m perfectly willing to accept the duped theory. Didn’t Darwin have a chapter about that in “The Descent of Man”?

 

 

“but you're perfectly willing to read whatever context into his face that best suits your contempt for the man, as if you could actually infer such things.”

 

Well along with my obsessive objectivity syndrome, I have a diminished ability to detect dupedness in people’s facial expressions. Hell, I thought he just couldn’t answer the question. I’m glad to have this behind me. This has been very therapeutic.

 

 

“This is an extremely dubious case..I suggest you drop it. This is place to discuss science; not for making libelous claims about scientific figures. When responding to accusations of dubious tactics, it's not a good idea to continue the use of a dubious tactic.”

 

Oh man, don’t even get me started about my hyper-dubiousness…

 

 

“Even if Dawkins had been stumped by the question, it still has nothing to do with the validity of evolution”

 

Well, until we got the duped vs. stumped thing ironed out, it sure seemed pertinent. And in all honesty, I guess I’m still a little off-balance about expectations and evidence.

 

 

“To even bring it up is a dubious tactic, because it's a blatant argumentum ad hominem”

 

Youza! Do you know Latin? How do you say “completely unsubstantiated”?

 

 

“Look, we get it! You don't like Richard Dawkins!”

 

He’s a low-life thief. I loved that sweater.

 

 

“I have an idea! Instead of attacking the man, why don't you try attacking his work? Or can't you do that? Why don't you reference some quotations out of his book and explain to us why he's not being objective? Could you do that for us?”

 

Well I can certainly try. But did I mention the associative disorder deal? It’s really disorienting. It makes me do stuff like think of Nazis and Hitler almost at the same time. So if I try and analyze something Dawkins has written that seems really presumptuous and sappy, I might not even stop to consider the he could have been duped again.

 

--------------------

 

MrSpooky,

 

“You've admitted that there DO exist beneficial mutations, though they are rare”

 

I will concede that there are mutations which can produce what might be called lateral benefits. Sickle cell anemia for instance, apparently provides improved resistance to malaria. However, it is still harmful, sometimes fatal, for most people who have it.

 

“One should note, however, that according to Thomas Malthus, there is a certain struggle for existence.”

 

I hate to stray off the topic, but Mr. Malthus did have an interesting point of view about some issues. For instance, from one of his essays:

 

“A writer may tell me that he thinks man will ultimately become an ostrich. I cannot properly contradict him. But before he can expect to bring any reasonable person over to his opinion, he ought to shew that the necks of mankind have been gradually elongating, that the lips have grown harder and more prominent, that the legs and feet are daily altering their shape, and that the hair is beginning to change into stubs of feathers. And till the probability of so wonderful a conversion can be shewn, it is surely lost time and lost eloquence to expatiate on the happiness of man in such a state….."

 

From the same piece:

 

“I think I may fairly make two postulata.

First, That food is necessary to the existence of man.

Secondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state.

 

These two laws, ever since we have had any knowledge of mankind, appear to have been fixed laws of our nature, and, as we have not hitherto seen any alteration in them, we have no right to conclude that they will ever cease to be what they now are, without an immediate act of power in that Being who first arranged the system of the universe, and for the advantage of his creatures, still executes, according to fixed laws, all itsvarious operations.”

 

“Bob is either stronger, faster, healthier, or smarter than the rest, his ability to survive is greater than that of his bretheren. As a result, he survives.”

 

This is the general expectation. But this is still an unsubstantiated declaration. Where is the documentation of the mutations that improved Bob or anyone else? I will concede that this might be a reasonable hypotheses, but without empirical evidence, these things are only speculation. Further, your very-developed progression (my compliments) consider only what evolution recognizes as very late hominids and does not take into account anomalous things like Neanderthal, who had a brain case larger than ours, but was supposedly lost to extinction (which I do not buy).

 

Bear in mind, that mutations are supposed to be the single source of speciation and progression since a time when there were life-forms which were ancestral to both plants and animals. It is just not reasonable to accept things like this with zero for evidence.

 

-------------------------

 

crazy-tiger,

 

I keep running out of time and energy and have been rude in not responding to you. My apologies. I will do so later.

 

Zach,

 

ditto

[Mr. Neil]

“Again, you're making mountains out of mole hills by blatantly ignoring the process of natural selection”

 

Natural selection is antecedent to mutations Mr. Neil. They have to happen before they can be selected or dispatched.

You seem to not understand that natural selection is what defeats your ratio argument. Are you now going to imply that beneficial mutations don't happen at all? Or are you going to quibble over "lateral benefits"?

 

I can't wait until Spooky sees that one.

 

“It was an extremely stupid question.”

 

No doubt about it. Totally stupid. It’s hard to imagine someone with a mentality so disturbed that they would think to ask for evidence like that pompous jerk did. What a nerve he had.

How can you possibly be so ignorant? The question was dumb, and it plainly revealed the ignorance of the interviewer.

 

In fact, to put an end to this whole issue with Dawkins, Zach has started a separate thread about the video. Please reserve any further comments about the interview for that topic.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=4975

 

And I would lay off the ad hominems, if I were you.

 

“I have an idea! Instead of attacking the man, why don't you try attacking his work? Or can't you do that? Why don't you reference some quotations out of his book and explain to us why he's not being objective? Could you do that for us?”

 

Well I can certainly try. But did I mention the associative disorder deal? It’s really disorienting. It makes me do stuff like think of Nazis and Hitler almost at the same time. So if I try and analyze something Dawkins has written that seems really presumptuous and sappy, I might not even stop to consider the he could have been duped again.

So in other words, you have no criticism of Dawkins' research. That's fine. I didn't expect one.

[Zach]

It’s a personal vendetta on my part. I think he stole my good sweater.

105215[/snapback]

I can appreciate the humor, but let's try to keep things serious here. Dawkins is not evolutionary theory- let's get back to that.

[Ouroboros]

=< snip >=

 

“Look, we get it! You don't like Richard Dawkins!”

 

He’s a low-life thief. I loved that sweater.

 

=< snip >=

 

“I have an idea! Instead of attacking the man, why don't you try attacking his work? Or can't you do that? Why don't you reference some quotations out of his book and explain to us why he's not being objective? Could you do that for us?”

 

Well I can certainly try. But did I mention the associative disorder deal? It’s really disorienting. It makes me do stuff like think of Nazis and Hitler almost at the same time. So if I try and analyze something Dawkins has written that seems really presumptuous and sappy, I might not even stop to consider the he could have been duped again.

 

=< snip >=

 

105215[/snapback]

 

This is the wrong forum to throw accusations, and especially towards non present people. Tune down your attitude and stop debasing people you don't know.

 

You can go to the Lion's Den and let your heart out, but this section is for debating.

 

H