S
Sideline
Guest
Oops. My bad.
- Status
S
Sideline
Guest
He has made a “back of the envelope” calculation about the number of changes and come up with 50,000. Of course, he doesn’t tell us how.
Okay, I’m going to make a back of the envelope calculation. I come up with only 12,000 changes needed. So he’s off by at least 38,000.
Wouldn’t you just love to know how either of us came up with our calculations? Wouldn’t that be super helpful? How can you possibly evaluate either of our claims without seeing the data we derived our calculations from?
One another note, I am highly suspicious of a mathematician that subtracted 2 from 50,000 and got the wrong answer.
B
buffalo
Guest
He has continuously been asking how many morphological changes would it take? He asked evolutionists in debate. They wouldn’t answer. I am not sure where he came up with the 50,000.
But this came right from a famous evolutionist:
Stuart Kaufmann - “”Well there’s 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there’s 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that’s 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There’s only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe. Are you stunned?”
S
Sideline
Guest
Yes. He is picking a question that he knows that biologists can not answer. He is then saying that this is an extremely important question. Why is it an important question? Probably because he knows that biologists don’t have an answer.
Why don’t they have an answer? How many steps would it take you to walk to my house Vancouver, BC? Don’t know? Oh come on, you should be able to guess shouldn’t you?
You have some concept of how long an average step is, you can google the distance. How can you not know the number of steps?
Perhaps you can’t tell me because it depends, at least somewhat, on the route? Perhaps it depends on whether it is possible to do it in one stretch or if you would have to find food and shelter on the way? Perhaps it depends on how tired you are?
The answer is you can’t answer. You can only give rough estimates. And that is actually a really simple question compared to how did a creature on land become a sea creature.
Perhaps you should research it. I could come up with several reasons that this is silly. For instance, “How can we possibly say that someone travelled from Toronto to Vancouver when all we have is a picture of them holding a newspaper in Toronto and holding a newspaper in Vancouver. That’s only 2 points out of roughly 50,000. Where are the other 49,998?” But then you would just have to take my word for it.
Seriously, look into how we know that whales are descended from sea creatures. Find out what the scientists say, and then decide for yourself if Dr. Berlinski’s arguments are at all relevant.
S
Sideline
Guest
What do you think that this quote means?
I mean, how does it fit into to the conversation we are having?
R
rossum
Guest
Are you a mathematician? 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 = 200,000. That is a lot less than 2[sup]25000[/sup], the error is about 7,500 orders of magnitude. A reference to the original Stuart Kaufmann quote would help, since something has obviously got garbled in the transmission here.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Been there done that.
I am just really interested in the math and the odds.
Did you play the Dawkins game yet?
S
Sideline
Guest
What odds?
S
Sideline
Guest
S
Sideline
Guest
So, if you have done that, what do scientists claim as the main evidence that whales evolved from sea creatures? And does a hypothetical number of changes throw that into disrepute?
E
edwest2
Guest
I think any reasonable person looking at the numbers and adding in the variables of survival in a dynamic macro environment would agree, the odds are against evolution happening as written.
It is clear to me that the ongoing discussion here is not about science at all but simply about getting everyone to ‘just say yes to evolution.’ This is important due to the scientific-atheist link up in the past 30-40 years. It is obvious an Atheist-scientific Technocracy is the goal. God is just a word that is used in an attempt to make the theory easier to swallow for Christians.
There are still fossilized trees that pass through many strata. There are still man-made depictions of dinosaurs. Viruses don’t sprout arms and legs, but they do have built-in defensive measures.
Peace,
Ed
It is clear to me that the ongoing discussion here is not about science at all but simply about getting everyone to ‘just say yes to evolution.’ This is important due to the scientific-atheist link up in the past 30-40 years. It is obvious an Atheist-scientific Technocracy is the goal. God is just a word that is used in an attempt to make the theory easier to swallow for Christians.
There are still fossilized trees that pass through many strata. There are still man-made depictions of dinosaurs. Viruses don’t sprout arms and legs, but they do have built-in defensive measures.
Peace,
Ed
S
Sideline
Guest
The quote actually said, “2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times”.
Which is also wrong, but not as wrong as you suggested. Just thought I’d point that out for fairness sake.
H
hecd2
Guest
It’s complete gibberish but that’s what you expect from a Mz Suzan Mazur interview. What Kaufmann said has obviously been misquoted.
The correct number is 2^25,000, but I can’t for the life of me understand why buffalo keeps quoting this - he has quoted it in several threads but I have never understood what point he is trying to make. Perhaps he doesn’t understand either.
(Kaufmann’s point, of course, is that 25,000 genes in humans, although fewer than biologists expected, still provides the basis for almost infinite complexity, even if we ignore the fact that they code for different proteins and we have a very simple model of them just being switched off or on.)
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
And your reason for saying that is what, exactly, other than Ed’s Personal Incredulity".
Ed, when are you going to answer these questions? We really want to know:
*______________________________________________
Explain how breathing the same atmosphere and living on the same earth leads to the same limb structure in the entire tetrapod clade (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals):
Humerus; radius and ulna; metacarpals; pentadactylous phalanges
Femur; tibia and fibula; metatarsals; pentadactylous phalanges
In particular explain pentadactyly. Five digits. Good luck.*
*Explain how breathing the same atmosphere and living on the same earth leads to the same dentition of 32 teeth with the same complement of incisors, canines, pre-molars and molars in all Old World (but not New World) monkeys, non-human apes, and humans. Oh - and fossil humans. But not dogs (42 teeth), cats (30 teeth), elephants (24), birds (none), mice (16), horses (36 - 44) Why does sharing the same atmosphere and gravity lead apes and humans to have the same dental pattern?
*Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Of course not. It’s complete garbage. Berlinski’s arguments are entirely spurious and they are not even original. They are reminiscent of that other creationist, Lee Spetner, who did “back of the envelope” calculations of the number of mutations needed for a “typical” speciation to try to prove the same thing. He failed.
Does anyone remember Lee Spetner?
Alec
evolutionpages.com
S
Sideline
Guest
Either that or he took a mental nap while trying to explain how 2^25000 works. Either way…
I did ask that very question. Here’s what I’m guessing, I think he might be claiming that this quote suggests that there aren’t enough particles in the universe to do what evolution claims it does.
It clearly doesn’t say that.
To be fair though, it isn’t quite that simple. Many, many combinations of those switches being turned off or on wouldn’t lead to a viable offspring. For instance, a human child that has the “only one head” gene switched off is going to have a serious disadvantage.
Not that I’m suggesting that humans are running short on variation.
H
hecd2
Guest
Of course it’s not that simple, and in the interview Kaufmann points out that it’s not that simple (I’m assuming you’re tongue in cheek with regard to the only-one-head gene, or as it would be called by biologists, polycephaly). But the point that 25,000 genes is more than sufficient to explain the complex anatomy and physiology of humans stands, especially when they are organised in networks with non-coding promoters and switches.
None of this explains why buffalo keeps referring to this Kaufmann a la Mazur quote.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
S
Sideline
Guest
I haven’t been able to find the original article. It wasn’t clear from your last post that it wasn’t that simple. Since there seems to be scores of people finding fault with every word out of every evolutionist, I thought it was wise to suggest that it wasn’t that simple.
Sorry… I guess I shouldn’t have speculated on posts directed at me.
Am I missing something?
It seems like we are having an argument about something we agree on:
2^25,000 isn’t the same as 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times.
He meant 2^25,000.
That’s a really big number. Well capable of explaining human complexity.
Did I say anything that suggested that I don’t get all of that?
It certainly doesn’t have anything to do with how Berlinski came up with the 50,000 number, which is what buffalo was talking about when it came up.
H
hecd2
Guest
Fair enough. Here’s the original:
scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0805/S00052.htm
Buffalo has quoted it correctly from the Mazur interview, but Mazur has obviously not heard right. Kaufmann himself says that it’s an illustration and it isn’t that simple.
I don’t think we’re arguing - I think we are agreeing, and merely qualifying somewhat what each other is saying.
Just so.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
R
Rogerteder
Guest
I am going to re-phrase my question. here it is:
this is posed to everyone here who is Catholic, and really simply needs a yes or no answer–
Do you believe in the Virgin Birth (meaning Mary had no sexual relations with anyone, but the Holy Spirit “came upon her” and she was pregnant with a child who was God almighty)? YES OR NO?
For me I simply need to say YES!!! I need no other explanation. what say you yes or no???
this is posed to everyone here who is Catholic, and really simply needs a yes or no answer–
Do you believe in the Virgin Birth (meaning Mary had no sexual relations with anyone, but the Holy Spirit “came upon her” and she was pregnant with a child who was God almighty)? YES OR NO?
For me I simply need to say YES!!! I need no other explanation. what say you yes or no???
- Status