Re: POTM nomination: Nothing but a fairytale
- From: "Rodjk #613" <rjkardo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:55:30 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 8, 5:11 pm, hannfre...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 3, 1:23 pm, Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Seanpit schreef:
On 30 Nov, 06:36, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Howard Hershey:
The odds have to have been good enough to have happened twice in the
history of life on this earth.
Sean Pitman:
Yep - and what are those odds? Have even a rough idea?
What an unfair question.
Do you know what these odd are?
How would you calculate such odds?
Please provide full statistical analysis.
(But that goes without saying when such a question is posed to a
well-thinking individual like yourself)
Given the amount of time and the number
of bacteria that would have had similar systems, it is hardly
surprising that at least two did.
How do you know it is "hardly surprising"? What are the actual odds?
Only if you have at least some idea as to the actual odds would you
have any basis to be surprised - or not. So, what are the odds?
Where is your statistical basis for your non-surprise?
What if nobody on Earth can provide these odds you keep asking about?
What if the underlying mechanisms are waaaay too complex to catch in a
statistical analysis? Too many factors to incorperate into a formula?
Too many unknowns?
Does that mean the object in question doesn't exist or couldn't exist?
What are the odds the Earth has excactly one moon?
What are the odds I can find excactly 12 rocks in my backyard that are
white and weight more than 12 grams?
Since you cannot answer these questions I conclude:
1) The Earth has no moon.
2) I don't have white 12-gram rocks in my backyard.
Your attempt at being scientific by asking questions about
propablilities only show how unfit you are to do statistics.
If you want clear answers about odds you need to confine and define what
you are talking about!
You can talk about odds when you throw 10 dices that are perfect and ask
yourself questions like: "How propable is it they add up to 20?"
Once you leave this clearly defined area of math and enter the real
world, working with odds is a lot harder.
An analogy: "What are the odds I can find excactly 12 rocks in my
backyard that are white and weight more than 12 grams?"
Sounds simple enough?
How would you approach?
You could check all the other yards in my town, and take that as an
average. That would be a reasonable approach. Right?
But what if I tell you you didn't take into account that the owner of my
yard (me) hates white rocks and removes them whenever he sees them?
Now you would have to come up with a new analysis: You must take into
account how often I check my yard, what the chances are that new white
rocks appear, what the chances are I spot them, etc. etc.
When you figured that all out, I thow in a new reason to screw up your
statistical analysis. They are easily conjured up.
I hope you agree this silly example I gave you shows at least that
working with odds in the real world is not as simple as it is when you
work with dices or other clearly defined areas.
To the original problem: Since nobody has DNA/RNA samples of each and
every organism that lived on Earth, we will always have 'gaps'.
I think we can call that a fact.
You seem to claim that since nobody can produce this full life-onEarth
record, RM/NS must be wrong because you found a few structures that are
unlikely to be 'produced' by RM/NS because the chances of that happening
are too small. Right?
Your reasoning is that you need too many random mutations from some
starting point to come to these specific sequences.
And you ask proponents of NS to do the math for you so they can proof
themselfs wrong.
I ask you: How can a proponent of NS ever produce these odds in a
remotely reliable way without having a 'snapshot' of the predecessors?
And even if they had this 'snapshot', it is a superhuman task to do
total reliable statistics on that.
I think any NS proponent will agree with you that these sequences
propably didn't came into existance by pure chance from one organism to
its offspring.
They will tell you functional proteins were coded by their predecessors
that served some useful function in the cell, hence they were fafoured
and survided.
Then you ask us to show all these functions.
If we don't, we are not scientific enough.
And, of course, nobody can show you that with 100% certainty.
So you conclude NS is wrong, or at least totally unproved.
Is that a good summary, Seanpit?
If you agree, I like to point to the above: Give me the odds the Earth
has excactly one moon with total certainty.
If you can't, I conclude the Earth has not one moon, or at least it is
totally scientific onproven that Earth has one moon.
One last point on this: If your strict rigid standards for 'scientific
proof' or odds were used on religion, not 1 thing from religion would stand.
Have any idea? - anyGIGO probability statistics is as irrelevant as the probability that
idea at all? All you've done so far is invent just-so stories that
have absolutely no basis in reality. These intermediates you imagine
simply do not exist in reality in the same creature nor are they
likely to exist like you imagine. If you think otherwise, please do
present some real statistical analysis here . . .
RR would be shot by a guy trying to impress Jodi Foster.
You have to have at least some statistical basis to call your theory
"scientific" Howard. You say your position is "likely" given a few
hundred million years - likely enough to have happened "twice" in that
amount of time. How likely is it Howard? I want some real numbers
here. Where is your statistical basis for this "likely" claim of
yours?
Why don't you do that math for us Seanpit?
It looks like all scientists that worked on it so far couldn't convince you.
I really look forward to your analysis.
Of course, again, please provide a FULL statistical analysis WITHOUT
cutting corners, like not taking into account every atom in Jupiter (and
the rest of the universe for that matter).
What you mean is that nasty old me chooses *likely* functions thatYou yourself recognize that size, by itself, does not determine theYou can choose any "likely" starting point Howard. What are the odds
size of the gap whenever you lie and say I can choose any starting
point in total sequence space and then object when I do just that.
that a chosen starting point or points represents reality? You always
choose possible starting points that are highly unlikely without any
explanation as to why such a starting point was chosen - besides the
fact that you need it to have existed for your theory to work. Again,
possible doesn't mean likely. There's a big difference here.
happen to have sequences or structures similar to those actually
present in the end system. Rather than some random sequence. What is
*unlikely* about a bacteria having a rotatable pore? A motor? Most
bacteria do have those.
Having just any pore or motor isn't enough Howard. You're picking
pores and motors that are unlikely to have actually existed.
Unlikely to have actually existed?
"Unlikely" is a statistical expression, right?
So please provide full statistical analysis for your claim.
(Again: Don't cut corners please, like omitting any particle in the
universe. We want to do REAL SCIENCE, no guessing games.)
Be honest now: Do you find my demands reasonable?
<snip snip>
We are talking aboutThat is unanswerable unless you specify your assumptions. For the
likely gap distances - not gap distances that are already known ahead
of time. What are the odds that any one target with sequence space
where the location of targets is not directly known will be within a
certain distance of a known starting point? That's the question here
Howard. Have any idea how to answer that question using real
statistical analysis?
assumptions you are making, that evolution works like the "747 in a
tornado" straw man, your probability may be right even though your
mechanism is stupid. GIGO math is not science. Science is about
evidence, not math based on false assumptions.
Evolution must work by crossing the gap from one beneficial
steppingstone target island to the next to the next by the mechanism
of RM/NS. That's how evolution must work. We both agree this much.
The only question is, what are the odds that the next closest
steppingstone will be close enough to find this side of trillions of
years of time? That's the only important question here.
Yes, I can agree to that.
Unless somebody comes up with a reliable way to calculate answers to
such incredible difficult questions, I suggest we don't put chances on them.
And that is what most do, or don't.
However, if YOU claim that the chances of it happening are so small one
can call it impossible, it is up to you to provide the reliable
calculations, since YOU make the claim.
Any calculation that only looks at pointmutations, without taking into
account the big picture, is of course no serious candidate for such a
calculation.
With big picture I mean:
- possible useful predecessor sequences
- Chromosomal crossover
- full descriptions of environment where organism live
- fitnessfunctions
etc etc.
Nobody can do this in a reliable way, and I expect you know that.
It is this
very question that you do not even address. You simply make up
stories that you claim are "likely" but have no basis in any odds
analysis at
...
read more »
I would like to second this nomination...
Rodjk #613
.
- References:
- Nothing but a fairytale
- From: Seanpit
- Re: Nothing but a fairytale
- From: Erwin Moller
- POTM nomination: Nothing but a fairytale
- From: hannfrench
- Nothing but a fairytale
- Prev by Date: Re: Study: Smarter Men Have Better Quality Sperm
- Next by Date: Re: creation is perfect
- Previous by thread: POTM nomination: Nothing but a fairytale
- Next by thread: Re: POTM nomination: Nothing but a fairytale
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
