Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne

[Revoltingest]

There is no single hand in the casino analogy, millions of hands are dealt, and yet we'd still be suspicious of 3 royal flushes in a row, not because it's less probable, but because the pay-off provides a motive, a better explanation

This is an illusory challenge.
For an observer who happens to be present for an unlikely event, it would seem impossibly lucky.
But consider the lottery.
The odds that any one person will win the $100 million jackpot are vanishingly small.
Yet there is a 100% probability that someone will win.
And that someone will wonder what he did to inspire the gods to grant him the impossible, ie, it cannot be mere chance.

Evolution does need to deal a very lucky single winning hand for every significant design improvement, millions of them, to produce one single sentient being- the only means we know of by which the universe can contemplate itself.

Evolution does have very large populations which reproduce over lengthy periods of time.

Even most evolutionist acknowledge an extraordinary degree of 'lucky coincidences' for humanity to appear. Staggeringly improbable I think would be a better description
The millions of other species alone tell us that this is not the sort of thing evolution tends to spontaneously achieve.

I don't see it as lucky.
It's just what happened.
Any number of other scenarios could've happened, & they'd all be equally "lucky".

chance is not impossible, I just think there are less improbable explanations
ten heads in a row.. gets into semantics here
each time as in individually is 50/50
each as in every time in sequence
2^10 or 1024 to 1

This is wrong because you addressed only the special case of it occurring in 10 trials.
You didn't ask me how many trials there were.
The general case is for n trials.
The probability of it increases, approaching 1 for large values of n.

This little example illustrates how probability is usually more complex than most people think.
They typically look at a narrow straw man of a problem, & fail to see the larger picture.

 

[Ouroboros]

This analogy doesn't apply.
The odds against winning a particular hand in cards can be calculated, & it would be small for a single trial.
But evolution works differently.
There is no single hand.....there are numerous mutations in numerous individuals over numerous years.
No single one need have the beneficial genetic mutation.
So long as a few or even one have it, it can be passed on, with greatly increased probability compared to a single individual's originating it..

Also, there are many different ways of winning the hand in evolutionary card games. Small, to hide. Big, to scare. Fast, to catch. Slow, to play dead. And so on. Also, the winning hands change over time depending on environment. It's like having a card game where any hand could potentially be the highest, depending on what the dealer decides (nature, environment).

Then the frequency of this mutation increases.
Moreover, there are possibly different gene mutations which can yield the same result.

Yes, that too. And many dormant genes from the past that can come active again.

 

[Revoltingest]

Also, there are many different ways of winning the hand in evolutionary card games. Small, to hide. Big, to scare. Fast, to catch. Slow, to play dead. And so on. Also, the winning hands change over time depending on environment. It's like having a card game where any hand could potentially be the highest, depending on what the dealer decides (nature, environment).
Yes, that too. And many dormant genes from the past that can come active again.

Aye, therein lies the problem of saying evolution is this single event.
It's the result of innumerable events, probably most of which we don't even envision.

 

[Ouroboros]

Aye, therein lies the problem of saying evolution is this single event.
It's the result of innumerable events, probably most of which we don't even envision.

Yup. And I think there's been some discoveries that some (or many?) genetic codes are introduced by infections. The mitochondrial DNA is an example of that (if I understand it right).

 

[Revoltingest]

Yup. And I think there's been some discoveries that some (or many?) genetic codes are introduced by infections. The mitochondrial DNA is an example of that (if I understand it right).

I avoid the more nuts & bolts aspects of genetics, so I can't confirm that.
But yes, the ways in which mutations can happen are more varied & complex than I learned in grade school!

 

[Valjean]

well quite, evolution, puts all the millions of significant design improvements down to chance- chance mutation.

Like the 3 royal flushes, it's not technically impossible to be luck, but the infinitesimally low odds are a very low bar to jump over for better explanations

Guy, you're not reading the responses and you seem to be ignoring how evolution works. Evolution does not put everything down to chance, evolution actively selects. The card hands aren't relevant.

In evolution every new 'creation' isn't a fresh hand. Unlike cards, evolution locks in useful changes, so your royal flush is more a result of holding onto one hand permanently while you pick which cards to hold and which to discard each of the endless times the cards are dealt.

Anyone could create any hand he wanted if he were offered a new, random card every few seconds.

what vast incremental record is this?

All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt

Where are you getting your information? Again, you're ignoring previous posts:

2. You think we’ve never found a transitional fossil.

This claim is demonstrably false, and its use by those who claim to serve the Lord through whom came grace and truth is reprehensible. Strong language, I know, but Christians are explicitly commanded not to lie to each other, so this is inexcusable. We have found fossil series that clearly illustrate the transitions of dozens of major features in various lines. We have found “fishapods” and “frogamanders” and walking whales and feathered dinosaurs and half-shelled turtles. We have often and repeatedly found exactly what the theory of evolution predicted we would find, in the time period in which the theory predicted we would find it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is an illusory challenge.
For an observer who happens to be present for an unlikely event, it would seem impossibly lucky.
But consider the lottery.
The odds that any one person will win the $100 million jackpot are vanishingly small.
Yet there is a 100% probability that someone will win.
And that someone will wonder what he did to inspire the gods to grant him the impossible, ie, it cannot be mere chance.

Evolution does have very large populations which reproduce over lengthy periods of time.

I don't see it as lucky.
It's just what happened.
Any number of other scenarios could've happened, & they'd all be equally "lucky".

Again any sequence of 50 poker cards could be dealt, and be just as improbable as 10 royal flushes, but not as 'lucky' in their consequence- and we would obviously be right to suspect cheating
As we would if the same guy won the lottery 10 times and ran off with the girl who loads the balls, even though this is perfectly possible to be coincidence

Similarly most would consider us enjoying life here on Earth, as more 'lucky' than the infinite number of dark cold lifeless blobs that would result from a different and equally improbable hand of universal constants

' it may be that the origin of life is not the only major gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck... ': Dawkins
The reason we suspect ID v chance in the 10 royal flushes, is not that the odds of chance were any less, but that the odds of cheating are higher.

As you say, odds can be more complex than we intuitively think

It is fallacy to look at only the equal chance of odds- and call everything equally improbable and hence unsuspicious- without considering the other side of the equation, the odds of another explanation.

i.e. take 100 die rolls (and it's not a trick question- when I say 100 die rolls, I mean 100 die rolls, no more no less!)

If it comes up 6 every time, that's no more improbable than any other sequence. But we both know its not luck, because there is a better explanation

 

[Revoltingest]

Again any sequence of 50 poker cards could be dealt, and be just as improbable as 10 royal flushes, but not as 'lucky' in their consequence- and we would obviously be right to suspect cheating
As we would if the same guy won the lottery 10 times and ran off with the girl who loads the balls, even though this is perfectly possible to be coincidence

Since evolution lacks girls with balls, your analogy doesn't apply.

Hmmm.....there's something odd about that sentence, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Similarly most would consider us enjoying life here on Earth, as more 'lucky' than the infinite number of dark cold lifeless blobs that would result from a different and equally improbable hand of universal constants

Most people think Obama is a great president, but this doesn't make it true.

' it may be that the origin of life is not the only major gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck... ': Dawkins
The reason we suspect ID v chance in the 10 royal flushes, is not that the odds of chance were any less, but that the odds of cheating are higher.
As you say, odds can be more complex than we intuitively think

The origin of life is something which is so difficult & multi-faceted a research project,
boatloads of PhDs will be on that gravy train for eons. Some progress has been made.

It is fallacy to look at only the equal chance of odds- and call everything equally improbable and hence unsuspicious- without considering the other side of the equation, the odds of another explanation.

That would be a fallacy.
Glad I didn't make it!

i.e. take 100 die rolls (and it's not a trick question- when I say 100 die rolls, I mean 100 die rolls, no more no less!)
If it comes up 6 every time, that's no more improbable than any other sequence. But we both know its not luck, because there is a better explanation

If dice had genes & sex, you might be able to craft an illuminating analogy from them.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Guy, you're not reading the responses and you seem to be ignoring how evolution works. Evolution does not put everything down to chance, evolution actively selects. The card hands aren't relevant.

In evolution every new 'creation' isn't a fresh hand. Unlike cards, evolution locks in useful changes, so your royal flush is more a result of holding onto one hand permanently while you pick which cards to hold and which to discard each of the endless times the cards are dealt.

Anyone could create any hand he wanted if he were offered a new, random card every few seconds.

Where are you getting your information? Again, you're ignoring previous posts:

selects what? where do the significant design improvements come from to select? those are the winning hands,


evolution cannot retain individual cards - based on foreseeing the potential of building a winning hand sometime in the future!

But certainly a person, an intelligent mind, could create any hand he wanted with will, purpose, a design, plan in mind- I would agree! That's kinda the point

 

[Valjean]

selects what? where do the significant design improvements come from to select? those are the winning hands,


evolution cannot retain individual cards - based on foreseeing the potential of building a winning hand sometime in the future!

But certainly a person, an intelligent mind, could create any hand he wanted with will, purpose, a design, plan in mind- I would agree! That's kinda the point

But natural selection doesn't need a mind or intention to select, any more than a sieve consciously selects for size.
Do you understand how the process works?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_14

 

[Parsimony]

so even granted a random generator capable of producing the result, and even in a situation that goes out of it's way to prohibit cheating.. we agree ID still has a superior power of explanation over chance.

Because the odds are so low, that even the slightest possibility of cheating easily becomes the more probable explanation right?

For a card game, yes, because the odds can be calculated.

So too with the universe, except that we know of no such random dealer and no such security system that seeks to prevent universes being designed.
What do you think the odds are, of a randomly composed set of mathematical algorithms - accidentally developing it's own consciousness to contemplate itself with? impossible to calculate, but clearly infinitesimally low

This is not necessarily so. You're assuming that the laws of the Universe being random is the one alternative to design, when it isn't.

practically infinitely low- according to Hawking- hence the number of hypothetical multiverses required to fluke this one into existence.

Hawking's opinion. He doesn't know the odds of the Universe being the way it is.

 

[metis]

What are the odds of the universe being the way it is?

1:1

It happened.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But natural selection doesn't need a mind or intention to select, any more than a sieve consciously selects for size.
Do you understand how the process works?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_14

Again, select what?

You said any person could assemble any hand they wanted if they kept getting fed cards. I agree because the cards are assembled according to a predestined plan- but take away the intention;

How does blind chance assemble it's winning hand (a significant design improvement) to select for play - ( to be inserted into the gene pool) without a plan? without foresight into what will make a significant winning hand?

Where are you getting your information?

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." Stephen J Gould

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record" Dawkins

"One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms."(Brouwer, A., "General Paleontology

"There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles

 

[Sonofason]

The evolutionist Jerry Coyne has written a book called "Why evolution is true". He explains in the book evolution is not observable.

If you are expecting a book with the title, "Why Evolution is True" to contain proof for the theory of evolution, you will be disappointed. The book is just a list of excuses why evolutionists can’t prove evolution is true.

Evolution can not be proven becuase nobody has ever seen it happening! Science is meant to be based on direct observation but evolutionists like Jerry Coyne believes in things they can not see.

"Given the gradual pace of evolution, it’s unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one “type” of plant or animal into another—so-called macroevolution—within a human lifetime." - Coyne

The Bible says it best. "God created every living creature after their kind." Evolution is a product of man made words. The concept of evolution, with regard to species evolving into new species is not quite accurate. If it is at all accurate, it is accurate only because human beings have defined the terms and set the limits of classification for what each particular species is. In truth, creatures simply evolve. They do not evolve into a new kind of creature, unless someone steps in and draws lines with regard to the specific characteristics that individual creatures might have, forcing each individual creature into a narrowly defined human classification system. Without human beings, creatures simply evolve from generation to generation. They do not evolve into new species. The characteristics of the offspring of creatures change over time, and new creatures come into existence with slight variation of characteristics from their ancestors. And God saw that it was good.

God created creatures that evolve from generation to generation. We can know evolution is true, because God said it was true. And science verifies it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

They do not evolve into new species. The characteristics of the offspring of creatures change over time, and new creatures come into existence with slight variation of characteristics from their ancestors. And God saw that it was good.

What does 'species' constitute to you?

 

[Nietzsche]

Again, select what?

You said any person could assemble any hand they wanted if they kept getting fed cards. I agree because the cards are assembled according to a predestined plan- but take away the intention;

How does blind chance assemble it's winning hand (a significant design improvement) to select for play - ( to be inserted into the gene pool) without a plan? without foresight into what will make a significant winning hand?

Because it's not "blind" in the sense there's no direction at all. There is. It's just this direction isn't at the greater level. It's on the individual level. An animal that is better-suited to survive because of a mutation will generally survive longer and breed more than its baseline counterparts, and this mutation will be propagated at a rate greater than the baseline, until the mutation becomes the new baseline. Stack that for eons and you have evolution.

 

[Sonofason]

What does 'species' constitute to you?

a man made concept, devised to compartmentalize a non-compartmentalized process.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

a man made concept, devised to compartmentalize a non-compartmentalized process.

Then what does 'they do not evolve into new species' mean???

 

[Sonofason]

Then what does 'they do not evolve into new species' mean???

It means that I do not accept the term species as a legitimate real existing entity. Nothing evolves into something that doesn't exist from the Darwinian evolutionary perspective.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I understand your basic premise, but I'm still finding something confusing.

If species doesn't exist, but evolution does, then over time, animals (for example) change, right?

Species is only a way of dividing the animal kingdom (for example) into groupings for explanatory purposes, etc, right?

So, that being the case...why couldn't something change from one species to another? it all depends on how we define species. Right?