Doctors doubting darwinism

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Life is a given, for example life could have been created and from there diverge. The origin of life is a separate matter.

Think of it like a series of roads. There are several possible paths to life.
Creation.
Seeding from space.
Abiogenisis.

They all reach a common point, the foundation of life.

Which do you favor over the 3 bgood? The three possible paths to life? Is it a matter of being unsure? or unwise?

I don't favor any of them. There is nothing other than personal preference to support any of these possibilities.

[godslanguage]

fair enough

[angel]

August
Go read what evolutionists say

Do any of the people you quoted mentioned that we may not share a common ancestor with chimps?
Because that is what GMan is claiming.

August
Stop playing games, Angel.

As you please.

1) we share seven known viral insertions with chimps exactly at the same position in DNA. The probability of that to happen by chance is extremely low.

2) There are viral insertions shared by us, gorillas and chimps. There is not a single viral insertion shared by humans and gorillas which is not shraed by chimps as well. This of course would easily disprove evolution.

3) The same occurs for dolphins/giraffas. Many instances are known. Many will be known in the future.

4) the ammount of genetic differences between humans and chimps is exactly consistent with the last common ancestror shared between 5/7 MY ago.
This common ancestor was extimated by paleonthological data so it is note worthy that it agrees with genetic data.

5) The spectrum of mutation (at least the synonimous part of it) is random(in the Shannon sense, which is the only rigorous way of defining random.)

You also have to show that the common ancestor was front-loaded with enough genetic information to explain all future species.

This would be a fair argument. Provided it could be shown that mutations are programmed genetically, i.e. they are not random.
Unfortunately there is not a single evidence for it to be the case.

In any event, Is that what you believe?

The only way the evolutionary mechanisms can make sense is if life evolved from non-life by the same mechanisms. Under any other circumstances those mechanisms will destroy life, not promote it.

I disagree. The scenario in which the first lifeform is designed and left alone free to evolve according to random mutations and natural selection
does not contradict observations more (nor less) than ordinary darwinism.

I personally do not believe in that approach, but that is a matter of personal opinions.
I think is it not a matter of opinions to claim that CHIMPS were created out of the blue.

[August]

Do any of the people you quoted mentioned that we may not share a common ancestor with chimps?
Because that is what GMan is claiming.

Still playing games, I see. You have just given one long non-answer to the points I made. Shall we assume you cannot answer those?

You asked:

What the hell has abiogenesis to do with the fact that we share a common ancestor with chimps?

and then you said:

We are NOT discussing life origin here (in particular with GMan who argued against common ancestor).

WE ARE DISCUSSING EVOLUTION.

If you please imagine the first bacteria was designed. We are discussing the possibility that creation of the first bacteria was the only divine action.

That is what Darwinism is about.

That is what I replied to. I showed you from biology texts, from evolutionary biologists, that the two cannot be seperated. Origin of life has to be part of the evolutionary process, or you cannot account for the origin of the mechanisms.

You also ignored the whole paragraph I wrote about the requirements to sustain your assumption that the first life could have been created, and the evolutionary process took care of the rest.

As you please.

1) we share seven known viral insertions with chimps exactly at the same position in DNA. The probability of that to happen by chance is extremely low.

2) There are viral insertions shared by us, gorillas and chimps. There is not a single viral insertion shared by humans and gorillas which is not shraed by chimps as well. This of course would easily disprove evolution.

Then you won't mind giving us the exact ancestral and descendant genetic pathways, starting with the common ancestor, by which the insertions propogated.

Also, I will not be so quick to hang my hat on retroviral insertions. There are at least three (PTERV1/V2 and HERV-K) that are shared by the great ape species but are not present in humans. The PTERV's are specifically present in chimps but not humans, as we saw from the recent release of the chimp genome.

Also, your premise "The probability of that to happen by chance is extremely low." may hold true for today, but you do not know if that had always been the case.

You also have to account for the origin of the retroviruses, i.e. they are just degenerations of symbiotic elements with specific site-selectivity, which can also explain their position.

Also, what are their biological functions, are they directly adaptive or not? If they are adaptive, which the evidence points to, then they were there from the beginning.

3) The same occurs for dolphins/giraffas. Many instances are known. Many will be known in the future.

For all the phylogenetic homologies you can quote, I can quote dissimilarities in the same tree. You have to demonstrate the exact genetic pathway, or else your assumptions just demonstrate an a-priori acceptance of the theory that you are trying to prove.

4) the ammount of genetic differences between humans and chimps is exactly consistent with the last common ancestror shared between 5/7 MY ago.
This common ancestor was extimated by paleonthological data so it is note worthy that it agrees with genetic data.

What? That is simply not true. You are asserting this as if that is clear and undisputed, which it most definitely is not. You have to overcome Haldanes dilemma before you can even start this discussion. The paleonthological "data" is subject to circular reasoning, i.e. it accepts the theory as valid and then tries to fit the evidence. The dating alone of homonoid fossils blows a big hole in your argument. The supposed ancestors appear later in the record than the supposed descendants.

This would be a fair argument. Provided it could be shown that mutations are programmed genetically, i.e. they are not random.
Unfortunately there is not a single evidence for it to be the case.

In any event, Is that what you believe?

No, I believe in progressive creation. If you grant that argument, then you have only two options for the origin of life. It was either created, or abiogenesis, through the mechanisms of evolution holds true.

Which one do you believe?

I disagree. The scenario in which the first lifeform is designed and left alone free to evolve according to random mutations and natural selection does not contradict observations more (nor less) than ordinary darwinism.

The only way that it does not not contradict is by holding an non-theist worldview. Your options are then deism or atheism. Which are you?

But that does not solve your dilemma. At least the potential for the mechanisms of evolution would then have had to be created too, as well as the ability to preserve the mechanisms by themselves. A single universal common ancestor would have had to contain the ability to procreate by itself while still maintaining some ability to preserve genetic information in a very small population, as well as preserve and promote genetic variation in the same small population.

I personally do not believe in that approach, but that is a matter of personal opinions.
I think is it not a matter of opinions to claim that CHIMPS were created out of the blue.

No, it is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. Can you prove without any doubt that anything was not created?

Homology is equally as applicable to common design as common descent.

[angel]

I'm in a hurry....

Just wanna mention that

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 174826.htm
The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.

Congratulation you discovered that a virus (PTERV1) can affect different species.

Viral insertions points to common ancestor when they occur at the same place in DNA in two different species!

Did not check the other you mentioned though I believe it is the same thing.

[August]

I'm in a hurry....

Viral insertions points to common ancestor when they occur at the same place in DNA in two different species!

Not necessarily. All it shows is that in light of retroviral functionality, infections may occur in the same places of common genes. For your proposal to hold true, you must prove that retroviruses have no biological function.

[Byblos]

I'm in a hurry....

Just wanna mention that

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 174826.htm
The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.

Congratulation you discovered that a virus (PTERV1) can affect different species.

Viral insertions points to common ancestor when they occur at the same place in DNA in two different species!

Did not check the other you mentioned though I believe it is the same thing.

You keep asserting the same point without any proof whatsoever. How in the world can you claim common ancestry simply because viral insertions occur at the same place in DNA? Show me how one leads to the other without first accepting common ancestry as fact.

From a previous post:

1) we share seven known viral insertions with chimps exactly at the same position in DNA. The probability of that to happen by chance is extremely low.

So you use probability whenever it suits you and discard it when it doesn't? If you want to argue probability then please see here.

[angel]

How in the world can you claim common ancestry simply because viral insertions
occur at the same place in DNA? Show me how one leads to the other without first
accepting common ancestry as fact.

Ok. Let me see...

We know about retroviruses. We know a virus can infect me. We know that that means
that a virus enters one of my cells and inserts its own DNA in the DNA molecule of that cell.
If everything works well (for the virus) that cell starts reproduce the DNA virus material
usually producing other copies of the virus.

The cell can live or die with the viral material added to its DNA. Usually that is the end of the story.
However, if that cell happens to be the cell producing gamets for me, the viral dna together with my original DNA
is passed to gametes and hence to future generations.

[Notice I did not mentioned common ancestors between individual of different species.
So no evolutionary assumption yet. This would be true also in a designed world with no mutation at all.]

This mechanism has been observed.
There are many instances of virus insertion (affecting some population at a time in the past)
which then became part of the genome typical of that population. That was observed in humans and animals.

How can I observe it?

I take the DNA from a cell of mine and scan it for the proteins typical of viral membrane.
This proteins are a signature of the viral origin of the insertion since such proteins are typical of viruses.

However, when I find a viral insertion, how can I know if it is the first (simple infection)
or the second kind (inheredited infection) of insertion observed above?

Easy, I can scan a cell from my son as well. If the second type is the case, my son will have
the same insertion at the same position. And his son will have it as well. And the son of him.

[Notice I did not mentioned common ancestors between individual of different species.
So no evolutionary assumption yet. This would be true also in a designed world with no mutation at all.]

Hey, how can I know that that insertion is not of the first type, i.e. it came in me and my son
in two different infections from the same virus type?

In two ways:
first of all two viruses of the same kind are not identical in DNA. At least their genome
is affected by synonimous mutations (which occur, are observed, and are not subjected to selection
since by definition of synonimous they do not affect the fitness of the virus).
If two viruses of the same type infect two individual they gain different dna material.
We know how many mutations occur on average per generation so we know how many differences we could expect
in a generation if the second scenario were the case.
If we find many more mutations than that we know it is the first scenario.
There is no possibility of confusing the two scenarios unless:
I scan two individuals but I cannot trace their first (intraspecific!) ancestor
or my son was infected by a virs produced by the infection I had.

In all other cases we can easily distinguish the two scenarios by simply comparing the viral insertions.
Moreover, if I want a further evidence I just have to scan dna from the son of my son.

But there is another method which is more powerful.
We know that viruses can insert their genome in the cell at one of many positions in the cell's original genome.
We know it because we studied the mechanism of viral attack and because we observed a statistic of viral attacks
in the past.
We know that virus attack selects at random (uniform distribution) among a high (though of course finite) number
of sites.
Hence there is a low probability (though not null) that the infection hitting me chose a site, and
the infection hitting my son chose the same site.
Hence same insertion at same position, means second type scenario (my son inheredited the insertion by me
and was not infected independently).

But there is always a small probability of the two infections to be independent!

True: there is a small probability that a particular recurrent viral insertion is due to indepenednt infections.
However, the probability is small, say 1/p. And if I scan for 10 recurrent viral insertions,
the probability that ALL of them are from different independent infections is 1/p^10.
The probability becomes as small as one pleases as soon as the number of known shared viral insertions grows.

Hence sharing a number of identical viral insertions at the some positions in DNA is a very strong
(and it grows stronger with the number of known shared insertions) indications of the second scenario.

[Notice I did not mentioned common ancestors between individual of different species.
So no evolutionary assumption yet.]

Now I take my DNA and your DNA and discover seven almost identical viral insertions
at the same position in our DNA. What do you conclude?


Well, it is very unlikely that we got infected by very similar viruses seven times at the same positions!
So I think the most reasonable explanation is that we shared a common ancestor (intraspecific!)
maybe my grand grand grand father (who was your grand grand grand father as well) who was infected
(second scenario) and passed the insertion to us.


The insertion was modified (but not too much if at all) with time by synonimous mutations.
We can also predict that my son and your daughter share the same insertion as well. And at the same position.
Suppose I do check for it and confirm the prediction.


Well. This would prove definitely the scenario number two, I think.


[Notice I did not mentioned common ancestors between individual of different species.
So no evolutionary assumption yet.]

Ok, but how can I know whether it was my grand grand grand father to be first infected?

If that is the case, than anyone and only them of his descendents would share the same identical insertions at the same positions.


What if I scan a cousin of mine and find no insertions in the correct position?

Well, I suppose your uncle is not as serious as he pretend.


Ok, guy. Then what if i found the same seven almost identical viral insertions in the genome of a chimp.


Chimps are a different story. It cannot be common ancestor in that case. The chimps was infected separately
at the same locations by chance.



[Sorry Byblos. To save time I rendered the discussion as a dialogue.
Maybe you disagree on the ending?
Anyway, I doubt you can keep the position that I need to assume FROM THE VERY BEGINNING
the common ancestor evolutionary framework.]


Moreover:

So you use probability whenever it suits you and discard it when it doesn't?
If you want to argue probability then please see here.

No Byblos. I use probability when numbers are meaningful and discard when
probability it is just a way of rendering arguments in such a way they seem scientific.
That, believe me or not, has nothing to do with what is the goal of the argument.
I am pretty sure you can quote for me similar arguments by Dawkins.
Try and you will see if I am not ready to discard them.

I provided above a positive use of probability. There probabilities are estimated by
frequencies which are observable and measurable.
Discrete probabilities are involved and the probability distribution can be OBSERVED by
experiments.

You linked a page discussing probabilities of obtaining the observed fine tuning by chance.
Those numbers are rubbish. I am not claiming that the argument behind that is wrong.
Just those numbers are not supporting it.

Wanna ask why?
Well, first of all, the argument relies on the tacit assumption that all values of
physical constant are possible.
Unfortunately, physics has no ultimate knowledge about Nature to offer in support to this assumption.
It might be true. Or it might be true that tomorrow we discover that physical constant are
constrained to assume only certain values (as for example string theory would suggest).
There are many example in the past: the gas constant R to convert temperature into energies
was a free constant of thermodinamics while its value become necessarily determined in view
of Boltzman microscopic kinetic theory.
The day before one could have argumented "what if the value of R were greater than it is?".
The day after, that would be simply have been reasonable.
Is it the same for the coupling constant listed in your link?
Well, we don't know.

Second assumption:
the probability density assumed to compute probabilities within your link is the "uniform distribution".
Loosely (and wrongly) speaking, one assumes that each combination of physical constant is equally
likely to occur.
Any maths guy in statistic can tell you that there is no good (canonical) definition of
"uniform distribution" for continuous quantities.
In particular, any distributions is uniform with respect to a suitable measure.
But that is not the worse part of the story!
The fact is that such distribution of probability is invented for the sake of argument and it has no
empirical support. We cannot observe different universes with different physical constants in order to
measure the "probability for the value of a physical constant to occur" nor we can rewind universe
and play it again.
We cannot reproduce universes to play with nor we have a theory to predict theoretically such distribution.
In this way you are using probability theory without a DEFINITION of what is to be understood by probability.
In other words your arguements is meaningless.

Third assumption:
it assumes that life can develop in some condition only. This is certainly true for life as
it developed in our universe.
Once again there is no general definition of life to rely on.
We are just observing that we cannot survived if...
But life is an adaptative system.
It is obvious that life developed on the basis of the constants of OUR UNIVERSE.
More than that! Life determines and effects its enviroment. All the chemistry on Earth would not be life
friendly if life were not on Earth. All free oxigen in the atmosphere is there because of life.
However, it is silly to use this argument for a chick-or-egg argument. The solution is simply in
the fact that life is adaptative.
If there were higher temperatures and carbon chains would be too unstable, then maybe life would have been
based on silicon (which is less stable than carbon around 0C but it is more stable at different temperatures).

Similarly, if the speed of light were different, well maybe the mass of particles would be different
and new possibilities would emerge. We do not know. I am not playing science fiction: I am not simply saying
that scientific knowledge is not ultimative. Claiming that would allow any dream thinking.
Here I am simply saying that science does not provide us with a single clue (positive or negative) about why physical constant
have the values they have. It would be as discussing in the dark age about how stable are uranium's isotopes.
I am sure philosophers would have provided arguments pro and cons. None of the arguments however would have been
likely to be relevant.

To conclude. I think the author of your link pasted the table for a serious source.
In fact the argument proves that there is more we need to know and the present knowledge is incomplete.
However, he would be particularly wrong to use such material to argument that we/our universe
are designed (or any other positive claim on those basis).
I am sure you are aware of the difference between the weak and strong antropic principle and how relevant
the distinction is in this context. Then, I won't comment on it further.

I can accept a negative assumption (such as "well we do not know everything about our universe")
but for a positive assumption (such as "then the universe is designed") the burden of proof
for all the details listed above to be made precise would be on the author.

For these reasons I discarded the probability arguments in your link.

BTW Byblos: I am claiming that if I wanted (and I don't) to confute the negative argument,
then the burden of proof (explaing the possible relations among different physical constant
or be specific about the form of life would have if speed of light were the double of what
it is in our universe) would be ON ME.

I know you are tempted to post something like "you pose the burden of proof on who best suits your argument".
However, that it is clearly not the case.
If you pretended not to see the difference, I cannot explain it more clearly than above.
And honestly I would suspect that you perfectly understand what you cannot concede to understand.

Really, I don't want to spend more on that without a reason. Sorry.

[Byblos]

How in the world can you claim common ancestry simply because viral insertions
occur at the same place in DNA? Show me how one leads to the other without first
accepting common ancestry as fact.

Ok. Let me see...

We know about retroviruses. We know a virus can infect me. We know that that means
that a virus enters one of my cells and inserts its own DNA in the DNA molecule of that cell.
If everything works well (for the virus) that cell starts reproduce the DNA virus material
usually producing other copies of the virus.

The cell can live or die with the viral material added to its DNA. Usually that is the end of the story.
However, if that cell happens to be the cell producing gamets for me, the viral dna together with my original DNA
is passed to gametes and hence to future generations.

[Notice I did not mentioned common ancestors between individual of different species.
So no evolutionary assumption yet. This would be true also in a designed world with no mutation at all.]

This mechanism has been observed.
There are many instances of virus insertion (affecting some population at a time in the past)
which then became part of the genome typical of that population. That was observed in humans and animals.

How can I observe it?

I take the DNA from a cell of mine and scan it for the proteins typical of viral membrane.
This proteins are a signature of the viral origin of the insertion since such proteins are typical of viruses.

However, when I find a viral insertion, how can I know if it is the first (simple infection)
or the second kind (inheredited infection) of insertion observed above?

Easy, I can scan a cell from my son as well. If the second type is the case, my son will have
the same insertion at the same position. And his son will have it as well. And the son of him.

[Notice I did not mentioned common ancestors between individual of different species.
So no evolutionary assumption yet. This would be true also in a designed world with no mutation at all.]

Hey, how can I know that that insertion is not of the first type, i.e. it came in me and my son
in two different infections from the same virus type?

In two ways:
first of all two viruses of the same kind are not identical in DNA. At least their genome
is affected by synonimous mutations (which occur, are observed, and are not subjected to selection
since by definition of synonimous they do not affect the fitness of the virus).
If two viruses of the same type infect two individual they gain different dna material.
We know how many mutations occur on average per generation so we know how many differences we could expect
in a generation if the second scenario were the case.
If we find many more mutations than that we know it is the first scenario.
There is no possibility of confusing the two scenarios unless:
I scan two individuals but I cannot trace their first (intraspecific!) ancestor
or my son was infected by a virs produced by the infection I had.

In all other cases we can easily distinguish the two scenarios by simply comparing the viral insertions.
Moreover, if I want a further evidence I just have to scan dna from the son of my son.

But there is another method which is more powerful.
We know that viruses can insert their genome in the cell at one of many positions in the cell's original genome.
We know it because we studied the mechanism of viral attack and because we observed a statistic of viral attacks
in the past.
We know that virus attack selects at random (uniform distribution) among a high (though of course finite) number
of sites.
Hence there is a low probability (though not null) that the infection hitting me chose a site, and
the infection hitting my son chose the same site.
Hence same insertion at same position, means second type scenario (my son inheredited the insertion by me
and was not infected independently).

But there is always a small probability of the two infections to be independent!

True: there is a small probability that a particular recurrent viral insertion is due to indepenednt infections.
However, the probability is small, say 1/p. And if I scan for 10 recurrent viral insertions,
the probability that ALL of them are from different independent infections is 1/p^10.
The probability becomes as small as one pleases as soon as the number of known shared viral insertions grows.

Hence sharing a number of identical viral insertions at the some positions in DNA is a very strong
(and it grows stronger with the number of known shared insertions) indications of the second scenario.

[Notice I did not mentioned common ancestors between individual of different species.
So no evolutionary assumption yet.]

Now I take my DNA and your DNA and discover seven almost identical viral insertions
at the same position in our DNA. What do you conclude?


Well, it is very unlikely that we got infected by very similar viruses seven times at the same positions!
So I think the most reasonable explanation is that we shared a common ancestor (intraspecific!)
maybe my grand grand grand father (who was your grand grand grand father as well) who was infected
(second scenario) and passed the insertion to us.


The insertion was modified (but not too much if at all) with time by synonimous mutations.
We can also predict that my son and your daughter share the same insertion as well. And at the same position.
Suppose I do check for it and confirm the prediction.


Well. This would prove definitely the scenario number two, I think.


[Notice I did not mentioned common ancestors between individual of different species.
So no evolutionary assumption yet.]

Ok, but how can I know whether it was my grand grand grand father to be first infected?

If that is the case, than anyone and only them of his descendents would share the same identical insertions at the same positions.


What if I scan a cousin of mine and find no insertions in the correct position?

Well, I suppose your uncle is not as serious as he pretend.


Ok, guy. Then what if i found the same seven almost identical viral insertions in the genome of a chimp.


Chimps are a different story. It cannot be common ancestor in that case. The chimps was infected separately
at the same locations by chance.



[Sorry Byblos. To save time I rendered the discussion as a dialogue.
Maybe you disagree on the ending?
Anyway, I doubt you can keep the position that I need to assume FROM THE VERY BEGINNING
the common ancestor evolutionary framework.]

And you were doing so well with the intraspecific retroviral insertion theory, all the way up to the end when you had to blow it with an assumption, which is exactly what I'm asserting you're doing. Let me paraphrase your conclusion: "since humans have 7 points of insertion and chimps have the same 7 points of insertions, chimps and humans must have a common ancestor". That is basically what your argument boils down to. You take an intraspecific model and you generalize onto an interspecific one and you want to call that irrefutable science. Sorry, it just doesn't fly. But in any case, since I'm not a biologist, I will let other scientists plug holes in the interspecific retroviral insertion theory. Do you know who LUCA is? LUCA or Last Universal Common Ancestor is what traditional (for lack of a better word) evolution claims. Are you familiar with the number of evolutionists who can no longer support LUCA and the reluctance of the majority to step away from such a generally accepted model only due to their reluctance to go against the norm of Darwin's 'tree of life' leading to a single trunk? Here's a quote from the following link on the subject (emphasis mine):

There are deep ideological reasons for believing in a LUCA that explain the reluctance of many to abandon it. In fact this reason is built directly into the most basic model of modern biology, i.e. the tree of life. The only figure in Darwin's “Origin of Species” happens to be a tree that inevitably maps back to a single trunk. Indeed the algorithms used in phylogenetic analysis can only find a single trunk, which, of course, is how they are designed. All practicing biologists are aware of the limitations of phylogenetic modeling with its built in assumptions, but nevertheless these assumptions do cause confusion. For example, let me pose a question and ask how often there was confusion when thinking about mitochondrial eve? Isn't it a common misperception to think at some point that all of human life could be mapped back to a single woman? When in fact all we can say is that the only surviving remnant of that distant ancestor is her mitochondrial genome, and it is extremely unlikely that any of her other genes survive in any human populations. Because of the phenomena of sexual reproduction and recombination we share genes with multiple ancestors with no need to hypothesize any individual ancestor from whom we have descended. The same reasoning should apply to the evolution of all life; because of the phenomena of horizontal gene transfer we share genes with multiple ancestors with no need to hypothesize individual species from whom we have descended (10).

I don't know if I agree with HGT theory but at a minimum it is in direct contradiction to LUCA. In fact it proposes that we had multiple LUCAs and the similarities we share are due to HGT (Horizontal Gene Transfer). This new theory still presupposes a great deal but at least it is stepping away from the unlikely LUCA (see 'mitochondrial eve' question above).

Moreover:

So you use probability whenever it suits you and discard it when it doesn't?
If you want to argue probability then please see here.

No Byblos. I use probability when numbers are meaningful and discard when
probability it is just a way of rendering arguments in such a way they seem scientific.
That, believe me or not, has nothing to do with what is the goal of the argument.
I am pretty sure you can quote for me similar arguments by Dawkins.
Try and you will see if I am not ready to discard them.

I provided above a positive use of probability. There probabilities are estimated by
frequencies which are observable and measurable.
Discrete probabilities are involved and the probability distribution can be OBSERVED by
experiments.

You linked a page discussing probabilities of obtaining the observed fine tuning by chance.
Those numbers are rubbish. I am not claiming that the argument behind that is wrong.
Just those numbers are not supporting it.

Wanna ask why?
Well, first of all, the argument relies on the tacit assumption that all values of
physical constant are possible.
Unfortunately, physics has no ultimate knowledge about Nature to offer in support to this assumption.
It might be true. Or it might be true that tomorrow we discover that physical constant are
constrained to assume only certain values (as for example string theory would suggest).
There are many example in the past: the gas constant R to convert temperature into energies
was a free constant of thermodinamics while its value become necessarily determined in view
of Boltzman microscopic kinetic theory.
The day before one could have argumented "what if the value of R were greater than it is?".
The day after, that would be simply have been reasonable.
Is it the same for the coupling constant listed in your link?
Well, we don't know.

Second assumption:
the probability density assumed to compute probabilities within your link is the "uniform distribution".
Loosely (and wrongly) speaking, one assumes that each combination of physical constant is equally
likely to occur.
Any maths guy in statistic can tell you that there is no good (canonical) definition of
"uniform distribution" for continuous quantities.
In particular, any distributions is uniform with respect to a suitable measure.
But that is not the worse part of the story!
The fact is that such distribution of probability is invented for the sake of argument and it has no
empirical support. We cannot observe different universes with different physical constants in order to
measure the "probability for the value of a physical constant to occur" nor we can rewind universe
and play it again.
We cannot reproduce universes to play with nor we have a theory to predict theoretically such distribution.
In this way you are using probability theory without a DEFINITION of what is to be understood by probability.
In other words your arguements is meaningless.

Third assumption:
it assumes that life can develop in some condition only. This is certainly true for life as
it developed in our universe.
Once again there is no general definition of life to rely on.
We are just observing that we cannot survived if...
But life is an adaptative system.
It is obvious that life developed on the basis of the constants of OUR UNIVERSE.
More than that! Life determines and effects its enviroment. All the chemistry on Earth would not be life
friendly if life were not on Earth. All free oxigen in the atmosphere is there because of life.
However, it is silly to use this argument for a chick-or-egg argument. The solution is simply in
the fact that life is adaptative.
If there were higher temperatures and carbon chains would be too unstable, then maybe life would have been
based on silicon (which is less stable than carbon around 0C but it is more stable at different temperatures).

Similarly, if the speed of light were different, well maybe the mass of particles would be different
and new possibilities would emerge. We do not know. I am not playing science fiction: I am not simply saying
that scientific knowledge is not ultimative. Claiming that would allow any dream thinking.
Here I am simply saying that science does not provide us with a single clue (positive or negative) about why physical constant
have the values they have. It would be as discussing in the dark age about how stable are uranium's isotopes.
I am sure philosophers would have provided arguments pro and cons. None of the arguments however would have been
likely to be relevant.

To conclude. I think the author of your link pasted the table for a serious source.
In fact the argument proves that there is more we need to know and the present knowledge is incomplete.
However, he would be particularly wrong to use such material to argument that we/our universe
are designed (or any other positive claim on those basis).
I am sure you are aware of the difference between the weak and strong antropic principle and how relevant
the distinction is in this context. Then, I won't comment on it further.

I can accept a negative assumption (such as "well we do not know everything about our universe")
but for a positive assumption (such as "then the universe is designed") the burden of proof
for all the details listed above to be made precise would be on the author.

For these reasons I discarded the probability arguments in your link.

BTW Byblos: I am claiming that if I wanted (and I don't) to confute the negative argument,
then the burden of proof (explaing the possible relations among different physical constant
or be specific about the form of life would have if speed of light were the double of what
it is in our universe) would be ON ME.

I know you are tempted to post something like "you pose the burden of proof on who best suits your argument".
However, that it is clearly not the case.
If you pretended not to see the difference, I cannot explain it more clearly than above.
And honestly I would suspect that you perfectly understand what you cannot concede to understand.

Really, I don't want to spend more on that without a reason. Sorry.

This entire probability argument is nonsense. I've had it many times in the past and every time it leads nowhere (on both sides). You can no more assume that 7 common insertion points are unlikely unless a common ancestor existed than I can assume the degree of fine-tuning in the universe as probable. They're both based on unproven, untested assumptions. That was the point but I would suspect that you perfectly knew that but must concede otherwise.

[angel]

Byblios:
If you do not mind I shall discuss LUCA in due time.
Now we are discussing common ancestor between humans and chimps. As such we are not interested in UNIVERSAL commun ancestors, if any.

Once we have agreed about what science says about chimps I will be more than happy to discuss about LUCA.

You said that viral insertions are relevant only if one FIRST accepts common ancestry as fact.
I you read carefully above I in fact showed that the viral insertions shared by us and chimps are extremely unlikely to occur (in the same locations)

IF ONE DOES NOT ASSUME COMMON ANCESTOR

In fact assuming common ancestor they are perfectly understandable on that basis.

MOREOVER, I showed that the discussion about VI is based on a bunch of data which has NOTHING to do with evolution.
In other words, one simply does not consider evolution until the VERY LAST step of reasoning, not the FIRST as you claimed.
And even at that point there is no ASSUMPTION about common ancestor.
I said "suppose not we do NOT share a common ancestor with chimps".
I never said "suppose now we share a common ancestor with chimps".

Despite what you could argue there is no assumption at the foundations of the argument. Please, now be good. Go back and read through the argument again. read it with care. Pay attention to what you are reading.

I hope you will post your thoughts about the subject again.
Yours

"since humans have 7 points of insertion and chimps have the same 7 points of insertions, chimps and humans must have a common ancestor"

what you emphatized (MUST) is in the thesis, not in the hypothesis.
You cannot use this to argue that my reasoning is BASED on the assumption of CA!
Arguments are based on HYPOTHESIS not on THESIS!

You can no more assume that 7 common insertion points are unlikely unless a common ancestor existed than I can assume the degree of fine-tuning in the universe as probable. They're both based on unproven, untested assumptions.

I listed the unproven and undested assumptions behind fine tuning argument.

Now I EXPECT you do the same with the argument about viral insertion.

[Byblos]

Byblos:
If you do not mind I shall discuss LUCA in due time.
Now we are discussing common ancestor between humans and chimps. As such we are not interested in UNIVERSAL commun ancestors, if any.

Once we have agreed about what science says about chimps I will be more than happy to discuss about LUCA.

The problem is that HGT disagrees with your entire theory of 'a single common human/chimp' ancestor. But ok, whatever.

You said that viral insertions are relevant only if one FIRST accepts common ancestry as fact.
I you read carefully above I in fact showed that the viral insertions shared by us and chimps are extremely unlikely to occur (in the same locations)

IF ONE DOES NOT ASSUME COMMON ANCESTOR

In fact assuming common ancestor they are perfectly understandable on that basis.

MOREOVER, I showed that the discussion about VI is based on a bunch of data which has NOTHING to do with evolution.
In other words, one simply does not consider evolution until the VERY LAST step of reasoning, not the FIRST as you claimed.
And even at that point there is no ASSUMPTION about common ancestor.
I said "suppose not we do NOT share a common ancestor with chimps".
I never said "suppose now we share a common ancestor with chimps".

Despite what you could argue there is no assumption at the foundations of the argument. Please, now be good. Go back and read through the argument again. read it with care. Pay attention to what you are reading.

I hope you will post your thoughts about the subject again.
Yours

Angel,

It makes no difference whatever whether you claim evolution and common ancestry in the BEGINNING of the argument are as a CONCLUSION of the argument. The fact is you have no proof, no data, no test results, no scientific steps, no peer-reviewed analysis, you have nothing other than an a-priori assumption which you insert in the end as a conclusion. Let me ask you this, what if scientists map out the guinea pig's genome and discover there are 6 common insertion points with humans? What if there were 8 common insertion points with chimps? Must you not conclude that the human/chimps ancestor, the human/guinea pig one, and the guinea pig/chimp one had their own common ancestor? Or is this what you will be arguing when discussing HGT and LUCA? The whole common retroviral insertion theory is tenuous at best.

"since humans have 7 points of insertion and chimps have the same 7 points of insertions, chimps and humans must have a common ancestor"

what you emphatized (MUST) is in the thesis, not in the hypothesis.
You cannot use this to argue that my reasoning is BASED on the assumption of CA!
Arguments are based on HYPOTHESIS not on THESIS!

Arguments are based on hypothesis if the data supports them, in which case they will corroborate the thesis and support the conclusion. You have no data and your conclusion is a leap of faith, which renders your hypothesis erroneous and your thesis irrelevant.

You can no more assume that 7 common insertion points are unlikely unless a common ancestor existed than I can assume the degree of fine-tuning in the universe as probable. They're both based on unproven, untested assumptions.

I listed the unproven and undested assumptions behind fine tuning argument.

Now I EXPECT you do the same with the argument about viral insertion.

Already done, see above. But if you still want to talk probability, create a new thread. I for one see no value in it for the reasons I listed above.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Angel,

It makes no difference whatever whether you claim evolution and common ancestry in the BEGINNING of the argument are as a CONCLUSION of the argument. The fact is you have no proof, no data, no test results, no scientific steps, no peer-reviewed analysis, you have nothing other than an a-priori assumption which you insert in the end as a conclusion. Let me ask you this, what if scientists map out the guinea pig's genome and discover there are 6 common insertion points with humans? What if there were 8 common insertion points with chimps? Must you not conclude that the human/chimps ancestor, the human/guinea pig one, and the guinea pig/chimp one had their own common ancestor?

Yes with our current understanding of ERV's we certainly can make this conclusion. But we should continue that discussion here.

[Judah]

At this point in the dialogue I think a reminder of Board Purpose could be in order, especially the following...

On an important note, some people do not like the "science" communicated by posters on the board. What posters write will even largely differ to what is advocated on the G&S website, for example, the Day-Age literal interpretation of Genesis 1 which accepts the science of the Earth being several billions years old, and a universe which has been expanding for about 14 billion years. Yet, as this is a Christian board, other Christian perspectives are welcome including Young-Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists. We will not accept a strictly Materialist-Evolution accounting of origins since this is in direct opposition with essential Christian beliefs.

To be clear, we will heavily moderate those who attempt to support a neo-Darwinian form of evolution, which is strictly Materialistic and Atheistic, and which rules out any possible influence or intervention from a divine being such as the Christian God within creation. There are many understandings of "Evolution", and a paper we recommend reading to clarify the different meanings is "The Meanings of Evolution" (PDF format) by Stephen Meyer and Michael Keas. The type of evolution not accepted here would come under the "Blind watchmaker thesis" in that paper:

the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.

Angel, I noted your comment concerning ID, that it is "garbage", and that you are strongly in favour of evolutionary theories instead. With that in mind, I am left wondering if you are seeking to find a way to be more considerate towards the Christian world view which is more in favour of creationism/ID - or if you are convinced that such ideas are not for you?
Please re-read the Board Purpose and know that you are very welcome to remain a member of this forum while keeping within those parameters, but the Board Purpose is there for a reason and moderation will occur accordingly if posts stray beyond it.

Judah (Moderator)

[angel]

Byblos
The fact is you have no proof, no data, no test results, no scientific steps,
no peer-reviewed analysis, you have nothing other than an a-priori assumption which you insert in the end as a conclusion.

I read through your posts. I beg your pardon byblios. Sometimes I am slow in getting your point. I was wondering...


Are you simply saying that I have no scientific evidences supporting my belief that we actually share (at least 7) viral insertions with chimps?
Or are you saying that EVEN accepting these insertions they would not be considered evidences of a common ancestor?

It might be that I simply misunderstood your critique to my argument.
Please clarify.

The problem is that HGT disagrees with your entire theory of 'a single common human/chimp' ancestor.

Provided you proved HGT occurred not only among bacteria but among mammals as well.
It might be so, but I suppose we could agree that that is a subject that deserves a sepapare discusssion.

[angel]

Judah
I am left wondering if you are seeking to find a way to be more considerate
towards the Christian world view which is more in favour of creationism/ID - or if you are convinced that such ideas are not for you?

I completely agree with your concerns. As I said in the past I have no idea made on Christianity. As I claimed in the past I consider myself a believer.

I believe your concerns are originate by the improper identification
of ID with Christian world views.
Notice that it is not an opinion of mine that such an identification is improper.
ID people claim all the time that ID is not about religion but it is about *science*.

I think we all can agree that they are in charge to decide what ID is about and
we have to accept what they say. I have nothing to say against ID as a world view.
I honestly do not remember where I claim it to be gargage.
If I did I meant a "scientific garbage" which is a precise concern of mine about
the actual evidences supporting their ideas.

As a Christian I do believe that God created us. I could even believe that
it created us as written in Genesis.
I could accept that it created everything in six literal days about in 6000bC.
I have absolutely no problem with any of this views. As you see I have no
preconceived idea to defend.


A completely different story is when one claims there are scientific evidences
to support ID. Because simply there are not, at least until differently proven.
I asked if someone is able to explain how a designed sequence can be recognized
fromm a random one. ID people claim it to be possible. Nobody was able to show me how to do.
It is hence my opinion that the possibility of single out designed characteristics
is just in their dreams. Again I am ready to reconsider my position if someone will show
how to do it. I hope we all agree that it is not necessary to be Christian to accept
such possibility on FAITH!

I asked about the possibility of make precise the arguments about how "unlikely"
some events connected with evolution are. I got no definite answer. I might be dummy, but that is
what I got from the discussion.

I asked about how well designed are some human features. We are still discussing about them.

Of course I am still waiting for answers to these basic points of ID.
If someone can show me how to spot designed sequences or similar features from random ones,
I am honestly ready to reconsider my position.

Considered this, I honestly believe to be well within the guidelines.

In any event HERE we are discussing a different point which has nothing to do with
ID. We are discussing viral insertions as evidences for common ancestors between human and chimps.
This started because I was said that there are (scientific) evidences that no such
common ancestor existed.
Byblios ((s)he could confirm it) started to discuss about it.
We are currently discussing about this issue. The discussion might be affected by some incomprehensions
(which is my intention to check and discuss with byblios directly).
It is currently on the way.

Once again I think the topics is only marginally regarding religion. I know many Christians and
believers who accept common ancestors. I would not say that they have made up their mind against
religion, would you?

Even if I would force the universe to agree that there is no scientific evidence supporting
ID or against creation of new species, I honestly cannot see how this should be considered
something against "the Christian world view". Just to mention the whole Vatican Church
is accepting common ancestors and I would have some difficult in considering them
atheists. I might not agree with all their religious views, but they have as much
right to call themselves "Christians" as I have.

Concerning the guidelline you mentioned

To be clear, we will heavily moderate those who attempt to support a neo-Darwinian
form of evolution, which is strictly Materialistic and Atheistic, and which rules out
any possible influence or intervention from a divine being such as the Christian God within creation.

I am not supporsting neo-Darwinism. And I am not atheist.
I simply believe that there is no scientific evidence that God is acting on the world.
I am not even claiming that it did not acted. I simply say that we do not have still evidence that it did.
I think there are a class of creationists (theistic creationists) who could agree on these point.
In particular I NEVER claimed evolution to be unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material process.
I NEVER discussed about evolution in general terms. On the ocontrary I always consider specific issues
(such as humand and chimps sharing a common ancestor.) I cannot see how one could claim my view on evolution is
preconceived, materialistic or atheistic. I am just discussing scientific evidences.


I hope this will solve most of your wonderings.