Creationists who think that there has "not been enough time"...

[tas8831]

... for humans to have evolved from an ape-like ancestor, especially those of you that rely on ReMine's claim regarding 'Haldane's Dilemma', you must answer these questions for your assertion to have merit:

1. How many fixed beneficial mutations does it take to get a new trait from an old one, and how do you know?
2. How many traits had to be modified to get a human from a human-chimp ancestor?

If you cannot answer those, then no amount of fancy math will matter.

 

[Samael_Khan]

... for humans to have evolved from an ape-like ancestor, especially those of you that rely on ReMine's claim regarding 'Haldane's Dilemma', you must answer these questions for your assertion to have merit:

1. How many fixed beneficial mutations does it take to get a new trait from an old one, and how do you know?
2. How many traits had to be modified to get a human from a human-chimp ancestor?

If you cannot answer those, then no amount of fancy math will matter.

Isnt the matter a question of what hypothesis does the current evidence available support as opposed to whether anybody "knows" or not?

Edit: also i think there should be a questions about which hypothesis makes the best predictions. Because how accurately a hypothesis can predict certain things is pretty strong evidence for that hypothesis to be true.

 

[sooda]

Isnt the matter a question of what hypothesis does the current evidence available support as opposed to whether anybody "knows" or not?

Edit: also i think there should be a questions about which hypothesis makes the best predictions. Because how accurately a hypothesis can predict certain things is pretty strong evidence for that hypothesis to be true.

Cave drawings in France are 40,000 years old.. and tools found in Africa and Arabia are 100,000 years old.

 

[Audie]

Cave drawings in France are 40,000 years old.. and tools found in Africa and Arabia are 100,000 years old.

Charcoal from campfires go back more like a million.

 

[Polymath257]

Mathematical models are just that: models. If the assumptions of the model are wrong, the conclusions are likely to be.

The test of a model is to look at reality. And, we have the data showing that humans *have* evolved from an 'ape-like' ancestor.

So any mathematical model that says it is impossible just shows that model to be wrong.

Whether that is interesting or not depends on the model. If that model is based on what are generally acknowledged as facts, then there may be a crisis. If the model is based on poorly thought out assumptions, then it can be safely discarded.

 

[tas8831]

Isnt the matter a question of what hypothesis does the current evidence available support as opposed to whether anybody "knows" or not?

No.
If the creationist wants to claim that there has not been enough time (based on how many beneficial mutations 'can be' fixed in a certain time-frame, ala ReMine), then they need to provide documentation regarding how many mutations would have been required to get these new traits.

They like to claim 'X is not enough mutations to get a Sapien from a Simian!' (that is a what ReMine claimed in his book and paper, several professional YECs parrot his claims, and several YECs on here and referred to his claims).

Well, you cannot claim 'X is not enough' if you do not know how many would have actually been required.

 

[Polymath257]

No.
If the creationist wants to claim that there has not been enough time (based on how many beneficial mutations 'can be' fixed in a certain time-frame, ala ReMine), then they need to provide documentation regarding how many mutations would have been required to get these new traits.

They like to claim 'X is not enough mutations to get a Sapien from a Simian!' (that is a what ReMine claimed in his book and paper, several professional YECs parrot his claims, and several YECs on here and referred to his claims).

Well, you cannot claim 'X is not enough' if you do not know how many would have actually been required.

Technically, it might not be necessary to do it this way. if you have a well-tested theory of fixation AND you have an lower bound on the number of mutations required AND you have an upper bound from the theory for the number of mutations possible AND if the upper bound is orders of magnitude smaller than the lower bound, THEN you can conclude that something is wrong.

 

[Audie]

Mathematical models are just that: models. If the assumptions of the model are wrong, the conclusions are likely to be.

The test of a model is to look at reality. And, we have the data showing that humans *have* evolved from an 'ape-like' ancestor.

So any mathematical model that says it is impossible just shows that model to be wrong. Whether that is interesting or not depends on the model. If that model is based on what are generally acknowledged as facts, then there may be a crisis. If the model is based on poorly thought out assumptions, then it can be safely discarded.

And from the crisis a breakthrough be born

 

[Aupmanyav]

Some times the changes/mutations are quick sometimes they don't change even in a billion years.

 

[Samael_Khan]

No.
If the creationist wants to claim that there has not been enough time (based on how many beneficial mutations 'can be' fixed in a certain time-frame, ala ReMine), then they need to provide documentation regarding how many mutations would have been required to get these new traits.

They like to claim 'X is not enough mutations to get a Sapien from a Simian!' (that is a what ReMine claimed in his book and paper, several professional YECs parrot his claims, and several YECs on here and referred to his claims).

Well, you cannot claim 'X is not enough' if you do not know how many would have actually been required.

Well yes, they need evidence and make predictions using that evidence. It sounds like they have none.

 

[Audie]

Well yes, they need evidence and make predictions using that evidence. It sounds like they have none.

Ha. Easy peasy. SEDI! (same evidence, different interpretation)

What do you think of this, as an explanation of the
creationist mindset-

That they KNOW ToE is false, and that the earth
is but some few k years old.

No story about evolution can possibly
be true.
So while they may be a point or two off
compass on some of their objections,
what difference does that actually make?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Ha. Easy peasy. SEDI! (same evidence, different interpretation)

What do you think of this, as an explanation of the
creationist mindset-

That they KNOW ToE is false, and that the earth
is but some few k years old.

No story about evolution can possibly
be true.
So while they may be a point or two off
compass on some of their objections,
what difference does that actually make?

I would ask them "what makes them so convinced that the theory of evolution cannot be true?"

And I would also ask "what alternate theory they have as to why the theory of evolution can make predictions so well if it is false?"

There are other questions I would ask but having been religious for 7 years and rejecting evolution in that time I can say that I never actually tried to understand why people say evolution is true. Now that i have seen just a little of that reasoning my mind has changed.

So i would also ask them "have you studied why people say the theory of evolution is true? And if you havent, how can you reject it? Are you being biased?"

 

[tas8831]

Technically, it might not be necessary to do it this way. if you have a well-tested theory of fixation AND you have an lower bound on the number of mutations required AND you have an upper bound from the theory for the number of mutations possible AND if the upper bound is orders of magnitude smaller than the lower bound, THEN you can conclude that something is wrong.

They don't even attempt such a thing, they just claim 'X is not enough.' They do not even offer a rationale, or even an analogy. Just their incredulity.

 

[tas8831]

Mathematical models are just that: models. If the assumptions of the model are wrong, the conclusions are likely to be.

The test of a model is to look at reality. And, we have the data showing that humans *have* evolved from an 'ape-like' ancestor.

So any mathematical model that says it is impossible just shows that model to be wrong.

Whether that is interesting or not depends on the model. If that model is based on what are generally acknowledged as facts, then there may be a crisis. If the model is based on poorly thought out assumptions, then it can be safely discarded.

Exactly.

 

[tas8831]

Well yes, they need evidence and make predictions using that evidence. It sounds like they have none.

Indeed.
They are just awed by big numbers.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Indeed.
They are just awed by big numbers.

What i dont think they realise is that even though those big numbers show that it is difficult or unlikely for certain things to happen, the numbers still say that there is a chance that they can happen.

 

[Polymath257]

They don't even attempt such a thing, they just claim 'X is not enough.' They do not even offer a rationale, or even an analogy. Just their incredulity.

Well, I gave a situation where a conclusion could be reached. That they are not in such a situation isn't my fault.

 

[Polymath257]

What i dont think they realise is that even though those big numbers show that it is difficult or unlikely for certain things to happen, the numbers still say that there is a chance that they can happen.

I also think they don't understand the difficulties of doing a good mathematical analysis. It is easy to multiply numbers together to get very large numbers. The problem is that simple multiplication is seldom the correct model because it is based on each step being probabilisticly independent of all other steps and that a whole is done in one shot. This is seldom the case.

The ridiculous numbers obtained just shows that the events in question aren't independent in this way or aren't the result of a one-shot event. In other words, the naive mathematical model is wrong.

In one of my biochem books, there was a calculation (done originally by Pauling, IIRC) of how many different arrangements there are for protein folding of insulin. It then determined how long it would take for the protein to find the 'correct' configuration by chance. The answer was thousands of years.

Yet, the protein folds in fractions of a second. Which only shows that configurations are not 'tried' randomly.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Indeed.
They are just awed by big numbers.

Big Round Numbers. Every time a Big Round Number rolls around on the Calendar?

It's Hand Waving Time! End Times! Rapture! End of the World As We Know It.

.... or as Pat Robertson would say? "Oooga Booga! Gays! Errk! Booga!"

 

[tas8831]

What i dont think they realise is that even though those big numbers show that it is difficult or unlikely for certain things to happen, the numbers still say that there is a chance that they can happen.

Math is hard.
Especially when it is misapplied or used as rhetoric.