Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 61 of 293 (803826)
04-05-2017 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by PaulK
04-05-2017 7:56 AM


Re: Back to the same mistake
PaulK writes:
10^43 random rearrangements wouldn't be enough. Evolution doesn't work by random rearrangements.
It is irrelevant how evolution works. Evolution is just a name for a human mental construct. What is relevant is to refute my claim that evolutionary resources are insufficient to extract functional bio-structures from clusters of particles.
quote:
Now do you actually have an argument that takes account of the actual processes involved or are you going to go on wasting your time repeating the same error again and again?
This is actually you job. You have to provide an argument that takes account of the actual evolutionary processes and show how these processes overcome infinite potential of matter for non-biological manifestation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2017 7:56 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2017 8:46 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2017 8:47 AM forexhr has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 62 of 293 (803828)
04-05-2017 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by forexhr
04-05-2017 8:37 AM


Re: Back to the same mistake
forexhr writes:
It is irrelevant how evolution works. Evolution is just a name for a human mental construct. What is relevant is to refute my claim that evolutionary resources are insufficient to extract functional bio-structures from clusters of particles.
It is irrelevant how a car works. Car is just a name for a human mental construct. What is relevant is to refute my claim that resources are insufficient to extract functional engineering structures from clusters of particles.
And yet it was done.
Perhaps there's something you're missing?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 8:37 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 9:37 AM Tangle has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 63 of 293 (803830)
04-05-2017 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by forexhr
04-05-2017 8:37 AM


Re: Back to the same mistake
quote:
It is irrelevant how evolution works
If you are making claims about what evolution can and cannot do the fact that it is not equivalent to pure random guessing is very relevant.
quote:
Evolution is just a name for a human mental construct. What is relevant is to refute my claim that evolutionary resources are insufficient to extract functional bio-structures from clusters of particles.
Which I've just done. Your argument is based on a ridiculous false assumption which even you have backed away from. Until you fix that problem your argument is refuted.
quote:
This is actually you job. You have to provide an argument that takes account of the actual evolutionary processes and show how these processes overcome infinite potential of matter for non-biological manifestation.
If you can't be bothered to correct the major error in your argument why should I put any more effort into refuting it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 8:37 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 9:36 AM PaulK has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 64 of 293 (803834)
04-05-2017 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by PaulK
04-05-2017 8:47 AM


Re: Back to the same mistake
Sorry Paul, but you cannot refute an argument by saying: your argument is based on a ridiculous false assumption. You need to explain why the assumption is false. And in order to do that you have to provide an argument that shows how evolutionary processes can overcome infinite potential of matter for non-biological manifestation. You can start with my practical example - gamma repressor fold. The result of the experiment has shown that ..."the gamma repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 in 10e63 of the total number of possible 92-residue sequences".
So let's take one textbook example of evolution. Imagine that we have an environmental area that is inhabited by some organisms. Sources of food in this area are drying up and organisms are in danger of extinction. But, there is a plenty of other energy rich substances as food replacements. The only problem is that genes for metabolic pathway to convert this substance into usable energy do not exist in a gene pool of that population. Metabolic pathway that can convert this energy rich substances into useable energy consists of 3 enzymes. Hence, the information on how to bulid these enzymes is not present in the DNA, just like the information on how to bulid heart was not present in the genetic material of the first self-replicating organism. So, here evolution needs to find a solution to this problem which means, evolution needs to find the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA so that cell can produce functional enzymes with the ability to convert energy rich substances into usable energy.
If we suppose the same level of functionality as in the gamma repressor fold can you please explain how evolutionary processes can overcome the exceedingly small fraction of enzyme functionality in all possible enzyme sequences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2017 8:47 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 9:56 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2017 11:10 AM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 65 of 293 (803835)
04-05-2017 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Tangle
04-05-2017 8:46 AM


Yes it was done, by intelligent design. So are you saying that functional bio-structures are intelligently designed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2017 8:46 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-05-2017 10:41 AM forexhr has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 66 of 293 (803837)
04-05-2017 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by forexhr
04-05-2017 7:27 AM


I would like to remind that this thread is not about just so stories, evolutionary models, hypotheses and ad hoc hypotheses, fictional explanations...
I would like to remind you that there are several posts on this thread that deal directly with your point but you are not addressing them.
but about the physical reality of matter, or more specifically, about the share of bio-functionality in it.
First point you have not addressed. You have not established the proportion of structures in a given set of possible structures that are "bio-functional." Your 1 in 1063 number was improperly cited and improperly applied to your problem.
with small number of particles you can create inconveniently large number of different 3D material structures.
You calculations do not appear to take into account the physical reality of amino acid interactions within a peptide chain. As one of your own sources showed, there are large numbers of residues within a peptide chain that can be mutated without changing the basic shape or function. That is because a relatively small proportion of residues determines the shape of the molecule. So although mathematically there may be 'x' number of possible combinations, physics constrains the real set of possibilities to a much smaller number.
As a simple example, 1 oxygen atom and 2 hydrogen atoms (3 particles) when combined will produce 1 and only 1 3D structure H-O-H with a bond angle of 105o; your calculations say there is 2 possible structures. Likewise, H2O2 (4 particles) will only form 1 3D structure although your math predicts 5. Same idea goes for peptides. Your calculations do not reflect reality.
Another example could be a Zinc-Finger motif that has a sequence of CXX(XX)CXXXXXXXXXXXXHXXXH This is a portion of a peptide that is at least 23 amino acids long. But only 4 positions make any difference to the bio-functionality of this section. Where the 'X's are could be any of the other amino acids and where the '(XX)' could be any length of any series of amino acids. Your calculations do not take this into account.
In addition, this motif exists in 100's proteins just within the human genome, which demonstrates that this section does not need to be recreated whole cloth for every new peptide, just the backbone changes. Your calculations do not take this into account.
Given the fact that a heart for e.g. is also a 3D structure composed of particles(cells) and given the fact that there are billions of these particles, no evolutionary model, hypotheses or fictional explanation can change the fact
So now you want to discuss evolutionary models? The fact is, your caricature of evolutionary theory is a strawman with no resemblance to the actual theory of evolution.
Case in point:
10e43 evolutionary changes in spatial arrangemants of particles(mutations) are insufficient to extract functional, pump like structure from these particles.
No one is claiming this is how it happens. We don't suggest that molecules float around in space and randomly bump into one another and form a heart. So pointing out how the actual theory works is entirely relevant to the discussion. However, it is not necessary to argue from the position of how evolution actually works because the principles of your argument are flawed anyway.
because these things have nothing to do with neither physical reality of matter not share of bio-functionality in it.
So please tell us, how many actual structures can a sequence of 92 amino acids form? Not your false enumeration concept, but actual structures based on real amino acid interactions.
Then tell us what proportion of those structures has bio-functionality, and not just gamma-fold bio-functionality, but functionality to a biological system.
I contend you don't know the answer to either of these questions and you are just making up very large numbers that may seem to some to indicate the implausibility of evolution. But you neither actually address evolution nor do you actually address the reality of molecular interactions. This is just the same old "tornado in a junk yard" PRATT.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 7:27 AM forexhr has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 67 of 293 (803839)
04-05-2017 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by forexhr
04-05-2017 9:36 AM


Re: Back to the same mistake
But you are supposing that to find a solution, an organism needs to create a new peptide from scratch and "extract bio-functionality" from some random assembly of molecules. This is what keeps being pointed out to you, evolution starts with pre-existing materials and modifies them. There is no need to create new proteins from scratch to produce functional enzymes. There are lots and lots of ways organisms deal with issues like this, many (most) involve regulation rather than protein modification. Your calculations don't take that into account either.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 9:36 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 04-05-2017 9:58 AM herebedragons has replied
 Message 71 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 10:47 AM herebedragons has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 68 of 293 (803840)
04-05-2017 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by herebedragons
04-05-2017 9:56 AM


Re: Back to the same mistake
Plus he still seems to think evolution involves direction or goal. Nether are true.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 9:56 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 10:34 AM jar has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 69 of 293 (803843)
04-05-2017 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by jar
04-05-2017 9:58 AM


Re: Back to the same mistake
Plus he still seems to think evolution involves direction or goal. Nether are true.
Agreed. However, one of the references he provided in the OP, although it does not support his position and he took the cited data quite out of context, makes an interesting argument. He argues that evolution does not proceed based on contingency but rather convergence, which would be a form of directionality. Not directionality based on purpose or end-game reasoning, but based on functional necessity.
quote:
However, if there is any merit to our simple calculation then protein sequence analysis provides no support for
the idea of contingency at a molecular level and it provides strong support for the ideas of convergence. If one was to rerun the tape, then the protein composition of organisms would be similar.
Here is the paper again. Its a pretty easy read.
How much of protein sequence space has been explored by life on Earth?
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 04-05-2017 9:58 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 04-05-2017 10:51 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 70 of 293 (803846)
04-05-2017 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by forexhr
04-05-2017 9:37 AM


I would like to remind that this thread is not about just so stories, evolutionary models, hypotheses and ad hoc hypotheses, fictional explanations... but about the physical reality of matter, or more specifically, about the share of bio-functionality in it.
Then why are you avoiding all the posts that talk about that stuff?
The more particles there are, the more different 3D structures can be created. With 2 particles we can create 1 3D structure, with 3 particles 2 different 3D structures, with 5 particles 12, with 15 particles 3426576, with 28 particles 153511100594603 and with 1000 particles we can create 8.37x10e3271 differnet 3D structures.
That's wrong. Not all physical arrangements of particles are possible structures in reality. There are constraints.
This error is ruining your probability calculation and your math is bad so your claim is false.
My point is that evolutionary resources are millions and millions orders of magnitude insufficient to extract functional, pump like structure from billions of particles(cells).
And you're wrong because your math is wrong. See my previous posts for more explanations.
It is irrelevant how evolution works.
If you are going to provide an argument against evolution, then the thing you are arguing against has to actually be evolution.
This nonsense you are describing and calling evolution is not what scientists call evolution. You're arguing a straw man.
You have to provide an argument that takes account of the actual evolutionary processes and show how these processes overcome infinite potential of matter for non-biological manifestation.
Or, on the other hand, we can continue to point out that there is no infinite potential to overcome - that's based on bad math that you are wrong about.
Sorry Paul, but you cannot refute an argument by saying: your argument is based on a ridiculous false assumption. You need to explain why the assumption is false.
We're trying; you're just not replying to those posts.
So, here evolution needs to find a solution to this problem which means, evolution needs to find the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA so that cell can produce functional enzymes with the ability to convert energy rich substances into usable energy.
Whatever it is you think you are describing, it isn't how evolution is proposed to actually work. You are not making an argument against evolution, but rather your own cartoon version of it.
This, too, has been pointed out to you more than once.
Yes it was done, by intelligent design. So are you saying that functional bio-structures are intelligently designed?
Not necessarily, another possibility is that these things don't assemble randomly like your bad math calculations require.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 9:37 AM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 71 of 293 (803848)
04-05-2017 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by herebedragons
04-05-2017 9:56 AM


Re: Back to the same mistake
I am aware of this standard just so story of evolution - evolution starts with pre-existing materials and modifies them. But this is just fiction, wishful thinking, something totally unrelated to reality.
If we suppose that this semantically correct word - "technology" is the pre-existing material, then random modification won't magically transform this material into new semantically correct word - "chemistry" for e.g., but into gibberish, something like this: "ttufwefjkl". This is the reality of things compossed of building blocks or particles - they exist as tiny clusters of meaning or function in a vast empty space of gibberish or non-function.
That is why when you start to randomly change the positions of particles is the pre-existing bio-material, enzyme for e.g., you won't end up with new functional enzyme but you will turn the old one into gibberish, junk, you will destroy its abilty to perform a metabolic function. And once you are at the level of junk, an organism needs to create a new enzyme from scratch. So, your just so story presupposes that there are magic jumps between function A and function B. Unfortunately these jumps do net exist, they are nothing but a mental fantasy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 9:56 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 04-05-2017 11:05 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 77 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 12:21 PM forexhr has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 72 of 293 (803849)
04-05-2017 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by herebedragons
04-05-2017 10:34 AM


Re: Back to the same mistake
hbd writes:
However, one of the references he provided in the OP, although it does not support his position and he took the cited data quite out of context, makes an interesting argument. He argues that evolution does not proceed based on contingency but rather convergence, which would be a form of directionality. Not directionality based on purpose or end-game reasoning, but based on functional necessity.
Natural selection would definitely impose a convergence of characteristics since all critters will face common selection pressures based on the local environment. moving quickly through water will favor a stream lined shape as an example.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 10:34 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 73 of 293 (803857)
04-05-2017 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by forexhr
04-05-2017 10:47 AM


Re: Back to the same mistake
foxexhr writes:
If we suppose that this semantically correct word - "technology" is the pre-existing material, then random modification won't magically transform this material into new semantically correct word - "chemistry" for e.g., but into gibberish, something like this: "ttufwefjkl". This is the reality of things compossed of building blocks or particles - they exist as tiny clusters of meaning or function in a vast empty space of gibberish or non-function.
You're forgetting selection. Evolution is descent with modification and natural selection provided by the environment. For your analogy to be complete there would be selection pressures for "chemistry".
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 10:47 AM forexhr has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 74 of 293 (803860)
04-05-2017 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by forexhr
04-05-2017 9:36 AM


Re: Back to the same mistake
quote:
Sorry Paul, but you cannot refute an argument by saying: your argument is based on a ridiculous false assumption. You need to explain why the assumption is false
Since you claimed to have a logical proof it is quite definitely up to you to show that either the assumption is true or to explain why the total number of possible arrangements of atoms is at all relevant.
In fact since evolution, considered as a search, relies on iteratively generating variations and selecting from them, as you have admitted, it is clear that the assumption is false and that you know that it is false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 9:36 AM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 75 of 293 (803872)
04-05-2017 11:54 AM


Percy writes:
You're forgetting selection. Evolution is descent with modification and natural selection provided by the environment. For your analogy to be complete there would be selection pressures for "chemistry".
How does the selection pressure for "chemistry" reduces the resources needed to transform this gibberish: "ttufwefjkl" or this semantically correct word : "technology", into "chemistry"?
PaulK writes:
Since you claimed to have a logical proof it is quite definitely up to you to show that either the assumption is true or to explain why the total number of possible arrangements of atoms is at all relevant. In fact since evolution, considered as a search, relies on iteratively generating variations and selecting from them, as you have admitted, it is clear that the assumption is false and that you know that it is false.
I claimed that 10e43 resources are insufficient to find bio-functional solution. To backup my claim I provided the empirical evidence of structural niche which is filled with gamma repressor fold. Your response is this: your assumption is wrong, your assumption is wrong, your assumption is wrong. Can you finally explain why my assumption is wrong?

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 04-05-2017 12:11 PM forexhr has replied
 Message 78 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 12:25 PM forexhr has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024