Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Evolution Intellectually Viable?
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 91 (21799)
11-07-2002 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by John
11-07-2002 1:18 AM


John
The mosquito and fly only have about 13,000 genes.
60% are eseentially the same (allelic variants if you like).
20% have sub matches alnong their length (domains)
10% have a non-insect best-match
10% are completely unique from all of the sequencing in all of life
Time will tell but much of this 10% may be genuinely species-specific (not necessarily at the species level per se).
I have identified very clearly a way to attempt to identify kinds if we had the genomes.
Most of my points transcend the definition of a kind anyway. All taxonomic levels down to something around the family levlel are distinguishable by protein families so you cannot argue allelic variation as a viable mechanism for the origin of new protein families.
So don't get more caught up on kinds than even we are. Gene families are kingdom-specific, class-specific, order specific, family specific etc. Our prediciton is that somewhere along the line there will be no new families except as might be incorrectly suggested due to reletive losses. We do have a prediciton and it does not need an a priori definition of 'kind' to be sensible, discusable and usable. Of course it will become more useful in about 5 or 10 years.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by John, posted 11-07-2002 1:18 AM John has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 91 (21800)
11-07-2002 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Ahmad
11-07-2002 6:05 AM


Ahmad
You are basically correct. You are probably just overstating.
It is probably overstating it to say that no protein could ever have been created randomly somewhere. 1 in 10,000 protein sequences fold, about 1 in a million will do something useful. Only one in a billion will do something you want it to do and the chances of getting more than one of these to do anything useful together is probably close to impossible even if the universe was filled with soup. So I agree with you but I prefer the way I put it.
What evolutionists rely on is that some extremely simple form of life might be possible. We can't rule it out. But it is only their hope. And I agree that even that would probably be impossible.
Your other statements about 'this evolved into that' are also basically true but your language is imprecise. Once one has a cell then evolution can proceed somewhat non-randomly due to selection processes. But it will basically juts fine-tune itself.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Ahmad, posted 11-07-2002 6:05 AM Ahmad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Karl, posted 11-08-2002 4:32 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 91 (21801)
11-07-2002 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by John
11-07-2002 7:26 AM


John
I disagree with your first point and agree with your second.
Bird is quite right that the formation of peptides just haven't been seen in naturee or the lab without unrealistic setups. You all really are just living in a fantasyland on that issue.
Your second point I agree with. The probability calcs give overly high estimats for the reason you outlined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by John, posted 11-07-2002 7:26 AM John has not replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 91 (21810)
11-07-2002 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Ahmad
11-07-2002 5:58 AM


Brother Ahmad,
As a theistic evolutionist I do not rely too much on abiogenesis speculations... Today I still think of the scientific theories for abiogenesis as highly speculative, however I am trying to be careful not to jump to theological conclusions. If someday they got it right on abiogenesis then my theology will need to be re-examined.
Also, even if the first living molecule (the replicator as I assume) is created miraculously by Allah, that will not be a problem for my view of evolution. Even Dawkins himself dare not speculate on the origin of replication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Ahmad, posted 11-07-2002 5:58 AM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-07-2002 11:56 PM Andya Primanda has replied
 Message 55 by Ahmad, posted 11-08-2002 6:22 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 91 (21829)
11-07-2002 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Andya Primanda
11-07-2002 9:33 PM


Andya
You should also be careful about what scientific conclusions you come to.
Interpretaitons vs facts are a mine-field in this debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-07-2002 9:33 PM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-08-2002 8:39 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Karl
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 91 (21841)
11-08-2002 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Tranquility Base
11-07-2002 6:11 PM


quote:
What evolutionists rely on is that some extremely simple form of life might be possible. We can't rule it out. But it is only their hope. And I agree that even that would probably be impossible.
And once again, from the top, please children:
Evolution is not abiogenesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-07-2002 6:11 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Ahmad, posted 11-08-2002 6:24 AM Karl has not replied

Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 91 (21844)
11-08-2002 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by John
11-07-2002 2:45 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by John, posted 11-07-2002 2:45 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by John, posted 11-08-2002 7:35 AM Ahmad has replied

Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 91 (21845)
11-08-2002 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
11-07-2002 4:22 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 11-07-2002 4:22 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 11-10-2002 2:31 PM Ahmad has replied

Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 91 (21847)
11-08-2002 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Andya Primanda
11-07-2002 9:33 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-07-2002 9:33 PM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Delshad, posted 11-08-2002 7:21 AM Ahmad has replied
 Message 62 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-08-2002 9:09 AM Ahmad has not replied

Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 91 (21848)
11-08-2002 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Karl
11-08-2002 4:32 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Karl, posted 11-08-2002 4:32 AM Karl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-08-2002 5:13 PM Ahmad has not replied

Karl
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 91 (21849)
11-08-2002 6:30 AM


They don't. It's not part of any evolutionist's field.

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Ahmad, posted 11-08-2002 12:29 PM Karl has not replied

Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 91 (21851)
11-08-2002 6:42 AM


Hi all, sorry to just jump in this thread like this but I wish to explain a thing.
John, I think you had good intentions with your analogy about the stone rolling down the hill, but sorry to say, it is a bit misleading, dont you think?
Let me explain, no one has stated that a stone can`t roll down a hill and therefore it is quite irrelevant to note the exact path it tooked and calculate the propabilty of another stone to exactly repeat its previous path.
That is , if you throw another stone down the hill, no matter how many bumps or turns, it will still continue downwards and so the end product is essentially the same.
But what Ahmed is saying( if I havent misunderstood him) is that the cause (the throw if you like) havent been observed in abiogenesis and therefore it isnt misleading to calculate the probabilty, because that is the only way to know if it could have happened or not.
Sincerely Delshad

Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 91 (21852)
11-08-2002 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Ahmad
11-08-2002 6:22 AM


Salam O`aleikum Ahmad.
I think you should be very carefull before you draw any hasty conclusions about Andya`s faith in Islam.
Think about this, if Allah had revealed to Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) that man was descended from primates, how would the Prophet then explain to his followers what was revealed to him, followers that (just previously worshipped stone statues.)
Even now, 21:th century, with all the technological achievemets that has been made, it is quite hard to explain the theory without resistance.
Then how much harder did you believe it would have been for our Prophet to explain to his followers 1400 years ago the theory of evolution.
Do you think it would have helped to spread the holy message, highly unlikely . )
The truth is, that many ayats, in wich explain physical phenomenon, such as the Big Bang, the the theory of expansion, the human developement of the embryo amongst many other miracles, wich were unknown in the Prophts lifetime, are appreciated in our time( by believers) and have enforced our belief in The Quran as a holy Book.
Allah has revealed "and step by step, We will show them our signs so that they will separate the truth from false".
And conserning your statement that the Quran doesnt support evolution
then read this , sura`t Al-Baccara ayah 30.
"Behold thy Lord said to the
angels:"I will create a vicegerent on earth."They said :
"Wilt thou place therein one who will make mischief and shed blood?-
Wilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?"
He said:"I know what ye know not"
Here it becomes clear that the angels had already seen something similar to man, and that they shed blood and made mischief, but these men were not vicegerents of the Earth until the moment they had been blessed with deeper insight of knowledge in both themselves and they`re surroundings, wich becomes clearer in ayah 31 and 32.
Have a good Ramadan brother and try to not be so haste in your conclusions, because if Creation were to be known as an absolute fact, then everyone would be religious and there would be no test, Allah is a god of Truth, The most High, the Beneficient, the Merciful.
Ma Salam Ahmad
Sincerely Dilshad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Ahmad, posted 11-08-2002 6:22 AM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Ahmad, posted 11-08-2002 12:33 PM Delshad has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 91 (21853)
11-08-2002 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Ahmad
11-08-2002 5:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Ahmad:
So WHY is it turning up heads everytime it is tossed??
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.
quote:
Don't misunderstand me please. I never said that an unseen conscience is involved.
That was a typo. I meant 'conscious' not 'conscience.' oops. And you have been implying the intervention of a conscious but unseen entity.
quote:
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?
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.
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.
quote:
I have not used the word unseen in my example.
And this is relevant why? You are essentially talking about an UNSEEN entity-- Allah in your case.
quote:
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??
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.
quote:
It does not.
Does too!!!!!!
quote:
The rock is an inanimate object and will go any direction it is thrown onto (whether by a conscious thrower or by wind).
hmm.... and chemicals are not inanimate? Strike that objection. We are talking about inanimate objects.
quote:
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.
But your example is a misuse of probability. Andya gave you another example.
quote:
Flaw?
March your butt over the math department of a major university.
quote:
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)
Yup, and make the same mistake you do, which is why the scientific world is not quaking in fear.
quote:
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??
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.
quote:
Hmm; When did I mention of an extra entity??
The extra entity is the conscious agent to which you contiually allude.
quote:
Are you assuming that the simplest Protein composed of 288 amino acids
And this is the most simple POSSIBLE protein, or just the most simple existing protein? What about protein precursors?
quote:
which can be arranged in 10^300 different ways
Can it? How did you come to this conclusion? Chemical bonds are not completely random. It isn't like shuffling a deck of cards.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Ahmad, posted 11-08-2002 5:59 AM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Ahmad, posted 11-09-2002 3:38 PM John has replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 91 (21868)
11-08-2002 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tranquility Base
11-07-2002 11:56 PM


Thanks for the suggestion TB. Am I standing on a landmine now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-07-2002 11:56 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-08-2002 5:17 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024