Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-24-2017 1:27 PM
415 online now:
Coyote, jar, NoNukes, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (6 members, 409 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,942 Year: 27,548/21,208 Month: 1,461/1,714 Week: 304/365 Day: 31/42 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 71 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 256 of 292 (805575)
04-19-2017 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by forexhr
04-19-2017 4:11 AM


Re: The Texas sharpshooter rides again
forexhr writes:

I think I already addressed this nonsensical point of yours. Resources that are already spent on search for protein A, which is located in a specific location in the genome of a particular species, cannot be spent on search for protein B which is located in other location of the genome or in other species.

Of course. What I said was this:

bluegenes writes:

Why not just skip to an entire complex organism, like Homo Sapiens. If you "critically examine the logical consequences" of the paper, the implications are that ~18*10^14 protein search resources would be required for our 18,000 proteins. I'm sure you won't make the mistake of multiplying that for all complex species, as they share many proteins. If our life system currently uses 1 billion proteins, then that would require 10^20 search resources.

What I meant by the sentence in yellow is that different species would inherit a lot of the same proteins through common ancestry. Of course they have to search anything they get after divergence separately, and every single unique protein present has to be found at some point.

forexhr writes:

Let me use an example for illustration.

Suppose that each of these two words: "CAT" and "DOG", represents a functional protein fold that needs to be found for adaptation purposes, while the text below represents the genomes of three individual organisms(A, B, C), that all have two duplicated gens, "wdc" and "aii", that are free to explore the above mentioned folds:

A) ..............wdc..................................aii
B) ..............wdc..................................aii
C) ..............wdc..................................aii

After the reproduction, we have these changes(mutations):

A) .....A........wdc...........P........U............Dii
B) .......H......wdc........T.......E................aFi
C) .....T........wdc..........P........Z..............aKi

As we can see, although we have spent 12 mutational resources, we have produced just 3 changes in the "aii" gene, while the "wdc" gene didn't get any change. Since the sequence space of "aii" gene is 17,576(26^3) we need on average 17,576 changes on its locus to produce the "DOG" fold. Once these resources are spent they cannot be spent on search for "CAT" fold on "wdc" loci, or search for any other functional fold. To find the "CAT" fold we need another 17,576 resources.

Well, that was a waste of time. So, if they all have different letters in all positions, it would take 17,576 * 10^9 to get a billion words. You haven't even attempted to refute my actual point.

forexhr writes:

What you did in your nonsensical statement, is put together all the mutations in the history of life that occured in all species of organisms and in all genes, and than you used this number as a separate instance for every new search. This is like writing down every dollar you spent this year and then saying that these, already spent dollars, can now be used for new purchases. All other points in your response are based on misunderstanding of this concept.

No, you couldn't be more wrong. What I did was take the approximate figure it needs to get a target function, 10^11, as the resources to get one functional protein in the life system, and then, by addition, figured out that it would take (10^11)*(10^9)=10^20 to get 1 billion proteins. It's aproximate, but if you understand the implications of the Szostak paper, that's a reasonable conclusion. And it blows out your O.P. claim.

forexhr writes:

Given the fact that you cannot comprehend something so simple(that you cannot spend something that has already been spent), it's no wonder that you bought the theory of evolution from the Darwinian evangelists.

If you could actually grasp the implications of the two papers you linked to in the O.P. and the two I've linked to, you would be thanking me for pointing out where you've gone wrong, rather than continuing to bluster.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by forexhr, posted 04-19-2017 4:11 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by jar, posted 04-19-2017 10:27 AM bluegenes has not yet responded
 Message 263 by forexhr, posted 04-19-2017 11:40 AM bluegenes has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29627
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 257 of 292 (805576)
04-19-2017 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by bluegenes
04-19-2017 10:15 AM


why forexhr brings us so many laughs.
bluegenes writes:

forexhr writes:

Given the fact that you cannot comprehend something so simple(that you cannot spend something that has already been spent), it's no wonder that you bought the theory of evolution from the Darwinian evangelists.

If you could actually grasp the implications of the two papers you linked to in the O.P. and the two I've linked to, you would be thanking me for pointing out where you've gone wrong, rather than continuing to bluster.

Last year I bought a car. But now I plan to drive up into the mountains where there is ice and snow.

forexhr seems to suggest the only choice is to start over and buy a new car.

You seem to think just acquiring studded ice&snow tires might be sufficient.

I tend to wonder if just some chains might do the same.

But then maybe the tires I have might even be just good enough as they are to get by in the snow.

Yet it might be wise to toss a couple bags of kitty litter in the trunk just in case.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by bluegenes, posted 04-19-2017 10:15 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 258 of 292 (805577)
04-19-2017 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by forexhr
04-19-2017 8:08 AM


forexhr writes:

I am not an expert in this area, but Barbara McClintock, who was, said that the occurrence of the movement and placement of transposable elements is non-random. I believe that these elements are used by cells to regulate specific coding regions of the genome in response to a certain environmental factor. How this happens, exactly, I donít know.

Let's look at your logic.

The vast majority of lottery tickets are losers. Therefore, if someone wins this means that the lottery machine was pre-programmed so that specific person would win.

Does that make sense? No.

If beneficial mutations are possible then it is only a matter of time until a random mutation is beneficial, just as it is only a matter of time until a random lottery will produce a winner. Since we can see that DNA differences between species are beneficial in those species, then we already know that beneficial mutations can happen. You don't need to preprogram mutations. Random mutations will find those beneficial changes just fine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by forexhr, posted 04-19-2017 8:08 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by jar, posted 04-19-2017 11:13 AM Taq has responded
 Message 264 by forexhr, posted 04-19-2017 12:00 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 259 of 292 (805578)
04-19-2017 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by forexhr
04-19-2017 9:29 AM


foxrehr writes:

There is no quote, you need to read her papers.

I have read her papers. The mechanisms of mutation she points to produce neutral, beneficial, and detrimental mutations. They are random with respect to fitness.

We're talking about the causes of the jumps, and not about the characteristics of transposable elements.

Those causes are not tied to fitness in any meaningful manner. A transposon does not jump to one specific genetic locus and only that locus in response to a specific environment stimuli. No one, including McClintock, has shown this to be the case. Transposons jump all over the genome, and those insertions can be neutral, beneficial, or detrimental.

Also, the ToE has nothing to do with biology, but it is a concept, a human mental construct about unseen past events that is contradicted by every instance of observation in biology.

The theory of evolution explains the morphology of fossils, genetic divergence between species, and the distribution of physical characteristics seen in living species. All of these things are seen here and now. You also haven't produced a single observation that contradicts the theory.

I already said why I think so: "given the fact that most mutations are neutral or harmful, while mutation in British peppered moths resulted in a phenotypic effect(non-neutreal) and it didn't negatively affect the protein-coding capacity of the cortex gene(non-harmful) that indicates that this mutation was pre-programmed in the genome."

If most random mutations are neutral or harmful, then that means some random mutations are beneficial.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by forexhr, posted 04-19-2017 9:29 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29627
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 260 of 292 (805579)
04-19-2017 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Taq
04-19-2017 10:58 AM


and there are lots of solutions.
Taq writes:

If beneficial mutations are possible then it is only a matter of time until a random mutation is beneficial, just as it is only a matter of time until a random lottery will produce a winner. Since we can see that DNA differences between species are beneficial in those species, then we already know that beneficial mutations can happen. You don't need to preprogram mutations. Random mutations will find those beneficial changes just fine.

But wait!!!!! There's more.

Just as with a lottery there is not just one winning solution. There are lots of solutions that can be winners; maybe smaller prizes but still winners. But there is the advantage that in living things unlike lottery tickets, even the ones that did not win the last lottery are carried forward and so might win the next lottery.

Only those mutations that are so bad you don't get to stick around for the next lottery are completely weeded out. They don't get to play and those players are marked "EXTINCT".


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Taq, posted 04-19-2017 10:58 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Taq, posted 04-19-2017 11:19 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 261 of 292 (805580)
04-19-2017 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by forexhr
04-18-2017 11:11 AM


foxrehr writes:

How do you know that the mutation was not non-random(pre-programmed)?

The same way that we know that fingerprints are not planted at crime scenes by mischievous leprechauns.

If you want to claim that mutations are preprogrammed, then you have the burden of proof for showing us the evidence and mechanism by which they are preprogrammed. You don't get to invoke magic without any evidence, and then claim magic is true until someone disproves it.

http://www.nature.com/...mps-randomness-of-mutations-1.12459

"Predictable evolution trumps randomness of mutations"

"In the new study, published online today in Public Library of Science Biology5, Doebeli and colleague Matthew Herron, also at UBC, went back to the frozen samples from three of their test tubes and sequenced 17 gene samples from various stages of the experiment. The DNA showed that in some cases identical mutations appeared independently in all three test tubes: despite the random nature of mutations, the same changes in the environment favoured the same genetic solutions"

And... what does randomness or non-randomness of shape modification have to do with my argument about the lack of resources?

Were those the only mutations that occurred? I guarantee that they weren't.

If you have a random process that assigns lottery number and enough trials you will still have two people who have the same numbers on their tickets. Does this mean that the process is not random? No.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by forexhr, posted 04-18-2017 11:11 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 262 of 292 (805581)
04-19-2017 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by jar
04-19-2017 11:13 AM


Re: and there are lots of solutions.
jar writes:

Just as with a lottery there is not just one winning solution. There are lots of solutions that can be winners; maybe smaller prizes but still winners. But there is the advantage that in living things unlike lottery tickets, even the ones that did not win the last lottery are carried forward and so might win the next lottery.

Only those mutations that are so bad you don't get to stick around for the next lottery are completely weeded out. They don't get to play and those players are marked "EXTINCT".

Precisely. We can use poker as a good example. After a hand of poker, we can calculate the odds of the winning person getting those exact 5 cards (if my math skills are correct 1/(52!-48!)), and those odds would be extremely low. However, someone wins every hand of poker, even though the odds of getting that winning hand are extremely low.

What ID/creationists just can't get their heads around is that the biology we see isn't the only possible outcome. They paint the bullseye around the arrow, thinking that what we see was planned from the start. Contingency isn't a word in their dictionary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by jar, posted 04-19-2017 11:13 AM jar has not yet responded

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 263 of 292 (805585)
04-19-2017 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by bluegenes
04-19-2017 10:15 AM


please stop B.S-ing and put your arguments on the table
bluegenes writes:

Well, that was a waste of time. So, if they all have different letters in all positions, it would take 17,576 * 10^9 to get a billion words. You haven't even attempted to refute my actual point.

Your actual point was even more nonsencical since it used resources needed in order to produce a simple protein composed of 80 AA that performs half-functional binding function, as an explanation for emergence of all complex and structurally independent bio-functions that proteins perform in living systems.

bluegenes writes:

No, you couldn't be more wrong. What I did was take the approximate figure it needs to get a target function, 10^11, as the resources to get one functional protein in the life system, and then, by addition, figured out that it would take (10^11)*(10^9)=10^20 to get 1 billion proteins. It's aproximate, but if you understand the implications of the Szostak paper, that's a reasonable conclusion. And it blows out your O.P. claim.

You keep repeating the same B.S. about my O.P. claim, and all that you have is the Szostak paper that produced simple binding function with 10^11 resources.

Can you please finally explain what are those implication? Saying "...If you could actually grasp the implications of the two papers..." is not an argument - this is B.S. ing.

P.S. I predict that your explanation will use already spent resources as a basic premise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by bluegenes, posted 04-19-2017 10:15 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by bluegenes, posted 04-19-2017 8:27 PM forexhr has responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 264 of 292 (805587)
04-19-2017 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Taq
04-19-2017 10:58 AM


forexhr writes:

Let's look at your logic.
The vast majority of lottery tickets are losers. Therefore, if someone wins this means that the lottery machine was pre-programmed so that specific person would win.

No, this is not my logic, but your non sequitur.
My logic is this.

If the vast majority of lottery tickets are losers, if someone would told me that he has the winning ticket I would not believe it until I see verification. Since we don't have the verification that the jump was random, I prefer to believe what is more probable.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Taq, posted 04-19-2017 10:58 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by caffeine, posted 04-19-2017 2:15 PM forexhr has responded
 Message 266 by Taq, posted 04-19-2017 4:59 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1349
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


(7)
Message 265 of 292 (805600)
04-19-2017 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by forexhr
04-19-2017 12:00 PM


If the vast majority of lottery tickets are losers, if someone would told me that he has the winning ticket I would not believe it until I see verification. Since we don't have the verification that the jump was random, I prefer to believe what is more probable.

Your analogy is flawed. We already know the ticket is a winning ticket - since winning the lottery is supposed to be analogous to a mutation being beneficial. Since most mutations are not beneficial; one that is cannot be a random mutation - it was 'pre-programmed'.

What you're actually saying is that if somebody showed you the winning lottery ticket, you would chose to believe that the lottery was rigged, since this is more likely than someone winning it by chance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by forexhr, posted 04-19-2017 12:00 PM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by forexhr, posted 04-20-2017 3:10 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 266 of 292 (805640)
04-19-2017 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by forexhr
04-19-2017 12:00 PM


forexhr writes:

No, this is not my logic,

Umm . . . yes it is.

"Given the fact that most mutations are neutral or harmful, while mutation in British peppered moths resulted in a phenotypic effect(non-neutreal) and it didn't negatively affect the protein-coding capacity of the cortex gene(non-harmful) that indicates that this mutation was pre-programmed in the genome."--forexhr

You are claiming that it had to be pre-programmed because it was a winner.

If the vast majority of lottery tickets are losers, if someone would told me that he has the winning ticket I would not believe it until I see verification. Since we don't have the verification that the jump was random, I prefer to believe what is more probable.

In the case of the peppered moth, we already know that they have a winning lottery ticket. Are you saying that you wouldn't believe anyone who told you that they won the lottery by random chance? Are you saying that someone has to rig the lottery in order for someone to win?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by forexhr, posted 04-19-2017 12:00 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 71 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 267 of 292 (805653)
04-19-2017 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by forexhr
04-19-2017 11:40 AM


Re: please stop B.S-ing and put your arguments on the table
forexhr writes:

Your actual point was even more nonsencical since it used resources needed in order to produce a simple protein composed of 80 AA that performs half-functional binding function, as an explanation for emergence of all complex and structurally independent bio-functions that proteins perform in living systems.

No. I proposed 10^11 for any first protein in the life system, meaning 10^12 for ten proteins and 10^20 for 1 billion proteins. If you disagree with Szostak's estimate, based on searching a random library for an "arbitrary specific function" why don't you write to him and give him the benefit of your expertise?

I also pointed out that the number of proteins required for a highly complex organism with many complex systems, Homo Sapiens, is ~18,000, so it needs ~18*(10^14) protein search resources to get us, step by step over several billion years.

forexhr writes:

bluegenes writes:

No, you couldn't be more wrong. What I did was take the approximate figure it needs to get a target function, 10^11, as the resources to get one functional protein in the life system, and then, by addition, figured out that it would take (10^11)*(10^9)=10^20 to get 1 billion proteins. It's approximate, but if you understand the implications of the Szostak paper, that's a reasonable conclusion. And it blows out your O.P. claim.

You keep repeating the same B.S. about my O.P. claim, and all that you have is the Szostak paper that produced simple binding function with 10^11 resources.

An arbitrary specific function. They could have tested for anything. A functional Lambda tail, for example, something notoriously degenerate.

And that paper is not all I have. Would you like me to give you some more papers so that you can misunderstand them?

forexhr writes:

Can you please finally explain what are those implication? Saying "...If you could actually grasp the implications of the two papers..." is not an argument - this is B.S. ing.

What is it you don't understand about an experimentally supported estimate on how many resources it would take to get any arbitrary specific function?

forexhr writes:

P.S. I predict that your explanation will use already spent resources as a basic premise.

You hope.

Edited by bluegenes, : degenerate spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by forexhr, posted 04-19-2017 11:40 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by forexhr, posted 04-20-2017 3:14 AM bluegenes has responded

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 268 of 292 (805670)
04-20-2017 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by caffeine
04-19-2017 2:15 PM


caffeine writes:

Your analogy is flawed. We already know the ticket is a winning ticket - since winning the lottery is supposed to be analogous to a mutation being beneficial. Since most mutations are not beneficial; one that is cannot be a random mutation - it was 'pre-programmed'.
What you're actually saying is that if somebody showed you the winning lottery ticket, you would chose to believe that the lottery was rigged, since this is more likely than someone winning it by chance.

Yes, I agree, my analogy is flawed. You made a good point. To conclude, we can say that it is unknown whether the jump was random or non-random.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by caffeine, posted 04-19-2017 2:15 PM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Taq, posted 04-20-2017 10:43 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 269 of 292 (805671)
04-20-2017 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by bluegenes
04-19-2017 8:27 PM


Re: please stop B.S-ing and put your arguments on the table
bluegenes writes:

No. I proposed 10^11 for any first protein in the life system, meaning 10^12 for ten proteins and 10^20 for 1 billion proteins. If you disagree with Szostak's estimate, based on searching a random library for an "arbitrary specific function" why don't you write to him and give him the benefit of your expertise? I also pointed out that the number of proteins required for a highly complex organism with many complex systems, Homo Sapiens, is ~18,000, so it needs ~18*(10^14) protein search resources to get us, step by step over several billion years.

You proposed a fantasy, something totally unrelated to reality. Life is not composed of 18,000 binding functions without a specific 3D shapes, but of structurally independent and specific 3D shapes. Why would I disagree with Szostak? From what exactly it follows that I disagree? Szostak just showed that you need 10^11 resources in order to produce half-functional ATP binding protein that does not require neither any specific 3D shape, nor the ability to release ATP. You can produce binding function with myriad number of 3D shapes. In a functional sense this is a piece of cake.

But when simple binding is not enough and when, in addition to that, you also need some level of 3D specificity to perform bio-function, like in the example of lambda phage genome regulation, then you need 10^63 resources to achieve this function. And although both, lambda represor and ATP binding protein, are composed of similar number of AAs(92 vs. 80), due to the 3D specificity requirement, the functional degeneracy is increased by 52 orders of magnitude.

In the case of enzymes, where you need the highest level of 3D specificity, functional degeneracy would be even higher.

Hence, your fantasy has nothing to do with biology, this is just your personal rationalization to feel comfortable with your dogmatic Darwinism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by bluegenes, posted 04-19-2017 8:27 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by bluegenes, posted 04-20-2017 4:03 AM forexhr has responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 71 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 270 of 292 (805674)
04-20-2017 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by forexhr
04-20-2017 3:14 AM


A Piece of Cake! Progress at last?
forexhr writes:

You proposed a fantasy, something totally unrelated to reality. Life is not composed of 18,000 binding functions without a specific 3D shapes, but of structurally independent and specific 3D shapes. Why would I disagree with Szostak? From what exactly it follows that I disagree? Szostak just showed that you need 10^11 resources in order to produce half-functional ATP binding protein that does not require neither any specific 3D shape, nor the ability to release ATP. You can produce binding function with myriad number of 3D shapes. In a functional sense this is a piece of cake.

If you don't understand what "arbitrary specific function" means and why Szostak uses the phrase, then how can anyone help you?

If you are now agreeing with Szostak that getting function is a 1 in 10^11 "piece of cake", then fine.

forexhr writes:

But when simple binding is not enough and when, in addition to that, you also need some level of 3D specificity to perform bio-function, like in the example of lambda phage genome regulation, then you need 10^63 resources to achieve this function.

No. I told you about superfamilies and how completely unrelated AA sequences can perform the same function, so why are still going on about the 10^63 figure? The authors of the paper in your O.P. certainly don't make that claim.

forexhr writes:

And although both, lambda represor and ATP binding protein, are composed of similar number of AAs(92 vs. 80), due to the 3D specificity requirement, the functional degeneracy is increased by 52 orders of magnitude.

Increased? In which? Where did you get that from? Certainly not from the paper in your O.P.

forexhr writes:

Hence, your fantasy has nothing to do with biology, this is just your personal rationalization to feel comfortable with your dogmatic Darwinism.

Now you're being a bad amateur psychologist as well as a terrible amateur biologist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by forexhr, posted 04-20-2017 3:14 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by forexhr, posted 04-20-2017 4:29 AM bluegenes has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017