Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8
Cito di Pense wrote:OrdinaryClay wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:OrdinaryClay wrote:Does this not give evolutionary biologists pause, at least ones with statistical training, when you look at that space and see only one species that has mapped it's own genome.
Wait. You're using human beings' opinions of themselves as some kind of yardstick for 'something unusual'. Get a second opinion. Then another. When you have an adequate sampling of species with self-opinions, then you can talk about 'unusual'. This means you shouldn't restrict yourself to considering life forms you find only on this planet.
What I'm saying is that your question is an entirely vacuous opinion based on limited data.
Oh yes, the "can't define unique or special" canard. Now that's vacuous.
Probability proves you wrong.
What do you know about sample spaces, OrdinaryClay? Nothing, that's what's evident on the face of your bullshit.
NineBerry wrote:This argument has been debunked a million times.
There are two major problems:
1. Because of the deterministic parts of evolution, the sample space is not as big as you would want us to believe.
2. You talk about the possibility of achieving a very specific genome when the relevant question is what is necessary to achieve any genome. When rolling a dice, the chance to role a six is close to 1/6, but the chance to role and number is close to 1/1.
OrdinaryClay wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:OrdinaryClay wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:
Wait. You're using human beings' opinions of themselves as some kind of yardstick for 'something unusual'. Get a second opinion. Then another. When you have an adequate sampling of species with self-opinions, then you can talk about 'unusual'. This means you shouldn't restrict yourself to considering life forms you find only on this planet.
What I'm saying is that your question is an entirely vacuous opinion based on limited data.
Oh yes, the "can't define unique or special" canard. Now that's vacuous.
Probability proves you wrong.
What do you know about sample spaces, OrdinaryClay? Nothing, that's what's evident on the face of your bullshit.
What is erroneous with what I've posted regarding sample spaces in this thread?
NineBerry wrote:This argument has been debunked a million times.
There are two major problems:
1. Because of the deterministic parts of evolution, the sample space is not as big as you would want us to believe.
2. You talk about the possibility of achieving a very specific genome when the relevant question is what is necessary to achieve any genome. When rolling a dice, the chance to role a six is close to 1/6, but the chance to role and number is close to 1/1.
OrdinaryClay wrote:Really? Then it should be trivially easy for you to point me to a thread, a paper, a blog post a book that deals with the subject. Can you?
OrdinaryClay wrote:Rumraket wrote:OrdinaryClay wrote:rumraket, good info and I'll go there in a minute.
Second observation, which to me seems completely non-controversial whether you are a materialist or not. The sample space over the entire history of life on the earth is staggeringly enormous (yes I'm completely on board with the 3.8 BY give or take trajectory of life). No?
Sure, the space of potential, probably never realized genomic sequences, is enormous. Much greater than the sampled one.
What is an unrealized genomic sequence? Still borne?
The explanation for why what in particular just happened once? I'm not sure I understand the question.
What: An intellectual achievement such as mapping the genome of it's own species.
Do you think convergent evolution is common or rare?
Cito di Pense wrote:NineBerry wrote:This argument has been debunked a million times.
There are two major problems:
1. Because of the deterministic parts of evolution, the sample space is not as big as you would want us to believe.
2. You talk about the possibility of achieving a very specific genome when the relevant question is what is necessary to achieve any genome. When rolling a dice, the chance to role a six is close to 1/6, but the chance to role and number is close to 1/1.
That's not the only fallacy OrdinaryClay is committing. He can also sample longitudinally, in say, the last 100 million years and find only what he's looking for just at the time he's doing the study. How convenient for that tower of bullshit.
OrdinaryClay wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:NineBerry wrote:This argument has been debunked a million times.
There are two major problems:
1. Because of the deterministic parts of evolution, the sample space is not as big as you would want us to believe.
2. You talk about the possibility of achieving a very specific genome when the relevant question is what is necessary to achieve any genome. When rolling a dice, the chance to role a six is close to 1/6, but the chance to role and number is close to 1/1.
That's not the only fallacy OrdinaryClay is committing. He can also sample longitudinally, in say, the last 100 million years and find only what he's looking for just at the time he's doing the study. How convenient for that tower of bullshit.
Huh?
Anyway, there is no need to change the sample period, though I did earlier to just include chordates, because we are still the only genome to map itself ever.
OrdinaryClay wrote:So here is my question and where I'm positive there will great gnashing of teeth ... Does this not give evolutionary biologists pause, at least ones with statistical training, when you look at that space and see only one species that has mapped it's own genome. For a materialists what is the explanation they use for why it happened just once? Just "shit happens"?
Thommo wrote:
I don't get the question or why you'd expect there to be gnashing of teeth.
NineBerry wrote:Genomes don't sequence genomes. Technology does.
Rumraket wrote:OrdinaryClay wrote:Rumraket wrote:OrdinaryClay wrote:rumraket, good info and I'll go there in a minute.
Second observation, which to me seems completely non-controversial whether you are a materialist or not. The sample space over the entire history of life on the earth is staggeringly enormous (yes I'm completely on board with the 3.8 BY give or take trajectory of life). No?
Sure, the space of potential, probably never realized genomic sequences, is enormous. Much greater than the sampled one.
What is an unrealized genomic sequence? Still borne?
I just mean one that never came to exist. In this sense I would say that technically a stillborn, or dead-on-arrival organism (that died due to lethal mutations), is still a realized genomic sequence. It existed in reality once upon a time.
But at the phenotypic level I believe it is more common than at the genetic level, because for the most part, we inhabit similar environments and are subject to similar selective pressures. And there are usually many different genetic pathways to the same phenotypic result.
Cito di Pense wrote:OrdinaryClay wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:NineBerry wrote:This argument has been debunked a million times.
There are two major problems:
1. Because of the deterministic parts of evolution, the sample space is not as big as you would want us to believe.
2. You talk about the possibility of achieving a very specific genome when the relevant question is what is necessary to achieve any genome. When rolling a dice, the chance to role a six is close to 1/6, but the chance to role and number is close to 1/1.
That's not the only fallacy OrdinaryClay is committing. He can also sample longitudinally, in say, the last 100 million years and find only what he's looking for just at the time he's doing the study. How convenient for that tower of bullshit.
Huh?
Anyway, there is no need to change the sample period, though I did earlier to just include chordates, because we are still the only genome to map itself ever.
So you say. As I suspected, you know fuck all about sample spaces. For your next trick, you should try to say something intelligent about population dynamics. Then give your tie in with deterministic processes. That will shut you up for awhile, unless you care, as expeccted, to go on making stupid statements on topics you cannot show you know anything about.
Remember? You asked the question in the OP. Your tone there implied you know what you're talking about.
Thommo wrote:OrdinaryClay wrote:So here is my question and where I'm positive there will great gnashing of teeth ... Does this not give evolutionary biologists pause, at least ones with statistical training, when you look at that space and see only one species that has mapped it's own genome. For a materialists what is the explanation they use for why it happened just once? Just "shit happens"?
I don't get the question or why you'd expect there to be gnashing of teeth.
We haven't established what proportion of the sample space can be swept out in a given time, we haven't established what proportion of the sample space would allow for a species to map its own genome.
Are we supposed to be surprised because a genome mapping species arrived slower than expected, or because a genome mapping species arrived faster than expected?
Presumably we'd need a comprehensive estimate of how fast we expected it to arrive before we were surprised either way, wouldn't we? Even then we'd have huge problems with generating a meaningful expectation because we have a non valid sample size (of just 1 successful result), a questionably chosen sample space (it doesn't allow for the anthropic principle) and a post hoc definition of the desirable outcomes.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest