Discovered dollo’s law and it makes a probability case.

i just read in Acts/Facts (ICR creo pub) about a law in evolutionism called Dollo’s law.. Gould said”…restates the general principal of mathematical probability…”

This touches on a thread I made here once about how darwins idea, statement, that to disprove evolution someone would need to show why small steps could not have created anything now in biology. I answered that if small steps can do the glory/complexity of biology then they could do anything. However improbable. Say a fish to a rhino, over time, bacj to a fish, then back to a rhino. WHY NOT is small steps of selection can do anything.

WELL. They had a law here about how evolution can’t reverse/repeat itself due to the math improbability.

Yet this would confute Darwins argument.  SO small steps can’t do everything. There are boundaries indeed. THEN the creationist must be allowed the concept of how improbable biology coming from small steps IS. In fact Gould/Dawkins all agree its improbable for like results. so why not the whole concept of evolution as to explain biology??

The improbability of fish becoming fishermen, a common first instinct, is proved as right as a instinct because of Dollo’s law.  Its impossible to repeat/reverse but this means its impossible for the first time.

Small steps being selected is NOT a answer to the apparent impossibility of what evolutionism claims to demonstrate.

42 thoughts on “Discovered dollo’s law and it makes a probability case.

  1. How many different times did eyes evolve? Or fins? But what you will notice is none of these evolved in exactly the same way.

    If you specify in advance any highly complex structure, it is essentionally impossible that evolution will arrive at the same end point. But since evolution isn’t a goal driven excercise, the complex structures we see today are not impossible, just improbable.

    Open a stats book.

  2. I smell a word game going on here. Let’s say Byers steps into a river, steps back out, and then reverses himself and steps back in. Is he stepping into the “same” river?

  3. Acartia:
    How many different times did eyes evolve? Or fins? But what you will notice is none of these evolved in exactly the same way.

    If you specify in advance any highly complex structure, it is essentionally impossible that evolution will arrive at the same end point. But since evolution isn’t a goal driven excercise, the complex structures we see today are not impossible, just improbable.

    Open a stats book.

    I agree evolution would not come to a exact same conclusion.
    I don’t agree eyes are different for biology. I understand there are only a few types. All mammals have the same eyes type. Evolution did nothing of importance there while doing everything else. So all mammals live with”living fossil” eyes from the original critter we come from..
    Perhaps thats an aside.
    I’m pointing out there is a problem here in evolution.
    If selection can do anything, the glory, of biology then why not rpeat , rinxe , prepeat again to a crazy lineage story. Why is there a Dollo’s law.
    OKAY these evolutions cry about probability.
    AMEN. There is a probability issue in evolutions claims. !
    Who says a fish can become a rhino but its impriobable it could return back to a fish??
    Why not? and if not probable why is it less probable the the fish/rhino story??
    Its a legitimate intellectual complaint that evolution teaches a improbable story.

  4. Flint:
    I smell a word game going on here. Let’s say Byers steps into a river, steps back out, and then reverses himself and steps back in. Is he stepping into the “same” river?

    No games or words. real concepts in science and reasoning.
    Evolutionism did figure out they had to say its impossible for small steps to do anything. A rejection of Darwin.
    He wopuld say WHY NOT? That was his case for anything in biology however complex.
    Darwin saying WHY NOT was not a answer to HOW possible could small steps being selected make the glory of biology.

  5. Mung:
    I note the typical off-topic snark comments. Great job moderators!

    What, precisely, was the topic?

  6. Stormfield: What, precisely, was the topic?

    The topic was a affirmation of a previous topic. I said, in another thread,Darwin and friends could not argue small steps in changes being selected on had to be shown why that couldn’t be so. WHY couldn’t small steps do anything that was done in biology? I replied that this logic meant anything could be done in biology however impossiblle. So it was a flawed, important one, argument.
    Then i discovered this Dollo’s law where, wow, they all hasd already admited that there was a probability impossibility issue with what evolution could do. So this law said evolution could not go in reverse or do anything impossible.
    So i went AHA.
    WHY NOT? and ANYWAYS that means the concept of what possible/probable in how things can come to be in biology , by small steps, has boundaries. AMEN Its impossible/improbable for anything in biology, being all so complex, to have come from small steps.
    Its interesting they bumped into this but missed the extension of the point.
    Perhaps the logic bar here was a little high for everyone.

  7. Byers:

    Perhaps the logic bar here was a little high for everyone.

    Must have been. That’s the only plausible explanation.

  8. keiths:
    Byers:

    Must have been.That’s the only plausible explanation.

    I think it is true. It happens in closely argued points.

  9. Perhaps someone who thinks Byers is not spouting incomprehensible gibberish could explain his point. Is there any such person here?

  10. John Harshman:
    Perhaps someone who thinks Byers is not spouting incomprehensible gibberish could explain his point. Is there any such person here?

    He thinks that because it’s so improbable that a rhino evolves back into a fish, it’s impossible that anything evolved at all. I kid you not

  11. dazz: He thinks that because it’s so improbable that a rhino evolves back into a fish, it’s impossible that anything evolved at all. I kid you not

    So you think it’s comprehensible gibberish?

  12. John Harshman: So you think it’s comprehensible gibberish?

    The logic here makes sense. its not me flunking.
    I explained Dollo’s law but one needs to understand it. Its a very pregnant point that was forced upon thoughtful evolutionists. They had to deny evolutioni back tracking or doing anything against probability.
    Its this probability point that is one point I pick up on.
    What is probable? is it probable for a fish to become a rhino? If so why not the rhino evolve backwards into a fish? if selection/mutation/etc is all there is needed!
    Probability ios a good point for criticism and DARWINS reply of WHY NOT small steps under selection could not create anything seen in biology FAILS.
    A second point of mine.
    The unlikelyness of what evolution claims to have done in creating the glory and complexity and diversity in biology is a very well intellectual criticism. sure it is!
    If small steps can do anything then why can’t they do everything?
    Why this dollo’s law sudden;y invoked?? HMMM.

  13. Robert Byers,

    is it probable for a fish to become a rhino? If so why not the rhino evolve backwards into a fish? if selection/mutation/etc is all there is needed!

    OK, fools go where angels fear to tread …

    if a mutation A was advantageous, and so becomes fixed, your scenario requires that the back-mutation B become advantageous instead. That’s very unlikely to happen. B wasn’t advantageous against A in the first place, why should it ever be in the future?

  14. Dollo’s law can be stated as change happens; change in a particular direction is unlikely.

    Even if times are tough and change in a particular direction would be adaptive, a species is more likely to go extinct than to adapt.

    What we see in species is lotto winners, and not the losers.

  15. Allan Miller:
    Robert Byers,

    OK, fools go where angels fear to tread …

    if a mutation A was advantageous, and so becomes fixed, your scenario requires that the back-mutation B become advantageous instead. That’s very unlikely to happen. B wasn’t advantageous against A in the first place, why should it ever be in the future?

    Evolutionism teaches that changing envirorment easily would provide advantage for some mutation on a road to send a rhino back to a fish. why any more unlikely one direction then the other?
    Yes its fantastic for a rhino to evolve back into a fish but its fantastic for iyt to have come from a fish as they now say.
    The glory of selection on mutations etc to explain mammals coming from a fish landing on the dry ground is no more easy at using sele4ction relative to envirorment THEN the backward trail.
    Small steps over time including natures changes in land, climate, food easily would allow a rhino to evolve back to a sea going fish like its origins.
    YES its impossible both ways. Dollo’s law should be overturned in a supreme court of better thinking.

  16. petrushka:
    Dollo’s law can be stated as change happens; change in a particular direction is unlikely.

    Even if times are tough and change in a particular direction would be adaptive, a species is more likely to go extinct than to adapt.

    What we see in species is lotto winners, and not the losers.

  17. Robert Byers:

    Then its a probability issue. yet its a lotto win going in any direction. So evolutionism is all about a fantastic number of lotto wins.
    And if so why not a fantastic number of lotto wins reversing things. ? However improbable!
    Evolutionists must agree evolution of all biological entities is improbable.
    Too much we say.
    The complexity really is too much to have evolved.

  18. Robert Byers,

    Your “rhino evolves back into a fish” scenario would be better stated as “hoofed mammal evolves into a whale”. Hey, I wonder if there’s any evidence for such things.

  19. Robert Byers,

    Evolutionism teaches that changing envirorment easily would provide advantage for some mutation on a road to send a rhino back to a fish.

    No it doesn’t. I’m not just talking about ‘some mutation’. It would have to be the precise mutation that the current allele just replaced. Not going to happen even once, let alone however many million times it would need to to reverse out a given evolutionary history.

    This is the dumbest Creationist argument I have ever seen. Congratulations!

  20. John Harshman:
    Robert Byers,

    Your “rhino evolves back into a fish” scenario would be better stated as “hoofed mammal evolves into a whale”. Hey, I wonder if there’s any evidence for such things.

    Not in this case.
    The rhino into a actual fish would be leaving mammalian traits like breathing etc Size etc.
    The creatures that became marine mammals changed only a little. Thats why they must breath, reproduce, like thier cousins on the land.

  21. Allan Miller:
    Robert Byers,

    No it doesn’t. I’m not just talking about ‘some mutation’. It would have to be the precise mutation that the current allele just replaced. Not going to happen even once, let alone however many million times it would need to to reverse out a given evolutionary history.

    This is the dumbest Creationist argument I have ever seen. Congratulations!

    This is the dumbist?! anyways it works.
    If your saying probability makes these millions of changes impossible then why is it any different from the millions that made it work./ REMEMBER. Each change only acted for a instant advantage. No direction. The fish becoming rhinos is only a finale result.
    So why not a reverse trail? Nothing to stop it in in real life. Except probability.Yet no more probability problem then anything in evolutionism.

  22. I’ve noticed that Robert’s comments make more sense when I’m half asleep.

    Drinking would probably work, too.

  23. Robert Byers,

    Each change only acted for a instant advantage. No direction.

    ‘Advantage’ is a direction. You want to reverse the direction, you have to reverse the advantage. Repeatedly. And get precise reversal of mutations.

    Anyway, how have you determined that there aren’t any fish that are descended from rhinos? Huh?

  24. Allan Miller:
    Robert Byers,

    ‘Advantage’ is a direction. You want to reverse the direction, you have to reverse the advantage. Repeatedly. And get precise reversal of mutations.

    Anyway, how have you determined that there aren’t any fish that are descended from rhinos? Huh?

    I presume the probability is against any fish being descended from rhinos. Further this is what Dollo’s law is saying. its not my law!
    Advantage isn’t a direction for evolution. Darwin and friends insist its onkly an advantage for the moment.
    No reason any “direrection’ can’t be achieved.

  25. Robert Byers,

    I presume the probability is against any fish being descended from rhinos.

    But not against rhinos being descended from fish?

    Further this is what Dollo’s law is saying. its not my law!

    Sure, but you are making an argument based on it. That argument does not work. You are taking an “if this then …” stance. I’m telling you why you are wrong.

    Advantage isn’t a direction for evolution. Darwin and friends insist its onkly an advantage for the moment.

    However long that ‘moment’, advantage provides a direction. There is no reason to suppose it will go precisely in reverse, step after step.

    No reason any “direrection’ can’t be achieved.

    There is every reason precise reversal of an evolutionary trajectory is not a sensible expectation. If you leave your house and toss a coin at every junction, heads left tails right, for 100 miles, then turn round and try to get home using the same method, you are far more likely to end up someplace else.

  26. Allan Miller,

    Well i think evolutionism would say , if things changed, a advantage could reverse a creature and keep going right back to original. I mean dollo’s law says no but I say there is no reason for Dollo’s law to exist.
    IT really is evolutionist thinkers struggling with the probability issue.
    Then its also a struggle of probability for the original result.
    I think we got ‘im here on this reasoning.

  27. Robert Byers: if things changed, a advantage could reverse a creature and keep going right back to original.

    It’s almost as if someone needs to create some sort of long term evolution experement….

  28. Thanks all for the thread. It was a sequel to the first one on lines of reasoning of options for evolutions results.
    i think there is something here for creationists to emphasize.

  29. If you want to go with “if evolution were true there should be less evidence for it”, then sure.

  30. Robert Byers:
    Thanks all for the thread. It was a sequel to the first one on lines of reasoning of options for evolutions results.
    i think there is something here for creationists to emphasize.

    For people who might care about the actual problem with evolving “back to a fish” after becoming human or a rhino, it’s especially due to the fact that evolution isn’t any good at achieving any single targeted goal. Robert just believes creationist claptrap (like the prattle at UD) so he says that evolution is supposed to be able to do anything (he has an “argument” for it in the OP, pathetic as it is), so it should be able to move backward. Of course a major point about evolutionary theory is that evolution most certainly cannot do just anything–that would be ID with its omnicapable designer–and above all it can’t “find its way back” to becoming a lobe-finned fish after having been a mammal.

    A tetrapod can adapt to water living, as is demonstrated by the various levels of adaptation to water living effected by otters, seals, sea turtles, and dolphins. You even get legs that evolved from fins turning into fins again–but into rather different kinds of fins that betray their diversion into legs and feet for a time.

    In addition to the target issue, there are complex systems integrated together that would be difficult to undo evolutionarily. Or just take the matter of evolving gills–it’s relatively easy for fish to evolve lungs to supplement their oxygen supply in water that can go anoxic, while small gills would do almost nothing to help a mammal to live in the water (since oxygen levels are never high in water compared to levels in air) while they would incur significant costs. Likewise, while evolving from fish eggs to reptile eggs to placental reproduction is relatively straightforward (mid-stages could be quite useful), going backward would be very unlikely (evolving viable eggs from placental development would seem to have to work all at once, while the opposite transition can start with egg retention and ovoviparity, then shifting relatively slowly to full placental reproduction).

    There are a number of reasons why Dollo’s law generally holds, indeed. But the greatest reason is just that evolution can’t aim at an end and move toward it, coupled with the fact that too many ancestral genes change or degrade for evolutionary processes to simply revive old genes to work as they once did.

    I’ve not written about this previously because Robert seems genuinely not to understand, and also appears unwilling to believe evilutionists because supposedly they’re just anti-Jesus or what-not, and I didn’t want to get into this with him due to the futility of trying to teach him anything about evolution. But he seems to be leaving the thread more or less, and I thought that maybe I should explain why Dollo’s works evolutionarily just in case there were people out there who didn’t get why evolution doesn’t shift organisms back to their ancestral forms, or at most only gets them back to recent forms. It’s well understood that evolution can’t aim at reaching any particular state, which includes an organism’s ancestral state.

    Robert doesn’t get it, but that’s routinely the case.

    Glen Davidson

Leave a Reply