Yes, I am aware of that. Fisher, Wright, Haldane, etc. I am the one pointing out the importance of probability and statistics in modern evolutionary theory. It’s not their use that is the problem.
I have not. I will give it a look. Thanks!
Sure there is. One mechanism that creates FI without a problem (conscious intelligence) and one that does not.
What do you consider the difference between and inference and a hypothesis is? Can a statement be both?
This is a misconception. If the sequence does not function there is no selection. The idea that selection works with all proteins is a misconception of how cellular proteins work especially nuclear proteins. They are interdependent. There is no independent hill to climb.
We can estimate the likelihood and it is as close to zero as any calculation. How could a ubiquitin system evolve with thousands of proteins working together for a single function, to regulate the cell cycle. Without this system you don’t have multicellular life. Again there is no selection until there is function.
I’m out of time to play just now, but the short answer is, you are arguing against math.
An unsupported claim so I look forward to your support when you have time.
So we can debate that these mechanisms can create FI required for the differences but we have common ground without including the mechanisms common descent does not explain the nested hierarchy.
We know conscious intelligence can create FI. We don’t have any other mechanisms we can model.
Yes, but when the math contradicts the law of entropy the math loses!
/joke
2 Likes
When people ask for evidence that supports intelligent design, why do ID supporters immediately turn the question around and demand evidence for evolution?
It is tested against a random distribution of DNA sequences and morphological features. Is there an ID model you would like to compare it to?
You tell me. You are the one using the term “Darwinism”. From what I have seen, the term is used for purely rhetorical reasons and not for any scientific reason.
You don’t debate. You simply assert without evidence.
That’s because you can’t define what FI is or how to measure it. You also refuse to model evolution to see if it produces FI. It seems more like enforced ignorance.
You’ve got me. I don’t think I did that.
What model is that? Who on earth believes that DNA sequences and morphological features are randomly distributed?
What you described is Darwinism. Why shouldn’t I call it Darwinism? Which of the four things you mentioned are non-Darwinian?
Why is it that when anyone questions evolution it’s defenders immediately turn to random mutation plus natural selection as the universal panacea against all doubt? They basically replace “goddidit” with just another form of ignorance. Do they do that for rhetorical reasons?
I can at least see “intelligent design” and “mutation and selection” as being equally vacuous as an explanation.
In the previous post, you stated:
“My interest is in the use of probability arguments to make the case for evolution.”–Mung
The vast majority of biologists believe that DNA sequences and morphological features are distributed in a manner consistent with evolution and common descent. Do you have a different model that makes predictions about the distribution of these features?
You tell me what non-Darwninian mechanisms would look like. I am curious as to how you determine if a mechanism is Darwninian.
Except for the fact that we can observe the mechanisms in action. That puts them ahead of “God did it”.
I applaud their hard work. You seem to be agreeing with me that there is no model of design that they have compared to their model, instead comparing their model to a model of randomly distributed DNA sequences and morphological features. A model that no one believes is realistic.
Is that right?
Unsupported except for the entire fields of mathematical probability, estimation, and inference. There is a correct and best way to use data foe estimation and inference, where “best” is defined by desirable mathematical qualities including unbiased, minimum variance, and most powerful. This isn’t just a guess, there the mathematical proof.
Irrelevant. That is not a statistical comparison.
If you have to ask, then I’m not sure you understand the topic. Very briefly, a hypothesis is a testable claim. Inference is the theory and methods used to test claims. No, it can’t be both.
BC: The inference is that in any observation of a complex sequence like the one I am typing the cause is most likely conscious intelligence vs random neutral change.
In your sentence example you lept to the conclusion that your statement was true, without stating how you were going to test the hypothesis. Your conclusion (it is not random) is correct, of course, but you did not formally test it. In this case your method is “leaping to a conclusion”, works because you know you what your typed, but leaping is a poor method of making decisions in general.
If a sequence does not function, and that negatively impacts fitness, then this is the very definition of selection!
An unsupported claim. 
And since we know of many search methods for solving equations in many variables for a single maximum or minimum, almost certainly incorrect.
Sorry to jump in the middle, since I haven’t followed the co-discussion very carefully, but …
Population genetics uses probability, as do phylogenetics and maybe a few other things related to evolution. What we do not see are single grand arguments that all aspects of evolution are true. Compare this to ID, which makes sweeping statements about the improbability of evolution.
This is what I am trying to get at with this inappropriately named topic.
2 Likes
Random distribution is a valid model for statistical analysis, and random distributions are the gold standard for many statistical models. If there is no ID model and no other model worth comparing then what exactly are you complaining about?
I don’t know how one would even begin to calculate the improbability of evolution so I am no fan of sweeping statements about the improbability of evolution. You won’t find me defending such statements.
I do however see people like Dawkins arguing for the extreme improbability of things coming about by random chance and then appealing to natural selection as if natural selection could reduce the probabilities involved and make the improbable probable. Is that not so?
This is why, in my opinion, we see the knee-jerk appeals to natural selection without any evidence at all offered that natural selection was even involved. Because everyone “just knows” how improbable “evolution by random chance” is.
People are rather quickly reminded that evolution is not random, because of natural selection. And the reason this is important is? The probabilities involved.
So while on the one side we have “design” offered as a way to reduce the improbable to the probable on the other side we have “natural selection” offered as a way to reduce the improbable to the probable. And so they feed off each other, because they both accept the assumption of improbability.
Why not question the assumption?
1 Like
Thank goodness for that. Perhaps you can help some of the other ID advocates here with your realization.
His argument is that natural selection can do things that seem impossibly improbable by a naive calculations, such as the calculations often used by creationists. This is a valid point.
No. The reason this is important is because a naive calculation will fail because it does not model the complexity of evolution, for example natural selection. That is why it is raised all the time. This is undoubtably true.
2 Likes
Again, there is only assertion here and you’re trying to argue from authority versus evidence and reason. If you have a mathematical proof please cite it.
Not intended to be a statistical comparison. There is really no need for statistics here because one of the outcomes is certain and the other is at best unknown and at worst almost certainly wrong.
Do you understand adductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation that Darwin argued for.
Inference to the Best Explanation PETER LIPTONW.H. Newton-Smith (ed) A Companion to the Philosophy of Science (Blackwell, 2000) 184-193.
This is not a math problem 
Thank you!
Yes, and he also demonstrates how this happens, albeit in a very simplified form (The WEASEL program, which you likely know about). I agree evolution is much more complex, and understand how people can see than as a huge leap.
I think you are correct here. For example we know that eyes have evolved independently at least 40 times (or is it 70?). Some people say this makes eyes-evolving even more unlikely, but in any other situation if something happens more often, we think it is more likely, not less likely.
There is a big gap in understanding probability for many people, which runs counter to their intuition. You are also correct there are many semi-intuitive leaps to “Natural Selection Didit” that could be better supported. It’s not yet possible to put biology on a mathematical footing.
I have cited Hazen and Szostak for FI definition and Durston’s and Puccio’s work for measurement. You have decided to ignore my support but to say I have not supported my claim is disingenuous at best.
Circular reasoning as evolution is assumed.