Evolution

[darrenskywalker]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

Wow. You mistakenly think my point was to correct Snowflake. My point is that people who don't even have a basic understanding of biology (your post indicates that you fall into this category) should not participate in debates about evolution. That includes mathematicians.

Got it, because I see logic flaws in theories of speciation (not evolution as you put it, hope you could actually address the speciation theories issues) and don't blindly put my faith in and agree with and instead ask questions about something that looks incoherent and inconsistent, I can't discuss it to begin with. And you won't logically address the concerns in regards to biological theories. You do realize that the burden of scientific proof is on those who support said theory and they should be able to address said concerns. Can you address my points where a new species is defined by being genetically reproductively isolated? And go from there?

[clarkgoble]

On 12/14/2018 at 2:31 PM, pogi said:

Selection pressures can explain phenotypical convergence, however the theory of evolution is based on the principle of random genetic mutation which leads to genetic divergence rather than genetic convergence.  These mutations are not driven by selection pressures, according to the theory of evolution. 

I'm not sure I agree with that. First off mutations aren't random. They're driven by location (some locations are more radioactive than others or have more chemically disruptive contaminates) and diet (some foods are more disruptive to DNA). They're driven by disease.  But beyond that, what mutations are conserved gets complicated too since the mutations have to be in the sexual production cells to get passed on. (Eggs or sperm) Further the very nature of cell division means that certain mutations may well be more likely to be conserved than others. There's also various RNA processes in replication and sex that make certain things simply not purely random (again in the sense of a flat probabilistic curve)

So the premise you have as being characteristic of so-called neo-Darwinism I'm not sure I fully agree with. I know mutations are often called random, but that's more in the sense of not being determinate not in the sense of being a flat probability curve.

Second, it seems to me that you are assuming that selection is only working on the final phenotype convergence. But that's almost certainly not the case. Intermediate steps may have selection pressure making them highly probable even if they don't (yet) produce the phenotype in question. Unless you know what those mutations do in all gene expression I just don't think you can say there's no selection pressure.

But the basic flaw in your understanding is the assumption that mutations (and mutation location and rate) is random in the sense of a flat curve. They may be probabilistic but you can have some mutations much more probable than others and still be broadly random.

A great example of this, btw, are certain cancers that clearly are more likely than other types of mutations.

10 hours ago, darrenskywalker said:

Can you address my points where a new species is defined by being genetically reproductively isolated? And go from there?

Not quite sure what you mean by "genetically reproductively isolated" but I'm not sure I'd use that definition for speciation.

Edited December 16, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, darrenskywalker said:

The problem here is the mistake of looking at evolution and not perpetual speciation. The mating you refer to with the 2, lets say at human-type level, haven't presumed speciation, just mutation(the key to evolution). You mistakenly assume Snowflake's point where I believe he is insuiating speciation. Say male 1 has speciated, via mutation that actually is beneficial and involves the creation of a new partial chromosome(just as an example and in the general theory of evolution would have to happen at some point in the grand scheme of things) that is actually beneficial and can still reproduce if only.....and also thus reproductively isolated from every non same genotype person and can't mate without mating with some female 1 that has the exact same mutation and also for thus chromosomal pairing. So you have someone with said mutation(say 1/billions) who has to find 1(the finding of .....say 1/billions) said counterpart who also has said mutation (say 1/billions) where also this genetic line would also have the next 1/nigh probability impossibility added to this line of perpetual speciation and so on and so forth(1/even more nigh probability impossibility).

I'm having a real hard time following what you're attempting to say here. Speciation is largely a human idea rather than a "natural kind" beyond the fact that two populations can't breed with each other. But why they can't breed can be for a variety of reasons. You can have something like a horse and a donkey that can breed but produce sterile offspring. Thus the populations can't intermix in breeding. You can have major physiological changes such that while they could breed by IVF in practice they can't (say because the physiology of the sexual organs is such that it just wouldn't work - say a bunch of chihuahuas and a bunch of great danes). Sometimes it's more than that, such as those bushes over near Notch Peak in Utah where the actual number of chromosomes of two populations has changed over 50 years. But really the category of species just is a loose one about whether offspring can successful product more offspring. Nothing mysterious to it.

The bit about "same mutation" I confess I just don't quite follow. To the degree you think a single mutation matters, I suspect you're just confused about sexual reproduction at the DNA level. But I admit I may just not be following what you're saying.

14 hours ago, darrenskywalker said:

As you can tell I believe in mutations/evolution just not perpetual speciation to explain the origin of man etc...That's simply that Adam is literally a son of God.

I certainly have no trouble with that - although I'm not sure what "perpetual speciation" means. (Some people seem to pay attention to species for reasons I confess I just can't quite understand) 

The question I have is what Adam's body was made like when he fell given the nature of DNA of all fallen creation. If there was a major change between a terrestrial and telestial body then Adam appears to have taken up DNA that resembles extremely closely other life here on earth. That seems demonstrable not just by comparing the strong similarity of DNA between humans and primates but DNA in general across the animal kingdom including things like mitochondria. It requires that God made us all, especially primates, very similar at a genetic level.

14 hours ago, darrenskywalker said:

Consider the teaching of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young that the earth was created near Kolob and after said Fall fell to it's current orbit?

It's also quite possible that they were speculating. There's no revelation that says that. And the case for attributing it to Joseph is somewhat problematic and quite late and third hand.

Certainly Brigham Young held to a catastrophe theory for the creation of the earth and saw fossils as evidence from prior creations. We know that's not correct given the fossil record and the ability to analyze DNA for the past few hundred thousand years.

14 hours ago, darrenskywalker said:

 Just because we have a partial, incomplete knowledge of some isolation of science that pales in comparision to the truth, doesn't mean we have God's level of understanding.

Again not quite following you. I'd probably say that we should focus on what's given by clear revelation. I'd also say that just because science doesn't know everything it doesn't mean that there isn't clear compelling evidence for many of the things it knows. If you're contrasting a belief about how to read scripture that isn't given by clear revelation and conflicts with something for which there's overwhelming evidence I'd probably be careful. That's particularly the case with Brigham Young when many beliefs of his regarding scriptural interpretation are wrong. (Adam/God, sons of Cain as Canaanites, etc.)

[katherine the great]

10 hours ago, darrenskywalker said:

 You do realize that the burden of scientific proof is on those who support said theory and they should be able to address said concerns. 

Actually its the opposite. A theory is a well substantiated explanation of natural phenomena that is generally accepted in the scientific community. The burden is for you to falsify it.

[pogi]

On 12/14/2018 at 4:46 PM, katherine the great said:

I would point out that this is one study done by one scientist and his grad student. It's just and abstract. I don't know what type of statistical analysis they used so I can't even express an opinion about their conclusions. That aside, I don't see how you can hold this up as "anti-evolutionary theory". I've never heard it posited that there will never be any genetic convergence anywhere in the animal kingdom. That doesn't even make any sense.

I am not holding it up as "anti-evolutionary theory".  I never said that.  Until it is explained, it is neither pro nor anti evolutionary theory.  It does leave the door open a little for the theory of guided evolution however.

Furthermore, it is not just one case and one study.  We are finding more and more cases of convergent genetic evolution every day.  From genetic convergence in "echolocation in dolphins and bats", to the "convergence of some flower traits in plants".

Quote

Accumulating studies on this topic have reported surprising cases of convergent evolution at the molecular level, ranging from gene families being recurrently recruited to identical amino acid replacements in distant lineages. 

http://www.academia.edu/11924246/Causes_and_evolutionary_significance_of_genetic_convergence

Here is another example of genetic convergence between humans and mice:

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-convergent-evolution-gene-humans-mice.html

More and more discoveries are happening all the time with no good explanation. 

It is not that genetic convergence is unlikely to happen anywhere, similar mutations can and do happen, the unlikely and "surprising" (that is the word all of these studies use) is that mutation after mutation after mutation (thousands of times) is happening in distant lineages along the exact same evolutionary path to perform the exact same function.  The study I linked to above once stated that these genes seem to have a "predisposition for a given novel function".  They seemed to have edited that part out, probably after all the proponents of guided evolution started using it 

Again, before a lot of genetic testing had been done,  genetic divergence (not convergence), was the prediction of the theory of evolution - that is what I was taught in college anyway (hence the common usage of the words "shocking" and "surprising", etc).  That prediction is failed and there is not yet a substitution. Again, that leaves the door open for different interpretations.  I am simply throwing mine out there. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

19 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure I agree with that. First off mutations aren't random. They're driven by location (some locations are more radioactive than others or have more chemically disruptive contaminates) and diet (some foods are more disruptive to DNA). They're driven by disease.  But beyond that, what mutations are conserved gets complicated too since the mutations have to be in the sexual production cells to get passed on. (Eggs or sperm) Further the very nature of cell division means that certain mutations may well be more likely to be conserved than others. There's also various RNA processes in replication and sex that make certain things simply not purely random (again in the sense of a flat probabilistic curve)

It is true that there can be environmental causes, most mutations however are not the result of environmental causes but are random errors (according to the theory of evolution) of translation and transcription during cell division.  You are also right that we need to distinguish between somatic mutations (cannot be passed on, like cancer) and germinal mutations (can be passed on). 

We also have to factor in that cells have the ability to correct errors in cell division.  That means that not only does the exact same error have to occur in the exact same place in two different lineages, but also the cell has to fail to repair the error in both lineages.  This has to happen thousands of times over.  The likelihood of the exact same mistake upon mistake with failure of the cell to fix the error to happen thousand of times towards the exact same novel function in two distinct lineages seems unlikely to  me.  And to see this same parallel genetic evolution not just happen as one freak occurrence in nature, we see it over and over and over again in completely unrelated species living in completely different environments with completely different environmental pressures (bats and dolphins for example), just makes it seem like something else is going on here that doesn't fit into the theory of evolution as presently constituted. 

Edited December 16, 2018 by pogi

[nuclearfuels]

On 12/15/2018 at 12:21 AM, katherine the great said:

Oh yay! An 80 year old philosopher telling biologists why they are all wrong!  

No fact I provide you with will be acceptable to your existing beliefs. 

Berlinski's not a philosopher.

And having experience - like age - is a good thing.

[nuclearfuels]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

It is true that there can be environmental causes, most mutations however are not the result of environmental causes but are random errors (according to the theory of evolution) of translation and transcription during cell division.  You are also right that we need to distinguish between somatic mutations (cannot be passed on, like cancer) and germinal mutations (can be passed on). 

We also have to factor in that cells have the ability to correct errors in cell division.  That means that not only does the exact same error have to occur in the exact same place in two different lineages, but also the cell has to fail to repair the error in both lineages.  This has to happen thousands of times over.  The likelihood of the exact same mistake upon mistake with failure of the cell to fix the error to happen thousand of times towards the exact same novel function in two distinct lineages seems unlikely to  me.  And to see this same parallel genetic evolution not just happen as one freak occurrence in nature, we see it over and over and over again in completely unrelated species living in completely different environments with completely different environmental pressures (bats and dolphins for example), just makes it seem like something else is going on here that doesn't fit into the theory of evolution as presently constituted. 

Unlikely has been calculated as:

10 x 125th power (Meyer et al.) (https://books.google.com/books?id=I_hwQ2YxUzQC&pg=PA280&lpg=PA280&dq=likelihood+of+"evolution"+is+10+to+the+100th+power&source=bl&ots=vsPJkKSGVP&sig=n5AjgpM_hRUqLCPOtFdSnvVR2k4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTvqHK4KXfAhVnxFkKHa_6Cz4Q6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=likelihood of "evolution" is 10 to the 100th power&f=false)

Francis Crick, an ardent evolutionist, won the Nobel Prize in 1962 along with several
others for their discovery of the molecular structure of DNA. He has written several books and
has made some startling discoveries about the origins of life.

He writes, “If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an
event would that be?

“This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about
two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average
length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each
place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred
times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that
is, a one followed by 260 zeros!”

 

“This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For
comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking
loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10^11
stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This
number, which is estimated to be 10^80, is quite paltry (or measly) by comparison
to 10^260. Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather
modest length… The great majority of sequences can never have been
synthesized at all, at any time.”ii

What is he saying here? He states there are 10^80 atoms in the visible universe, and the
chance of one amino acid chain forming is 10^260, which is such a huge number it is beyond all
comprehension. Even the number10^80, which are all the atoms in the visible universe, is so huge
as to be not comprehended by our minds.

We have 50 to 100 trillion cells in our bodies, and many atoms to a cell, and there are
many different kinds of cells with different structures of proteins. There just simply is not
enough time for proteins to have “evolved”, let alone a single cell. Cells are the building blocks
of organisms, and, therefore, life. If there are no cells, there are no living organisms or life.

Let Us Compare Some Numbers

If the universe is 20 billion years old as (some of the)* the evolutionists’ say, then let us see how many
seconds there are in 20 billion years. First you multiply 60 seconds in one minute, times 60
minutes in one hour. That gives us 3,600 seconds in an hour times 24 hours in a day which gives
us 86,400 seconds in a day. 86,400 seconds in a day times 365.25 days in a year gives us
31,557,600 seconds in a year times 20 billion years. That gives us 631,152,000,000,000,000
seconds of time in 20 billion years.
----

People, that insist its scientific for evolution to have occurred, simple have no grasp of the math that even the most prominent scientist admit are alarmingly against evolution. Even in all scientific circles, the odds are astronomically against evolution. "Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry. No matter how chemicals are mixed, they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA reproduces DNA."

"Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is LESS  THAN 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!"

Mind you these odds of life forming by random accident is according regular scientist who refuse to acknowledge a guiding intelligence. Yet they still must acknowledge that without a guiding intelligence out there life by random chance is IMPOSSIBLE, period. There is literally no room for debate when it comes to math and science, as they are both based on cold hard facts.

Ref: 1 in 10 to the 40,000th Power | What are the Odds of Life evolving by chance alone? | What are the odds of a single cell assembling itself by chance? | DNA, Probability And Fallacy-Science 2.0 | Calculating The Odds That Life Could Begin By Chance-Science 2.0 | The Odds of Life Forming by Chance -TOAST.net | What are the odds of a single cell assembling itself by chance? | What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not Exist | 

 

[katherine the great]

49 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Unlikely has been calculated as:

10 x 125th power (Meyer et al.) (https://books.google.com/books?id=I_hwQ2YxUzQC&pg=PA280&lpg=PA280&dq=likelihood+of+"evolution"+is+10+to+the+100th+power&source=bl&ots=vsPJkKSGVP&sig=n5AjgpM_hRUqLCPOtFdSnvVR2k4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTvqHK4KXfAhVnxFkKHa_6Cz4Q6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=likelihood of "evolution" is 10 to the 100th power&f=false)

Francis Crick, an ardent evolutionist, won the Nobel Prize in 1962 along with several
others for their discovery of the molecular structure of DNA. He has written several books and
has made some startling discoveries about the origins of life.

He writes, “If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an
event would that be?

“This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about
two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average
length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each
place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred
times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that
is, a one followed by 260 zeros!”

 

“This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For
comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking
loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10^11
stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This
number, which is estimated to be 10^80, is quite paltry (or measly) by comparison
to 10^260. Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather
modest length… The great majority of sequences can never have been
synthesized at all, at any time.”ii

What is he saying here? He states there are 10^80 atoms in the visible universe, and the
chance of one amino acid chain forming is 10^260, which is such a huge number it is beyond all
comprehension. Even the number10^80, which are all the atoms in the visible universe, is so huge
as to be not comprehended by our minds.

We have 50 to 100 trillion cells in our bodies, and many atoms to a cell, and there are
many different kinds of cells with different structures of proteins. There just simply is not
enough time for proteins to have “evolved”, let alone a single cell. Cells are the building blocks
of organisms, and, therefore, life. If there are no cells, there are no living organisms or life.

Let Us Compare Some Numbers

If the universe is 20 billion years old as (some of the)* the evolutionists’ say, then let us see how many
seconds there are in 20 billion years. First you multiply 60 seconds in one minute, times 60
minutes in one hour. That gives us 3,600 seconds in an hour times 24 hours in a day which gives
us 86,400 seconds in a day. 86,400 seconds in a day times 365.25 days in a year gives us
31,557,600 seconds in a year times 20 billion years. That gives us 631,152,000,000,000,000
seconds of time in 20 billion years.
----

People, that insist its scientific for evolution to have occurred, simple have no grasp of the math that even the most prominent scientist admit are alarmingly against evolution. Even in all scientific circles, the odds are astronomically against evolution. "Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry. No matter how chemicals are mixed, they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA reproduces DNA."

"Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is LESS  THAN 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!"

Mind you these odds of life forming by random accident is according regular scientist who refuse to acknowledge a guiding intelligence. Yet they still must acknowledge that without a guiding intelligence out there life by random chance is IMPOSSIBLE, period. There is literally no room for debate when it comes to math and science, as they are both based on cold hard facts.

Ref: 1 in 10 to the 40,000th Power | What are the Odds of Life evolving by chance alone? | What are the odds of a single cell assembling itself by chance? | DNA, Probability And Fallacy-Science 2.0 | Calculating The Odds That Life Could Begin By Chance-Science 2.0 | The Odds of Life Forming by Chance -TOAST.net | What are the odds of a single cell assembling itself by chance? | What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not Exist | 

 

Wow.  That is quite a rant. Now you aren’t even talking about evolution. You are delving into abiogenesis-no one really has a clue about this. 

[snowflake]

12 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Wow.  That is quite a rant. Now you aren’t even talking about evolution. You are delving into abiogenesis-no one really has a clue about this. 

This is the classic "escape hatch" answer you get from most biologists. Well....we don't really know how that happened but we know that it DID Happen....since we are here and exist it has to have happened. Pure religious fantasy..... and if you believe that it happened that is fine.....but don't call it science.  Do you really believe that a single cell organism with enough time was capable of evolving into the human race? 

[CA Steve]

48 minutes ago, snowflake said:

 Do you really believe that a single cell organism with enough time was capable of evolving into the human race? 

Forgive me for interjecting in what has been an interesting discussion, but if I may. I assume your question allows for the possibility that we have been around for more than 7000 years and that you are asking if there has been enough time during the period life has evolved on the earth for such an evolution. 

Some years back my kids attended an elementary school which did an interesting fund raising event that also was a great object lesson. They raised $10,000.00 dollars by collecting only pennies, which means the collected a million pennies. If I recall correctly it took a couple of years. They collected and kept all the pennies until they had reached their goal. The pennies were stored in a ""sandbox" type container that was about 10'x10'. When I took a look at the million pennies my first thought was: "I wouldn't know if that was a million, 10 million or 10,000 and if someone were to have asked me to guess how many was there without knowing before hand I would probably be off by a lot." Then I realized that even knowing it was a million, my brain probably didn't really distinguish between that amount and 5 million or 100,000, and by distinguish I mean conceptually not mathematically.  In other words, it is just as easy for our brains to dismiss the claims that something took a million years as it is to dismiss the claim that it took a billion. So when you ask about their being enough time for such an evolution, I think you, like all of us,, don't really wrap out heads around what a billion years is .

 

Just something to consider when you think about whatever answer someone might give you to your question.

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

It is true that there can be environmental causes, most mutations however are not the result of environmental causes but are random errors (according to the theory of evolution) of translation and transcription during cell division.  You are also right that we need to distinguish between somatic mutations (cannot be passed on, like cancer) and germinal mutations (can be passed on). 

You seem to think the theory well defined. But surely that's not the case given that people are still publishing on it and refining it. So I'm not sure there's a theory of evolution that defines how DNA changes. Far from it. I can accept it's what you were taught in college - but that was undoubtedly a simplified version of the theory and not how scientists active in the field think of evolution.

Second even if you're talking about what people believe, again I don't think you can say that changes in DNA according to evolution are all due to translation and transcription errors. Far from it as the abundant literature on changes due to viruses attests. 

So I just don't buy your presumptions of what evolution requires.

Even though if we're just looking at errors during chromosome copying I don't think you can say it's random (again in the sense of a flat probability curve). Certain types of transcriptions may have more errors than others, completely undermining your claim of randomness. (Again here carefully qualifying random here as flat probability curve to avoid equivocating over the term)

It's true a lot of the study on this has just been in the last decade, but it's pretty mainstream stuff. The fact we can see patterns in transcription errors indicates this is simply not a random process (again in terms of the probability curve).

 

17 hours ago, pogi said:

We also have to factor in that cells have the ability to correct errors in cell division.  That means that not only does the exact same error have to occur in the exact same place in two different lineages, but also the cell has to fail to repair the error in both lineages.  This has to happen thousands of times over.  The likelihood of the exact same mistake upon mistake with failure of the cell to fix the error to happen thousand of times towards the exact same novel function in two distinct lineages seems unlikely to  me.

If and only if it's a random process. But it's not. There are several different ways cells try to maintain fidelity but the methods don't catch everything and what they miss isn't random nor are the errors in the first place.

There's no doubt there's a lot here we don't know yet. But to put this in opposition to evolution seems pretty questionable. It seems based upon creating a caricature of what evolution is.

Randomness (again in the sense of a flat probability curve) is a nice first order approximation we can make to make certain calculations easy. It's also frequently used in textbooks to simplify things. It's not however what goes in in nature just due to the inherent chemistry at work. If one stops to think about it it'd make no sense that it'd be purely random in the sense of a flat probability curve.

Edited December 17, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

14 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

He writes, “If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an
event would that be?

Isn't this only relevant if it was purely by chance - i.e. if there weren't other physical factors at work that makes that first order approximation incorrect?

That's the problem with all these sorts of calculations. It assumes that the world is what our limited knowledge lets us say. An appeal to the God of the gaps then gets made. However that gap simply could also hold other physical structures leading to the outcome we know happened. There's no intrinsic reason to say God is why our calculations seem wrong. Every place a Creationist appeals to God a scientist could merely say there's unknown chemical structures that lead to the outcome.

[pogi]

55 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

You seem to think the theory well defined.

Interesting.  I thought scientific theories had to be well-substantiated/defined for it to be considered a theory.  If it is not well defined, then how can it pass as a scientific theory?  Shouldn't they try to define exactly what it is first?  As far as evolution goes, many claim that it is the strongest and most substantiated theory out there...funny, condsidering that it is a constantly moving target with modifications happening all the time.  What other scientific theories evolve (pardon the pun) as much as the theory of evolution?  Would you say that other theories are not well defined.  That seems to weaken the theory to me, not strengthen it.  I understand that science is always evolving, but to say that a theory is not well defined seems problematic to that theory, if theories are supposed to be the "end point" of science.

Quote

 

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/2#2

 

It you are suggesting that we don't know what causes evolution and the mechanisms behind it, then who is to say that is not guided?  Who can say that science doesn't support guided evolution if they can't explain evolution, or even define it well? 

55 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Second even if you're talking about what people believe, again I don't think you can say that changes in DNA according to evolution are all due to translation and transcription errors. Far from it as the abundant literature on changes due to viruses attests. 

I didn't say "all", I said most - and I was talking about mutations in general, both somatic and germline.  That is the case. Your article attests that viruses account for 30% (that is not most) of evolutionary changes from apes to humans (very limited scope of study when considering all of life).  So, we seem to have a hodge-podge of causes of mutations from transcription errors (which we don't understand fully), and environmental causes like viruses, radiation, etc. etc. etc., this, to me, only makes the likelihood of parallel genetic evolution thousands of times over in distinct lineages with different environmental pressures even more unlikely.  Whether it is entirely random or not, the multitude of causes makes it unlikely in distinct lineages and environments. 

55 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If and only if it's a random process. But it's not. There are several different ways cells try to maintain fidelity but the methods don't catch everything and what they miss isn't random nor are the errors in the first place.

Even if it is not entirely random, it is still unlikely, hence the words "shocking", "surprising", and "vanishingly small".  Some scientists have even stated that it seems some genes are "predisposed for a given novel function".     

Edited December 17, 2018 by pogi

[katherine the great]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

This is the classic "escape hatch" answer you get from most biologists. Well....we don't really know how that happened but we know that it DID Happen....since we are here and exist it has to have happened. Pure religious fantasy..... and if you believe that it happened that is fine.....but don't call it science.  Do you really believe that a single cell organism with enough time was capable of evolving into the human race? 

Yes. I do. Science, unlike many religions, admits that it is an ongoing process and gaps in knowledge are filled in along the way. However I do believe in God and I am completely open to the possibility that God oversees these processes in some way and put them into motion. I don’t appreciate the implication that I’m using abiogenesis as an excuse to not respond.. It is an absolute fact that it is very mysterious to everybody (who is honest about it). 

[clarkgoble]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

Interesting.  I thought scientific theories had to be well-substantiated/defined for it to be considered a theory.  If it is not well defined, then how can it pass as a scientific theory?  Shouldn't they try to define exactly what it is first?

Vagueness usually means some things are defined while other things are not. All theories are by definition vague in that they aren't a theory of everything. Thus there are elements of reality the theory doesn't address. Particularly relative to evolution there are lots of vague terms and aspects to the theory - species being the obvious one everyone brings up. Even selection is a somewhat vague concept though.

So scientists try to be precise - but outside of where they are precise they're typically extremely vague. Think for instance the theory of thermodynamics which some would say is the strongest theory there is in science. Yet when posed there were these quantities like entropy which clearly worked but no one was sure what they meant. Once statistical mechanics came on the scene then scientists were able to explain a lot about the theory but there are still many who think the law is more fundamental than statistical mechanics. In that view we should keep the two separated.

Science is simply a lot more fuzzy than what you're outlining in your argument. 

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

As far as evolution goes, many claim that it is the strongest and most substantiated theory out there

I confess I've never heard that. It seems quite dubious given the place of experiment and prediction in physics. 

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

 I understand that science is always evolving, but to say that a theory is not well defined seems problematic to that theory, if theories are supposed to be the "end point" of science.

Philosophers tend to see science as very ill defined because scientists tend to avoid all the philosophical nuance. So if you read philosophy of science you'll see quite a bit of debate typically over what a physicist might consider being well defined. Even in theories like relativity that are relatively clear. Go to quantum mechanics, especially advanced theories like quantum electrodynamics and you'll find all sorts of ambiguities. We can produce equations, but what the equations mean is up for grabs.

Beyond that though, sticking with thermodynamics even there you have the classic problem that in any measurement many things are going on but the theories tend to presume they can pull out simplifications that underlie them. Once you add complexities though then things get complex. Consider for instance the behavior of a gas. The ideal gas law is what students are taught, however any good professor will also note where the theory breaks down. The simplified version of evolution taught to undergraduates is more akin to the ideal gas law in that it avoids a lot of complexities. It offers a simplified idea that gives considerable explanatory power but which breaks down if you don't pay attention to the details. 

Physicists usually call this a first order approximation. It comes out of the tendency in physics to create infinite expansion equations to describe some phenomena. (Say a Fourier Series to perfectly model sound) Yet in any actual work, usually only the first few terms actually matter and you can do your calculations just on those. In some cases those the other terms matter a great deal and the laws you found in the simplified case don't apply. The obvious example of this is Newtonian Mechanics which can be thought of as a mathematical simplification of either relativity or quantum mechanics.

Given that there is no universal law of everything yet, and given that the very formulation of laws in different disciplines often isn't reducible to physics (particularly an issue in biology) one has to be careful in how one understands what a law even means in science. Again, scientists themselves are frequently ignorant of all this given not enough scientists take even an introduction to philosophy of science. But it does matter. And scientists working in areas where "laws" don't hold universally (which is basically all laws) quickly realize this.

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

It you are suggesting that we don't know what causes evolution and the mechanisms behind it, then who is to say that is not guided?  Who can say that science doesn't support guided evolution if they can't explain evolution, or even define it well? 

The question is the burden of proof. Creationists typically appeal to a "God of the gaps" argument. That is if there's something we don't fully understand then what we don't fully understand is obviously God guiding things. The problem is that they can't provide an actual argument for it. It's just a place where because of ignorance they can fantasize a bit. However a scientist can just say there's merely unknown structures at work. And the scientist has the stronger argument because every gap of the last century has proved to just hold unknown structures that become known. So it seems pretty likely that where there's a gap it'll turn out to be like the other gaps science has investigated.

More to the point though, while a gap might at best offer a place for an apologist to make an argument that God might have done something there, the question then becomes what the theological drive for this design is. That is, can one make a compelling theological argument. I'd say that within Mormonism one not only can't, but that there's really nothing to be defending theologically. In general it's people latching onto Protestant apologetics without first asking the question of why this is an issue for Protestants. 

56 minutes ago, pogi said:

I didn't say "all", I said most - and I was talking about mutations in general, both somatic and germline.  That is the case. Your article attests that viruses account for 30% (that is not most) of evolutionary changes from apes to humans (very limited scope of study when considering all of life).  So, we seem to have a hodge-podge of causes of mutations from transcription errors (which we don't understand fully), and environmental causes like viruses, radiation, etc. etc. etc., this, to me, only makes the likelihood of parallel genetic evolution thousands of times over in distinct lineages with different environmental pressures even more unlikely.  Whether it is entirely random or not, the multitude of causes makes it unlikely in distinct lineages and environments. 

I don't see how that follows. As soon as it's not random in the sense of a flat probability curve then your entire argument falls apart. Whether or not it is likely we can only determine by going out and measuring what happens. If experiment shows it's more likely than a theory of probabilities suggests, then clearly that theory of probabilities has been falsified. 

58 minutes ago, pogi said:

Even if it is not entirely random, it is still unlikely, hence the words "shocking", "surprising", and "vanishingly small".  Some scientists have even stated that it seems some genes are "predisposed for a given novel function".     

How do you know how likely it is without measuring? You're calculating probabilities from a series of presuppositions, presuppositions that aren't part of the general theory of evolution. You may have reasons for those presuppositions, but ultimately what counts is what is measured.

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

How do you know how likely it is without measuring? You're calculating probabilities from a series of presuppositions, presuppositions that aren't part of the general theory of evolution. You may have reasons for those presuppositions, but ultimately what counts is what is measured.

These are not presuppositions.  There are indeed a multitude of causes of mutation that can happen anywhere in the genome - that is not a presupposition.  That increases the unlikeliness that two different lineages in different enviornments could have thousands of identical mutations in the same organ system when it just takes one virus or different exposures of radation, or diet, etc. to send them on different genetic paths of evolution.  The human genome has over 3 billion nucleotide base pairs where mutations can happen which can be caused by viruses, radiation, errors in transcription, etc.  There are also around 7 different types of mutations that can happen including insertions, deletions, missense, duplication, frameshift mutations, etc. etc. 

Now, I am no mathmatician, but it seems highly improbable to me that over millions of years, two different lineages in different environments can evolve in parallel, genetically speaking, to produce the same novel function.   What are the odds that dolphins and bats were exposed to the same viruses, radiation exposure, diet, etc. etc. etc? How likely is it that these two distinct lineages somehow were exposed to the exact same mutations in the exact same places from the same environmental pressures causing the same type of mutation such as deletion, insertions, duplications, framshift, etc. thousands of times, with both lineages failing to repair the exact same errors?  What seems more likely is that given the different environmental pressures, that we would expect to see genetic divergence not convergence.  That is what reason suggests.   

The only way that this makes sense and could be probable is if there are a very limited amount of possible mutations that can occur in certain genes - that is how some scientists try to explain this away (without proof), but that just means that these genes are predisposed or programmed for certain novel functions. Hmmm...  

I don't have to have exact measurements to suggest that the odds are likely vanishingly small. 

Why else is everybody so "shocked" and "surprised" if the odds didn't seem unlikely to even evolutionary scientists?

Edited December 17, 2018 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

59 minutes ago, pogi said:

These are not presuppositions.  There are indeed a multitude of causes of mutation that can happen anywhere in the genome - that is not a presupposition. 

It's a presupposition that any particular change has the same probability. My point has never been about whether a mutation could happen but the probability curve for it happening. I've tried to be really clear on this as I think in these discussions people often equivocate over the meaning of random.

59 minutes ago, pogi said:

Now, I am no mathmatician, but it seems highly improbable to me that over millions of years, two different lineages in different environments can evolve in parallel, genetically speaking, to produce the same novel function. 

When talking about particular phenotypes I think many are highly selected for and thus very probable. So my intuitions are definitely different from yours here.

59 minutes ago, pogi said:

What are the odds that dolphins and bats were exposed to the same viruses, radiation exposure, diet, etc. etc. etc? 

We have to be careful here whether we're talking about what produced a single mutation and what produced the selected for trait. Those aren't the same question. Earlier you were careful to distinguish mutation from phenotype selection and we have to do that here.

59 minutes ago, pogi said:

Why else is everybody so "shocked" and "surprised" if the odds didn't seem unlikely to even evolutionary scientists?

Can't speak to that. Although my experience is that University PR departments and journalists covering science tend to play up how novel and unexpected a result is and sensationalize it. 

At a minimum biologists have known for quite some time that mutation rates in replication aren't the same. The most common mutation is a G-C pair transformed into an A-T pair. That would mean genes with that would mutate much faster than other genes. Insertion and deletion events (indels) occur at about 1/10th the rate of single pair substitutions. Deletions larger than three base pairs are even less frequent, but when they happen they change over a thousand base pairs typically. So less probable but with a much bigger effect. Some mutations such as jumping genes (where genes move to a new location thereby potentially shifting effects or expression) still don't have their probabilities fully characterized. 

Pretty much all these were known since the time we were able to sequence DNA in a relatively cheap fashion. So around 20 years. The probability curves vary according to species. And that's looking just at transcription errors in relatively clean environments. I suspect it was commonly assumed mutations were non-linear even before sequencing let us look at DNA. But I haven't checked for that. A lot about mutation rates, especially what the cell's error correcting repairs, fixes or ignores, has been discovered due to cancer research and the ability to sequence genes.

Anyway, back to your original assertions, my whole point was just that your calculations assume randomness in the sense of a flat probability curve. That's just not the case. The mutation rate for particular genes can vary by many orders of magnitude. So regardless of what you heard in college about evolution, the premise for your discussion is just false.

Edited December 17, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's a presupposition that any particular change has the same probability. My point has never been about whether a mutation could happen but the probability curve for it happening. I've tried to be really clear on this as I think in these discussions people often equivocate over the meaning of random.

Yet we seem to see genetic divergence in general.  Except in specific organ systems in different lineages where we see genetic convergence happening.  Does it not seem like these genes are predisposed to certain genetic mutations when we see this type of parallel mutations in specific organs whereas we see divergence everywhere else in the organism?  

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

We have to be careful here whether we're talking about what produced a single mutation and what produced the selected for trait. Those aren't the same question. Earlier you were careful to distinguish mutation from phenotype selection and we have to do that here.

I have already linked to studies that confirm that echolocation in dolphins and bats is one example of genetic convergence, not simply phenotypic.  Not a "single mutation".  but thousands of mutations to produce a single trait.  Given different environmental pressures, wouldn't we expect to see different types of mutations if they are environmentally caused?  Especially when considering that more closely related species in similar environments express genetic divergence rather than convergence.  Wouldn't the odds be better in more closely related species with more closely related environmental pressures?  That is what we would expect given our knowledge of mutations and genes and their causes, etc. but that is not what we see.  We see that genetic convergence doesn't follow that reason at all.  

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have already linked to studies that confirm that echolocation in dolphins and bats is one example of genetic convergence, not simply phenotypic.  Not a "single mutation".  but thousands of mutations to produce a single trait.  Given different environmental pressures, wouldn't we expect to see different types of mutations if they are environmentally caused?  Especially when considering that more closely related species in similar environments express genetic divergence rather than convergence.  Wouldn't the odds be better in more closely related species with more closely related environmental pressures?  That is what we would expect given our knowledge of mutations and genes and their causes, etc. but that is not what we see.  We see that genetic convergence doesn't follow that reason at all.  

And I answered that the way you were looking at that was incorrect since you're neglecting how the individual genes might be selected for independent of the final phenotype in question. So you can't calculate odds unless you knew those selection pressures. This wasn't something that took place as a single mutation event.

Without knowing that path, you can't calculate the probability. But you are attempting to which is confusing mutation with selection as I noted. So this really isn't a relevant rejoinder.

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yet we seem to see genetic divergence in general.  Except in specific organ systems in different lineages where we see genetic convergence happening.  Does it not seem like these genes are predisposed to certain genetic mutations when we see this type of parallel mutations in specific organs whereas we see divergence everywhere else in the organism?  

No. Some things are selected for while others aren't. Some genes are more significant than others - particularly genes dealing with gene expression.

My point is just that you have no way of calculating the probabilities that you seem to be trusting. i.e. your calculations are almost certainly wrong. The only way to calculate those probabilities is to know the potential paths and the probability of each path. To do a calculation of a final phenotype without knowing the path probabilities is just bad statistics. It assume flat probabilities when one doesn't know they are flat. And, as I've been at pains to point out, there's considerable evidence they wouldn't be flat. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

More to the point though, while a gap might at best offer a place for an apologist to make an argument that God might have done something there, the question then becomes what the theological drive for this design is. That is, can one make a compelling theological argument. I'd say that within Mormonism one not only can't, but that there's really nothing to be defending theologically. In general it's people latching onto Protestant apologetics without first asking the question of why this is an issue for Protestants. 

This surprises me.  I think there is ample reason to suspect guided evolution given our theology.  I find it hard to explain things otherwise, so you might have to clarify why you think that there is no compelling theological argument.

"Man is created in the image of God" 

- would this not have to be guided?  Would God leave this up to chance? 

Quote

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

(Moses 3)

Add to that:

Quote

 

The spirit body looks like the physical body (1 Ne. 11:11; Ether 3:15–16; D&C 77:2; 129).

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/spirit?lang=eng

 

Add to that:

Quote

 

11 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the earth to bring forth grass; the herb yielding seed; the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, whose seed in itself yieldeth its own likeness upon the earth; and it was so, even as they ordered.

12 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth grass from its own seed, and the herb to bring forth herb from its own seed, yielding seed after his kind; and the earth to bring forth the tree from its own seed, yielding fruit, whose seed could only bring forth the same in itself, after his kind; and the Gods saw that they were obeyed.

(Abraham 4)

 

Note that life was "ordered" and "organized" by God before they were physically upon the earth.  

Add to that:

Quote

3 Q. Are the four beasts limited to individual beasts, or do they represent classes or orders?
A. They are limited to four individual beasts, which were shown to John, to represent the glory of the classes of beings in their destined order or sphere of creation, in the enjoyment of their eternal felicity.

D&C 77

"destined order or sphere of creation" - No theological reason?  Again, I am surprised at your response here.  There is nothing "protestant" about any of this.

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

And I answered that the way you were looking at that was incorrect since you're neglecting how the individual genes might be selected for independent of the final phenotype in question. So you can't calculate odds unless you knew those selection pressures. This wasn't something that took place as a single mutation event.

Without knowing that path, you can't calculate the probability. But you are attempting to which is confusing mutation with selection as I noted. So this really isn't a relevant rejoinder.

I don't understand what you mean by "your neglecting how the individual genes might be selected for independent of the final phenotype in question."

If I understand your argument, you are suggesting that environmental pressures drive mutations, therefore parallel genetic evolution is not unlikely given similar environmental pressures.  My response is that we would then expect to see parallel genetic evolution more frequently in more closely related lineages with more similar environmental pressures.  That isn't the case however.

I agree this wasn't a "single mutation event" - that is what makes it so unlikely.  We are talking about thousands of identical mutations following an identical evolutionary path in the exact same organ, but nowhere else.  These mutations were likely caused by not one type of mutation only, but likely a combination of different types including duplication, deletion, frameshift, missense, etc. caused by different types of environmental factors such as viruses, radiation, and whatever might cause transcription errors... Given the different environmental pressures, how do you explain it?

56 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

My point is just that you have no way of calculating the probabilities that you seem to be trusting. i.e. your calculations are almost certainly wrong. The only way to calculate those probabilities is to know the potential paths and the probability of each path. To do a calculation of a final phenotype without knowing the path probabilities is just bad statistics. It assume flat probabilities when one doesn't know they are flat. And, as I've been at pains to point out, there's considerable evidence they wouldn't be flat. 

I did not make the calculations, I am simply suggesting that given different environmental pressures, and given different lineages, and given the different types of mutations that can occur, and given the built in correction mechanism in cellular reproduction, it seems unlikely to me.  In other words, there is no logical explanation for it that I can think of, unless these genes are predisposed for certain mutations only. 

Calculation have been made by professionals, so until you see what factors they are including in their calculations, you really can't comment on their results either.

Quote

To confirm their hypothesis and findings, Oakley and Pankey enlisted the assistance of statisticians from the University of Washington and UCLA, who developed new statistical methods to test the idea of convergent (separately evolved) origins.

 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

This surprises me.  I think there is ample reason to suspect guided evolution given our theology.  I find it hard to explain things otherwise, so you might have to clarify why you think that there is no compelling theological argument.

"Man is created in the image of God" 

- would this not have to be guided?  Would God leave this up to chance? 

But God didn't leave it up to chance. After all domestication of animals is fully part of evolutionary processes and requires them to function. Yet the variety of dogs and other domesticated animals are not by chance.

So the issue isn't whether God would have to be involved producing a certain outcome. The question is what theological need is there to deny evolution in order to assert that as a conclusion. There simply is none. It's not needed since there are other ways for God to intervene.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Note that life was "ordered" and "organized" by God before they were physically upon the earth.  

Add to that:

"destined order or sphere of creation" - No theological reason?  Again, I am surprised at your response here.  There is nothing "protestant" about any of this.

Typically that organization is seen as the spirit creation. For Protestants there is no distinction between spiritual and physical creation. For Mormons where we have pre-mortal spirits there is.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

If I understand your argument, you are suggesting that environmental pressures drive mutations, therefore parallel genetic evolution is not unlikely given similar environmental pressures.  My response is that we would then expect to see parallel genetic evolution more frequently in more closely related lineages with more similar environmental pressures.  That isn't the case however.

While environmental pressures can drive mutation my main argument is just that they are not all equally probable. Some mutations are much more likely than others. Really that's all I need for my argument.

I'm not sure about your claim above though. Could you expand upon it? My inclination would just be to say that different species in different environments face different selective pressures.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I agree this wasn't a "single mutation event" - that is what makes it so unlikely.  We are talking about thousands of identical mutations following an identical evolutionary path in the exact same organ, but nowhere else.  These mutations were likely caused by not one type of mutation only, but likely a combination of different types including duplication, deletion, frameshift, missense, etc. caused by different types of environmental factors such as viruses, radiation, and whatever might cause transcription errors... Given the different environmental pressures, how do you explain it?

They can't be identical evolutionary paths if they are different populations with different genetics. So I think you're arguing for contradictory things there.

As for explaining it, I think all I need to do is say some mutations are more probable than others and there are similar selection pressures leading to these phenotypes being reasonably high probabilities. Why do I need more than that? I just don't see a problem because you've not shown that this is so improbable at all.

I think you miss the point of my critique. If it's not a single mutation, then unless you can calculate the paths and the probabilities of each path along with alternative paths you don't know how probable it is. Yet your critique rests upon a calculation that assumes (1) that the probabilities are independent and (2) the probabilities are flat. That is, as if it were a single mutation event. But that's simply the incorrect way to calculate the probabilities since the path each takes (mutation + selection) matters. I'm just critiquing the outline of probabilities you've presented. (I recognize you didn't do the calculation - but whomever you're quoting is treating them as random in a fashion they simply aren't)

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Calculation have been made by professionals, so until you see what factors they are including in their calculations, you really can't comment on their results either.

I can only go by what you've stated. And I'm not sure what you mean by professional. Was this calculation published in a peer reviewed prominent biology journal?

[Anijen]

8 hours ago, snowflake said:

 Do you really believe that a single cell organism with enough time was capable of evolving into the human race? 

This only took 9 months

Edited December 17, 2018 by Anijen

[pogi]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But God didn't leave it up to chance. After all domestication of animals is fully part of evolutionary processes and requires them to function. Yet the variety of dogs and other domesticated animals are not by chance.

So the issue isn't whether God would have to be involved producing a certain outcome. The question is what theological need is there to deny evolution in order to assert that as a conclusion. There simply is none. It's not needed since there are other ways for God to intervene.

So what you are saying is that one doesn't need to deny evolution to assert that God is somehow directing it, correct?  I don't deny that, however it sometimes nice to see evidence of his intervention.  I see this as potential evidence.  It is not needed for belief, but someday we will see the convergence of science and theology clearly.  God has to be in the presently invisible, or not understood, details or else he has no role in the observable universe. 

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Typically that organization is seen as the spirit creation. For Protestants there is no distinction between spiritual and physical creation. For Mormons where we have pre-mortal spirits there is.

 Yes, that is my point.  All things were created spiritually before they were created physically.  In other words, physical creation followed the blueprint of the spiritual creation.  There is order and organization.  Fishes, beasts of the field, all crawling things, etc. created spiritually before physically.  I also pointed out that our spirits resemble our physical bodies so physical creation is following a spiritual organization of creation. 

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

While environmental pressures can drive mutation my main argument is just that they are not all equally probable. Some mutations are much more likely than others. Really that's all I need for my argument.

No, that is not all you need for your argument. You don’t think these scientists and statisticians took that into account?   This was published in a peer reviewed journal and you think that is all that is needed to discredit these specialists?  That seems presumptuous. Or, perhaps you are only responding to my arguments, but either way you seem to distrust their conclusions without really understanding their methods.

To say that some mutations are “more likely” than others does not demonstrate that these specific mutations that we see in all of these examples of convergent evolution are more likely than others.  What info are you going on here to make that assumption?  We can hypothesize about such things, but what evidence do we have?  Secondly, to say that some mutations are more likely than others does not mean that they are probable, especially to see the same parallel mutations in two distant lineages with different environmental pressures.  “More likely” is a relative phrase - “more likely” can still be very unlikely.  Rolling snake eyes 5 times in a row is more likely than rolling snake eyes 10 times in a row, but it is still highly unlikely. 

You argument is based on the presumption that these parallel mutations are likely with no evidence or reason whatsoever.  All of the scientists publishing these results seem to be surprised...but I guess that is all just hype. 

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

And I'm not sure what you mean by professional. Was this calculation published in a peer reviewed prominent biology journal?

“Professional” meaning that they are “statisticians" from the University of Washington and UCLA. 

Here is the article and methods - yes, it was peer reviewed and published in a prominent journal:

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/44/E4736.full.pdf

Here is the article about the article with comments from the authors:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141021135020.htm

Edited December 18, 2018 by pogi