Punk Eek for Redwolf

quote:

---

The problem is that evolution, regardless of stripe or flavor, demands that we stand everything we know about probability theory on its head and believe that, whenever any sort of a question of the theories of Chuck Darwin of Steve Gould come up, the laws of probability get stood on their heads and reversed.

---

What training do you have in probability and math? You seem to have trouble applying probabilistic models to real life occurences. Assuming you know poker, imagine if I had to be dealt a flush (in five cards) in order to go to the next round. Any flush will do. After numerous deals, I get a 3, 5, 7, 8, and Queen of clubs. Aha, I pass to the next round. But someone in the background yells "Cheater!". They claim that the odds of me being dealt that exact hand are astronomical, so I had to be cheating.So lets step back. All I needed was to be dealt a flush. However, the person yelling "cheater" misconstrued this and claimed that I won with an impossible hand by pointing to the impossibility of getting a 3, 5, 7, 8, and queen of clubs. With beneficial mutations, there are several possible mutations that will result in an increase in fitness. Therefore, before assigning probabilities, you must first show every possible beneficial mutation with respect to the environment, just like the person yelling "cheater" should have used the probability of any flush instead of a precise hand.Let's further this analogy. I am now in the second round. What I need to advance is a straight (not a straight flush mind you). After severl deals, I end up with a hand of 3C, 4H, 5C, 6S, 7D. Again, the person in the back yells "Cheater!". This time he claims that it is impossible to get a flush and then a straight in two hands. Of course, he is ignoring all of the "misses" and the number of deals that preceded each winning hand. Not only that, but again he cites the very low probability of being given 3C, 4H, 5C, 6S, 7D. The odds of this happening are 1/52*51*50*49*48, for just one of the hands. Multiply the odds of me getting both hands and you get 1:97,266,140,375,040,000 or 1 in about 1*10¹⁷. Pretty poor odds, but what is missing is that I only needed a flush (much easier to get) and then a straight (much easier to get). You are doing the same thing, saying that ONLY THAT MUTATION could have lead to what we see today. And, that all of these mutations had to happen at the same time. This is not what evolution states, no matter how many times you say it. Evolution is the accretion, or the building up, of beneficial mutations. Just like the flush got me to the next round (any flush), so will a beneficial mutation. That mutation will become entrenched in the population until it no longer offers a benefice, such as a change in environment.So, for you to claim that the probability is to high for a certain organism to evolve, you must show us every single possible beneficial mutation (whether they happened or not). You must then show us how the current mutation rate in that organism can not account for the beneficial mutations that it does have. Of course, the hardest part is figuring out every possible beneficial mutation, but since you claim that it is impossible you must already know.

quote:

---

My university degrees were in math.

---

So you are then aware of the mistakes that you are making?Again, you seem to be stating that the beneficial mutations observed are the only possible beneficial mutations. This is obviously wrong. For you to claim a low probability of these beneficial mutations happening, you must show how many possible beneficial mutations are possible in a given genome. You have yet to do so.

quote:

---

In fact, on several occasions in the last century, symposia were held in which a number of the best mathematicians in the world attempted to explain the nature of reality to a number of the leading evolutionary biologists", and the later have been in a state of shock and denial since then. They don't seem to be able to handle it.

---

Nothing more than a quote mining project. Science doesn't rest on the opinion of scientists, no matter how prominent. Science rests on evidence, of which your site is severely lacking. It does offer a few scant hypotheses which are testable. Lets go over those.From 2021, 10 "Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. "So then we shouldn't see any beneficial mutations in E. coli. However, this is false. Not one, but three different mutations occured in one E. coli strain that resulted in a new pathway for lactose metabolism. From http://www.naturalselection.0catch.com/...daseevolution.html: "In this study, Hall deleted a gene (lacZ) in a type of bacteria (E. coli) that makes a lactase enzyme (galactosidase). This lactase enzyme converts a sugar called lactose into the sugars glucose and galactose. E. coli then use glucose and galactose for energy. One might think that when Hall deleted the gene that codes for the lactase enzyme that these bacteria would never be able to use lactose for energy again. However, when Hall exposed these mutant bacteria to lactose enriched growth media, that they quickly modified a different gene, which Hall named the "evolved -galactosidase gene" (ebg), to produce a pretty good lactase enzyme. Despite its being a different protein it had the same lactase function as the previous lactase enzyme." And notice I didn't have to include any ellipses, unlike your quote mining site.Next, we have this lovely statement from your evolution destorying site:"George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also,and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unitand, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die."Hemoglobin C is a mutant form of regular hemoglobin. It does not differ in its ability to supply oxygen, but it does give it's carriers some immunity towards malaria. Hmm, a beneficial mutation in hemoglobin. Seems to rebutt what the author above was stating.I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Your authorities are either being misquoted or don't know what they are talking about.

The picture of the calf is an example of conjoined twins, not a mutation.

quote:

---

I'd say unable to refute therefore unwilling to answer.

---

Redwolf gave it a go, which shouldn't be discouraged by ridiculing him for not continuing. Creationists willing to argue in a somewhat comprehensible fashion are few and far between. The last thing we want is for the creationists to take their ball and go home (for those familiar with South Park "Screw you guys, I'm going hooooome"). Imagine how boring it would be if only evo's posted. Blah, it would be Star Trek without the Klingons.Of course, geeky sci-fi readers may realize that the Bene Gesserit probably said it best: (paraphrase) "Sometimes silence is the best thing to say."