Are All UFO Reports Wrong, Or Are They Evidence That UFOs Exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It contradicts precisely the quotation of yours to which I applied it.

It contradicts your misreading of the quotation. I realize you're quite off here and it's indeed more economical for me and educational to the average reader to restrict my responses to a smaller number of posters more inclined to follow what's actually written.

If mutation number one is advantageous, the resultant population of organisms INCREASES in sample size.

The mutation number one is not advantegous since it doesn't grant sight (an eyespot of a unicellular organism does which isnt to be confused with the 'light-sensitive spot' I referred to) while making the organism meanwhile less efficient than its non-mutant peers, and more vulnerable to fatal radiation trauma as light-sensitive spots do. The mutation also likely concerns only one individual from the whole population who would need offspring and a whole line of progeny within which further disadvantageous mutations towards a fully formed eye must occur cumulatively. Note, the majority of the population (non-mutants) are already advantegeous so they're very likely to outnumber the mutant subpopulations exponentially down the line. The sample size becomes smaller.

Ann: "As to your insistence that mathematics can define biology (and, I think, a misuse of the concept of "infinite") we are still waiting for you to produce a justification for that claim."

I made no such claim let alone insisted on it. And there's absolutely no need to repeat the actual mathematical claim I made if you didn't get it the first three times. Go back to the part in italics a few posts back in my longer post. You seem more inclined to like and agree to any poster that disagrees with me without impartially studying (and with full understanding) both lines of argumentation in terms of their actual logical and scientific merits. That's not being a "scientist at heart".

I'm a scientist at heart,

Then follow your heart more resolutely when dealing with topics that evidently rouse your biases.
 
Last edited:
I do agree that this argument about complexity is largely a side-track, but it intrigues me; my degree (long ago) was in botany, and plants have been getting more complex over time (although they have no real neural compoment, so that can't be used as a metric).

On the other hand my daughter has a PhD in genetics, and works as a mathematical biologist. I wonder if I can trouble you for some cites, please, and I may be able to persuade her to give this research a once-over. Not promising anything, mind - she is a busy woman.
 
I do agree that this argument about complexity is largely a side-track, but it intrigues me; my degree (long ago) was in botany, and plants have been getting more complex over time (although they have no real neural compoment, so that can't be used as a metric).

That's a valuable correction. Hence McShea (cited earlier in the thread) says biologists studying complexity employ an organism-level (not just restricting the count to neural or other specific cell-types) cell count and cell type count horizontally on different hierarchical levels, coupled with a vertical hierarchy count of nestedness within subsystems. The latter being ultimately the more important metric in determining complexity. An even more nuanced metric would also analyze the organism's system-level total behaviours and their types and compare it to other organisms.

Apologies for the botany discrimination. Long live the carrots!
 
It contradicts your misreading of the quotation.
The mutation number one is not advantegous since it doesn't grant sight (only a fully-formed eye does) while making the organism meanwhile less efficient than its non-mutant peers
Your quotation, again, which I did not misread:
"But the IDists are not wrong in stating that a complex and flexible organ like the eye has a positive selective value only when it is more or less fully formed "

Darwin and I, along with most geneticists, strongly disagree with precisely that point. Example have been given to you of the evolutionary advantage in even the simplest of light-sensitive portions, yet you persist in ignoring them. Your conclusion that a mutation to grant that light-sensitivity somehow makes an organism less efficient is not borne out by either logic or evidence.
I realize you're quite off here and it's indeed more economical for me and educational to the average reader to restrict my responses to a smaller number of posters more inclined to follow what's actually written.
Yet here you are... ;)
 
Your quotation, again, which I did not misread:
"But the IDists are not wrong in stating that a complex and flexible organ like the eye has a positive selective value only when it is more or less fully formed "

Darwin and I, along with most geneticists, strongly disagree with precisely that point. Example have been given to you of the evolutionary advantage in even the simplest of light-sensitive portions

Your example (as well as Mendel's citation of the "earliest predecessors of the eye") should not be confused with a radiation-induced random genetic mutation resulting in offspring with a phenotype that has a light-sensitive spot on their skin (the term I used) which acts as a disadvantegous intermediary phase towards even those earliest predecessors of the eye which have an actual advantegous functionality. You're still referring to a type of final adaptation rather than the huge number of short-lived mutant intermediaries necessary to get there. The 'eyespots' of unicellular organisms are just a more primitive type of final adaptation along their specific evolutionary paths.

Some theorists (e.g. Hans Mohr, Structure and Significance of Science, p. 200) have even argued that a mutation-generated change such as the light-sensitive spot must have also been accompanied by a parallel mutation of the central propensity structure of the organism's nervous system, thereby coincidentally granting the organism the capacity to use the newly-mutated characteristic in an advantegous way (something that you seem to be implying). In other words, one mathematical improbability added upon another.

So yes, you entirely missed the point. And I expect you to continue to do so due to your bias-tinted glasses. Not lack of intellect.
 
Last edited:
OK, I'm gonna violate posting rules here, but I don't care.

As far as I can tell, from the pages-long screeds that have been posted, the actual evolution that's happened on this planet is simultaneously way too fast to be just what actual biology can explain, and so slow that mammals have made no progress ever.

Please, stop this nonsense.
 
Your example (as well as Mendel's citation of the "earliest predecessors of the eye") should not be confused with a radiation-induced random genetic mutation resulting in offspring with a phenotype that has a light-sensitive spot on their skin (the term I used) which acts as a disadvantegous intermediary phase towards even those earliest predecessors of the eye which have an actual advantegous functionality. You're still referring to a type of final adaptation rather than the huge number of short-lived mutant intermediaries necessary to get there. The 'eyespots' of unicellular organisms are just a more primitive type of final adaptation along their specific evolutionary paths.

Some theorists (e.g. Hans Mohr, Structure and Significance of Science, p. 200) have even argued that a mutation-generated change such as the light-sensitive spot must have also been accompanied by a parallel mutation of the central propensity structure of the organism's nervous system, thereby coincidentally granting the organism the capacity to use the newly-mutated characteristic in an advantegous way (something that you seem to be implying). In other words, one mathematical improbability added upon another.

So yes, you entirely missed the point. And I expect you to continue to do so due to your bias-tinted glasses. Not lack of intellect.
I’m not sue the point has been missed - in your words ‘The mutation number one is not advantageous since it doesn't grant sight (only a fully-formed eye does) while making the organism meanwhile less efficient than its non-mutant peers’. Please can you provide evidence for this, particularly, regarding how only sight is advantageous? Please can you provide evidence regarding the light sensitive ‘spot on the skin’ example and if a disadvantage is it even related to this process? Also can you evidence that photoreceptor proteins in single cell organisms, likely providing an advantage for photosynthesis were a ‘final adaptation’ and if any predecessor was a selective disadvantage and why?
 
I’m not sue the point has been missed - in your words ‘The mutation number one is not advantageous since it doesn't grant sight (only a fully-formed eye does) while making the organism meanwhile less efficient than its non-mutant peers’. Please can you provide evidence for this, particularly, regarding how only sight is advantageous?

Let's unpack what you're asking. You are requesting me to provide evidence for how only the final product (i.e. primitive sight) is advantageous, and not the countless iterations of random mutations without sight that had to precede it. In the scientific spirit of not only relying on common sense, I am happy to humour you.

There is little doubt to any party to these debates that sight (even primitive sight like that of a unicellular eyespot) is advantagous. Where the evidence is lacking is precisely in the accounting for the exact nature and mechanism whereby these tiny mutated iterations (which is the way how natural genetic mutations work) towards such a seeing organelle were each consistently advantagous as a random process. And that this random process more or less accurately predicts the time-frame of the evolution of the eye as observed in available evidence. The onus to provide such evidence is on the claimant of successive and consistent iterations of advantagous random mutations. The onus is not on the skeptic of such a claim to prove that this is not the case. Empirically we know most mutations are disadvantagous. Take fruit flies for an example:

Article:
A 2007 study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggested that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70% of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial.[8]


Thus, rather than being uniform, the random distribution of mutations would, in light of empirical evidence, most probably be skewed in the direction of unfavourability. Moreover, on a purely logical account, what we know as extant and therefore selection-wise advantagous biological species represents a limited number of specific configurations, whereas there's an infinite number of logically possible phenotypical configurations caused by genetic mutation that are disadvantagous.

And it's this point that brings us back to the actual issue, which is the zero mathematical probability of any finite iterations of random genetic mutations of a simpler configuration to generate a more complex advantagous configuration out of an infinite range of possible disadvantagous configurations and a finite range of advantagous ones. Any number divided by infinity is a zero. In other words, any argument/model that appeals to random mutation cannot predict (account for) observable evolution within the last 600 million years, unless it either (1) limits the possible configurations for random experimentation to be (sufficiently) finite, or alternatively (2) allows for an infinite range of random experimentations to have already occurred which would have necessarily produced anomalies such as our existence.

Circling back to the original discussion on the thread, depending on which logical option we choose, it directly impacts the way we calculate the likelihood of life in other planets in the universe. Option 1 increases the likelihood whilst option 2 decreases. Random mutations occur under both options which distinguishes both options from the standard arguments of the IDists.

Please can you provide evidence regarding the light sensitive ‘spot on the skin’ example and if a disadvantage is it even related to this process? Also can you evidence that photoreceptor proteins in single cell organisms, likely providing an advantage for photosynthesis were a ‘final adaptation’ and if any predecessor was a selective disadvantage and why?

See what I wrote above.

Also, the 'eyespot', the final adaptation I was referring to, is an organelle and hence the mere presence of randomly configured 'photoreceptor proteins in a single-cell organism' does not qualify as such a final adaption. Whereas the eyespot of the blue-green algae has existed roughly in the same form for at least two billion years, and hence qualifying as 'a final adaptation' (to be differentiated from all notions of 'eternal existence') for our purposes of evolutionary analysis.

In any case, if we assume that the earliest iterations of mutations preceding the evolution of the eyespot were light-sensitive spots without some kind of a nervous system able to use it to the organism's advantage, then we acknowledge these initial iterations had no sight advantage. Due to this problem, we can do what Hans Mohr does, and accept under basic knowledge of molecular biology that without a nervous system such a spot would not be advantagous and therefore we must assume a parallel mutation of a nervous system. If so, then we're only feeding into the argument of improbability (to be differentiated from impossibility).
 
Last edited:

I have yet to understand exactly what you're claiming (it may be I'm just dumb), but I guess you might be interested in learning something about evolution. If eyes are your concern I suggest this (non-paywalled) article:

Abstract​

Ocular evolution is an immense topic, and I do not expect to cover all the details of this process in this manuscript. I will present some concepts about some of the major steps in the evolutionary process to stimulate your thinking about this interesting and complex topic. In the prebiotic soup, vision was not inevitable. Eyes were not preordained. Nor were their shapes, sizes, or current physiology. Sight is an evolutionary gift but it was not ineluctable. The existence of eyes is so basic to our profession that we often do not consider how and why vision appeared or evolved on earth at all. Although vision is a principal sensory modality for at least three major phyla and is present in three or four more phyla, there are other sensory mechanisms that could have been and were occasionally selected instead. Some animals rely on other sensory mechanisms such as audition, echolocation, or olfaction that are much more effective in their particular niche than would be vision. We may not believe those sensory mechanisms to be as robust as vision, but the creatures using those skills would argue otherwise. Why does vision exist at all? And why is it so dominant at least in the number of species that rely upon it for their principal sensory mechanism? How did vision begin? What were the important steps in the evolution of eyes? How did eyes differentiate along their various paths, and why?
https://www.nature.com/articles/eye2017226
 
Last edited:
Let's unpack what you're asking. You are requesting me to provide evidence for how only the final product (i.e. primitive sight) is advantegous, and not the countless iterations of random mutations without sight that had to precede it. In the scientific spirit of not only relying on common sense, I am happy to humour you.

There is little doubt to any party to these debates that sight (even primitive sight like that of a unicellular eyespot) is advantagous. Where the evidence is lacking is precisely in the accounting for the exact nature and mechanism whereby these tiny mutated iterations (which is the way how natural genetic mutations work) towards such a seeing organelle were each consistently advantagous as a random process. And that this random process more or less accurately predicts the time-frame of the evolution of the eye as observed in available evidence. The onus to provide such evidence is on the claimant of successive and consistent iterations of advantagous random mutations. The onus is not on the skeptic of such a claim to prove that this is not the case. Empirically we know most mutations are disadvantagous. Take fruit flies for an example:

Article:
A 2007 study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggested that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70% of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial.[8]


Thus, rather than being uniform, the random distribution of mutations would, in light of empirical evidence, most probably be skewed in the direction of unfavourability. Moreover, on a purely logical account, what we know as extant and therefore selection-wise advantagous biological species represents a limited number of specific configurations, whereas there's an infinite number of logically possible phenotypical configurations caused by genetic mutation that are disadvantagous.

And it's this point that brings us back to the actual issue, which is the zero mathematical probability of any finite iterations of random genetic mutations of a simpler configuration to generate a more complex advantagous configuration out of an infinite range of possible disadvantagous configurations and a finite range of advantagous ones. Any number divided by infinity is a zero. In other words, any argument/model that appeals to random mutation cannot predict (account for) observable evolution within the last 600 million years, unless it either (1) limits the possible configurations for random experimentation to be (sufficiently) finite, or alternatively (2) allows for an infinite range of random experimentations to have already occurred which would have necessarily produced anomalies such as our existence.

Circling back to the original discussion on the thread, depending on which logical option we choose, it directly impacts the way we calculate the likelihood of life in other planets in the universe. Option 1 increases the likelihood whilst option 2 decreases. Random mutations occur under both options which distinguishes both options from the standard arguments of the IDists.



See what I wrote above.

Also, the 'eyespot', the final adaptation I was referring to, is an organelle and hence the mere presence of randomly configured 'photoreceptor proteins in a single-cell organism' does not qualify as such a final adaption. Whereas the eyespot of the blue-green algae has existed roughly in the same form for at least two billion years, and hence qualifying as 'a final adaptation' (to be differentiated from all notions of 'eternal existence') for our purposes of evolutionary analysis.

In any case, if we assume that the earliest iterations of mutations preceding the evolution of the eyespot were light-sensitive spots without some kind of a nervous system able to use it to the organism's advantage, then we acknowledge these initial iterations had no sight advantage. Due to this problem, we can do what Hans Mohr does, and accept under basic knowledge of molecular biology that without a nervous system such a spot would not be advantegous and therefore we must assume a parallel mutation of a nervous system. If so, then we're only feeding into the argument of improbability (to be differentiated from impossibility).
‘zero mathematical probability of any finite iterations of random genetic mutations of a simpler configuration to generate a more complex advantagous configuration out of an infinite range of possible disadvantagous configurations and a finite range of advantageous ones’.

Disadvantageous or mutations that don’t provide a survival advantage will have a neutral impact on the evolution of a species. Whereas mutations that provide a survival advantage will be passed to subsequent generations, therefore only advantageous mutations contribute to evolution. If you believe natural selection to be true then your statement is false.
 
‘zero mathematical probability of any finite iterations of random genetic mutations of a simpler configuration to generate a more complex advantagous configuration out of an infinite range of possible disadvantagous configurations and a finite range of advantageous ones’.

Disadvantageous or mutations that don’t provide a survival advantage will have a neutral impact on the evolution of a species. Whereas mutations that provide a survival advantage will be passed to subsequent generations, therefore only advantageous mutations contribute to evolution.

That's not how natural selection works. Disadvantageous mutations can be passed on as well, but reducing the adaptive fitness of the offspring against competition and selective pressures, sometimes after countless of generations of survival, such as extra large prehistoric (extinct) relatives of extant mammals.

In any case, your statement does not in any way refute my statement you cited.
 
Last edited:
I have yet to understand exactly what you're claiming (it may be I'm just dumb), but I guess you might be interested in learning something about evolution. If eyes are your concern I suggest this (non-paywalled) article:


https://www.nature.com/articles/eye2017226

To quote right from the beginning of your article:

"The opsin in rhodopsin probably evolved from a G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) protein although this origin is murky."

The author describes various steps in the evolution of the eye by describing the types of eyes of organisms from primitive to evolved based on evidence, whilst in the same token admitting not knowing the exact nature and mechanism of their evolution by preceding iterations of mutations which is what I was referring to. An empirical overview of evolution is not a demonstration of the probabilistic predictive power of a theory which I was discussing.

But thank you for 'educating' me.
 
Moreover, on a purely logical account, what we know as extant and therefore selection-wise advantagous biological species represents a limited number of specific configurations, whereas there's an infinite number of logically possible phenotypical configurations caused by genetic mutation that are disadvantagous.
As I suspected, you're mistakenly using infinity as if it's an actual number. According to your quotation, 70% of the mutations are not advantageous, but 30% are neutral or potentially advantageous. That cannot possibly translate to an infinite number of "bad" but a finite number of "good": thirty percent of infinity is still infinity. You can't then "divide by infinity" as if that's a meaningful expression of reality.
 
To quote right from the beginning of your article:

"The opsin in rhodopsin probably evolved from a G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) protein although this origin is murky."

The author describes various steps in the evolution of the eye by describing the types of eyes of organisms from primitive to evolved based on evidence, whilst in the same token admitting not knowing the exact nature and mechanism of their evolution by preceding iterations of mutations which is what I was referring to.
This looks a 'God-of-the-gaps'-like argument to me, I'm sure you can do better.


An empirical overview of evolution is not a demonstration of the probabilistic predictive power of a theory which I was discussing.
Might you be so kind to describe concisely and in a way I too can understand what your 'theory' is? I'm quite sorry for my dumbness but in spite of all the words you wrote in your posts I cannot really understand what your claim(s) are, nor where they do come from (nor how the can possibly belong to this thread, but this is another matter and I'm at the point of giving up on asking for a new specific thread [with a well-stated claim, see above]).


But thank you for 'educating' me.
You're welcome.
 
This looks a 'God-of-the-gaps'-like argument to me, I'm sure you can do better.

Only if someone were to be so silly as to suggest filling every gap of unknowns with God. I haven't done anything of the sort. But this goes to show how strongly bias-tinted glasses create a serious failure to read objectively any contribution when you've already (mistakenly) assumed the poster's point, which has nothing to do with atheism-theism debates but rather with probability calculations for life on other planets.
 
That's not how natural selection works. Disadvantageous mutations can be passed on as well, but reducing the adaptive fitness of the offspring against competition and selective pressures, sometimes after countless of generations of survival, such as extra large prehistoric (extinct) relatives of extant mammals.

In any case, your statement does not in any way refute my statement you cited.
What you seem to be describing here is how external environmental changes can negatively impact highly specialised species. That is not natural selection I’m afraid.
 
Only if someone were to be so silly as to suggest filling every gap of unknowns with God. I haven't done anything of the sort. But this goes to show how strongly bias-tinted glasses create a serious failure to read objectively any contribution when you've already (mistakenly) assumed the poster's point, which has nothing to do with atheism-theism debates but rather with probability calculations for life on other planets.

You may have missed the -like in my sentence:
This looks a 'God-of-the-gaps'-like argument to me, I'm sure you can do better. [emphasis added]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What you seem to be describing here is how external environmental changes can negatively impact highly specialised species. That is not natural selection I’m afraid.

All extinctions due to environmental impacts are natural selection. Veritably so.

Article:
In his final summary of the Origin (pp. 489–490), Darwin listed the fundamental components (''laws") of the evolutionary process: reproduction, inheritance, variability, struggle for life, and natural selection , with its "consequences" divergence of character and the extinction of less-improved forms.
 
Last edited:
You may have missed the -like in my sentence:

I honestly didn't. But you might have missed that I didn't fill the gap with anything. My contributions on this thread have had nothing to do with me filling gaps but rather highlighting that certain critical gaps exist in the received model's predictive and explanatory power -- despite some claiming otherwise -- that rigorous science ought to look at. Gaps whose 'accounting' does not require uprooting the notions of natural selection or random mutation as established facts. All this was enunciated in the context of probability calculations for life in our universe. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Last edited:
highlighting that certain critical gaps exist in the received model's predictive and explanatory power
i hesitate to label anything in your writing as "highlit", it feels impossible to get you to put down complete and focused statements.

The model has no gaps, though the evidence might. This is apparent where we have ample evidence: the evolution of SARS-nCoV-2 has been genetically traced across the planet, we're seeing strains evolve and succeed while other strains diminish, virtually gap-less.
 
All extinctions due to environmental impacts are natural selection. Veritably so.

Article:
In his final summary of the Origin (pp. 489–490), Darwin listed the fundamental components (''laws") of the evolutionary process: reproduction, inheritance, variability, struggle for life, and natural selection , with its "consequences" divergence of character and the extinction of less-improved forms.
Consequence of, as mentioned in your reference and ‘are’ are not the same thing as you no doubt know. Is there some cherry picking and diversion going on here - such as initially stating that only a fully formed eye provides an advantage and than using a wall of esoteric text to not answer the challenge?
 
They are focused on the individual and not their statements. Any more comments like this will result in thread closure.
It's no different from calling something a gish gallop, it's a comment on how the argument is being conducted, not an ad hominem.

I'll stop doing that, then.
 
That depends if the gambler is a robot with high speed cameras that can see the initial orientation of the coin, and the velocity and angular velocity it is launched with, and who has been programmed to calculate which orientation the coin will land. If it is, then "the probability is the same" should not hold. With each successful guess, we have more confidence in the gambler's predictive capabilities, and by the time it's reached 50 correct tosses and no failures, we should conclude that its probability of success is found in a bell curve peaking around 99%.
He's not -- he's a regular human, behind a pane of thick glass, blindfolded, and a little drunk. Also the coin wasn't a coin; it was a radioactive sample tuned to decay or not decay with 1/2 probability over a given time interval -- unpredictable even in principle.

Notice this wasn't setup as an inference problem, and there were no parameters to estimate. It is merely a forward problem, with given parameters. Notice also that the question doesn't even require that the experiment be realized: I can still ask what is the conditional probability of guessing the next coin correctly after 50 correct guesses even if I never see that particular event actually come up in my experiment. More importantly, I can't just avoid these questions and say something akin to "clearly that couldn't have happened so my initial assumptions were wrong" because even making that sort of conclusion relies on solving the forward problems as given.

If the thought of "we got lucky and we don't appreciate it because we wouldn't exist to be sad if we weren't" still feels unsatisfying, consider also that there probably is more universe beyond the Hubble horizon, which might even be infinite for all we know. Then, no matter how unlikely intelligent life is to arise in any given "observable universe", it'll always arise somewhere, and there the creatures will be astonished at how lucky they seem to be. This is not essential -- the argument from conditional probabilities carries through even if there's just this one observable universe and we were in fact just that lucky -- but I hope it makes it more palatable.
Poisson distribution, where we have no idea about mu, but know lambda's at least 1, so just set it to 1.
Oh, but that's what I've been saying, we don't know that lambda is at least 1. Lambda could be any value because our observation is conditioned on us existing. It's classic survivorship bias.
We can exclude the 0 outcome, and we're calculating the sum of all outcomes greater than 1. The only assumtion is that there's no reason to believe we have been specifically set up to favour a positive result here. Given everythng we do know about the universe, such as the lack of a guiding higher power, that's not just a fair assumption, it should be the default one, deviating from it would require evidence of fine tuning.
If anything, considering plausible models of life formation and evolution, either lambda >> 1 or lambda << 1 would be more likely than lambda ~ 1. It'd be very strange (one might say finely tuned) if the development of intelligent life required just enough coincidences so that in total you get on the order of 1 civilization per universe. There might be some reasonable inference model where you get lambda ~ 1 as a central estimate but the central estimate is just not very useful due to the almost complete absence of data, and is in fact dominated by one's priors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top