Is Evolution Intellectually Viable?

Does it sound logical or reasonable (when not even a single chance-formed protein can exist), that millions of such proteins combined in an order to produce the cell of a living thing; and that billions of cells managed to form and then came together by chance to produce living things; and that from them generated fish; and that those that passed to land turned into reptiles, birds, and that this is how all the millions of different species (including us) on earth were formed?Salam,
Ahmad

John,

quote:

---

And your evidence for this statement is what?

---

"the spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability."(W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 304)Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacteria (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell). The number that was found was 1 over 10^40000. (This is an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros next to 1) Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, New York, Summit Books, 1986. p.127Regards,
Ahmad(P.S. In mathematics, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10^50 are accepted as "zero probability")

mark24,

quote:

---

I thought you were talking about evolution, but judging from your actual post you are talking about abiogenesis. Make your mind up!

---

How do naturalistic evolutionist account for the first life on earth that supposedly triggered a series of changes leading from a single celled organisms to mult-cellular organisms?Regards,
Ahmad

Tranquility Base,

quote:

---

Your representaion of the evoltuionary scenario is too simplistic and your facts about proteins are plain wrong. Take it from a creationist who does protein engineering and follows the directed evoltuion literature.

---

I am open for correction as I am just a science student. So if I am wrong, please correct me.Let me see if I can get this right,Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took place within a very long period of time and that this long period made the impossible possible. Nevertheless, no matter how long the given period may be, it is not possible for amino acids to form proteins by chance. William Stokes, an American geologist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of Earth History writing that this chance is so small "that it (protein) would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids." W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 305So, if the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times more impossible for about one million of those proteins to come together properly by chance and make up a complete human cell. What is more, a cell is at no time composed of a mere protein heap. In addition to the proteins, a cell also includes nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals like electrolytes arranged in a specific proportion, harmony, and design in terms of both structure and function. Each of them functions as a building block or co-molecule in various organelles. Right?Regards,
Ahmad

John,

quote:

---

Actually, I don't really care what 'seems' beyond all probability. This is nothing more than an argument from indredulity.

---

Not incredulity but the Mathematical Theory of Probability.

quote:

---

This is a misuse of probability. It is like throwing a rock down a hill, recording every twitch, spin, and roll it makes on the way down, calculating the probablility of it taking that particular path and then concluding that it COULDN'T have taken the path it did because it is statistically 'impossible'

---

Your analogy of Probability is faulty and misleading. Do you assume that the rock could have been thrown a conscious thrower who will record this "twitch, spin, and roll"?? You are jumping to conclusions. Why would we statistically calculate the probability of the rock taking the particular path when the rock had actually taken the path and we observed it in situ??And besides (in comparison with your analogy), you have yet to prove that coincidence actually was responsible for protein formation before saying that they, indeed, were formed by mere coincidence. If not, then let us be assured that a Supreme Consciousness did de facto intervene in protein formation and a host of several other non-coincidental, non-chanced processes and mechanisms.Regards,
Ahmad

John,

quote:

---

Probability calculations are not deterministic. You can have one hundred trillion to one against and it still happen.

---

Such as....?? If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance or to accept that there is conscious intervention? The answer should be obvious.

quote:

---

It wasn't an analogy of probability. It was an argument analogous to one made by many creationsist. You statements implied this argument.

---

Understood. But the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein molecule still stands. How, pertaining, to this have you based your analagous argument?

quote:

---

Why is this relevant?

---

Since the basis of my argument is whether chance or a consciousness was responsible and since your analogous argument was pertaining to my statements, I would say it is more than relevant.

quote:

---

That is a very good question, yet that is exactly what creationists do when they argue that life could not have arisen without divine intervention. Think about it. We are standing at the bottom of the hill and have found the rock. We can't climb the hill but we can look up it with our eyes and with binoculars, radar, whatever. This is us standing in the present looking back through time via the geological record, DNA sequencing, whatever we can find. While we can't see every zig and zig the rock made, we can see where it hit the ground here and there. We can see where it broke a brandh off of a tree. That sort of thing. Scientists try to figure out what path the rock took. Creationsist look at the same data and calculate the chances of it making a three-quarter turn before hitting a pebble and bouncing seven inches to right, landing oriented a turn and half from its laundh orientation, then rolling two feet, spinning counterclockwise, and breaking a blade of grass. The odds are going to be astronomically against this sequence, yet it happened. This is the misuse of probability.

---

The falling of a rock from a hill (whether by chance or a conscious thrower; you haven't clarified) is far from creating an analogous argument against the impossibility of the coincidental formation of a single protein molecule. Give me a better analogy.Let me elaborate. The viability of proteins depends on three strict conditions. First condition: that all the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequenceSecond condition: that all the amino acids in the chain are left-handedThird condition: that all of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called "peptide bond".Are you saying that coincidence resulted in the agreement of these three strict conditions for a useful protein all out of the blue??Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously "by coincidence". Yet at this point, evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to sustain its presence, it would need to be isolated from the natural setting that it is in and protected under very special conditions. Otherwise this protein would either disintegrate from exposure to natural earth conditions or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical compounds, losing its properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance. Think about it.

quote:

---

Assuming for a moment that neither of us has any evidence, why should I assume an additional entity for which I have no evidence?

---

If chance is not(and cannot) responsible for the formation of the building-blocks of the living cell, what then is?? What other validations or alternatives do you assume for the formation of useful proteins? Is this not enough for an evidence??Regards,
Ahmad

John,

quote:

---

If a coin turns up heads every time in a million tossed, all you known is that the probability of it turning up heads is effectively 100%. You don't know anything about WHY it is turning up heads.

---

So WHY is it turning up heads everytime it is tossed?? What assumption do you make of it? A conscious trick by the tosser or just coincidence?

quote:

---

It is. The coin is loaded. Your jump to the conclusion that an unseen conscience entity is involved is unwarranted.

---

Don't misunderstand me please. I never said that an unseen conscience is involved. This is just an example that if the coin (with a head and tail) is always turning up heads when it is tossed, then surely it might be a trick of the conscious tosser. Do you agree?

quote:

---

First, how can you even include an unseen entity in the calculations at all?

​

Second, being unseen, how do you know it is conscious?

---

I have not used the word unseen in my example.

quote:

---

No, it isn't understood, and the argument does not stand. You are just restating claim, but I don't think you are doing it to be obtuse. If you take something simple, like Penrose tiles, select an arbitrary starting pattern, and start laying them out. The probability that they will evolve into SOMETHING is 100%. If you then take the end result and calculate the chance that THIS PARTICULAR pattern will emerge from an arbitry starting point, the probabilities could be off the scale against. That is what you are doing with the proteins. You take the end result and calculate backwards. It simply doesn't work like that. There is nothing that says these particular proteins, enzymes, or gene had to have evolved. There is nothing that says anything had to evolve. It just happens to be the case that it did. Also consider that your probability calculations are performed with having maybe 99% of the relevant information-- like starting conditions.

---

Since we don't have a time-machine to go back and see that evolution of proteins in action, what other better alternatives do you suppose we can adopt (other than probability calculations) to determine whether the first protein got evolved or was the original shape and structure when first consciously created??

quote:

---

I gave you an example of a situation wherein your use of probability would give an answer in contradiction to what is observed. It doesn't matter to the example whether or not the rock was thrown by my buddie or just dislodged due to the wind. In either case your probability arguments lead to the same contradictions.

---

It does not. Your example of a rock hardly explains my analogy. The rock is an inanimate object and will go any direction it is thrown onto (whether by a conscious thrower or by wind). While my example deals with the probability of the formation of a single complex amino acid coming together, in agreement with the strict conditions (as I aforementioned) and forming the building blocks of cells and thus life without any conscious intervention.

quote:

---

It isn't an analogy about the formation of a protein molecule. It is meant to demonstrate the flaw in your use of statistics.

---

Flaw? So far you haven't been successful in pointing out any. And besides, many scientists likewise have used probability calculations in the formation of protein molecules by chance like Coppedge (Evolution: Possible or Impossible), Harold Blum (Origin of species revisited), William Stokes, Robert Shappiro, Michael Behe (Darwin's black box) and they drew the same conclusion as J.D Thomas, "It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would be required for such a task."(J. D. Thomas, Evolution and Faith. Abilene, TX, ACU Press, 1988. p. 81-82)

quote:

---

Are you saying that whole and happy proteins would have had to pop up from the 'soup' without any precursors? I doubt any researcher in abiogenisis would make this claim, and hence you are attacking a straw man.

---

What I am saying is that if the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times more impossible for about one million of those proteins to come together properly by chance and make up a complete human cell without [b][i]Conscious Intervention[/b][/i].

quote:

---

What were the conditions in which the molecules formed, and what are the conditions within which they reside? You don't know. No one knows. Without that information the refutation has no teeth.

---

Are you saying that the strict conditions for the viablity of protiens (as I pointed out earlier) is total trash and we still don't know??

quote:

---

And you have not answered the question either. Why assume an extra entity?

---

Hmm; When did I mention of an extra entity?? Are there 2 entities? No! My position is clear. Are you assuming that the simplest Protein composed of 288 amino acids, which can be arranged in 10^300 different ways would come at the right place at the right order in agreement of all the aformentioned strict conditions, [/i]without Conscious design[/i]??Regards,
Ahmad

Dr_Tazimus_maximus,

quote:

---

First off Ahmad, do you realise that there is a slight problem here. If point one is correct (ie if the correct sequence) then point three has been met, other wise there would be no sequence.

---

It is not enough for amino acids to be arranged in the correct numbers, sequences, and required three-dimensional structures. The formation of a protein also requires that amino acid molecules with more than one arm be linked to each other only through certain arms (bonds) called peptide bonds. A comparison will clarify this point: Suppose that all the parts of a car were complete and correctly placed with the only exception that one of the wheels was fastened in place not with its nuts and bolts but with a piece of wire in such a way that its hub faced the ground. It would be impossible for such a car to move even the distance of one meter no matter how complex its technology or how powerful its motor. At a first glance, everything seems to be in the right place, but the wrong fixture of even one of the wheels renders the entire car useless. In the same manner, in a protein molecule, the joining of even one amino acid with another with a bond other than a peptide bond renders the entire molecule useless.

quote:

---

That ALL proteins currently around were required 3.5 billions years ago and that ALL functions required, require a single protein sequence (it is called a primary sequence by the way) which is pure, total, unadulterated BS.

---

So are you saying that the first protein, here on earth, would have been a complete, pure, total and in an unadulterated form? If yes, then I have no argument as it seemingly proves a Conscious Intervention which is what I am stating.Regards,
Ahmad

Assala Moalaikum brother Primanda,If Allah (SWT) created the first cell and let evolution do its job henceforth, why is it not mentioned in Al-Quran? Why is there no mention that we Human beings descended from hominids and they are our ancestors? This is what the Quran says: [i][b]"It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein." (Surah Qaf: 16)[/i][/b]Why did not Allah (SWT) say that He evolved human beings?? I am pointing this out because you say you are a Muslim apart from a biologist. If I err in my understanding, then May Allah (SWT) forgive me.Salam,
Ahmad

If abiogenesis has nothing to do with Evolution, then how do naturalistic evolutionists explain the origin of the first living cell?Regards,
Ahmad

So the evolutionist explains only HOW evolution tooks place but does not delve to the root cause of the the HOW. Am I right?Regards,
Ahmad

Walaikum salam Delshad,I take your advise and will try to do likewise. Thanks. And yes, Ramadan Mubarak to you too Salam,
Ahmad

John,

quote:

---

Good question, but THAT it turns up heads every time does not imply the intervention of a God, which is how you seem to using the argument.

---

Who's speaking of God here? I am not impying any element of luck here but its an example to point out the conscious intervention of the tosser. Nothing more .. nothing less.

quote:

---

That was a typo. I meant 'conscious' not 'conscience.' oops. And you have been implying the intervention of a conscious but unseen entity.

---

Once again, I have not used the word unseen in my argument... yet. Its a simple analogy to demonstrate the conscious interference of the tosser.

quote:

---

Are you talking about the magician's trick? If someone practices enough you can learn to control the rotation of a coin. And yes, it could be a trick of the tosser. But 'could be' is proof of anything. Gee, everytime I throw a rock up, it comes back down. That COULD BE a trick of invisible aliens who push stuff down all the time.

---

What I intend to illustrate through my analogy that something highly improbable (almost impossible) such as the coincidental formation of proteins or the tossing of a coin that always turns out to be heads, is the conscious intervention of God and the tosser respectively. Do you agree?

quote:

---

I can see where this is going. If you wish to infer that proteins, or any other element, are tricks of the tosser, you have to provide evidence of the tosser.

---

Don't you think that the high improbability as the modern human minds have evaluated regarding the coincidental formation of proteins, enough evidence for the existence of the tosser a.k.a God??

quote:

---

And this is relevant why? You are essentially talking about an UNSEEN entity-- Allah in your case.

---

Lets go step-by-step.

quote:

---

Probability calculations cannot answer this question. That is the whole point of this debate with you. If proteins were created, that evidence with show up in the hard data.

---

C'mon.. you don't expect every proteins to have the name of its creator like "Made by Allah", do you?

quote:

---

hmm.... and chemicals are not inanimate? Strike that objection. We are talking about inanimate objects.

---

Since chemicals like proteins do have protoplasm, which is the basic source of life, do you consider them to be inanimate? (Correct me if I am wrong)

quote:

---

But your example is a misuse of probability.

---

How?

quote:

---

March your butt over the math department of a major university.

---

quote:

---

Yup, and make the same mistake you do, which is why the scientific world is not quaking in fear.

---

Who are you? A scholar, a scientist?? Do you have Ph.D? What are your credentials to undermine the scientists I have mentioned?

quote:

---

You have given the conditions in which modern proteins exist and are viable. What were the conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago? And what happen in the next two billion years? Have you carefully analyzed every possible option for precursor proteins, chemical environments, radiation? Think carefully.

---

I am not sure about this but are you suggesting that there is a difference between modern proteins and primitive ones? Elaborate plz.

quote:

---

And this is the most simple POSSIBLE protein, or just the most simple existing protein? What about protein precursors?

---

Any protein for that matter. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma Hominis H39, contains 600 "types" of proteins. In this case, I would have to repeat the probability calculations I have made before for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.

quote:

---

Can it? How did you come to this conclusion? Chemical bonds are not completely random. It isn't like shuffling a deck of cards.

---

Am I wrong in this assumption of a simple protein which can be arrange in 10^300 ways? And besides, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is rather a modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, even the word "impossible" becomes inadequate.Regards,
Ahmad

"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."(Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1984, p. 148.)Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

. Amino acids are bound to one another through peptide bonds, you have that much correct, the "arms" that you refer to are called R groups and come in a variety of forms. The primary sequence is formed by a series of amide bonds formed from primary amines and carboxylic acids. Only a few of these R groups can form covalent links of this type, namely: glutamic acid, aspartic acid and lysine (the other two basic amino acids, arginine and histidine have resonance structures as part of or adjacent to the amine group and therefor do not form amide bonds readily).

---

First of all, a peptide bond is formed by the elimination of water. The compund formed is a dipeptide and successsive covalent bonds form a polypeptide. The R group is just one of the "arms" you have mentioned. Ofcourse, this the group that gives each amino acid its uniqueness. A peptide bond is also composed of a free amino group and a carboxyl group. Research has shown that amino acids combining at random happen to combine with a peptide bond only at a ratio of 50% and that the rest combined with different bonds that are not present in proteins. To function properly, each amino acid making up a protein must be joined only with a peptide bond in the same way that it has to be chosen only from among the left-handed ones.This probability is the same as the probability of each protein being left-handed. That is, when we consider a protein made up of 400 amino acids, the probability of all amino acids combining among themselves with only peptide bonds is 1 over 2^399.

quote:

---

The ony other amino acids which form covalent bonds are the cysteines, which form sulfer bonds and therefore will not interupt the primary structure, although they can and do have an effect on the stability of the teriary or quaternery structure. In other words, Ahmad, your objection is poppycock. You do not have to believe me, pick up any decent book on biophysical chemistry or biological physical chemistry and you will see what I mean.

---

So are you denying that a specific chain, a specific arrangement is needed for the correct function of amino acids? I don't recall mentioning anything about the structure but its function.
This is my argument:-The probability of two amino acids being combined with a "peptide bond" = 1/2
-The probability of 500 amino acids all combining with peptide bonds = 1/2^499 = 1/10^150
= 1 chance in 10^150This is a huge number. Its 10 followed by 150 zeros.

quote:

---

This is flat out wrong as well. There are numerous bonds within a protein, anything from cystine bonds to non-covalent salt bonds such as bridges or hydrogen bonds. The association of these bonds is due to primarily to the primary structure of the protein, although some proteins do require chaperone proteins for proper folding. I am not trying to be rude but you really need to learn some biochemistry prior to making statements like this. Of course, then I would hope that you would not make them at all

---

Amino acids can make different bonds with each other; but proteins are made up of those and only those amino acids, which are united by "peptide" bonds.

quote:

---

No, I am saying that the first proteins (or more properly proteinoids, AKA Dr. Fox) would not be the same as those we find in living systems today. My opinion is that the first self replicating systems were a combination of RNA or RNA like molecules or polymers which were associated with proteins or protenoids. There is a whole body of literature on this area out there, free for the reading.

---

Just a moment... << Here's a scientific article from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences about complexity and proteins. The author makes a case that biological proteins are amongst the most complex things in our Universe - yet ends this paper with the shallow claim that evolution is the cause of this complexity. "This brief sketch should make it clear that proteins are truly complex systems and that the complexity can be described through the energy landscape. The complexity has arisen through evolution." Ofcourse, the article proves my point of the complexity involved in proteins Regards,
Ahmad