The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

No? Then what is this right here?

How do we know that the existence of Samotherium represents a species that evolved into the giraffe and wasn't simply a separate animal?

So, to be clear before we begin: when science can be spun to agree with the bible, you'll accept it, but when science doesn't agree with what you want to be true, you'll find any excuse possible to dismiss it without evidence? Because you didn't have this deep suspicion of the findings of scientists when you were braying about biblical prophecy, but now that someone's proved you wrong on something you're willing to dismiss those findings based on nothing at all. How convenient.

That said, let's play.

So, first of all, it's an established fact that morphology tends to reflect genetics; that is, that physiological similarities correlate to genetic similarities, indicating that two morphologically similar animals are related. That's just an objective fact, it's so demonstrable that to reject it is to reject a cornerstone foundation of modern biology- not that that's ever stopped you- and would be an incredible double standard for you to lean so heavily on genetics to derive your long odds for strawman-evolution, yet to dismiss genetics when the findings would suggest something you don't like. So what we have here is a well established biological principle that, while not universal when thinking in simplistic, superficial similarities alone- something I've no doubt you'll race to attempt once you've read this in an effort to give yourself wriggle room to dismiss the science anyway, to which I'll remind you we're talking about morphology and not the short eyeballing of an untrained ideologue- establishes a good evidential basis for concluding that Samotherium is related to the modern Giraffe.

However, I can do better than that, because the Giraffe actually has a modern day relative in the Okapi, a short-necked Giraffid animal native to Central Africa. So what we have now are two related animals on branching evolutionary paths, which gives us a baseline idea of what a long-necked Giraffid's bone structure looks like, and what a short-necked Giraffid's bone structure looks like. When we examine Samotherium's bone structure, there's too many similarities there to simply dismiss it as a coincidence: not only is the neck length a perfect intermediary between the two, not only are the bones identical to both Giraffe and Okapi bones near the top of the neck while being a perfect blend of the two toward the bottom where the long-necked evolution would have happened, but even the angle of the way the bones are set in the neck perfectly match up with Giraffes and Okapis. The level of similarity is too perfect, and since we know that morphology at this resolution reflects genetic similarities consistent with related organisms, the conclusion rationally is that Samotherium represents a common ancestor of (though not the direct ancestor to) Giraffes and Okapis, and an intermediate species between short-necked and long-necked Giraffids.

Now, you can dismiss that if you want. You can take all these wonderful morphological similarities and reflections and you can say "nuh uh," you can chalk them all up to a series of freak coincidences (I thought you didn't like long odds?) and I can't stop you. But in doing so you'll be rejecting science, you'll be rejecting over a hundred years of observations and genetic research, and you'll be relinquishing any claim you might have had to having a rational position in this discussion. If you're willing to just throw away the findings of those actually trained in this area solely to keep your presupposition intact, with no evidence to support that at all, then I don't know what to say to you. Unlike you, though, I actually read the report on Samotherium before I came to my conclusion, so of the two of us, at least I have an informed basis with which to come to my conclusion. If you're happy not having that and just continuing to believe what you want to believe, heedless of evidence, then why didn't you just say that at the outset, instead of bullshitting us with all these pretensions of intellectual rigor, if you're going to abandon them at the first hurdle you can't simply bluster your way past?

[Pat Mustard]

Citation needed.

Couldn't find one so I will concede that there is insufficient evidence for the statement. Interestingly the same website you sited for there being no reference did say this;

Note:
* Interestingly, Nachmanides, in an attempt to describe how God created everything out of nothing, did suggest the universe was originally the size of a mustard seed which then expanded.
...At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this ethereally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed.

;tldr: Ok you've got me, I've been found out putting words in people's mouths, again.

*beat*

But he did totally say what I said he said (and have just admitted to lying about) and here is how, just have to put a few more words in the man's mouth. He's long dead so nobody'll know.

Seriously, Nacmanides didn't know what he was talking about. He was trying to simplify a very complex system (the universe and its contents) into a less complex one (mustard seed becoming mustard plant*), and to be honest he failed badly, because the universe is so large and diverse, it is almost impossible to explain by analogy, especially when the analogy uses an item which is an infinitesimal part of the universe.

*While mustard seeds becoming mustard plants is far less complex than universal creation, it is suprisingly complex, so much so that I'd be pretty confident that nobody had the foggiest until a couple of centuries ago.

[Mystical]

Sometimes, pictures and references to scientists in the appropriate specialized field help to show better than words, the concrete evidence portrayed and the standard by which it is held. In this case I'm showing you the transitional fossil that Esquilax is mentioning, along with Giraffe and Okapi bones/fossils.  I'm hoping these help you see and understand the solidarity of the evidence he is portraying to you, since it's always nice to have one more rational, informed mind in this world!



Abstract

Giraffidae are represented by many extinct species. The only two extant taxa possess diametrically contrasting cervical morphology, as the okapi is short-necked and the giraffe is exceptionally long-necked. Samotherium major, known from the Late Miocene of Samos in Greece and other Eurasian localities, is a key extinct giraffid; it possesses cervical vertebrae that are intermediate in the evolutionary elongation of the neck. We describe detailed anatomical features of the cervicals of S. major, and compare these characteristics with the vertebrae of the two extant giraffid taxa. Based on qualitative morphological characters and a quantitative analysis of cervical dimensions, we find that the S. major neck is intermediate between that of the okapi and the giraffe. Specifically, the more cranial (C2–C3) vertebrae of S. major represent a mosaic of features shared either with the giraffe or with the okapi. The more caudal (C5–C7)S. major vertebrae, however, appear transitional between the two extant taxa, and hence are more unique. Notably, the C6 of S. major exhibits a partially excavated ventral lamina that is strong cranially but completely absent on the caudal half of the ventral vertebral body, features between those seen in the giraffe and the okapi. Comprehensive anatomical descriptions and measurements of the almost-complete cervical column reveal that S. major is a truly intermediate-necked giraffid. Reconstructions of the neck display our findings.


READ FULL JOURNAL HERE

Original Publication: 

Royal Society Publishing Org, 350 years of Peer reviewed Scientific Evidence and Journals

Information on the Scientific Journal and its' Peer-reviewed Objectivity 

Royal Society Open Science is a new open journal publishing high-quality original research across the entire range of science on the basis of objective peer-review.
The journal covers the entire range of science and mathematics and allows the Society to publish all the high-quality work it receives without the usual restrictions on scope, length or impact.
The journal has a number of distinguishing features:

• objective peer-review (publishing all articles which are scientifically sound and useful to the community)
  
  
• it will offer open peer-review as an option
  
  
• articles will embody open data principles
  
  
• each article will have a suite of article level metrics and we encourage post-publication comments
  
  
• the Editorial team will consist entirely of practising scientists and will draw upon the expertise of the Royal Society’s Fellowship
  
  
• in addition to direct submissions, it will accept articles referred from other Royal Society journals
  

Royal Society Open Science welcomes the submission of all high-quality science including articles which may usually be difficult to publish elsewhere, for example, those that include negative findings. The journal will cover life sciences, physical sciences, mathematics, engineering and computer science.



Royal Science  Editorial Board

Including specialists in each field of science, from around the world, well-established Professors and Doctorates of their dedicated fields.

[AJW333]

So we are agreed that the development of the eye is dependent upon mutations of the DNA.

Except that the unusable ones aren't generally viable life forms, are they? You are looking at only the successes, over countless attempts made over millions of years, ignoring the mountains of failures both seen and unseen, and then pretending that there are only successes. There aren't: when you don't artificially limit the odds for no reason, what you'll find is that there are more than enough failed attempts to justify what successes there are,

You are now arguing for me, not against me. If the number of possible AA combinations to make one protein is 10^500 and the majority of them are failures (resulting in death)  then the  odds of ever evolving at all become so much worse.

No, that's not my model, not in its entirety. My model also allows for each individual component to perform its own, isolated function for the organism prior to becoming the eye, or for sequential, less complex eyes to build up to the current form.

So in the human eye, the optic nerve joins the retinal cells to the neurons in the back of the brain (in multiple separate nuclei). What function did each of these structures perform before they were all connected to each other?

What's particularly strange is that you'll ask this question at all, given that the link I gave, which you claimed to have read, contains the answer within the first screen: light sensitive cells evolve a depression, which confers limited directional light-sensing to the organism. If that depression cups around and is filled with simple water, then you've got a pinhole camera, but more importantly, you've got the anterior chamber of the eye and a rudimentary fluid to fill it, and from there it's a simple mutation to allow for the generation of a specialized fluid, rather than just water.

You keep ignoring the numbers! There's no such thing as a simple mutation to produce 676 different proteins in the aqueous humor. Each of these proteins is formed by DNA requiring an average of 450 AAs in precise sequence. The chances of these forming through random chance mutations is zero.

Which still suggests nothing like what you're claiming here. Yes, the mutations are random, but they're strained through the process of natural selection: every mutation is going to give some result, there's no means by which nothing will happen. Either the result is fatal, in which case you won't be seeing that organism around, or it isn't, in which case you will. The odds are irrelevant because you're not looking at a fully random process, you're looking at a randomized input through a filter, which spits out only successful (for a given value of success) results. You are then looking at those successful results and pondering why there's only successful results, while ignoring the filter that all of them went through before you even get to look at them.

Again you are ignoring the fact that random mutations cannot account for the complexity of AA sequences in the 100,000+ proteins that the body makes. I would also point out that the numbers are actually much much worse than the 10^500 that I have used. For each AA to be assembled in any given protein, it requires the correct sequence of three base pairs to do so. There are 64 possible combinations of codons required to select each amino acid so the odds for creating the correct AA sequence in the avg protein is 1:64^450 which is exponentially worse than the 1:20^450 (10^500). For example, 20x20x20x20=160,000 and 64x64x64x64= 16,777,216. So God only knows what 64^450 comes to.

I've said this before, but I guess it bears repeating: when you're looking at events that have already happened, the odds are irrelevant.

Fallacious logic. If the odds of something happening the way you think it did are zero, then it didn't happen the way you think it did.

s it just your god, eternal and always extant?

Yep. Since God created the universe, he is external to it and not subject to any of its laws, they are subject to him.

... Which is...? It hasn't escaped anyone's notice that you haven't presented any yet, dude. When you were asked, all you did was attempt to show that evolution is improbable again, which... is not evidence for design.

Not sure how many times I need to say this but the numbers say that evolution is not improbable, it is impossible. You just keep ignoring the impossible odds of code forming through random mutation, even if you throw in natural selection which is still largely dependent on random mutation (Dawkins and the blind watchmaker).

... Oh my. I seem to have hit upon the central fallacy that the rest of your threadbare position hangs on. And also? When you presented your math, evolution still had a positive probability there.

You don't understand probability. There are certain limits of chance that beyond which, it is considered absurd. Borel's law puts this at 10^50. Concerning the number of AAs required to create the average protein, the probability of generating the correct sequence could be higher than 10^1000 which would be 10^20 beyond absurd - just for one protein out of 100,000 that the body makes. The age of the universe is 10^18 seconds so in order to create just one useful human protein by random assembly, you would have to have 10^55 attempts per second to have any chance!

[Cyberman]

Which is why randomness isn't the only factor. You've had this explained to you nearly 10^18 times. I think you've demonstrated the worth of your science degree by now. You really should quit before you embarrass yourself further; hell, I think we're all embarrassed for you at this point.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

When did humans get chins?

[Cyberman]

Just before lunchtime. On a Friday.

[LadyForCamus]

When did humans get chins?

Lol, EVERY time! I love it.

[Esquilax]

You are now arguing for me, not against me. If the number of possible AA combinations to make one protein is 10^500 and the majority of them are failures (resulting in death)  then the  odds of ever evolving at all become so much worse.

What? No, I'm saying that accusations of improbability mean little, given the vast number of attempts that are made every day. You do understand that a 1:1000 chance is worse than a 500:1000 chance, don't you? The more attempts occur, the higher the likelihood of any specific outcome occurring, not lower.

So in the human eye, the optic nerve joins the retinal cells to the neurons in the back of the brain (in multiple separate nuclei). What function did each of these structures perform before they were all connected to each other?

You are aware that the evolution of the eye predates even the brain, yes? The optic nerve evolved from nerve fibers attached to a light sensitive patch of cells that had been present from an extremely early organism. The retina was the back of those same cells, at the point at which they had cupped to form a pinhole camera for better directional "vision." All this is firmly present in the link that you've sworn up and down you've read.

Is there any particular reason you keep tossing problems with (your understanding of) evolution at me, rather than actually presenting positive evidence for your god?

You keep ignoring the numbers! There's no such thing as a simple mutation to produce 676 different proteins in the aqueous humor. Each of these proteins is formed by DNA requiring an average of 450 AAs in precise sequence. The chances of these forming through random chance mutations is zero.

They aren't random chance, they all go through the filter of natural selection, which only admits viable solutions. Moreover, your dire little pronouncements aside, the chances are not zero, they're just small, so quit exaggerating. Oh and also? They're not goddamn random because they're also constrained by the state of the genes being replicated too, so at every step you're just fucking wrooooong. I'm getting so damn tired of telling you this, over and over, only for it to be forgotten as though you're a goldfish in the very next post.

Also, you're dodging my point, which is that you said you'd read something, and then asked a question answered in that very thing. Did you read it or not?

Again you are ignoring the fact that random mutations cannot account for the complexity of AA sequences in the 100,000+ proteins that the body makes.

How did you determine that? Other than that you really want that to be true, what research have you done on this issue, and do you truly think that scientists don't have an answer for this?

I would also point out that the numbers are actually much much worse than the 10^500 that I have used. For each AA to be assembled in any given protein, it requires the correct sequence of three base pairs to do so. There are 64 possible combinations of codons required to select each amino acid so the odds for creating the correct AA sequence in the avg protein is 1:64^450 which is exponentially worse than the 1:20^450 (10^500). For example, 20x20x20x20=160,000 and 64x64x64x64= 16,777,216. So God only knows what 64^450 comes to.

If you have billions of rolls of the die, it doesn't matter how many faces the die has.

Fallacious logic. If the odds of something happening the way you think it did are zero, then it didn't happen the way you think it did.

Except the odds aren't zero, and your only argument for that they are is "because I said so." This is getting sad...

Yep. Since God created the universe, he is external to it and not subject to any of its laws, they are subject to him.

And now you're reduced to childish special pleading. Amazing how, when we get past the pretenses of intellectual rigor and all that, it's always "but my magic man doesn't have to obey all these rules, because I don't want him to!" You really think your simpering assertions will make up for your abject failure to provide positive evidence?

Oh, and you've got such a thing for probabilities so: what's the probability of there being an eternal thing outside of the universe? You want to talk long odds? There's your long fucking odds: at least with evolution we've got actual examples of living creatures with which to derive a probability. For your god, we've got no indication that life forms can be eternal or live outside the universe: the odds there really are zero, but you don't care because it's what you really, really want to be true.

Not sure how many times I need to say this but the numbers say that evolution is not improbable, it is impossible. You just keep ignoring the impossible odds of code forming through random mutation, even if you throw in natural selection which is still largely dependent on random mutation (Dawkins and the blind watchmaker).

"Evolution is impossible," is not evidence for your god. Evidence for your god is... evidence for your god, not just evidence against some other proposition. Apparently I need to keep saying this, because you never seem to internalize anything that might threaten your precious default fallacy, "god did it."

You don't understand probability. There are certain limits of chance that beyond which, it is considered absurd. Borel's law puts this at 10^50. Concerning the number of AAs required to create the average protein, the probability of generating the correct sequence could be higher than 10^1000 which would be 10^20 beyond absurd - just for one protein out of 100,000 that the body makes. The age of the universe is 10^18 seconds so in order to create just one useful human protein by random assembly, you would have to have 10^55 attempts per second to have any chance!

... Except that, again, and the fact that I keep having to remind you of this is either a testament to your ignorance, or a testament to your dishonesty, but the human body is not some miraculous end product popping into existence from nowhere- you know, like your religious fables say!- it is, in actuality, a non-random product of millions of years of evolution from much simpler organisms. The odds are not that high if you take into account the actual model rather than assuming, for no reason, that the system has to start from scratch every time. It doesn't: the generation of a human body has a blueprint from the parents, which itself has a blueprint from a parent organism just fractionally different from them, and so on, ad infinitum. As you go back down the line, organisms lose complexity and thus the odds of them forming from nowhere reduce, but after the point at which they did form from nowhere- at which point they would have been exceedingly simple and not subject to your long odds at all- then each succeeding organism has a self replicating basis which means that no chance is required at all for them to form.

My understanding of probability is just fine: your understanding of basic biology is either limited, or being held back for ideological means.

[The Grand Nudger]

This is all pointless.  Evolution is false, we know nothing, the science is wrong from the bottom up.  Now that we've established that we know nothing and it's futile to discuss evolutionary biology or probabilities pursuant to the same, show us that you know -something-, and how you came to know it?