PDA

View Full Version : Mutations



bob b
January 31st, 2006, 04:01 PM
Abstract
An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information. Instead, mutations will produce degradation of the information in the genome. This is the opposite of the predictions of the neoDarwinian origins model. Such genome degradation is counteracted by natural selection that helps maintain the status quo. Degradation results for many reasons, two of which are reviewed here. 1) there is a tendency for mutations to produce a highly disproportionate number of certain nucleotide bases such as thymine and 2) many mutations occur in only a relatively few places within the gene called “hot spots,” and rarely occur in others, known as “cold spots.” An intensive review of the literature fails to reveal a single clear example of a beneficial information-gaining mutation. Conversely, thousands of deleterious mutations exist, supporting the hypothesis that very few mutations are beneficial. These findings support the creation origins model.

http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp

bob b
February 1st, 2006, 12:42 PM
Apparenty everyone agrees that the theory of "random mutations plus natural selection" is dead.

I wonder what "naturalistic" theory will replace it?

sentientsynth
February 1st, 2006, 12:51 PM
Apparenty everyone agrees that the theory of "random mutations plus natural selection" is dead.

I wonder what "naturalistic" theory will replace it?

Hopeful Monster?

bob b
February 1st, 2006, 01:18 PM
Hopeful Monster?

That was tried several times, first by Goldschimdt, and later in a more acceptable form by Gould.

I would vote that the replacement will be a theory of "non-random mutations plus natural selection".

The reason this will be offered follows from the same simple observations that led to the crisis in the random idea, namely that antibiotic and pesticide resistence, etc. occur far too quickly and repeatably to be driven by "random" mutations. Random mutations to a genome could not possibly arrive so quickly at identical genetic forms because there are too many places in the genome for a random trial search strategy to "find" the same mutation 'solution". It was the "repeatability" as well as the short timescale of the experiments that defeated the "random" suggested solution.

So now the controversy will begin to shift to explanations as to why the bacteria are able to so quickly find non-random mutational solutions to their survival reactions.

Of course we creationists already know the general answer: the enabling mechanisms were "built-in" from the very first by an intelligent designer. ;)

sentientsynth
February 1st, 2006, 02:20 PM
bob b,

Thanks for the reply.


I would vote that the replacement will be a theory of "non-random mutations plus natural selection"
It would seem that some degree of randomness must be affirmed. If the mechanism that produces "non-random mutations" was itself the product of a non-random event, then haven't we just pushed the problem back a step? Is it possible for a theory of single common ancestry to eradicate every shred of randomness and remain purely "naturalistic"?


Of course we creationists already know the general answer: the enabling mechanisms were "built-in" from the very first by an intelligent designer.

Bob, I hate to quibble with you over a matter of words, but referring to God as "an intelligent designer" just doesn't sit well with me. Like a glass of warm milk, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I would prefer to read "..the enabling mechanisms were "built-in" from the very first by God," but maybe I'm just being overly sensitive.

Perhaps it's the notion of intelligent design altogether that has me wary.

I don't mind at all the notion of :

God, therefore intelligent design.

What I dislike is the notion of :

Intelligent Design, therefore God.


Anyway, I'm curious to know what you think about single common ancestor theory being able to eradicate all traces of randomness from it.



Peace,

SS

bob b
February 1st, 2006, 03:20 PM
bob b,

Thanks for the reply.


It would seem that some degree of randomness must be affirmed. If the mechanism that produces "non-random mutations" was itself the product of a non-random event, then haven't we just pushed the problem back a step? Is it possible for a theory of single common ancestry to eradicate every shred of randomness and remain purely "naturalistic"?

It is perceptive of you to conclude the next move after the one I predicted. Do you enjoy chess by any chance?


Bob, I hate to quibble with you over a matter of words, but referring to God as "an intelligent designer" just doesn't sit well with me. Like a glass of warm milk, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I would prefer to read "..the enabling mechanisms were "built-in" from the very first by God," but maybe I'm just being overly sensitive.

I try to avoid unnecessarily needling the atheists. Of course God is the Intelligent Designer.


Perhaps it's the notion of intelligent design altogether that has me wary.

I don't mind at all the notion of :

God, therefore intelligent design.

What I dislike is the notion of :

Intelligent Design, therefore God.


ID is a broad tent that can cover even atheists and agnostics. Its proponents feel that the priority is to establish that "naturalism" is not a likely candidate for the intelligent designer.

As we see on this forum, as soon as God is brought into the discussion, the conversation tends to shift from science to metaphysics. The ID people believe that "molecules to man" fails scientifically and showing this to scientists is the best way to help convince those scientists of its shortcomings.

They are probably right about this, but I don't follow their lead because I enjoy the arguments that cover religion and Christianity as much as the ones about science.

Besides, I think they way underestimate how many decades it will take scientists to finally drop their naturalistic paradigms regarding Origins.

It took thousands of years before Aristotle's Earth-centered philosophy was dropped by scientists. We can only hope that the scientific demise of "naturalistic" Origins philosophy will take not thousands but only hundreds of years.


Anyway, I'm curious to know what you think about single common ancestor theory being able to eradicate all traces of randomness from it.


Anything is possible given billions of years. Right? ;)

sentientsynth
February 1st, 2006, 03:38 PM
It is perceptive of you to conclude the next move after the one I predicted. Do you enjoy chess by any chance?
I enjoy chess very much. I don't get to play but every so often. I play the Ruy mainly.


I try to avoid unnecessarily needling the atheists.
Understandable.


The ID people believe that "molecules to man" fails scientifically and showing this to scientists is the best way to help convince those scientists of its shortcomings.
Ultimately, though, ID is an argument-of-the-gaps, if we apply "formal" argumentation rules to it. Materialists like Futuyma (sp?) see this clearly and are not budging an inch.


They are probably right about this, but I don't follow their lead because I enjoy the arguments that cover religion and Christianity as much as the ones about science.
The problem with using ID as an argument is that if it convinces a person, then the logical outcome is an anemic deism, like in the case of Anthony Flew. Convincing people that there is a god is a step in the right direction. But it's a long way from convincing someone that Jesus is Lord (which Scripture implies is impossible.


Besides, I think they way underestimate how many decades it will take scientists to finally drop their naturalistic paradigms regarding Origins.

It took thousands of years before Aristotle's Earth-centered philosophy was dropped by scientists. We can only hope that the scientific demise of "naturalistic" Origins philosophy will take not thousands but only hundreds of years.
Right on.


Anythings possible given billions of years. Right? ;)
Especially given an infinite number of infinitely variable realities!


SS

bob b
February 1st, 2006, 04:56 PM
Ultimately, though, ID is an argument-of-the-gaps, if we apply "formal" argumentation rules to it. Materialists like Futuyma (sp?) see this clearly and are not budging an inch.

It takes many years for flawed paradigms to die. One must essentially wait for the older generations to die off. Aristotle's science lasted for almost two millenia.


The problem with using ID as an argument is that if it convinces a person, then the logical outcome is an anemic deism, like in the case of Anthony Flew.

True, but he was one of the world's most important spokesmen for atheism. His conversion to a deist was a major event.


Convincing people that there is a god is a step in the right direction. But it's a long way from convincing someone that Jesus is Lord (which Scripture implies is impossible.

St. Paul used the then existing Greek belief in gods as an opening to preach the news of the real God to a more receptive Greek audience.

sentientsynth
February 2nd, 2006, 01:00 AM
bob b,

I said: Convincing people that there is a god is a step in the right direction. But it's a long way from convincing someone that Jesus is Lord (which Scripture implies is impossible.)


St. Paul used the then existing Greek belief in gods as an opening to preach the news of the real God to a more receptive Greek audience.
Yes. I agree. But intelligent design argumentation is unlike Paul's approach, I think. That's not to say that life doesn't exhibit all the tell-tale signs of a Creator, but that the specific form of intelligent design argumentation isn't Biblical.

I'm sure you know the story of Lazarus (Luke 16.) I take away from this parable the fact that people aren't convinced by evidence. How do you understand this passage of Scripture?


SS

bob b
February 2nd, 2006, 07:33 PM
bob b,

I said: Convincing people that there is a god is a step in the right direction. But it's a long way from convincing someone that Jesus is Lord (which Scripture implies is impossible.)


Yes. I agree. But intelligent design argumentation is unlike Paul's approach, I think. That's not to say that life doesn't exhibit all the tell-tale signs of a Creator, but that the specific form of intelligent design argumentation isn't Biblical.

I'm sure you know the story of Lazarus (Luke 16.) I take away from this parable the fact that people aren't convinced by evidence. How do you understand this passage of Scripture?


SS

It may well be that people are not convinced to believe in God by evidence, but it would appear that they can be convinced to not believe in God by evidence.

There are even many Christians who are wavering in their faith in God, because they are being convinced by improper interpretation of the evidence that all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell, conveniently never defined.

No, the evidence shows that what is called macroevolution is not true. There is no need for Christians to roll over and play dead, for Science is Against Evolution (name of an excellent antievolution website). :)

PS I am hoping that a new poster will scan this posting and go to the opening post of this thread, because he is under the mistaken impression that antibiotic resistence in bacteria is evidence for the Bacteria to Man evolutionary hypothesis.

noguru
February 3rd, 2006, 05:39 AM
Some of the best evidence for mutation that leads to different species, and for macroevoution can be seen in marine reptiles. Many marine reptiles (turtles, sea snakes) must return to land to lay eggs. Now if we look at the fossil record we see that reptiles appear after amphibians. The fact that egg laying marine reptiles must return to land makes sense in the light of the naturalistic model of the fossil record. Reptile eggs have evolved to be layed on land. They cannot survive in water. Amphibian eggs must be layed in water. They cannot survive outside of a marine environment.

There is also the evidence that can be gained from looking at the venom and phenotypes of sea snakes. They are most like elapids (cobras, coral snakes, mambas), however they have developed a tail that is more adept at propulsion in water. As well as a gland that allows them to ingest salt water. Here is a link that you might find interesting.

Sea Snakes (http://www.allthesea.com/Sea-Snakes.html)

bob b
February 4th, 2006, 08:06 PM
Some of the best evidence for mutation that leads to different species, and for macroevoution can be seen in marine reptiles. Many marine reptiles (turtles, sea snakes) must return to land to lay eggs. Now if we look at the fossil record we see that reptiles appear after amphibians. The fact that egg laying marine reptiles must return to land makes sense in the light of the naturalistic model of the fossil record. Reptile eggs have evolved to be layed on land. They cannot survive in water. Amphibian eggs must be layed in water. They cannot survive outside of a marine environment.

There is also the evidence that can be gained from looking at the venom and phenotypes of sea snakes. They are most like elapids (cobras, coral snakes, mambas), however they have developed a tail that is more adept at propulsion in water. As well as a gland that allows them to ingest salt water. Here is a link that you might find interesting.

Sea Snakes (http://www.allthesea.com/Sea-Snakes.html)

I would agree that a lot of the ideas that evolutionists come up with to explain what they see in nature and the fossil record "make sense". This is understandable since scientists are generally speaking sensible people.

But coming up with a "sensible explanation" is not what we ordinarily think of when we are talking about science and the scientific method. It is the next step which is the crucial one: testing the idea to make sure that it is the correct answer instead of only seeming to be correct because it appears to be sensible.

Aristotle's idea that the Earth does not move was very sensible. He even proposed thought experiments which seemed to verify that the Earth did not move.

Once convinced that the Earth did not move the next step was to explain why during the night the stars revolved about a fixed pole (North) star. The conclusion was obvious: the stars rotated around a fixed Earth for it had been previously shown that the Earth was indeed fixed and was immovable.

This line of argument prevailed for almost 2000 years (although there were notable exceptions including some of Aristotle's contemporaries and later scientists as well).

One of the reasons the idea lasted was because enhancements were made mathematically to the basic theory to match the motions of the planets. With time these mathematical adjustments, called loosely epicycles, were made more and more elaborate as better and more acurate measurements of planetary motions were made.

When Galileo proposed a far simpler approach to planetary motion around 1611 or so, one reason that his idea was opposed was that the mathematics of a fixed Earth viewpoint, the epicycles addition to Aristotle's idea, called the Ptolemy system, yielded a more accurate prediction of future planetary position than did Galileo's scheme. How could this be you say? Wasn't Galileo right?

Galileo was right in principle but he had one detail wrong. He knew about the orbital ellipses of Kepler but rejected them in favor of the perfect circle, which would be more worthy of a perfect Creator. Thus, his predictions of planetary position were less accurate than the Ptolemy scheme. Of course the epicycles of the Ptolemy scheme were simply ad hoc mathematical inventions introduced to make the theory fit the evidence.

And of course the Ptolemy's of this world continue the practice of adjusting theories to fit the evidence and then bragging about the truthfulness of the theory because it fits the evidence.

Sounds strangely like "inflation", "dark matter", "dark energy" and "multiple parallel universes" in the cosmos.

And "convergence", "stasis", "Cope's Law, "science rules out God", "punctuated equilibium", "the existence of DNA is the evidence that it arose naturally", etc. that we hear advanced on this and other forums.

noguru
February 5th, 2006, 07:50 AM
I would agree that a lot of the ideas that evolutionists come up with to explain what they see in nature and the fossil record "make sense". This is understandable since scientists are generally speaking sensible people.

But coming up with a "sensible explanation" is not what we ordinarily think of when we are talking about science and the scientific method. It is the next step which is the crucial one: testing the idea to make sure that it is the correct answer instead of only seeming to be correct because it appears to be sensible.

Aristotle's idea that the Earth does not move was very sensible. He even proposed thought experiments which seemed to verify that the Earth did not move.

Once convinced that the Earth did not move the next step was to explain why during the night the stars revolved about a fixed pole (North) star. The conclusion was obvious: the stars rotated around a fixed Earth for it had been previously shown that the Earth was indeed fixed and was immovable.

This line of argument prevailed for almost 2000 years (although there were notable exceptions including some of Aristotle's contemporaries and later scientists as well).

One of the reasons the idea lasted was because enhancements were made mathematically to the basic theory to match the motions of the planets. With time these mathematical adjustments, called loosely epicycles, were made more and more elaborate as better and more acurate measurements of planetary motions were made.

When Galileo proposed a far simpler approach to planetary motion around 1611 or so, one reason that his idea was opposed was that the mathematics of a fixed Earth viewpoint, the epicycles addition to Aristotle's idea, called the Ptolemy system, yielded a more accurate prediction of future planetary position than did Galileo's scheme. How could this be you say? Wasn't Galileo right?

Galileo was right in principle but he had one detail wrong. He knew about the orbital ellipses of Kepler but rejected them in favor of the perfect circle, which would be more worthy of a perfect Creator. Thus, his predictions of planetary position were less accurate than the Ptolemy scheme. Of course the epicycles of the Ptolemy scheme were simply ad hoc mathematical inventions introduced to make the theory fit the evidence.

And of course the Ptolemy's of this world continue the practice of adjusting theories to fit the evidence and then bragging about the truthfulness of the theory because it fits the evidence.

Sounds strangely like "inflation", "dark matter", "dark energy" and "multiple parallel universes" in the cosmos.

And "convergence", "stasis", "Cope's Law, "science rules out God", "punctuated equilibium", "the existence of DNA is the evidence that it arose naturally", etc. that we hear advanced on this and other forums.

Well Bob, this post it a bit off point. I thought we were discussing mutations and the evidence for such. I brought up another line of evidence for mutation other than, and one that I thought was better than, penicillin resistant bacteria. You could have addressed my evidence and how it supports your model better. Instead you chose to go on some tangent discussing the evidences behind different models of the solar system. Perhaps to you this seems to support your model of YEC origins, but I fail to see how it is relevant to our discussion.

Either you are at a loss for words as to how the evidence I propose is better support for your model of biological origins. Or you did not feel my example was worthy of a well thought out response.

In conclusion I would like to point out that neither model of the solar system appeals to the supernatural to explain the unknowns. Also, you claim that the next "crucial" test of good science, after a reasonable model has been constructed, is to verify the accuracy of that model. Actually the evidence I proposed was meant as a verification of the naturalistic model of the fossil record. Can you please explain how this evidence verifies your YEC model of origins?

bob b
February 5th, 2006, 02:28 PM
Some of the best evidence for mutation that leads to different species, and for macroevoution can be seen in marine reptiles. Many marine reptiles (turtles, sea snakes) must return to land to lay eggs. Now if we look at the fossil record we see that reptiles appear after amphibians. The fact that egg laying marine reptiles must return to land makes sense in the light of the naturalistic model of the fossil record. Reptile eggs have evolved to be layed on land. They cannot survive in water. Amphibian eggs must be layed in water. They cannot survive outside of a marine environment.

There is also the evidence that can be gained from looking at the venom and phenotypes of sea snakes. They are most like elapids (cobras, coral snakes, mambas), however they have developed a tail that is more adept at propulsion in water. As well as a gland that allows them to ingest salt water. Here is a link that you might find interesting.

Sea Snakes (http://www.allthesea.com/Sea-Snakes.html)

I must be dreaming or otherwise imagined that this was the posting where you provided evidence that random mutations plus natural selection caused changes in lifeforms causing them to evolve.

For the life of me I don't see a trace here of such scientific evidence.Did I get the wrong posting?

noguru
February 6th, 2006, 04:01 PM
Bold facing added by me.

My original post:



Some of the best evidence for mutation that leads to different species, and for macroevoution can be seen in marine reptiles. Many marine reptiles (turtles, sea snakes) must return to land to lay eggs. Now if we look at the fossil record we see that reptiles appear after amphibians. The fact that egg laying marine reptiles must return to land makes sense in the light of the naturalistic model of the fossil record. Reptile eggs have evolved to be layed on land. They cannot survive in water. Amphibian eggs must be layed in water. They cannot survive outside of a marine environment.

There is also the evidence that can be gained from looking at the venom and phenotypes of sea snakes. They are most like elapids (cobras, coral snakes, mambas), however they have developed a tail that is more adept at propulsion in water. As well as a gland that allows them to ingest salt water. Here is a link that you might find interesting.

Sea Snakes

Bob B's first response to my post:


I would agree that a lot of the ideas that evolutionists come up with to explain what they see in nature and the fossil record "make sense". This is understandable since scientists are generally speaking sensible people.

But coming up with a "sensible explanation" is not what we ordinarily think of when we are talking about science and the scientific method. It is the next step which is the crucial one: testing the idea to make sure that it is the correct answer instead of only seeming to be correct because it appears to be sensible.

Aristotle's idea that the Earth does not move was very sensible. He even proposed thought experiments which seemed to verify that the Earth did not move.

Once convinced that the Earth did not move the next step was to explain why during the night the stars revolved about a fixed pole (North) star. The conclusion was obvious: the stars rotated around a fixed Earth for it had been previously shown that the Earth was indeed fixed and was immovable.

This line of argument prevailed for almost 2000 years (although there were notable exceptions including some of Aristotle's contemporaries and later scientists as well).

One of the reasons the idea lasted was because enhancements were made mathematically to the basic theory to match the motions of the planets. With time these mathematical adjustments, called loosely epicycles, were made more and more elaborate as better and more acurate measurements of planetary motions were made.

When Galileo proposed a far simpler approach to planetary motion around 1611 or so, one reason that his idea was opposed was that the mathematics of a fixed Earth viewpoint, the epicycles addition to Aristotle's idea, called the Ptolemy system, yielded a more accurate prediction of future planetary position than did Galileo's scheme. How could this be you say? Wasn't Galileo right?

Galileo was right in principle but he had one detail wrong. He knew about the orbital ellipses of Kepler but rejected them in favor of the perfect circle, which would be more worthy of a perfect Creator. Thus, his predictions of planetary position were less accurate than the Ptolemy scheme. Of course the epicycles of the Ptolemy scheme were simply ad hoc mathematical inventions introduced to make the theory fit the evidence.

And of course the Ptolemy's of this world continue the practice of adjusting theories to fit the evidence and then bragging about the truthfulness of the theory because it fits the evidence.

Sounds strangely like "inflation", "dark matter", "dark energy" and "multiple parallel universes" in the cosmos.

And "convergence", "stasis", "Cope's Law, "science rules out God", "punctuated equilibium", "the existence of DNA is the evidence that it arose naturally", etc. that we hear advanced on this and other forums.

My response to Bob's first response:



Well Bob, this post it a bit off point. I thought we were discussing mutations and the evidence for such. I brought up another line of evidence for mutation other than, and one that I thought was better than, penicillin resistant bacteria. You could have addressed my evidence and how it supports your model better. Instead you chose to go on some tangent discussing the evidences behind different models of the solar system. Perhaps to you this seems to support your model of YEC origins, but I fail to see how it is relevant to our discussion.

Either you are at a loss for words as to how the evidence I propose is better support for your model of biological origins. Or you did not feel my example was worthy of a well thought out response.

In conclusion I would like to point out that neither model of the solar system appeals to the supernatural to explain the unknowns. Also, you claim that the next "crucial" test of good science, after a reasonable model has been constructed, is to verify the accuracy of that model. Actually the evidence I proposed was meant as a verification of the naturalistic model of the fossil record. Can you please explain how this evidence verifies your YEC model of origins?


Now Bob responds with this:


I must be dreaming or otherwise imagined that this was the posting where you provided evidence that random mutations plus natural selection caused changes in lifeforms causing them to evolve.

For the life of me I don't see a trace here of such scientific evidence.Did I get the wrong posting?


You seem to be waffling here, Bob.

So which is it? Does it "make sense" as you said in the first response and qualify as verification of the concept that genetic variation (mutations) leads to new species? Or were you dreaming when you posted that response and only woke up when you read my later comments?

bob b
February 7th, 2006, 05:30 PM
[You seem to be waffling here, Bob.

So which is it? Does it "make sense" as you said in the first response and qualify as verification of the concept that genetic variation (mutations) leads to new species? Or were you dreaming when you posted that response and only woke up when you read my later comments?

I didn't say that your posting made sense. I was speaking about evolutionary "just so" stories in general appear to make sense. However, it seems to me that science requires something besides stories that just seem to "make sense". Aristotle's stories about physical phenomena seemed to make sense, but unfortunately, as Galileo showed, most of the explanations were wrong.

In the case of your particular posting I had already expressed my bewilderment, because it said nothing at all about mutations.

Your phrase in the first paragraph above, "genetic variation (mutations)", tells me that you are apparently assuming that any change in trait or appearance in a lifeform has to be the result of a random mutation. Some may be, but that is what needs to be established in each particular case before one can go on and draw conclusions about lifeform traits and appearances.

In addition, some DNA changes, in bacteria for example, seem to occur in a non-random fashion, which to me opens up the possibility that there may be some biological mechanism that is causing such a non-random change. And if there is a mechanism, this means that there is an additional level of understanding that must be determined, because one should then have to explain how such a mechanism itself arose in the first place.

noguru
February 8th, 2006, 07:08 AM
I didn't say that your posting made sense. I was speaking about evolutionary "just so" stories in general appear to make sense. However, it seems to me that science requires something besides stories that just seem to "make sense". Aristotle's stories about physical phenomena seemed to make sense, but unfortunately, as Galileo showed, most of the explanations were wrong.

In the case of your particular posting I had already expressed my bewilderment, because it said nothing at all about mutations.

Your phrase in the first paragraph above, "genetic variation (mutations)", tells me that you are apparently assuming that any change in trait or appearance in a lifeform has to be the result of a random mutation. Some may be, but that is what needs to be established in each particular case before one can go on and draw conclusions about lifeform traits and appearances.

In addition, some DNA changes, in bacteria for example, seem to occur in a non-random fashion, which to me opens up the possibility that there may be some biological mechanism that is causing such a non-random change. And if there is a mechanism, this means that there is an additional level of understanding that must be determined, because one should then have to explain how such a mechanism itself arose in the first place.

Bob for the sake of argument I show you a coral snake, a sea snake and tell you that the coral snake was the parent species of the sea snake, would you condsider the sea snake to be a mutation of the coral snake? You know since its tail had morphed into something better for propelling the animal under water, and it has a gland that allows it ingest salt water as hydration.

Yes, of course there are mechanisms involved. These are physical mechanisms, not non-physical "supernatural" mechanisms. Why would we expect anything different. Even randomness can be the result of mechanisms. Have you ever seen a roulette wheel?

bob b
February 9th, 2006, 06:35 PM
Bob for the sake of argument I show you a coral snake, a sea snake and tell you that the coral snake was the parent species of the sea snake, would you condsider the sea snake to be a mutation of the coral snake? You know since its tail had morphed into something better for propelling the animal under water, and it has a gland that allows it ingest salt water as hydration.

Yes, of course there are mechanisms involved. These are physical mechanisms, not non-physical "supernatural" mechanisms. Why would we expect anything different. Even randomness can be the result of mechanisms. Have you ever seen a roulette wheel?

Have you ever been educated in probability theory?

("Bob, for the sake of argument let us assume that evolution is true. Then pray tell me why don't you believe that it is?")

ThePhy
February 9th, 2006, 10:46 PM
I know this is a mutations thread, but I figure if Bob b can start the thread and then out of the clear blue toss in some of his cosmology ideas, then I can respond to the cosmology issues.

From bob b:
Sounds strangely like "inflation", "dark matter", "dark energy" and "multiple parallel universes" in the cosmos. Inflation and multiple parallel universes are theoretical constructs. In most respects, they are far enough from being testable that even those scientists working on those ideas admit they are in a very grey area. Bob can laugh at those ideas, forefront ideas in science and technology have attracted ridicule for centuries.

But I am curious about Bob’s ridicule of dark energy and dark matter. What is it in those concepts that he finds so deserving of his disdain?