Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Give your one best shot - against evolution
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 106 of 224 (12536)
07-02-2002 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by TrueCreation
07-01-2002 5:28 PM


TC: I just wanted to say your last two posts were excellent. Good science! I couldn't have argued them better myself (although I probably would have added a bunch of unnecessary details
and a quibble on the bit about "I don't agree that the ToE is actually what was the developmental process in the formation of the earth geologically and biologically."
). Keep reading and learning! You're doing great.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by TrueCreation, posted 07-01-2002 5:28 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by TrueCreation, posted 07-05-2002 5:11 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 107 of 224 (12543)
07-02-2002 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Jonathan
07-01-2002 4:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:
Sorry but I didnt mean to sound unsubjective. Its just very hard for me to accept that billions of mutations would result in anything but failure for a living organism.

Why ?
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:

For example. Lets say you have a single celled organism (one of the very first) but its immune system hasnt evolved yet. All it would take to wipe out each and every living cell would be a paper cut and then youre back to square one. There would be millions of similar "weaknesses" for the early life forms.

But those that COULD survive would, and pass on that survival
ability to their (near) identicle offspring.
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:

That being said. What percentage of the mutations are beneficial? How many mutations would it take to produce the reproductive system? Wouldnt the addition of the reproductive system cause potential harm to the mother? Then by natural selection all of those carrying the reproduction traits would die off. Now you have no reproductive system and you have to start all over. It would take billions if not trillions of organisms to allow for the process of natural selection to work without killing all of them off. There are too many processes that have to be just right.

A reproductive system does not spring into being over-night.
Aspects of it develop over time. First, perhaps, we end up
with close-knit colonies of single celled organisms, which then
become so dependent on one another that they can only
live AS a colony. Some cells develop specialised purposes ...
I won't go on with the speculation, anyone can do that ... but
then your entire argument is one of incredulity ... I can imagine
many ways that even the most complex appearing 'systems' could have
come about gradually ... that's my opinion ... perhaps we could
argue data instead ?
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:

The millions of steps that have to be exact for the process to function at all is the over complexity that I see. 5 billion years is not enough time.

Not so. The steps that CAN lead down the path will, while the
others will die out.
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:

I agree that it may be possible for a cat to evolve into a lion, but not for an ameba to evolve into a human. Once life has been established with a large population to work with, natural selection is feasable. But to start with the first cell and to have it grow and multiply, that is very difficult. The process of creating life would have tremendous odds aganst it.

So what is the barrier ?
What is the reproductive rate of a single celled organism ?
Split once every twenty minutes for 1 billion years and what
population level do you have ?
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:

Im just saying that IN MY OPINION the whole theory of abiogenesis, and to a lesser degree evolution, is at best very very difficult to naturally occur and have posotive results. Its like a plant that you dont water or fertalize or give enough sunlight to. It usually dies. Why would the very first life forms be any different?

Radically change the environment and the critter will most likely die,
like the dinosaurs, but the same change may not be so radical
for other critters.
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:

When I referred to evolution as chance I mean chance mutations that ultimately result in progress. Like chance when throwing dice. Have you ever been to Las Vegas? Did you go home with more money or less?

Evolution isn't progress, it's just change.
We only view it as progress so we can think of ourselves as
special

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Jonathan, posted 07-01-2002 4:59 PM Jonathan has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 108 of 224 (12550)
07-02-2002 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Fred Williams
07-01-2002 5:50 PM


This is a valid point for this thread, I was only pointing out that it didn't bear on the point Joe was making. Maleria and sickle-cell anemia fulfilled Philip's request for an example of human evolution involving illnesses. Whether the change involved a gain or loss of information is irrelevant, it's still evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Fred Williams, posted 07-01-2002 5:50 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Fred Williams, posted 07-02-2002 12:41 PM Percy has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 109 of 224 (12563)
07-02-2002 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Percy
07-02-2002 9:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
This is a valid point for this thread, I was only pointing out that it didn't bear on the point Joe was making. Maleria and sickle-cell anemia fulfilled Philip's request for an example of human evolution involving illnesses. Whether the change involved a gain or loss of information is irrelevant, it's still evolution.

No, it is relevant, because it is not evolution. That is, the type of evolution that lies at the cored of our debate. The type of evolution as understood by the public, marge-scale change over time.
Do you agree or disagree that info gain or loss is relevant when debating large-scale evolution, such as scales to feathers, no sonar to sonar, etc?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 07-02-2002 9:00 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Joe Meert, posted 07-02-2002 1:17 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 123 by derwood, posted 07-05-2002 2:57 PM Fred Williams has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 110 of 224 (12566)
07-02-2002 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Fred Williams
07-02-2002 12:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
No, it is relevant, because it is not evolution. That is, the type of evolution that lies at the cored of our debate. The type of evolution as understood by the public, marge-scale change over time.
Do you agree or disagree that info gain or loss is relevant when debating large-scale evolution, such as scales to feathers, no sonar to sonar, etc?

JM: I disagree since 'information' is such a nebulous term. How can you say what the 'marge' (sic) scale public believes? You can't even define the terms correctly on your home page!
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Fred Williams, posted 07-02-2002 12:41 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Fred Williams, posted 07-03-2002 12:30 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe T
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 41
From: Virginia
Joined: 01-10-2002


Message 111 of 224 (12581)
07-02-2002 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Fred Williams
07-01-2002 2:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
It never ceases to amaze me that evolutionists will use a desease such as sickle-cell anemia as an example of evolution in action! Sickle-cell is de-evolution. It represents a clear loss of information at the genetic level.
How is this clear? What is the genetic information of a person w/o sickle-cell and what is the genetic information of a person who has it? The difference should be the "clear loss of information at the genetic level." Show your work, clearly identifying the units of information.
Joe T. (not the one currently posting on talk.origins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Fred Williams, posted 07-01-2002 2:09 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 224 (12582)
07-02-2002 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Fred Williams
07-01-2002 5:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
I'm talking about evidence for large-scale, mud-to-man evolution. Joe's example is the opposite. It's man-to-mud de-evolution.

No it isn't. Its man-succeptable-to-malaria to man-with-resistance-to-malaria adaptation.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Fred Williams, posted 07-01-2002 5:50 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Fred Williams, posted 07-05-2002 12:51 PM John has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 113 of 224 (12680)
07-03-2002 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Joe Meert
07-02-2002 1:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: I disagree since 'information' is such a nebulous term. How can you say what the 'marge' (sic) scale public believes? You can't even define the terms correctly on your home page!

Yes, "information is nebulous" is one of the three famous reasons evolutionists give to avoid the information problem that is so devestating for large-scale evolution.
Do you agree or disagree that additional algorithms in the DNA are needed to produce sonar where it previously did not exist? (perhaps you'll now give me one of the other two famuous evolutionist excuses)
What "terms" have I not defined correctly on my homepage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Joe Meert, posted 07-02-2002 1:17 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 07-03-2002 2:54 PM Fred Williams has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 114 of 224 (12681)
07-03-2002 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Fred Williams
07-03-2002 12:30 PM


Fred Williams writes:

Yes, "information is nebulous" is one of the three famous reasons evolutionists give to avoid the information problem that is so devestating for large-scale evolution.
When Joe says, "'information' is such a nebulous term" he doesn't mean "information is nebulous", but that he's not sure how you're defining it. Can't have a discussion if you don't agree on terminology.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Fred Williams, posted 07-03-2002 12:30 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Fred Williams, posted 07-04-2002 12:04 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 124 by derwood, posted 07-05-2002 2:59 PM Percy has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 115 of 224 (12721)
07-04-2002 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
07-03-2002 2:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
When Joe says, "'information' is such a nebulous term" he doesn't mean "information is nebulous", but that he's not sure how you're defining it. Can't have a discussion if you don't agree on terminology.

Chalk it up to a "loss of information" over this medium!
I did understand him to mean information is an encompassing and sometimes difficult to quantify term, that is why I asked him the followup question on new DNA algorithms for sonar.
Joe's was one of the 3 common reactions I get on the information problem: since information can mean different things (Shannon information, Gitt information, complex specified information, etc) it's not worth the trouble so it's brushed aside.
BTW, my earlier typo "marge-scale" should have read "large-scale".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 07-03-2002 2:54 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Peter, posted 07-04-2002 10:26 AM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 125 by derwood, posted 07-05-2002 3:02 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 224 (12737)
07-04-2002 8:52 AM


This is one from this site--
http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_essays/essay44.htm
For roughly fifty years secular scientists who have faith in the power of dumb atoms to do anything have been carrying on scientific research aimed at finding out how the dumb atoms could have initiated life without any outside help. Since they believe that this really happened, they believe that it was inevitable that the properties of atoms, the laws of physics, and the earth's early environment should bring forth life. More sober minds, however, have realized the immense improbability of the spontaneous origin of life (called "abiogenesis"). Some have made careful investigations and mathematical calculations to estimate what the probability is for abiogenesis to occur. Their calculations show that life's probability is extremely small, essentially zero.
To understand these results let us explain what we mean by probability. What, for example, is the probability of tossing a coin and getting "heads"? There are two possible outcomes of tossing a coin, either the head side or the tail side will be up. The sum of the probabilities of these two outcomes is 100% or 1, unity. Then, since for a perfectly balanced coin the two probabilities must be equal, and their sum is 1, the probability of either heads or tails in one flip of the coin is , and the sum of the two probabilities is + = 1. Simple. Now you understand probability!?
Now let's ask what the probability is for flipping the coin twice and getting two heads in a row. It is the product of the two probabilities of getting heads both the first time and the second time. That is, P2H = x = . Now you understand how to calculate the probability that both of two independent events will happen. It is the product of the probabilities of the two events.
Next we will calculate a probability for the chance production of a single small protein molecule. A protein molecule consists of one or more chains made up of amino acid molecules linked together. There are 20 different amino acids molecules which the cells use to construct the protein molecules needed for the life of cells. We will think about a small protein molecule with only 100 amino acid molecules in its chain. Assume we have a reaction pot containing a mixture of the 20 different amino acid molecules, and they are reacting at random to form chains. What is the probability, when a chain with 100 amino acids is formed, that it will by chance have the sequence of amino acids needed to form a particular working protein molecule?
There are 100 positions along the chain. What is the probability that a particular one of the 20 different natural amino acid molecules will by chance be placed at position number 1 in the chain? It will be P1 = 1/20. When the complete chain has formed, what is the probability that the necessary particular amino acids will be placed at each of the 100 positions in the chain? It will be the product of the probabilities at the 100 positions. Thus the probability will be the fraction 1/20 multiplied by itself 100 times. So P100 = (1/20)x(1/20)x(1/20)x...x(1/20) = (1/20)^100 = (1/10)^130 = 1/10^130. This is an extremely small fraction. It is the fraction formed by the number 1 divided by the number formed by 1 followed by 130 zeros!
But we have oversimplified a little bit. In actual fact a protein molecule can have a substantial variability at many of the positions on its amino acid chain. In 1975 I examined the data for a particular protein molecule called cytochrome a which has about 100 amino acids in its chain. This is an important enzyme molecule in all living cells, and the sequence of amino acids has been determined for cytochrome a molecules in about a hundred different species. From the quantitative data I made a rough estimate that on the average up to five different amino acids could fill a particular position on the chain of the enzyme molecule. Thus the probability that an acceptable amino acid would be found by chance at a particular position would be 5/20 = . So the probability for a working enzyme molecule to be formed by chance would be ()^100 = 1/10^60. This is still a very, very small probability. It is the fraction formed by 1 divided by the number 1 followed by 60 zeros.
In 1977 Prof. Hubert Yockey, a specialist in applying information theory to biological problems, studied the data for cytochrome a in great detail.1 His calculated value for the probability in a single trial construction of a chain of 100 amino acid molecules of obtaining by chance a working copy of the enzyme molecule is 1/10^65 , or the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 65 zeros. This is a probability 100,000 times smaller than my very rough estimate published two years earlier. Prof. Harold Morowitz estimated that the simplest theoretically conceivable living organism would have to possess a minimum of 124 different protein molecules. A rough estimate of the probability of all of these protein molecules to be formed by chance in a single chance happening would be P124P = (1/10^65)124 = 1/10^8060, the fraction 1 divided by the number 1 followed by 8060 zeros. Truly these are extremely small probabilities calculated through a statistical approach. They tell us that the probabilities for the chance formation of a single working protein molecule or of a living cell are effectively zero.Prof. Morowitz made a careful study of the energy content of living cells and of the building block molecules of which the cells are constructed. From this thermodynamic information he was able to calculate the probability that an ocean full of chemical "soup" containing the necessary amino acids and other building block molecules would react in a year to produce by chance just one copy of a simple living cell.2 He arrived at the astronomically small probability of Pcell = 1/10^340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros! Yet he still believed in abiogenesis. Back in the 1970s Prof. Morowitz admitted in a public debate at a teachers' convention in Honolulu that in order to explain abiogenesis, it would be necessary to discover some new law of physics. At that time he still believed in abiogenesis, the spontaneous formation of the original living cells on the primeval earth. However, some ten years later he finally stated that in his opinion some intelligent creative power was necessary to explain the origin of life.
There are yet more mysteries in life's probability(or improbability) which science has not plumbed. One mystery is how one virus has DNA which codes for more proteins than it has space to store the necessary coded information. A gene is a portion of the long DNA molecule which carries the code for the sequence of amino acids in a chain that folds up to produce a particular protein molecule. The DNA molecule is itself made up of four code letter molecules called nucleotides. These provide the four-letter alphabet of genetics. Their names are abbreviated by the letters A, C, G and T. A three-letter "word" called a codon codes for a particular one of the twenty amino acids used to build protein chains.
The mystery arose when scientists counted the number of three-letter codons in the DNA of the virus, fX174. They found that the proteins produced by the virus required many more code words than the DNA in the chromosome contains. How could this be? Careful research revealed the amazing answer. A portion of a chain of code letters in the gene, say -A-C-T-G-T-C-C-A-G-, could contain three three-letter genetic words as follows: -A-C-T*G-T-C*C-A-G-. But if the reading frame is shifted to the right one or two letters, two other genetic words are found in the middle of this portion, as follows: -A*C-T-G*T-C-C*A-G- and -A-C*T-G-T*C-C-A*G-. And this is just what the virus does. A string of 390 code letters in its DNA is read in two different reading frames to get two different proteins from the same portion of DNA. Could this have happened by chance? Try to compose an English sentence of 390 letters from which you can get another good sentence by shifting the framing of the words one letter to the right. It simply can't be done. The probability of getting sense is effectively zero.
Reasoning from these and other mathematical probability calculations, we can conclude that, without God the Creator, life's probability is zero.

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Peter, posted 07-04-2002 10:33 AM blitz77 has not replied
 Message 119 by John, posted 07-04-2002 10:58 AM blitz77 has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 117 of 224 (12744)
07-04-2002 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Fred Williams
07-04-2002 12:04 AM


OK, so what do YOU mean by information ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Fred Williams, posted 07-04-2002 12:04 AM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Fred Williams, posted 07-05-2002 12:55 PM Peter has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 118 of 224 (12745)
07-04-2002 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by blitz77
07-04-2002 8:52 AM


The probability value of 1/10^65 is to make a
PARTICULAR 100 amino-acid chain isn't it ?
How many 100 amino-acid chains are there ?
How many tries can there have been in the billion years
prior to the first cited modern-like cell ?
Who says that the origin of life had to start with a cell
as we know them today, 3.5 billion years later ?
What about the virus example is it that suggests design ?
Incredulity ? That's hardly a good argument is it ?
The whole concept of using probabilities to verify an event
for which we don't actually know the conditions or raw
materials or time scales seems a little contrived to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by blitz77, posted 07-04-2002 8:52 AM blitz77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by derwood, posted 07-05-2002 3:04 PM Peter has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 224 (12751)
07-04-2002 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by blitz77
07-04-2002 8:52 AM


Thanks for the lesson in probability.
Now a lesson in reality.
Stanley Miller synthesized organic molecules in a jar. Since then, the experiment has been repeated with some variations and practically every basic molecular component has been produced. And this against your odds-- ridiculously against your odds. IE. your odds are WRONG. This is called experiment, and it trumps speculation and unbridled mathematics.
http://www.ultranet.com/~jkimball/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html
quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
A portion of a chain of code letters in the gene, say -A-C-T-G-T-C-C-A-G-, could contain three three-letter genetic words as follows: -A-C-T*G-T-C*C-A-G-. But if the reading frame is shifted to the right one or two letters, two other genetic words are found in the middle of this portion, as follows: -A*C-T-G*T-C-C*A-G- and -A-C*T-G-T*C-C-A*G-. And this is just what the virus does. A string of 390 code letters in its DNA is read in two different reading frames to get two different proteins from the same portion of DNA. Could this have happened by chance? Try to compose an English sentence of 390 letters from which you can get another good sentence by shifting the framing of the words one letter to the right. It simply can't be done. The probability of getting sense is effectively zero.

False analogy. English has six times more letters than there are amino acids in your chains.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by blitz77, posted 07-04-2002 8:52 AM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by blitz77, posted 07-06-2002 5:13 AM John has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 120 of 224 (12838)
07-05-2002 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by John
07-02-2002 4:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
No it isn't. Its man-succeptable-to-malaria to man-with-resistance-to-malaria adaptation.

No, its healthy man in healthy envirnoment, to less healthy man in less healthy environment. Evolution at its finest!
I have a question for you. If you were told this moment that you were going to be transferred to a malaria-infected area, would you want the specific amino acid in your beta globin switched on one of your chromosomes to the sickle-cell variety?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by John, posted 07-02-2002 4:07 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by nator, posted 07-07-2002 1:10 AM Fred Williams 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