Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 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 168 of 293 (804784)
04-13-2017 4:05 AM


Here is the challenge for people on this thread who argue for evolution.
Let's suppose that evolution starts with the following functional 'linguistic organism':
"------- Technology is the collection of techniques, skills, methods and processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the knowledge of techniques, processes, etc. or it can be embedded in machines, computers, devices and factories, which can be operated by individuals without detailed knowledge of the workings of such things.--------"
The above text is the DNA of the first self-replicating unicellular organism. Words are genes. Word is a smallest unit of language that functions as a principal carrier of meaning just as gene is a smallest unit of biology that functions as a principal carrier of meaningful molecule(exp. lambda repressor fold). A sentence is a linguistic unit consisting of more words that are grammatically linked into meaningful statement, question, request, command, exclamation, etc., just as assembly of genes is a biological unit consisting of two or more genes that are functionally linked together to perform an important function of the cell or the body. (exp. group of genes that code for RNA splicing machine).
The following is the organism with new genes(words), that didn't exist in the first self-replicating unicellular organism:
"**------- Technology is the collection of techniques, skills, methods and processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the knowledge of techniques, processes, etc. or it can be embedded in machines, computers, devices and factories, which can be operated by individuals without detailed knowledge of the workings of such things.
A week is a time unit equal to seven days. It is the standard time period used for cycles of rest days in most parts of the world, mostly alongsidealthough not strictly part ofthe Gregorian calendar. The days of the week were named after the classical planets (derived from the astrological system of planetary hours) in the Roman era. The names for the days of the week in English are Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday...---------**"
Genetic material newly added to our linguistic organism is concerned with new linguistic niches, the same as newly added genetic material to the first self-replicating organism, was concerned with new structural niche in the form of intronic insertions. Inside this newly added material we observe new meaningful relationship - between these words "The names for the days of the week in English are", and these words "Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday". Let us call the firs group of words "A", and the second group "B". We can say that A is a sub-niche of our newly added material, while B is the target that needed to be extracted from some pre-existing linguistic material. Likewise, in real organisms, intron-exon gene structure that arised in early cells was a sub-niche, while RNA splicing machine was the target that needed to be extracted from some pre-existing genetic material.
And what is this pre-existing material in the Darwinian evolution? Well, it is simply some duplicated genetic material of the pre-existing organism. This pre-existing organism in our example is this:
"------- Technology is the collection of techniques, skills, methods and processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the knowledge of techniques, processes, etc. or it can be embedded in machines, computers, devices and factories, which can be operated by individuals without detailed knowledge of the workings of such things.--------"
So let us duplicate some of the 'genes':
-> "of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"
After this duplication we have new linguistic (genetic) material that evolution can act upon to produce new meaningful relationships between A and B (between intorn-exon gene structure and RNA splicing machine).
We are now at the crucial point of this illustration. At this point I wolud argue that evolution must produce meaningful relationships between A and B from scratch and that the 'step by step' path from duplicated linguistic material to meaningful relationships between A and B does not exist. On the other hand, people who argue for evolution would say that I don't understand how evolution works and that there is a step by step path form this duplication:
///"of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"///
to this meaningful relationships:
***"The names for the days of the week in English are"*** ---"Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday---.
So here is the challenge for those who argue for evolution: by using this concrete example, show us how evolution works. Show us how to get from duplicated genes(words) to meaningful relationships between A and B gradually in a step-by-step fashion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-13-2017 8:52 AM forexhr has replied

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


Message 170 of 293 (804787)
04-13-2017 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by bluegenes
04-13-2017 4:31 AM


Re: The Texas sharpshooter rides again
bluegenes writes:
There's no error. "Function" is used in biology in both a general and specific way. The Szostak paper (Functional Proteins from a random sequence library) I linked to does both, and the conclusion is general.
What does functional protein that binds to ATP has to do with the development of all specific bio-functions that we observe at all levels of bio-organization. If we consider ATP binding function as "general" what would this generality have to do with this specific structural niches: intron-exon gene structure, female reproductive system, lactose, ability of the lambda repressor to regulate expresion of cI protein? Can you fulfil these niches with ATP binding function? No. Can you fulfil the 'contraction' niche of striated muscle tissues, with this protein composed of 80 amino acids? No. You need a specific protein composed of ~27,000 to ~33,000 amino acids that is called Titin. So the Szostak paper demostrated that there has been enough sampling to cover the entire functional landscape of ATP binding protein. But what follows from that in the context of above mentioned niches? Absolutely nothing.
bluegenes writes:
Surely you understood the general uses in the second paper you linked to in the O.P. here, and the one on functional DNA you linked to in your second post here?
No I do not. You need to explain what you mean by "the general uses".
bluegenes writes:
My numbers were to illustrate your probability mistakes.
For example, you are mistaking the resources required to hit all possible functional 1 in 10^624 AA combinations for the resources required to get any. If there are 10^523 such functional proteins, then 1 in 10^11 searches (random assemblies of 480AAs ) would hit on one. 10^17 searches would provide 1,000,000, and 10^20 searches would hit on 1 billion of them, already plenty for a very diverse life system.
The same applies for your 1 in 10^63 estimate for a related group of proteins with a specific function. If there are 10^52 such groups with some potential function, then 1 in 10^11 searches would hit on one such. 10^17 searches would provide 1,000,000, and 10^20 would hit on 1 billion of them. The Lambda phage doesn't have to exist at this point or any other, neither does its repressor, and neither does the E-coli host. Life has no specific targets. But pick out any single protein in the system and it will appear to be remotely unlikely to those who don't understand probabilities.
If you can learn to understand the probabilities, then there are some technical points that are interesting, as well. It's not hard to find completely unrelated proteins that can perform the same function, for example, something that might support the conclusion of the second paper you linked to.
You committed the same mistake again. Let me use this example for illustration. If you have 1000 generally meaningful 10 letter words, whose sequence space is 26^10=141167095653376, and if you have enough resources(trials) to explore this sequence sapce, for example 150000000000000 trials, than by your logic, 150000000000000 trials would stumble across all 1000 generally meaningful 10 letter words. That is true but here is the problem: how would you define what is meaningful in a specific context? In a language, meaningful is defined by other words in a sentence. For example: this 10 letter word - "authorized" is meaningful in the context of this sentence: "The defender admits that he authorized all operations", but this 10 letter word - "birthplace" is not. Since you don't know in advance what sentence or context will appear, it is impossible to "select" a specific meaningful 10 letter word if you stumble across it during a random search.
This is even more obvious in the context of biology. Proteins are meaningful only in the context of currently opened structural or environmental niches. For example if this niche arises "The defender admits that he .......... all operations", then to fulfil the niche you need to search for the word "authorized". And to find this word you need to spend almost all of your resources since sequence space of 10 letter words is 26^10=141167095653376. If another niche arises where the word "birthplace" is meaningful, then again, you need 150000000000000 resources to find it. But you alredy spend all your resources for the previous search and you cannot proceed.
To conclude, in your reasoning you presupposed that evolution has a foresight and knows what structural or environmental niches will emerge in the future, so when the random search stumbles across the protein that is meaningful in the context of these future niches, evolution would simply select it, then put it aside and wait for niches to emerge in some random point in the future. In short, you presupposed that evolution has the supernatural powers.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by bluegenes, posted 04-13-2017 4:31 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 04-13-2017 8:01 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 216 by bluegenes, posted 04-15-2017 12:56 PM forexhr has replied
 Message 218 by bluegenes, posted 04-16-2017 8:21 AM forexhr has replied

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


Message 173 of 293 (804797)
04-13-2017 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
04-13-2017 8:01 AM


Re: The Texas sharpshooter rides again
A know that there are other words that fit, but the point of my previous post was not to define the functional landscape in the context of a specific niche, but to show that functions in biology are niche specific. So, you missed the point... again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 04-13-2017 8:01 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 04-13-2017 9:10 AM forexhr has not replied

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


Message 177 of 293 (804806)
04-13-2017 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by New Cat's Eye
04-13-2017 8:52 AM


New Cat's Eye writes:
So, using the above method of copying and pasting and then deleting:
...
In this method of yours you committed the same mistake as Dawkins in Weasel program presented in chapter 3 of his book "The Blind Watchmaker" - you used the method of intelligent design. Let me first explain how Dawkins gave the evolution supernatural powers. Dawkins knew that purely random approach to produce something meaningful was theoretically impossible, due to excessively huge search space. So he created WEASEL program where he aimed to show that the process that drives evolutionary systems - random variation and natural selection - are different from pure chance. His program begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error - 'mutation' - in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation until target phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" is reached.
Without further elaboration, we can easily see what technique is used here. At each step of the simulation, the current state of the "individual" is judged according to the target phrase. In other words, program used a priori knowledge of the goal before the goal has been reached. The use of a priori knowledge is called planing. Plan is defined as a set of actions that have been thought of as a way to do or achieve something. By creating plans we, as inteligent agents, are creating representations of what we want to achieve. Then, by using our cognitive faculties we design objects by comparing this plans with a current state of the object. In short, this activity is called inteligent design.
In your method of copying and pasting you committed the same mistake - you selected the words "the", "names", "for", "the", "days", "of" and "the" just because you had a priori knowledge of the target phrase -"The names for the days of the week in English are".
Unfortunately, evolution cannot plan, there is no a priori knowledge to serve as a criterion for selection. Hence, the same bluegenes and Dawkins, you also presupposed that evolution has the supernatural powers. Or in other words, you don't know how evolution works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-13-2017 8:52 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 04-13-2017 10:01 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 180 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-13-2017 10:33 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 181 by dwise1, posted 04-13-2017 10:35 AM forexhr has replied

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


Message 183 of 293 (804861)
04-13-2017 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by New Cat's Eye
04-13-2017 10:33 AM


New Cat's Eye writes:
You, yourself, are the one who set up the challenge to have a target goal in mind! In reality, there is no target goal so your analogy is off to begin with.
You just keep demonstrating that you don't understand not only evolution but biology also.
You obviously don't know that a random bag of molecules cannot fertilize the egg cell, convert substrate into product, cut the introns and rearrange the exons, etc. So, according to you -"there is no target goal in mind, but the environment is what it is". So, if the enviornment is egg cell then molecules will just magically arrange themselves into a sperm cell. If the enviornment is a specific substrate then again, molecules will just magically arrange themselves into a specific functional enzyme to achieve enzyme-substrate specificity. If the enviornment is intron-exon gene structure then molecules will just magically arrange themselves into a 200 specific proteins to gain RNA splicing ability. Because the environment is what it is... you just wave your magic wand of 'selective pressure' and molecules will just start flying around to form whatever shape you wish. Your mantras about environment clearly demonstrates that you don't have the capacity for rational discussion about the issue at hand. How does the phrase "selective pressure" explain bio-organization? Just like magic, the use of this phrase invokes mysterious powers within unseen universes that are capable of leaping over enormous practical obstacles without having to provide any scientific consideration for how a particular physical result was achieved. These kind of phrases convey wish-like convictions that if you just believe deeply enough, your explanation must be true and someday will be true though currently resisted by all scientific evidence. Explaining bio-organization by believing it arose due to "selective pressure", appeals to imaginary special forces which help you to connect the evolutionary dots. But as in any magical kingdom, the connections are mental fantasies that are not grounded in reality.
I will leave you in your magical kingdom with your 'selective pressure' because in your posts there is nothing of substance worth rebutting.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-13-2017 10:33 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by herebedragons, posted 04-13-2017 11:50 PM forexhr has replied
 Message 199 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-14-2017 10:05 AM forexhr has not replied

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


Message 184 of 293 (804862)
04-13-2017 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by dwise1
04-13-2017 10:35 AM


dwise1 writes:
IOW, your objections mean nothing.
My objections mean that in evolutionary programing, targets are a priori selected by intelligent agents. Without this information about the search space structure evolutionary programing does no better than blind search.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by dwise1, posted 04-13-2017 10:35 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Tangle, posted 04-13-2017 4:36 PM forexhr has replied
 Message 186 by Percy, posted 04-13-2017 5:08 PM forexhr has replied
 Message 212 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2017 9:30 PM forexhr has not replied
 Message 213 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2017 9:45 PM forexhr has not replied

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


Message 188 of 293 (804915)
04-14-2017 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Tangle
04-13-2017 4:36 PM


Tangle writes:
You've just explained why you're wrong. Well done.
Evolution is not searching for a target. Nor would it know one if it was. It is indeed blind, but it isn't searching.
WOW, you also don't know how evolution works. Evolution is ALWAYS searching for a target. Whatever the environment looks like, in order to adapt to it, evolution MUST find a solution. Solution in biology is the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA. If the environment is a specific nutrient - a component in foods that an organism uses to survive and grow, then in order to metabolize it, evolution must find a solution, meaning if must find the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA that codes for specific enzymes. If the environment is water then evolution must find the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA that contains the information necessary to build respiratory organ that extracts dissolved oxygen from water and excretes carbon dioxide. If the enviornment is intron-exon gene structure then evolution must find the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA that contains the information to build mRNA splicing machinery.
Hence, in order to adapt to a specific environment evolution must search for a specific target - a specific combination of nucleotides in the DNA. It is really mind blowing that people who argue for evolution exhibit lack of knowledge about the first precondition for adaptation to a specific environment - evolution MUST find a solution to cope with this environment. This is other words means - evolution must search for a TARGET.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Tangle, posted 04-13-2017 4:36 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2017 4:39 AM forexhr has replied

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


Message 189 of 293 (804916)
04-14-2017 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by herebedragons
04-13-2017 11:50 PM


herebedragons writes:
I am calling you out on this again. This is a false or misleading statement. There are not 200 proteins that associate into a massive complex that is a spliceosome. Do you have a source for your information regarding this claim and the 200 associated proteins?
You are calling out for red herrings because this does not change the essence of my argument. But anyway here's the link:
Protein-free spliceosomal snRNAs catalyze a reaction that resembles the first step of splicing - PMC
"Splicing of introns from mRNA precursors is a two-step reaction performed by the spliceosome, an immense cellular machine consisting of over 200 different proteins and five small RNAs (snRNAs)."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by herebedragons, posted 04-13-2017 11:50 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by caffeine, posted 04-16-2017 5:20 PM forexhr has not replied

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


Message 190 of 293 (804919)
04-14-2017 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Percy
04-13-2017 5:08 PM


Percy writes:
Evolutionary programs are written by people, but they model evolution, not intelligent design. The programmer defines the "natural environment" so as to model the real world to the degree of accuracy necessary.
Just as an experimental biologist doesn't change selection into an intelligent process by manipulating an organism's environment, neither does a programmer by manipulating a program's "environment". The process modeled is still one of descent with modification and selection.
Wrong. Evolutionary programs all have something that is called active information(fitness function) which is a form of intelligent guidance.
To illustrate this consider the following example: you start with the population of 20 individuals located at the center of the soccer field. Individuals will be rewarded(selected) if they manage to reach the right corner of the field by using the following metod: they are alowed to move one step at a time, in one of four different directions; left, right, forward, or backward. Direction of every step is determined randomly. We know that chances of finding the righr corner by using this type of random search are extremely low. This is similar of finding "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" phrase in Dawkins' weasel, by chance.
But, we can do the following. We start our simulation and every individual is randomly moved one step in one of the four mentioned directions. When this is done we measure the distance between individual and the right corner of the field. We repeat this calculation for every individual. Now using this data we calculate fitness of each individual. Next step is the selection process - we want to be constantly improving our overall fitness. Selection helps us to keep the best individuals in the population - so individuals who are the most distant from the right corner are out. Now we have our next generation and we can start again the whole process until we reach the right corner. As we can see in this example, at each step of the simulation we have a communication bettwen a solution(location of the right corner) and the current position of the individual. In other words, we have a priori knowledge of the location of the right corner before the right corner is reached. Without this a priori knowledge about the location of the right corner (active information - provided by an intelligent agent), our simulation is left with blind search.
In evolution this active information does not exist, meaning evolution can select only those individuals who manage to reach the right corner of the field. In other words, in the real world the path towards this corner is not guided but is carried by random means. So yes, evolutionary programs model intelligent design.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Percy, posted 04-13-2017 5:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 04-14-2017 7:39 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 211 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2017 7:28 PM forexhr has not replied

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


Message 192 of 293 (804924)
04-14-2017 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Tangle
04-14-2017 4:39 AM


Unbelievable, after I gave you clear examples that adapting to an environment means targeting a specific solution you still deny that evolution process must find a target. Since you cannot comprehend something so simple, it is no wonder you are left with nothing except standard evolutionary magic phrases. Just like flat earthers who repeat their mantras in defiance of all evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2017 4:39 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2017 8:51 AM forexhr has replied

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


Message 194 of 293 (804927)
04-14-2017 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Percy
04-14-2017 7:39 AM


Percy writes:
This misunderstands how evolution works. Evolution, analogously, also knows where the right corner is. Adaptation might be served by longer fur or larger beaks or larger size, and each increment is better adaptation, just as in your analogy each step toward the right corner is better adaptation. In an evolutionary program the fitness function models the impact of the environment, which in the real world will have multiple adaptive forces.
This is not Darwinian evolution but phenotypic plasticity. Every organism has the ability to change its phenotype in response to changes in the environment. Ability to have longer fur or larger beaks or larger size is already built into an organisam. On the other hand Darwinian evolution is concerned with the origin of fur or beaks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 04-14-2017 7:39 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Percy, posted 04-14-2017 8:19 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 198 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-14-2017 10:02 AM forexhr has not replied

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


Message 196 of 293 (804929)
04-14-2017 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Percy
04-14-2017 8:19 AM


A definition cannot change the concept. Origin of a thing and modification of a thing are two entirely different concepts. If an animal hits the fence at your backyard with force and modifies it, this doesn't explain the origin of the fence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Percy, posted 04-14-2017 8:19 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Percy, posted 04-14-2017 4:21 PM forexhr has not replied
 Message 209 by vimesey, posted 04-14-2017 5:29 PM forexhr has not replied

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


Message 200 of 293 (804935)
04-14-2017 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Tangle
04-14-2017 8:51 AM


Tangle writes:
You're looking at a whale and saying that the odds it being that way are infinitessimal. This is wrong-headed. It's the equivalent of looking at all the cards in a deck dealt one after another and saying that the chances of that being that way are infinissimal. The cards didn't need to fall that way - we'd still be looking at a deck of cards no matter what order they were dealt.
Besides being uneducated about evolution and biology, you've shown yourself to be just as inept with mathematics. Looking at the cards in a deck dealt one after another has absolutely nothing to do with probability but with necessity - when the cards are being dealt it is necessary to get some distribution of cards.
Probability on the other hand, is the measure of the likeliness of being dealt specific cards that you specified before dealing. In the context of evolution, you need to get specific distribution of nucleotides in the DNA in order to cope with specific environmental conditions. Any distribution will not work. That is why we calculate probabilities in the first place. Please do yourself a favor and go educate yourself.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2017 8:51 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by jar, posted 04-14-2017 10:21 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 202 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2017 10:53 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 206 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2017 2:06 PM forexhr has replied

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


Message 203 of 293 (804954)
04-14-2017 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Tangle
04-14-2017 10:53 AM


Tangle writes:
And this is where you go wrong.
You've just looked at the outcome of a particular organism produced by evolution and claimed it's probability is x, an outrageous number. Just like you would look at the dealt deck and claim its probability as impossible. However, we both know the probability is 1. Because we're looking at them.
Unlike cards, there are not only and always 52; as far as evolution is concerned there are an infinite number of cards and any outcome at all except death will do.
As you have no idea how many survival outcomes there are, you can not predict their probabilities.
Besides being uneducated about evolution, biology and mathematics, you've shown yourself to be just as inept with logic.
An already dealt deck of cards doesn't have probability because probability is calculated by dividing the number of favorable outcomes by the number of total possible outcomes. If nobody defined favorable outcomes before dealing that it is impossible to calculate probability. On the other hand, favorable outcomes of a particular organism were defined by the environment - favorable outcomes were DNA arrangements that contained information to cope with a given environmental condition while the total possible outcomes were total possible DNA arrangements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2017 10:53 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2017 1:49 PM forexhr has not replied
 Message 205 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-14-2017 1:56 PM forexhr has not replied
 Message 207 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2017 2:21 PM forexhr has not replied

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


Message 214 of 293 (805053)
04-15-2017 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by dwise1
04-14-2017 2:06 PM


dwise1 writes:
Yes! Finally! You are finally starting to understand what's wrong with your stupid use of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy! You are finally starting to understand what a lie it is to take something that already happened and then prattle on about how it could not have possibly happened because the probability is so low, despite the simple fact that it did indeed happen. Of course, being a creationist you will deny that you understand what you've done.
I really feel sorry for you, man. I really do. You have become so desperate, that you are now trying to project your ignorance of basic mathematics on me, by using an infantile sarcasm.
Of course that we can take an event that already happened and then calculate the probability of it happening, but only if parameters for calculating the probability were definable before the event. The probability of an event A is defined as P(A) = number of favorable outcomes/ total number of possible outcomes.
Although nobody witnessed the formation of a particular bio-structure, and therefore being able to define the "number of favorable outcomes" before its formation, this number is definable with reference to a particular environment. If this environment is the operator of Lambda phage genome to which lambda repressor binds, then the "number of favorable outcomes" are all functional lambda repressor folds that are capable to regulate the transcription of lambda phage genome, while the "total number of possible outcomes" are all possible 92-residue sequences. Given the study referenced in the O.P., there are 10^56 "favorable outcomes" and 10^119 possible outcomes (20^92) which gives P(A) = 10^56/10^119 =10^-63.
On the other hand, if we are looking at all the cards dealt one after another and ask what was the probability for this arrangement, then this is a nonsensical question because we cannot relate this arrangement back to an "environment" before the cards were dealt, for example to something that someone said or wrote about favorable arrangements of cards. Since the "favorable outcomes" parameter is missing we cannot use the probability formula and determine the probability.
dwise1 writes:
You really need to learn something about evolution and about evolutionary programming. Then at least you might be able to raise an actual objection.
Instead of proving that you are wrong by refuting your extensive responses point by point, I have much more interesting and effective way. I will set up an experiment that will allow you to test your suggestion that there is a link between Darwinian evolution and evolutionary programming in a sense that the path towards the right solution in the real world in not carried by random means. Through an analogy, this experiment will simulate the environmental condition to which an organism must adapt. Since you are educated about evolutionary computation, all you'll need to do is explain how would you solve this adaptation problem via evolutionary programming.
Ok, let us begin.
From the perspective of Darwinian evolution, enviotnmental condition is something to which an organism must adapt in order to improve its chances of survival and reproduction. If this enviotnmental condition is intron-exon gene structure then adapting to this condition simply means, gaining the ability to remove introns and join exons. Since this ability comes from the group of proteins(RNA splicing machine), while the information that codes for them is written on the DNA, adapting to an environment simply means finding the right arrangement of nucleotides in the DNA. This realtionhip between enviotnmental condition and the right arrangement of nucleotides is similar to question-answer relationship - inton-exon gene structure is the question, while the arrangement of nucleotides in the DNA that codes for RNA splicing is the correct answer to this question. Hence, adapting to a particular environmental condition is like providing the right answer to a particular question.
Given this analogy, in this experiment you'll need to explain how to find the correct answer to a particular question via evolutionary programs. Of course, you have one constraint - you are required to use mechanisms of Darwinian evolution. Since we know, that evolution has no intelligence and no mind, so it cannot see, read, think, percieve, ....it cannot grasp the question... here is the question for you:
"____________________________________________________?"
I have this question written in my Word document. Now, all you have to do it to use your evolutionary programs and provide the right answer to it. At your disposal you have all possible evolutionary mechanisms: functional shift, exaptation, co-option, selection, duplication. In other words, you are alowed to combine existing letters, words and sentences that exist in books, newspapers, magazines,dictionaries, internet or in your mind. You can do whatever you want in creating new combinations of linguistic elements. The only constraint is your inability to use engineering and inteligent design principles in solving the problem. You are unable to notice or become aware of the question, or in other words, you are unable to create a mental representation of perceived question and then, by using your cognitive faculties, to co-opt the right combination of letters, words and sentences according to this mental representation. In short, no intelligence is allowed.
Also, you cannot communicate with me about a partial accuracy of the answer since communication is an intelligent activity, and we know that evolution is not intelligent and therefore it is not able to communicate. Let us explain this by using above mentioned enviotnmental condition of intron-exon gene structure. Adaptation to this environment consists of at least four subprocesses: to recognize mRNA and its intron-exon boundaries, then to cut the introns out, to rearrange exons and finally to release the mRNA molecule. Only when combination of nucleotides in the DNA that codes for all for subprocesses exists, only then natural selection can act, and not before. For example: If we assume the existance of splicing helper proteins that assembly at the intron-exon borders to guide small nuclear ribo proteins to form a splicing machine, this partial correctness of the splicing process won't cause introns to magically disappear without a complete splicing machine. Meaning, evolution is able to select an organism only when all four subprocesses are in existance. That is why you cannot communicate with me to determine a partial accuracy of the answer.
In this experiment, we will presuppose that all functional words already exist in the "word pool". So, you don't need to create new words from scratch but you can co-opt the right answer from words that already exist in the books, newspapers, dictionaries.... We are told by evolutionists that co-option is a powerful evolutionary mechanism. They say that the parts nessecary to build new molecular machines could be taken from other molecular machines and combined into the new machine being constructed. Hence, in answering the question you are allowed to take words from existing books, newspapers, dictionaries, etc.
Now just thing about the extent of the problem. The subject of the question can be any aspect of the reality that can be expressed in words. So there is a potential for nearly infinite number of potential questions. And since you don't know what the question is you don't know what words or letters to use, how to combine them, you don't know what amount of words constitute the correct answer. But, you opposed my claim that in the real world the path towards the right solution is carried by random means. So, there you go... try to solve this problem via whatever non-random evolutionary means you choose in your evolutionary programming.
Let me know when you find out the correct answer.
Edited by Admin, : Shorten long line.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2017 2:06 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 04-15-2017 10:25 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 217 by dwise1, posted 04-15-2017 10:25 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