Conservapedia vs Evolution: Vol 5

In volume 4 of this ridiculous series, I addressed Conservapedia's claim that the second law of thermodynamics was a counterexample to evolution. Click here to read that. (Same window)

This time, Conservapedia shifts from thermodynamics to mathematics. Let's see what they have to say about the Law of Large Numbers:

"The Law of Large Numbers states that things tend to revert to their average over time (the large number of examples), while evolution requires the opposite: that things become more complex and depart further from their average over time."

To understand the Law of Large Numbers, take a six sided die and begin rolling it. It can only land on 1-6, with 3.5 being the average. You might get a series of 'runs' where your average outcome is 1 or 2, but after a few hundred rolls, your average will grow closer and closer to 3.5.

Refuting the central point...

The claim "evolution requires...that things become more complex" isn't true. Evolution is just small changes over large periods of time. The process we call Natural Selection does usually result in things becoming more complex, but natural selection has more to do with how likely traits are to pass on.

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Some researchers believe that sponges may have evolved from more complex ancestors by becoming simpler [1], but counterexamples aren't necessary after refuting a central point.

TLDR; Evolution does not require growth in complexity, and The Law of Large Numbers applies to Evolution differently because parameters change. Evolution IS change. 

But how do parameters change throughout evolution? Let's take our six sided die. We'll let the D-6 represent a specific gene in wolves; a gene for aggression. Let's let each numbered side represent how strongly that gene is expressed. Roll the die 10 times. Each roll represents a wolf in our pack, and each outcome represents how aggressive that particular wolf is.

Wolves with traits 1 and 2 are more vicious, cruel, and are very likely to kill for food without a second thought. Wolves with traits 5 and 6 are less confrontational. They're less likely to kill for food, and more likely to stealthily steal meat from the other wolves. Wolves with traits 1 and 2 are better fighters, but wolves with traits 5 and 6 are more inclined to avoid fights.

So far, all wolves in this tribe have an equal chance of surviving, and passing on their genes. The parameters representing their aggression remain 1-6.

But meat has become scarce, and they have no choice but to find new territory. They claim land neighbored by humans. They grow hungry.

Our wolves with traits 1 and 2 immediately go for the humans. These guys readied their guns, and most of them are shot. However, the less aggressive wolves wait, and are fed by sneaking unattended food.


Wolves with traits 3 and 4 are slightly confrontational and not very sneaky, so most of them are eventually shot. Due to these environmental changes, wolves with traits 5 and 6 now greatly outnumber the others. Wolves with these traits are significantly more likely to breed, so the next generation of wolves are less aggressive than the original pack.

When we roll a D-6, we have solid parameters. Every outcome will be a random number between 1-6. The average outcome will always drift towards 3.5. But genes aren't so random in the same sense. They're self replicating, and certain traits are likely to be passed on from parents. With our wolf pack, the parameters associated with aggressiveness changed. The average aggressiveness in these wolves is getting closer to 5.5 with every pup born. The average will drift as survival dictates. When aggression is needed, the parameters change again. This goes for every trait; speed, boldness, temperature sensitivity, cuteness, etc.

Clearly, the Law of Large numbers doesn't apply to evolution in the same sense as the author suggests.

Want more? Next time: Is Evolution untrue because a historically recorded ancient flood conflict with the fossil record? (Placeholder)
___________________________________

Originally posted on Blogspot.com/RationalJesse.
Twitter: @RationalJesse
Facebook: /RationalJesse.
Youtube: Click here.

 __________________________________________

[1]
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-evolution-meant-simpler-complex.html#jCp

CT School Blocks Conservative Websites

On June 16th, a Connecticut student vented to Facebook after discovering that his school had blocked several right-leaning websites. 

"Is the region supporting the religion of Islam, whose radical believers wage war against this nation, who murdered almost 3000 Americans on 9/11, and vow to continue these acts of terrorism, but are rejecting the principles of Christianity which this nation was founded upon?"

His entire rant and a list of websites that were blocked can be read here. Although his rant contains inaccuracies, this central point is still concerning.

The school's superintendent responds:

Many of the liberal sites accessible to the student fell into the “not rated” category, which was unblocked while many of the conservative sites were in the “political/advocacy group” which is accessible to teachers but not to students.  The district is trying to determine the reason for the inconsistency and if the bias is pervasive enough to justify switching to another content filtering provider.

The school's entire reply is found here. Several questions have yet to be answered.
Are right-leaning websites actually being blocked disproportionately?
If true, could this be due to any reason other than a person/company's political bias?
If conservative websites disproportionately contained inaccuracies or incited leaps in logic to a greater extent than left-leaning websites, should a school then be allowed to block those sites?

I'm not jumping to conclusions until more information is provided. Those who battle confirmation bias understand how important it can be to read material that conflicts with their points of view. However, if these websites were blocked for legitimate reasons, it may not be wise to unblock them for the sake of political correctness.

Stay rational, my friends.

Jesse
___________________________________
Originally posted on Blogspot.com/RationalJesse.
Twitter: @RationalJesse
Facebook: /RationalJesse.
Youtube: Click here.
___________________________________