I provided the references that did just that and you chose to ignore them.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence For And Against Evolution
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
I provided the references that did just that and you chose to ignore them.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Interesting, can you quote behe saying that,?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Isn't that what you just claimed yourself? What do you think his claim that there would have to be multiple mutations at the same time means?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Why reinvent the wheel?
Rosa Rubicondior: How Creationists Lie To Us - Michael J. Behe
From that article, a quote of Ken Miller:
Behe obtains his probabilities by considering each mutation as an independent event, ruling out any role for cumulative selection, and requiring evolution to achieve an exact, predetermined result. Not only are each of these conditions unrealistic, but they do not apply even in the case of his chosen example. First, he overlooks the existence of chloroquine resistant strains of malaria lacking one of the mutations he claims to be essential (at position 220). This matters, because it shows that there are several mutational routes to effective drug resistance. Second, and more importantly, Behe waves away evidence suggesting that chloroquine resistance may be the result of sequential, not simultaneous, mutations.
[...]
Behe, incredibly, thinks he has determined the odds of a mutation "of the same complexity" occurring in the human line. He hasn’t. What he has actually done is to determine the odds of these two exact mutations occurring simultaneously at precisely the same position in exactly the same gene in a single individual. He then leads his unsuspecting readers to believe that this spurious calculation is a hard and fast statistical barrier to the accumulation of enough variation to drive darwinian evolution.
It would be difficult to imagine a more breathtaking abuse of statistical genetics.
Kenneth R. Miller - Falling over the edge (a review of Behe's book The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism); Nature 447, 1055-1056 (28 June 2007) | doi:10.1038/4471055a. (behind a paywall)
[...]
Behe, incredibly, thinks he has determined the odds of a mutation "of the same complexity" occurring in the human line. He hasn’t. What he has actually done is to determine the odds of these two exact mutations occurring simultaneously at precisely the same position in exactly the same gene in a single individual. He then leads his unsuspecting readers to believe that this spurious calculation is a hard and fast statistical barrier to the accumulation of enough variation to drive darwinian evolution.
It would be difficult to imagine a more breathtaking abuse of statistical genetics.
Kenneth R. Miller - Falling over the edge (a review of Behe's book The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism); Nature 447, 1055-1056 (28 June 2007) | doi:10.1038/4471055a. (behind a paywall)
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Wait - I thought this was supposed to be you exonerating Behe?
On what basis was it extremely optimistic and optimal?
Are you aware the ReMine and some other YECs put out a computer program a few years ago, claiming it was the best and most accurate program available to model population genetics? And in their best and most accurate program, setting beneficial mutations to 100% and bad mutations to 0% STILL produced extinction? Seems a little rigged, to me. Oh - and the coup de grace - after it had been trashed by reviewers for months, they had to 'totally update' their best and most accurate program.
And now, they do not even offer it for use any more.
One has to wonder why... But back to the fantasy...
Great!
Do they estimate how many they think we should have accumulated? I've read both ReMine's book and Batten's essay - and no, no they do not even offer a guess.
From the essay you have previously linked to, here is what we see from Batten, bolding mine:
Haldane calculated that no more than 1,667 beneficial substitutions could have occurred in the supposed 10 million years since the last common ancestor of apes and humans. This is a mere one substitution per 300 generations, on average. The origin of all that makes us uniquely human has to be explained within this limit.
I have already pointed out this lie - Haldane did not come up with such numbers, that was ReMine strictly applying Haldane's model under a given set of parameters.
Since the publication of ReMine’s book, there has been no serious dispute that Haldane’s analysis (if correct) places a 1,667 limit, a severe limit, on human evolution. ReMine claims that Haldane’s dilemma has never been solved, but has rather been confused, garbled and prematurely brushed aside....
See? They just produce a number, and imply that it is not enough.
But they do not even try to say how much it should be, or had to have been.
Because that destroys their argument.
THAT is why ReMine's rants are nonsense. He just wants to fool the rubes with his numbers.
First, I would say I really don't know, so it is a silly question. I will say, however, that from what I know of the relationship between genotype and phenotype, and the examples I am aware of showing that single point mutations or insertions can alter phenotype, I do not at all think that more than 500,000 were needed, and I think the 'needed' number is potentially much, much much smaller.
And if we go by actual allelic comparisons between chimps and humans, who evidence shows shared the most recent common ancestor of the primates, we see:
How many benefical mutations? While the majority of variation is neutral, the question remains exactly how much variation is due to selection, and does it break Haldane’s “speed limit”. Recent comparisons of Human and Chimp genomes, using the Macaque as an out group, have given us a good idea of how many genes have been fixed since the last common ancestor of chimps and humans (Bakewell, 2007).
154
Actually, that’s 154 of 13,888 genes. Given that we have around 22,000 genes [3] in our genome (http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/index.html), then if the same percentage of beneficial mutations holds for the rest of the genome, no more than 238 fixed beneficial mutations is what separates us from the last common ancestor of chimps and humans.
You are probably sitting there astonished that we are around 240 genes away from our last common ancestor with the chimp and saying “this can’t be right”[4] (how much did the guess you wrote down differ from the real thing?). However, this result agrees with previous estimates of the number of positively selected genes (Arbiza, 2006, Yu 2006). You can argue until the cows come home about whether you can get around Haldane’s assumptions using truncation selection, soft selection or whatever, the plain fact is that humans and the last common ancestor of humans and chimps are separated by far fewer fixed beneficial mutations than even Haldane’s limit allows.
Now, it’s likely that the above values is an underestimate, and the some weakly selected genes have been missed, but it is in accord with previous studies using smaller gene sets (Arbiza, 2006, Yu 2006). Even if you say we missed half of the genes that underwent selection (very unlikely), the number of beneficial genes fixed by natural selection would be around 480, and the real number is certainly less (Arbiza, 2006).
Until your heroes can provide some concrete hypotheses as to how many they believe would have been needed, and these hypotheses are supported with data, then you can carry on about 500,000 all you want and it will be just howling at the moon.154
Actually, that’s 154 of 13,888 genes. Given that we have around 22,000 genes [3] in our genome (http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/index.html), then if the same percentage of beneficial mutations holds for the rest of the genome, no more than 238 fixed beneficial mutations is what separates us from the last common ancestor of chimps and humans.
You are probably sitting there astonished that we are around 240 genes away from our last common ancestor with the chimp and saying “this can’t be right”[4] (how much did the guess you wrote down differ from the real thing?). However, this result agrees with previous estimates of the number of positively selected genes (Arbiza, 2006, Yu 2006). You can argue until the cows come home about whether you can get around Haldane’s assumptions using truncation selection, soft selection or whatever, the plain fact is that humans and the last common ancestor of humans and chimps are separated by far fewer fixed beneficial mutations than even Haldane’s limit allows.
Now, it’s likely that the above values is an underestimate, and the some weakly selected genes have been missed, but it is in accord with previous studies using smaller gene sets (Arbiza, 2006, Yu 2006). Even if you say we missed half of the genes that underwent selection (very unlikely), the number of beneficial genes fixed by natural selection would be around 480, and the real number is certainly less (Arbiza, 2006).
How do indels make the problem 'worst'?
I already explained to you that indels are one-time events - did you ignore that? Or not understand it?
And I have already shown that your numbers are 100% irrelevant given the date we do have.
But I will indulge you.
Why do you keep writing things like that?
I have indicated in at least 3 replies to you that I am NOT a selectionist.
Do you not pay attention to what you are replying to, or do you not care that your replies make you look lazy and uninformed?
Thank goodness!
It is awesome that I can ignore ReMine's folly because I am not a selectionist. Thanks!
Yes.
Free at last!
I think you are just looking for an out, to be honest.
ReMine's argument is nonsense.
As I have already shown you, not all population geneticists agreed with Haldane in the first place.
ReMine and Batten only quote the ones who think it had merit, but even they do not think Haldane was entirely correct.
Professional YECs and sundry egotists (like ReMine - that guy is the worst! He's been caught on several occasions using sock puppets to heap praise on himself on various listservs and forums... jerk...) just like to keep their lies and desperation alive by only showing part of the picture to their target audience.
Last edited:
tas8831
Well-Known Member
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That nonsense has been debunked a long time ago, many times over.
I'm not even going to bother explaining it. Just google "irreducible complexity debunked" and you'll get dozens of links refuting it in multiple ways.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I'ld compare the letter sequences to known human languages.
That's how I determine artificial design: by contrasting it to known design and / or known natural things.
It didn't pass the test.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Mutations are random (with respect to fitness).
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
This is the equivalent of first doing a gigantic gish gallop and then requesting refutation, implying that if it doesn't come, the stuff presented in the gish gallop is correct by default.
Let's flip the question...
If Batten's stuff has any kind of merrit, then why is it only featured on creationist propaganda sites instead of being publish in relevant scientific journals?
Why isn't this model that supposedly turns evolutionary biology and genetics on its head not featured in just about every scientific journal?
See, a religious internet forum is not the place to submit such models for acceptance... the scientific community is.
The mere fact that it is being presented exclusively on religious forums and religious websites and in creationist arguments, is a clear hint as to what it really is... And valid science isn't it.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
False.
Many, if not the majority, will also be neutral.
5 million years.
Let's take an average generation time of 20 years (which is a lot, imo).
That gives us 250.000 generations
A mutation rate of ~50
That gives us 12.500.000 mutations when assuming a population size of a single breeding pair every generation.
In reality, population sizes will varry from thousands to millions.
A single generation of 1 million individuals at a mutation rate of 50 per individual, gives us 50 million mutations in a single generation. Not all of those will achive fixation obviously.
But you get the idea.
You are again ignoring the fact that the majority of mutations are neutral.
Well, you're assuming that ONLY beneficial mutations survive. That's just false.
YOU have 50-ish mutations that you will pass on to your off spring.
They will add their own mutations, which they will also pass on, together with those they inherited from you.
I'm not knowledgable enough to do the math, nore do I think it is necessary.
The mere fact that you downright ignore neutral mutations, already shows your argument to be invalid.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Likely so. The car would show clear signs of manufacturing. Like the use of materials that simply don't occur in nature and which have to be fabricated.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
False analogy.
Free will is an attribute of demonstrably existing entities.
While a god is claimed to be an external entity that exists independently of humans.
That's not what he said.
When one formulates an argument that god created life, then that argument assumes that god exists.
That god created life is not an argument for the existance of god. It's an argument for the origin of life. And it tries to attribute that origin to a god that is assumed to exist.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The earth exists. It is made of rock.
When you date rocks, you're dating the earth.
Unless it's a space rock. Which can be older then the earth.
no circularity there
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You'ld just be asserting the causal chain. You'ld have to demonstrate it instead.
Interesting article from the legitimate science perspective. More to follow . . .
Misuse of probability by “creation scientists” « Math Drudge
Misuse of probability by “creation scientists”
By David H Bailey, on August 13th, 2009
It often comes as a shock to professional scientists to learn that a large fraction of the public rejects much if not all of the evolutionary framework of modern geology and biology. For example, in a recent poll, 44% of Americans surveyed agreed that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years [Gallup]. Another indication of the popularity of this worldview, often termed “young-earth creationism”, is the fact that over 700,000 Americans have attended the “Creation Museum” near Cincinnati, Ohio since its opening in 1977. Displays at the museum insist the world was created in the past 10,000 years, and depict, for instance, dinosaurs co-existing with prehistoric humans.
A related development is the recent emergence of the “intelligent design” (ID) movement, which generally acknowledges the old-earth framework, but still insists that evolution can only produce minor changes within established “kinds” (species), which “kinds” were individually created by an intelligent Designer. Both movements have a dedicated cadre of writers, including at least some with respectable academic credentials, who generate books, articles and Internet posts criticizing conventional scientific research and asserting that scientific evidence confirms their point of view.
Both traditional creationists and ID scholars have invoked probability theory in criticisms of evolution. One typical argument goes like this: the human alpha globin molecule, which plays a key oxygen transfer function, is a protein chain based on a sequence of 141 amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids common in living systems, so the number of potential chains of length 141 is 20^(141), which is roughly 10^(183). This figure is so enormous, so these writers argue, that even after billions of years of random molecular trials, no alpha globin protein molecule would ever appear [Foster, pg. 79-83; Hoyle, pg. 1-20; Lennox, pg. 163-173].
But the above argument fails to note that most of the 141 amino acids can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function. When we revise the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function, we obtain 10^(33) fundamentally different chains, a huge figure but vastly smaller than 10^(183), and small enough to neutralize the probability-based argument against evolution [Bailey].
More importantly, this and almost all similar probability-based arguments against evolution suffer from the fallacy of presuming that biological structures such as alpha globin arise by a single all-or-nothing random trial. Instead, available evidence suggests that alpha globin and other proteins arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. Probability calculations such as the above, which do not take into account the process by which the structure came to be, are not meaningful and can easily mislead [Musgrave].
Along this line, consider snowflakes. Bentley and Humphrey’s book Snow Crystals [Bentley] includes over 2000 high-resolution black-and-white photos of real snowflakes, each with intricate yet highly regular patterns (a few of the Bentley-Humphrey photos are posted at Online article). The chances that one particular structure, with striking near-perfect 6-way symmetry, can form “at random” can be calculated as roughly one part in 10^(2500). Does this astoundingly small probability figure constitute proof that individual snowflakes have been intelligently designed? Obviously not. The fallacy, once again, is presuming a sudden, all-at-once random formation. Instead, snowflakes, like biological organisms, are formed as the product of a series of steps, acting under natural laws with some element of chance.
ID scholar William Dembski invokes probability and information theory (the mathematical theory of information content in data) in arguments against Darwinism. But knowledgeable scholars who have examined Dembski’s works are not persuaded and have been sharply critical. Mathematician Jeffrey Shallit (a colleague of the present bloggers) and biologist Wesley Elsberry conclude that Dembski’s notion of “complex specified information” is incoherent and unworkable [Shallit]. Biologist Gert Korthof, in a review of Dembski’s book Intelligent Design, concludes that Dembski’s analysis cannot be meaningfully applied to DNA [Korthof]. Mathematician Richard Wein, in a review of Dembski’s book No Free Lunch, characterizes it as “pseudoscientific rhetoric” [Wein].
One central issue in this debate is the question of evolutionary novelty. The consensus of modern scientific research is that mutation and natural selection together can produce novel, beneficial features in biological systems. Scientists further postulate that this low-level novelty extends to entire populations, which can, over time (typically thousands of years), become entirely separate species. On the other hand, creationist and ID scholars have insisted that whereas minor changes may occur within an established kind, nothing fundamentally new can come through “random” evolution. For example, Dembski asserts that there is a “Law of Conservation of Information” that prohibits the generation of novel features [Dembski].
Ample and well-established experimental evidence supports the scientific view. For example, in a 1974 paper by biologists Barry Hall and Daniel Hartl, a gene was identified in the bacterium E. coli that is responsible for metabolizing lactose, using a complicated three-part process. They removed this gene, and then permitted the bacteria to multiply in a stressed environment containing lactose. Within 24 hours the bacteria had evolved a capability to utilize lactose, by means of a similar but distinct three-part biochemical pathway, involving two mutated genes [Hall; Miller, 1999, pg. 145-147].
In another interesting result along this line, Japanese biologists recently discovered a bacterial species that has adapted to thrive on nylon waste (which did not exist until the 20th century). It turns out that this bacterial species has undergone a “frame shift” mutation, where an extra base pair has been inserted into the bacteria’s DNA. This mutation significantly changed the bacteria’s biology, since a long series of amino acids were altered, but by remarkable chance this alteration endowed the bacteria with the facility to metabolize nylon, albeit not very efficiently [Negoro].
As a third example, scientists recently discovered that certain persons in an Italian community, all descended from a single individual several generations back, possess a genetic mutation that increases “good” cholesterol and provides an effective anti-oxidant, thus resulting in measurably improved cardiovascular health [Krotz]. Dozens of other examples could be cited.
In short, the probability arguments used by the creationist and ID movements, when analyzed carefully, are fallacious, and are simply countered by the observation that natural evolution, operating in the real world, does in fact produce novel features.
It is truly unfortunate that fundamentalist adherents of some of the world’s great religious movements feel it necessary to “prove” God by means of fallacious mathematical arguments. It is also unfortunate that the creationist and ID communities have been so stubborn to accept the overwhelming consensus of modern science, namely that the world is governed by elegant and comprehensible physical laws. But the scientific and mathematical communities are also at fault in failing to better educate the public as to both the reality of evolution and the failings of creationist/ID scholarship.
References:
- [Bailey] David H. Bailey, “Evolution and Probability,” Report of the National Center for Science Education, vol. 20 (2000), no. 4, also available from Online article.
- [Bentley] W. A. Bentley and W. J. Humphreys, Snow Crystals, Dover Publications, New York, 1962.
- [Dembski]William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1999.
- [Foster]David Foster, The Philosophical Scientists, Marboro Books, New York, 1991.
- [Gallup] Gallup Poll, 8-11 May 2008, available at Online article.
- [Hall] Barry G. Hall and Daniel L. Hartl, “Regulation of Newly Evolved Enzymes,” Genetics, vol. 76 (1974), pg. 391-400.
- [Hoyle] Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism, J. M. Dent and Sons, London, 1981.
- [Korthof] Gert Korthof, “On the Origin of Information by Means of Intelligent Design: A Review of William Dembski’s Intelligent Design,” available at Online article.
- [Kotz] Dan Krotz, “The Milano Mutation: A Rare Protein Mutation Offers New Hope for Heart Disease Patients,” available at Online article.
- [Lennox ]John C. Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?, Lion UK, 2009.
- [Miller] Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, HarperCollins, New York, 1999.
- [Musgrave] Ian Musgrave, “Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations,” 1998, available at Online article.
- [Negoro] S. Negoro, K. Kato, K. Fujiyama and H. Okada, “The Nylon Oligomer Biodegradation System of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas,” Biodegradation, vol. 5 (1994), pg. 185-194.
- [Shallit] Jeffrey Shallit and Wesley Elsberry, “Playing Games with Probability: Dembski’s Complex Specified Information,” in Matt Young and Taner Edis, ed., Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism, Rutgers University Press, Piscataway, NJ, 2004, pg. 121-138.
- [Wein] Richard Wein, “Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates: A Critique of William Dembski’s Book No Free Lunch,” available at Online article.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
@leroy
Dude - still waiting for you to tell me which of these papers was 'supporting selectionism' like you claimed here:
The tested methodology:
Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
[...]
======================
Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592
Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
[...]
==================================
Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677
Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies
[...]
We can hereby CONCLUDE that the results of an application of those methods have merit.
Application of the tested methodology:
Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo
[...]
Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny
[...]
A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
[...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:
This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.
Dude - still waiting for you to tell me which of these papers was 'supporting selectionism' like you claimed here:
The tested methodology:
Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
[...]
======================
Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592
Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
[...]
==================================
Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677
Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies
[...]
We can hereby CONCLUDE that the results of an application of those methods have merit.
Application of the tested methodology:
Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo
[...]
Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny
[...]
A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
[...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:
This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.
What Behe did was calculate the whole sequence of the cause and effects of mutations as one random process, which is an unethical use statistics and probability described in summary as irreducible complexity. First the Laws of nature and the processes of nature are not random processes. Only individual cause and effect events can be considered random within the possible range of outcomes, which do not determine the outcome of the chain of cause and effect events. Natural laws and natural processes determine outcome of chain of cause and effect events such as mutations.
This a good refutation of Behe's math and others in the ID movement.
This nothing new misusing statistics and probability by ID and other Creationists is the same misuse is used concerning evolution. Note Bold, and the rest of the article is worth the read. Failure to consider that nature acts by a series of cause and effect outcomes constrained by Laws of Nature is the primary unethical misuse of statistics and probability,
My academic background is heavy in statistics, and Creationists cut and past the statistist
Source: Misuse of probability by “creation scientists” « Math Drudge
Both traditional creationists and ID scholars have invoked probability theory in criticisms of evolution. One typical argument goes like this: the human alpha globin molecule, which plays a key oxygen transfer function, is a protein chain based on a sequence of 141 amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids common in living systems, so the number of potential chains of length 141 is 20^(141), which is roughly 10^(183). This figure is so enormous, so these writers argue, that even after billions of years of random molecular trials, no alpha globin protein molecule would ever appear [Foster, pg. 79-83; Hoyle, pg. 1-20; Lennox, pg. 163-173].
But the above argument fails to note that most of the 141 amino acids can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function. When we revise the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function, we obtain 10^(33) fundamentally different chains, a huge figure but vastly smaller than 10^(183), and small enough to neutralize the probability-based argument against evolution [Bailey].
More importantly, this and almost all similar probability-based arguments against evolution suffer from the fallacy of presuming that biological structures such as alpha globin arise by a single all-or-nothing random trial. Instead, available evidence suggests that alpha globin and other proteins arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. Probability calculations such as the above, which do not take into account the process by which the structure came to be, are not meaningful and can easily mislead [Musgrave].
Along this line, consider snowflakes. Bentley and Humphrey’s book Snow Crystals [Bentley] includes over 2000 high-resolution black-and-white photos of real snowflakes, each with intricate yet highly regular patterns (a few of the Bentley-Humphrey photos are posted at Online article). The chances that one particular structure, with striking near-perfect 6-way symmetry, can form “at random” can be calculated as roughly one part in 10^(2500). Does this astoundingly small probability figure constitute proof that individual snowflakes have been intelligently designed? Obviously not. The fallacy, once again, is presuming a sudden, all-at-once random formation. Instead, snowflakes, like biological organisms, are formed as the product of a series of steps, acting under natural laws with some element of chance.
ID scholar William Dembski invokes probability and information theory (the mathematical theory of information content in data) in arguments against Darwinism. But knowledgeable scholars who have examined Dembski’s works are not persuaded and have been sharply critical. Mathematician Jeffrey Shallit (a colleague of the present bloggers) and biologist Wesley Elsberry conclude that Dembski’s notion of “complex specified information” is incoherent and unworkable [Shallit]. Biologist Gert Korthof, in a review of Dembski’s book Intelligent Design, concludes that Dembski’s analysis cannot be meaningfully applied to DNA [Korthof]. Mathematician Richard Wein, in a review of Dembski’s book No Free Lunch, characterizes it as “pseudoscientific rhetoric”
© Copyright Original Source
Last edited: