Another IDology challenge -- complete with complaints of harsh treatments ...

Axe’s 10^-77 figure is almost certainly too low, and also irrelevant to most of evolution. If you remember it was discussed in this thread:Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Arghh! What are you talking about?!?
You are equivocating words here. So is a "void" [in habitat] the same as an "empty niche" [in the ecology]? I'm taking "void" and "empty niche" to be synonymous. But is "habitat" a synonym for "ecology*"? Doesn't seem so with your "ecology" definition: I think you mean ECOSYSTEM (as any *ology means: study of *), but otherwise I'm fine with your definition of "ecology". But per your definition "ecology" and "habitat" are clearly different, so a "void" in either is not the same thing. Also the "species" and "habitat" are not synonymous, though related in your description.So what again is the "void" or "empty niche" supposed to be? You haven't defined it, and I'll have to try to reason it out based on your statement above. If I go off them, since the "ecology" is equivalent to the all species in a habitat, then a void/empty niche would have to be a lack of or not existing species in a habitat. But that doesn't make much sense. Evolution has no awareness of a lack of species. It has no forward vision. It cannot plan for a not-yet existing species.Thanfully, you leave the idea of a empty niche in "ecology" in your next statement and go back to talking about the habitat: So now you are leaving species aside and talking about a "habitat [empty] niche". I'm guessing this habitat is more where you intend your focus. A habitat niche I can understand, as it would relate to how an organism/species relates to its environment. In that sense, EVERY species has its own niche. But a void/empty niche is an empty set, being either 1) how an existing species does not relate to it's environment (nonsensical) or 2) a non-existing species interacting in an environment, which is not possible. In other words, a void/empty niche in a habitat isn't a thing.As a variation on (1) above, if you are trying to describe this as some set of potential or imaginary species that could relate to the environment in a way different from all other species, then fine, but you need to find a new word. But that set would be nearly infinite in the imagination as one could imagine just about any organism that does something different. And yet that set is not real. Either way, you're referring to something that is a goal, or possibility. But evolution does not reach for a goal, it doesn't imagine anything ahead.So an empty niche doesn't exist (it's merely a concept), and a niche exists as a(ny) species interacting in the environment. The number of actual niches is equal to the number of species in existence.Unless you have a different or more strict definition of your void/empty niche, you're statement ends up being a nonsense tautalogy. They are using the terms species and evolution quite loosely in this article. It doesn't seem to fit standard usage of terms, and they seem to offer contradicting ideas at times (see last paragraph). In all, there is not much here that is really a noteworthy example of evolution in a Neo-Darwinian sense. There talking about forams the whole way through, with changes that I would just consider normal diversification (like the many dog breeds, or even humans). Either way, it's the type of evolution that is no problem and even the most ardent critics of Darwinism would accept. The end is a bunch of speculation and a vague mention of 'niches'. (that where you got the term from?) Please! Evolution occurred because it saw a potential opening niche? With no explanation for the new information needed to build the new body forms and organ types, and no precursors evident? About as vague and broad a definition as you could get. Basically: things change. Ok. I agree. This "evolution" happens.....
But it's missing the details regarding some proposed changes/differences between organisms in life. How and why specifically? No mention of where the information required for developing major differences comes from, nor how to explain getting around the apparent limits of adaptation within species?

So can I, so it will take me a while to answer all your posts. ummmm ... the whole point of the video was to show through math that it was virtually impossible, therefore intelligent (eg god) design. Biologists recognize that speciation is muddy, especially when discussing anagenesis, or arbitrary speciation in a single lineage.

quote:

---

Anagenesis suggests that evolutionary changes can occur in a species over time to a sufficient degree that later organisms may be considered a different species, especially in the absence of fossils documenting the gradual transition from one to another.[8] This is in contrast to cladogenesisor speciation in a sensein which a population is split into two or more reproductively isolated groups and these groups accumulate sufficient differences to become distinct species. ...

​

Controversy arises among taxonomists as to when the differences are significant enough to warrant a new species classification: Anagenesis may also be referred to as gradual evolution. The distinction of speciation and lineage evolution as anagensis or cladogenesis can be controversial, and some academics question the necessity of the terms altogether.[21][22][23]

---

There are many cases where different species are recognized where complete reproductive isolation has not occurred. Generally this happens when behavior in mate selection operates to maintain breeding population isolation even though hybrids are possible. Note that a definition of species was given in the quote: This recognizes that behavior can isolate populations even though hybrids are possible. See Wildebeests discussion in Message 41. No, the standard evolutionary model would include all the known processes of evolution. That's why I didn't say "Darwinian/Neo-Darwinian" but evolutionary.Further, polyploidy is a mutation process, and hybridization is also reproduction and mate selection, no different than mixtures of varieties within a species.And this critcism doesn't address: The point is that biologists have recognized speciation in a multitude of instances. This type of "distinction" is also typical creationist/IDologist semantic misdirection -- which is why it is misinformation. Anytime you see the words "Darwinian" or "Neo-Darwinian" you can be pretty sure that the author is equivocating between a vary narrow view of some evolutionary processes and the full band-width of all known evolutionary processes. Pretending/implying they are the same means making the "part for the whole" logical fallacy. Sadly, this is incomplete. The hybrid combines traits that have evolved independently in the recently diverged daughter populations. This hybrid process goes through several stages as the daughter species diverge. Initially you get Heterosis:

quote:

---

Heterosis, hybrid vigor, or outbreeding enhancement, is the improved or increased function of any biological quality in a hybrid offspring. An offspring is heterotic if its traits are enhanced as a result of mixing the genetic contributions of its parents. These effects can be due to Mendelian or non-Mendelian inheritance.

---

Early hybrids can be better fit than either parent population, but later hybrids can result in less fit offspring (again see Wildebeests discussion in Message 41).From Population Dynamics - the math behind the evolution of species, Message 6 regarding the development of sexual incompatibility:

quote:

---

The population genetics of speciation: the evolution of hybrid incompatibilities.

​

The central assumption of the DOBZHANSKY-MULLER model of speciation is that alleles cause no sterility or inviability on their normal "pure species" genetic background. Instead, an allele can lower fitness only when brought together with genes from another species. Any particular hybrid incompatibility might cause partial or complete hybrid sterility or inviability. For most of this paper, I assume that hybrid incompatibilties involve interactions between pairs of genes, as in DOBZHANSKY and MULLER'S verbal models. Later, I consider three-locus and higher interactions. I also assume that multiple substitutions do not occur at the same locus, an assumption that is reasonable during the early divergence of taxa. I assume nothing about the evolutionary causes of substitutions. The DOBZHANSKY-MULLER model of speciation requires only that substitutions occur and assumes nothing about whether they are brought about by natural selection or genetic drift.

​

​

Because I consider the cumulative effects of interactions between many loci -- which quickly gets complicated -- it is useful to picture this process diagramatically. Figure 1 offers a simple way to picture the accumulation of complementary genes between two haploid populations. Each of the two heavy lines represents a lineage descended from a common ancestor. The two allopatric populations begin with identical "ancestral" lowercase genotypes at all loci (a b c . . .). Time runs upward, with the first substitution occurring at the a locus, the second at the b locus and so on.

---

As time in isolation passes the incompatibilities build up and the offspring become less viable. The reason that breeders cross-breed varieties/species is to mix new stuff and create a better breed. Corn for example. Moving the goal-posts? You asked for examples of speciation, you got examples of speciation. That they aren't different enough to meet your expectations just means your expectations were erroneous.

quote:

---

Hybrid (biology)

​

Species are reproductively isolated by strong barriers to hybridisation, which include morphological differences, differing times of fertility, mating behaviors and cues, and physiological rejection of sperm cells or the developing embryo. Some act before fertilization and others after it. Similar barriers exist in plants, with differences in flowering times, pollen vectors, inhibition of pollen tube growth, somatoplastic sterility, cytoplasmic-genic male sterility and the structure of the chromosomes. A few animal species and many plant species, however, are the result of hybrid speciation, including important crop plants such as wheat, where the number of chromosomes has been doubled.

---

Speciation has occurred, it has been observed, it is fact. What you consider is irrelevant, the issue is what biologists consider, and they consider speciation to be observed to occur. That is your opinion, and not one shared by biologists. Speciation increases diversity and allows for more evolution to occur in following generations that further differentiates the daughter species. All evolution occurs at the breeding population level by standard evolutionary processes. Macro-evolution is just the accumulation of these generational changes over multiple generations.Enjoy

It is fabricated because it hasn't been empirically tested. It is a fabrication of the assumptions Axe makes.However, we can test Axe's calculations empirically. VDJ recombination during B-cell development produces billions B-cell lineages each with their own antibodies. The variable region of these antibodies can serve as a model for finding function. In fact, we can see if any of those antibodies have B-lactamase activity, the function that Axe says can only occur once in every 1x10^77 combinations.

quote:

---

Here we report the construction of a large murine single chain fragment variable (scFv) phage display library of size 2.7 10^9 with extended diversity by combining different mouse models. We have used two molecularly different inhibitors of the RTEM lactamase as targets for selection of catalytic antibodies with lactamase activity. This novel methodology has led to the isolation of five antibody fragments, which are all capable of hydrolyzing the lactam ring.
Just a moment...

---

In a library of 2 x 10^9 random peptides they were able to find 5 of those random peptides that had B-lactamase activity, well below the number given by Axe. Even if we look past all of the problems with Axe's mathematical model, reality shows us that Axe is wrong by many orders of magnitude.

I'm going to make 2 replies here, the first to one statement to hammer home a point: This exemplifies the trouble with assumptions. You assumed two six sided di, when there are five types of regular polyhedra di (used in dungeons and dragons games, etc):

1. Four sided (tetrahedron)
   ​

   	1	2	3	4
   1	2	3	4	5
   2	3	4	5	6
   3	4	5	6	7
   4	5	6	7	8

   ​
   7's: 2 out of 16
   ​
2. Six sided (hexahedron)
   ​

   	1	2	3	4	5	6
   1	2	3	4	5	6	7
   2	3	4	5	6	7	8
   3	4	5	6	7	8	9
   4	5	6	7	8	9	10
   5	6	7	8	9	10	11
   6	7	8	9	10	11	12

   ​
   7's: 6 out of 36
   ​
3. Eight sided (octahedron)
   ​

   	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
   1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
   2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
   3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
   4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
   5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
   6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
   7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
   8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16

   ​
   7's: 6 out of 64
   ​
4. Twelve sided (dodecahedron)
   ​

   	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
   1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
   2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
   3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
   4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
   5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
   6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
   7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19
   8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
   9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21
   10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22
   11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23
   12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24

   ​
   7's: 6 out of 144
   ​
5. Twenty sided (icosahedron)
   ​

   	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
   1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21
   2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22
   3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23
   4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24
   5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25
   6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26
   7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27
   8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28
   9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29
   10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
   11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31
   12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32
   13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33
   14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34
   15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35
   16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
   17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37
   18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38
   19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39
   20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40

   ​
   7's: 6 out of 400
   ​
   Total 7's: 26 out of 660

And this doesn't count pairing 4&6 (4/24), 4&8 (4/32), 4&12 (4/48), 4&20 (4/80), 6&8 (6/48), 6&12 (6/72), 6&20 (6/120), 8&12 (6/96), 8&20 (6/160) and 12&20 (6/240) sided di, for 78 out of 1580 possibilities, or about 1 in 20.Nor does it account for non-regular polyheda di that can vary from 2 to ∞ and the probability → 0Your mathematical model failed because it made an invalid assumption that limited the ability of the model to reflect reality.My point being that you must know all the possibilities before you can estimate the possibilities. If you assume a limited number of possibilities and your model fails to reflect reality, then reality is not the problem -- the model is the problem, the assumption/s in the model are the problem.Math is not capable of invalidating or changing reality. Learn this if you learn nothing else from this thread.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : Arrow code

With reference to the old improbable probability problem (posted in 2004): Good start -- now apply that to Gelernter's model and the fact that speciation has occurred and therefor reality has shown his model to be invalid.

quote:

---

2. The calculation fails to account for the known pre-existing molecules used in the formation of life that are found throughout the universe, and this failure means the calculation with creation-all-at-once including these molecules is unnecessarily extended downward, starting with too much simplicity.

---

And this applies to how molecules are actually assembled by cells, rather than the single simplistic manner described by Gelernter et al.

quote:

---

3. The calculation fails to account for the fact that the first life need not be as complicated as a modern cell, that the minimum configuration is much simpler as shown by the LUCA studies. This failure means that the calculation is unnecessarily extended upward, ending with too much complexity.

---

The first life was much simpler than what we see today, even in single cell life forms. This means that his assumed length of assembled proteins is likely much higher than necessary for early life. Later life is built on the existing life by adding and subtracting (mutations) and not by de novo development.

quote:

---

4. The calculation fails to account for combinations of groups of such molecules in smorgasbord fashion instead of in assembly line fashion all at once all from nothing. And further, that all those "failed" experiments are still available to be cut and reassembled into new experiments without having to go through all the preliminaries. It fails to account for actual combination process as used in natural assembly of large organic compounds. Amino acids are assembled into larger molecules like peptides and not from extending amino acids by adding atoms. This failure means that all the ways to reach the final necessary combination are not included and thus it unnecessarily excludes possible combination methods.

---

Can you point out specifically where he/they talk about combinations other than adding one at a time? I've been through the video 3 times and read your link and I fail to see it. Link/quote to the combination of two long strands into one longer strand would be a good starting point.

quote:

---

Peptides (from Greek language , pepts "digested"; derived from , pssein "to digest") are short chains of amino acids linked by peptide (amide) bonds.[1] The simplest peptides are dipeptides, followed by tripeptides, tetrapeptides, etc. A polypeptide is a long, continuous, and unbranched peptide chain. Hence, peptides fall under the broad chemical classes of biological oligomers and polymers, alongside nucleic acids, oligosaccharides and polysaccharides, etc.

​

Peptides are distinguished from proteins on the basis of size, and as an arbitrary benchmark can be understood to contain approximately 50 or fewer amino acids.[2][3] Proteins consist of one or more polypeptides arranged in a biologically functional way, ...

---

Peptides are intermediate in size between amino acids and proteins.

quote:

---

5. The probability of winning a lottery by any one ticket is extremely low, but the probability that the lottery will be won is extremely high. How do you reconcile these two very disparate probabilities? By knowing that any one of the millions of tickets is a valid winner if picked. To show that this is not the case for the calculations mentioned (ie -- in order to say "1 out of") you have to show that no other combination works of all the other probabilities. ...

---

We observe speciation that has occurred and that is in the process of occurring. That is reality, and it shows that the mathematical model based on large numbers is invalid. This is also the point of Message 50: the assumptions in the model are the problem.

quote:

---

6. Finally, the improbability of a thing occurring is not proof of impossibility of it occurring. It could well be that this is the only planet in all the universe that has life on it because it is a very improbably event. And if you divide the surface of the planet into all the different types of environments and do the same for all the other planets and moons and asteroids in the solar system alone you will have billionsXbillions of little experimental crucibles for carrying out experiments ...

---

The point is that if it is an extremely low probability event, we are here and able to have this discussion because this was the winning ticket. It is fabricated because it makes a limited assumption of the myriad different ways molecules are actually combined in reality. And just like the limited assumption you made on the pair of dice probability the resulting number is invalid. Curiously you have yet to convince me that they discuss any other kind of mutation than a single replacement one. I haven't seen a single reference or example of a different kind of mutation. They talk about 150 AA's assembled one by one. There are 20 amino acids used and 20^{^150} = 1.4 x 10^{^195}: that is for a one + one + one etc. calculation, used to estimate the number of possible combinations. The numbers match.This means my argument in Message 3 shows that the number used by Gelernter et al. is bogus and doesn't represent real possibilities for the biological formation of proteins etc. And these numbers are based on limiting assumptions that don't reflect reality. You can also start by joining two protein fragments to form a complete protein, as noted in Message 3:Let's cut that 150 AA protein in half -- each half then, each 75 AA segment, has a 1 in 20^{^75} = 3.8x10^{^97} possibility to assemble by their argument. Now reassemble them: there is a 1 in 4 chance of making the "right" connection (ignoring the possibility that other combinations are also functional), so that's:(3.8 x 10^{^97} + 3.8 x 10^{^97})/4 = 1.9 x 10^{^97} ... half their number.repeat for each half segment and you get:Each quarter segment would have a 20^{^37.5} = 6.1 x 10^{^48}and {(6.1 x 10^{^48} + 6.1 x 10^{^48})/4 + (6.1 x 10^{^48} + 6.1 x 10^{^48})/4}/4 = 1.5 x 10^{^48} ... one quarter of their number and well below the 1 x 10^{^77} number they give for possible functional proteins.Do it again for eighth segments and you get 20^{^18.75} = 2.5 x 10^{^24} for each segment and {{(p_1/8 + p_1/8)/4 + (p_1/8 + p_1/8)/4}/4 + {(p_1/8 + p_1/8)/4 + (p_1/8 + p_1/8)/4}/4}/4 = 6.2 x 10^{^23}and that's not the only way those 1/8th segments could combine to make the target protein. In other words the possibilities are much higher than their model, and that is why they fail to model reality.But that's not all, if I were to discuss the possibilities of life developing proteins I would start with the simplest known type and then look at how actual more complex proteins are developed by modification rather than assembly de novo. That way you start with functioning proteins and select new functional proteins by evolution.

quote:

---

The smallest protein

​

... TRP-Cage, a protein with only 20 amino acids derived from the saliva of Gila monsters.

​

Trp-cage - smallest protein

​

You can find the structure file and images in the PDB database (wwPDB: Worldwide Protein Data Bank) with PDB ID = 1L2Y. This highly stable mini-protein is important for studies of protein stability, protein folding, and 3D structure.

​

Even with this small size, it displays secondary structural elements, such as an alpha helix, found in many proteins. So far there are no known proteins with less than 20 residues, but we'll see what happens in the future.

---

And 20^{^20} = 1.0 x 10^{^26}. Quite a different story, even using their own argument/calculation method.The earliest life-forms would likely have the simplest proteins. Later life would have more complex proteins made by modifying existing ones.The numbers game is one big failure after another for both creationists and IDologists.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .

You have a house inhabited by a variety of furniture except for one room that has no furniture. The habitat is the house, the empty room is a void that is unoccupied by furniture. The furniture in the house is an ecosystem and the empty room is an empty niche. Simplistic but should help define the point: there is space in the empty room that could be occupied by furniture with many new possibilities. A chair moving into the empty room has expanded the niche for chairs, and this provides opportunities for evolution. Without competition from other furniture species it can reproduce and evolve much faster than in the previous place in the habitat/ecosystem.Thus when a massive extinction event wiped out most of the species of foraminifera, there was a void that allowed the remaining species to evolve and inhabit the niches that had been previously occupied with newly evolved species. This is what the fossil record in fact shows:

quote:

---

The Foram Fossils
A Classic Tale of Transition

​

Since the foram record extends through a major extinction event (some of the samples date back nearly 100 million years), it represents the first, grand template against which a flock of pet theories on the beginnings of evolution may now be effectively measured, he said.

​

Some scientists have theorized, but never been able to demonstrate, that in the absence of competition, an explosion of life takes place. The evolution of new species is greatly accelerated, and a profusion of body shapes and sizes bursts across the horizon, filling up vacant spaces like weeds overtaking a pristine lawn. An array of new forms fan out into these limited niches, where crowding soon forces most of the new forms to spin out into oblivion, as sparks from a flame.

​

As revealed by the ancient record left by the foram family, the story of recovery after extinction is every bit as busy and colorful as some scientists have long suspected.

​

"What we've found suggests that the rate of speciation increases dramatically in a biological vacuum," Parker said. "After the Cretaceous extinction, the few surviving foram species began rapidly propagating into new species, and for the first time we're able to see just how this happens, and how fast."

---

A profusion of new foramin species as they fill the room left by the extinction event. They would not have included any new species not a foramin in their study, but this is still typical creationist type comment, ignoring the point made.

quote:

---

From Message 14: ... but also that evolution would occur rapidly when there was a void in habitat that could be occupied; selection would be diminished and more varieties would survive and evolve. What that new habitat was, occurred when the ocean pH changed (due to oxygen being produced by algae iirc) and it became possible to make calcite shells. The Cambrian fossils are almost all shelled creatures, the pre-Cambrian fossils do not have shells. Having shells provides an obvious survival advantage, and those that had shells had an open habitat to inhabit: rapid evolution. Standard. Darwinian.

---

Evolution occurred because it became possible to make shells, and the first species to do so had an advantage over species without shells.The same would hold for the first species on land. Why should that be necessary to include? "changes in the composition of hereditary traits" means traits change over generations. Information is not a thing in biology. You need to define it and have a means to measure it before it could be useful, if then.What is a "major difference" -- the difference between species is major enough to isolate breeding.What are "apparent limits of adaptation within species?" Curiously I am not aware of any.Enjoy

Christ, Faith, are you still being wrong about this?

Not that you've ever proved.

No. You seem to have a problem with context. Or you really have failed to watch the video and read the essay by Gelernter.First, the title of the video is "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution". It is not 'Mathematical Challenges to speciation'. You do not seem to be able to make a distinction. You are apparently stuck on being able to define a species (as the rest of your post indicates), but then you are critiquing the video on whatever seems to be the most restrictive version against it.Secondly, "therefore intelligent (eg god) design" is not the end point of the video either. Again, if you were paying attention, you would realize that Gelernter doesn't subscribe to ID, and Berlinsky is rather neutral and ambivalent about it. Only one of the three in the video subscribes to that stance, and it hardly was the objective of the video. I agree. But if you're going to criticize the video, then you need to use the meaning that is represented in the video. Anything else is just an equivocation on your part. Male cow feces poppycock! You're the one that is equivocating. They are pretty clear in the video on what they mean , but because you can't deal with their definitions and instead point to a different meaning, you go and call foul? Please!!!The FIRST topic the moderator asks in the video is on definitions. After referring to a statement in the essay where Gelernter commented on what Darwin could explain in relation to small changes vs big ones, is: "Start by convincing me, ..., that you are not just defining the term "species" to Darwin's disadvantage". Gelernters response:

quote:

---

There really is very little disagreement on the issue of what a species is and I think it doesn't have to be a technical term. I think virtually any alert child knows when he passes from one species of pet creature to another species or, what do [you have], a cat, a cow or a sheep or something like that, this is part of our innate view of the universe. Nobody wants to define anything to Darwin's disadvantage."

---

I would obviously disagree with him that there is little disagreement on what a species is, or the need (in your case) to provide a technical term. But from the essay and the video, and even from what Darwin meant in his "Origin of the Species", it is clear we're talking about creatures that are very different in form and type - probably minimally on the taxonomic level of Genus or Family. And since they are also referencing animals from the Cambrian Explosion, with animals with new body plans suddenly appearing, it should be clear the distinctions they are talking about. And as for the method of changes, they are clearly dealing with Darwinian/Neo-Darwinian processes. There is no misdirection or misinformation at all.If you don't want to or can't deal with talking about Darwinian processes, that is your problem. If you think there are some other things in the "all known evolutionary processes" wheelhouse to explain things, then you have to specify it. The essay and video has been clear on what they are talking about. You have not. which standard of speciation was: which is reproductive isolation. If that is the standard, then the items in your list, 5.2-5.8 are not examples of speciation because they are not examples of reproductive isolation.My point is your list doesn't fulfill it's claims based on its own standards.Thus.... ... might be a true statement, but you haven't demonstrated this yet with the exception of a few plants. Which is why I said: Again, I think that speciation can occur, depending on your definition. But by the examples given so far, even when it does, the results are trivial at best and do not demonstrate much of anything to crow about. They certainly do nothing to demonstrate or explain the origin of large-scale biological change. And some BIOLOGISTS agree with me:

quote:

---

Theodosius Dobzhansky:
"Reproductive isolation evidently can arise with little or no morphological differentiation."

​

"we are in a situation today similar to that experienced by Darwin more than a century ago: differentiation of species is inferred from copious indirect evidence, but has not actually been observed.

---

quote:

---

Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan:
"Speciation, whether in the remote Galpagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced.

---

quote:

---

University of Bristol bacteriologist - Alan H. Linton:
"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. . . . Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [e.g., bacterial] to eukaryotic [e.g., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms"

---

No, the results were determined via empirical testing. Experiments were done.Now if you are saying that nobody has done 10^77 tests to determine the number, that would be true. But doing that many tests isn't the point. the 10^77 was inferred based on empirical results, and it has always just been called an estimate. But that was not his claim. You are not properly understanding (or are just arguing a strawman) to what Axe was claiming. So your statement ends up being irrelevant. Again, you are failing to understand what Axe was saying. His claim was NOT saying that finding peptides that have B-lactamase activity is 1 in 10^77. Besides, in your statement, "random" is a bit misleading, because the experiment did not use wholly "random" peptides. They were constrained in the same protein family. Nonetheless, that has little relation to Axe's claim.You don't like Axe? Then how about other experiments that provide a roughly comparable conclusion. Reidhaar-Olson and Sauer 1990 (Functionally acceptable substitutions in two alpha-helical regions of lambda repressor) - 1 x 10^63 sequences yielded a functional repressor fold Yockey 1977 (A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory) - likelyhood of functional cytochrome c sequence is 10^65 Hayashi et al. 2006 (Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space) - Getting the wild-type function of the g3p minor coat protein of the fd phage takes rougly 10^70 trials.

For my die answer, within your parameters, I acknowledge my answer was limited. I was assuming the standard 6-sided die in a pair.But I'm failing to see your bigger point. You seem to claim there is a problem with the model with regards to the math spoken of in the video and essay, but you haven't specified what that problem is. So, state your parameters that indicated an incorrect model.

The bigger point is quite simple: when you make (mistaken) assumptions about the possibilities your are limiting your answers to a (mistaken) subset of actual probabilities. Those assumptions should be part of the answer.For instance you could have said: "1/6 if the dice are perfect homogeneous cubes numbered 1 to 6 on the faces." There are only 4 numbers discussed in the video (a remarkable paucity for a "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution" don't you think?): the number of amino acids (20), the number of possible working proteins (1 in 10^77 will result in a functional fold), the possibility of getting a "right" 150 amino acid "string of beads" (20^150 = 1.4 x 10^195), and the number of atoms in the universe (number not given, just the comment that it is less than 20^150 = 1.4 x 10^195).This should be a big red flag.They are all (except for the number of amino acids used), WAG (wild ass guess) assumptions, bald assertions or outright falsehoods.There is no mathematical proof.As I've already shown in Message 51, the 20^150 = 1.4 x 10^195 calculation is wrong, badly, grossly wrong, because it only uses one of the worst possible ways to assemble 150 amino acids, one by one in order.Question for you: why was a 150 amino acid string protein chosen?Consider that the first life would be the simplest, using the simplest molecules. As noted in Message 51 the smallest known protein is made with only 20 amino acids.Why choose a much more complex protein than necessary if the argument is that it's formation has a low probability?Enjoy

Okay, let's say they are talking about major change instead of speciation. Whatever "major change" means, because it is irrelevant to biology. Biology develops changes via speciation -- becoming different species, then evolving separately, diverging, adding change to previous changes. (1) so they are talking about speciation?(2) nope. I need to use what actual biologists use. Anything else would be spreading misinformation. Not necessarily. A reproductive community is composed of the individuals that happen to reproduce, as opposed to all the individuals that are capable of reproduction. This definition actually works better for single cell organisms.Consider horses and donkeys. They -- to use the rather childish definition in the video -- are readily recognized as different species, yet they can interbreed. Curiously I see biologists handing out new species names, and I trust them more than non-biologists. You are the one changing the definition used on the list. Speciation is an opportunity for divergence in evolutionary paths for reproductive communitites, breeding populations. That divergence is manifest in change, increasing differences between daughter populations. And now we come to the crux. What is "large-scale biological change?" A new species? Whoopie, there is disagreement. I also smell quote mining. This ... ... appears to be more about cryptic species evolution than evolution in general.Care to provide actual references to those quotes citing the authors actual works?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

The conclusions Axe drew from the results were faulty and fabricated. He assumed that his experiment would capture all possible B-lactamase proteins. If Axe's claim is not relevant to the chances of a functional B-lactamase emerging from random sequence, then his claim is irrelevant to evolution. Then what is it? So you are saying that it is easy to evolve a B-lactamase enzyme by randomly changing a small portion of the same protein? If so, then what is your problem with evolution?