Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 12:57 PM
31 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,057 Year: 5,094/19,786 Month: 1,216/873 Week: 112/460 Day: 54/58 Hour: 7/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Blind Evolution
Mozambu
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 14 (28420)
01-04-2003 9:06 PM


Isaac Asimov calculates that there are 8*10^27 possible combinations for protein like insuline, but only a very small number of these combinations can be used. If it was possible to produce one of these proteins each second, it would take 10 billion times more than the age of the Universe to get all combinations. These means that a blind evolution, in order to find the few combinations of amino-acids of insulin with biological value, would have to run all possible combinations until the right ones could be positivly selected (The others, of course, would be discarded.)The chances of such miracle are absurd. If we considerer the number of different proteins that ever existed, the absurd is even greater.
Hemoglobin, has a number of possible combinations even greater than insulin -- 135*10^165. Again only a few combinations are real hemoglobin. It would not be possible to have a sample of all hemoglobin combinations because the total numbers of atoms in the Universe is estimated to be 10^78. If we could produce 10^100 combinations per second (in the attempt to find real hemoglobin molecules), we would need at least 10 billion billion billion billion billion Universes each second, for a period of 10 trillion years, in order to produce all combinations of hemoglobin.
If we consider a DNA with 19 bases, there are 27^19 possible combinations capable of producing proteins. With the rate of one combination per second it would take 10^17 seconds (4 billion years) to find all combinations.
Even with small pieces of information, it's very improbable to get valuable biological material, through a blind mechanism of evolution.

We must conclude that we all are the children of these strange odds!!!

Isaac Asimov -- "The Genetic Code"

------------------
I am not the King of Africa!

[This message has been edited by Mozambu, 01-04-2003]

[This message has been edited by Mozambu, 01-04-2003]

[This message has been edited by Mozambu, 01-04-2003]

[This message has been edited by Mozambu, 01-04-2003]

[This message has been edited by Mozambu, 01-04-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Peter, posted 01-06-2003 4:23 AM Mozambu has responded
 Message 6 by TechnoCore, posted 01-06-2003 6:23 PM Mozambu has responded

  
Mozambu
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 14 (28431)
01-05-2003 1:24 AM


Bom dia
  
Mozambu
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 14 (28432)
01-05-2003 1:24 AM


Bom dia

------------------
I am not the King of Africa!


  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2031 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 4 of 14 (28477)
01-06-2003 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mozambu
01-04-2003 9:06 PM


It's all a matter of probabilities ... and you'll find
that the problems with arguments along those lines are
vast and ranging.

Someone pointed out that the probability of an event ocurring
after the fact is meaningless. After all what are the odds of
rolling a three on a six sided dice after you've already rolled
it?

The other problem is, well, just suppose you hit all the right
proteins within the first week ... which you could do if you are
going through the whole search space the probability of not
finding the right one till the last try is just as startling
as finding it on the first try.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mozambu, posted 01-04-2003 9:06 PM Mozambu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Mozambu, posted 01-06-2003 12:34 PM Peter has responded

    
Mozambu
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 14 (28503)
01-06-2003 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Peter
01-06-2003 4:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
It's all a matter of probabilities ... and you'll find
that the problems with arguments along those lines are
vast and ranging.

Someone pointed out that the probability of an event ocurring
after the fact is meaningless. After all what are the odds of
rolling a three on a six sided dice after you've already rolled
it?

The other problem is, well, just suppose you hit all the right
proteins within the first week ... which you could do if you are
going through the whole search space the probability of not
finding the right one till the last try is just as startling
as finding it on the first try.


I guess you don't want to see the real problem. A protein contains information, and that information is submited to survival tests. Among all combinations that are possible within a protein only a few have termodynamic stability to conduct biological reactions. Natural selection will choose and preserve good and stable combinatios, and will discard the others. Nevertheless until the right ones can be selected, a blind mechanism must run through all possible combinations (unimaginable number of possible combinations). Live can not survive to these odds if information is being generated by a blind mechanism. Does this mean that God is creating this information? This conclusion can be wrong because there may be something else we don't know. After all, do we really know what chance is. But shouldn't we try to go beyond Darwinism searching for better answers? Maybe DNA, or RNA has some kind of mind capable of simulating combinations before testing them.

[This message has been edited by Mozambu, 01-06-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Peter, posted 01-06-2003 4:23 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Peter, posted 01-08-2003 2:23 AM Mozambu has responded

  
TechnoCore
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 14 (28529)
01-06-2003 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mozambu
01-04-2003 9:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mozambu:
Isaac Asimov calculates that there are 8*10^27 possible combinations for protein like insuline, but only a very small number of these combinations can be used. If it was possible to produce one of these proteins each second, it would take 10 billion times more than the age of the Universe to get all combinations. These means that a blind evolution, in order to find the few combinations of amino-acids of insulin with biological value, would have to run all possible combinations until the right ones could be positivly selected (The others, of course, would be discarded.)The chances of such miracle are absurd. If we considerer the number of different proteins that ever existed, the absurd is even greater.
Hemoglobin, has a number of possible combinations even greater than insulin -- 135*10^165. Again only a few combinations are real hemoglobin. It would not be possible to have a sample of all hemoglobin combinations because the total numbers of atoms in the Universe is estimated to be 10^78. If we could produce 10^100 combinations per second (in the attempt to find real hemoglobin molecules), we would need at least 10 billion billion billion billion billion Universes each second, for a period of 10 trillion years, in order to produce all combinations of hemoglobin.
If we consider a DNA with 19 bases, there are 27^19 possible combinations capable of producing proteins. With the rate of one combination per second it would take 10^17 seconds (4 billion years) to find all combinations.
Even with small pieces of information, it's very improbable to get valuable biological material, through a blind mechanism of evolution.

We must conclude that we all are the children of these strange odds!!!

Isaac Asimov -- "The Genetic Code"


You have missunderstood one important fact:
-Atoms are not round marbels with no properties. They can only fit together in very specific ways.
This means that if you mix a certain number atoms and molecules at the same conditions, you will get almost only the same products time after time, with some small exceptions. Most of the combinations are unstable, and will never form.
Take polymers, for example. They form molecules that consists of ten-thousands of atoms. They form the same structure every time, (long chains) just you bring the right elements, at the right temperature and pressure.
Matter does this because of the basic laws of the universe forces, and the properties of every atom forces atoms to arange in certain manners.
Imho, none of the figures you presented are correct.

//TechnoCore !!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mozambu, posted 01-04-2003 9:06 PM Mozambu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Mozambu, posted 01-07-2003 11:46 AM TechnoCore has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Mozambu, posted 01-07-2003 11:48 AM TechnoCore has not yet responded

  
Mozambu
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 14 (28595)
01-07-2003 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by TechnoCore
01-06-2003 6:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TechnoCore:
quote:
Originally posted by Mozambu:
Isaac Asimov calculates that there are 8*10^27 possible combinations for protein like insuline, but only a very small number of these combinations can be used. If it was possible to produce one of these proteins each second, it would take 10 billion times more than the age of the Universe to get all combinations. These means that a blind evolution, in order to find the few combinations of amino-acids of insulin with biological value, would have to run all possible combinations until the right ones could be positivly selected (The others, of course, would be discarded.)The chances of such miracle are absurd. If we considerer the number of different proteins that ever existed, the absurd is even greater.
Hemoglobin, has a number of possible combinations even greater than insulin -- 135*10^165. Again only a few combinations are real hemoglobin. It would not be possible to have a sample of all hemoglobin combinations because the total numbers of atoms in the Universe is estimated to be 10^78. If we could produce 10^100 combinations per second (in the attempt to find real hemoglobin molecules), we would need at least 10 billion billion billion billion billion Universes each second, for a period of 10 trillion years, in order to produce all combinations of hemoglobin.
If we consider a DNA with 19 bases, there are 27^19 possible combinations capable of producing proteins. With the rate of one combination per second it would take 10^17 seconds (4 billion years) to find all combinations.
Even with small pieces of information, it's very improbable to get valuable biological material, through a blind mechanism of evolution.

We must conclude that we all are the children of these strange odds!!!

Isaac Asimov -- "The Genetic Code"


You have missunderstood one important fact:
-Atoms are not round marbels with no properties. They can only fit together in very specific ways.
This means that if you mix a certain number atoms and molecules at the same conditions, you will get almost only the same products time after time, with some small exceptions. Most of the combinations are unstable, and will never form.
Take polymers, for example. They form molecules that consists of ten-thousands of atoms. They form the same structure every time, (long chains) just you bring the right elements, at the right temperature and pressure.
Matter does this because of the basic laws of the universe forces, and the properties of every atom forces atoms to arange in certain manners.
Imho, none of the figures you presented are correct.

//TechnoCore !!


I'm talking about the generation of information, and i'm not saying that this is not a natural phenomenon. I didn't missunderstood anything. Like chemical reactions, enzymatic reactions are very specific wich make things even harder to understand using the casual variation of the darwinian paradigm, since most of the variations within a protein can't work as catalists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TechnoCore, posted 01-06-2003 6:23 PM TechnoCore has not yet responded

  
Mozambu
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 14 (28596)
01-07-2003 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by TechnoCore
01-06-2003 6:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TechnoCore:
quote:
Originally posted by Mozambu:
Isaac Asimov calculates that there are 8*10^27 possible combinations for protein like insuline, but only a very small number of these combinations can be used. If it was possible to produce one of these proteins each second, it would take 10 billion times more than the age of the Universe to get all combinations. These means that a blind evolution, in order to find the few combinations of amino-acids of insulin with biological value, would have to run all possible combinations until the right ones could be positivly selected (The others, of course, would be discarded.)The chances of such miracle are absurd. If we considerer the number of different proteins that ever existed, the absurd is even greater.
Hemoglobin, has a number of possible combinations even greater than insulin -- 135*10^165. Again only a few combinations are real hemoglobin. It would not be possible to have a sample of all hemoglobin combinations because the total numbers of atoms in the Universe is estimated to be 10^78. If we could produce 10^100 combinations per second (in the attempt to find real hemoglobin molecules), we would need at least 10 billion billion billion billion billion Universes each second, for a period of 10 trillion years, in order to produce all combinations of hemoglobin.
If we consider a DNA with 19 bases, there are 27^19 possible combinations capable of producing proteins. With the rate of one combination per second it would take 10^17 seconds (4 billion years) to find all combinations.
Even with small pieces of information, it's very improbable to get valuable biological material, through a blind mechanism of evolution.

We must conclude that we all are the children of these strange odds!!!

Isaac Asimov -- "The Genetic Code"


You have missunderstood one important fact:
-Atoms are not round marbels with no properties. They can only fit together in very specific ways.
This means that if you mix a certain number atoms and molecules at the same conditions, you will get almost only the same products time after time, with some small exceptions. Most of the combinations are unstable, and will never form.
Take polymers, for example. They form molecules that consists of ten-thousands of atoms. They form the same structure every time, (long chains) just you bring the right elements, at the right temperature and pressure.
Matter does this because of the basic laws of the universe forces, and the properties of every atom forces atoms to arange in certain manners.
Imho, none of the figures you presented are correct.

//TechnoCore !!


I'm talking about the generation of information, and i'm not saying that this is not a natural phenomenon. I didn't missunderstood anything. Like chemical reactions, enzymatic reactions are very specific wich make things even harder to understand using the casual variation of the darwinian paradigm, since most of the variations within a protein can't work as catalists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TechnoCore, posted 01-06-2003 6:23 PM TechnoCore has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2031 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 9 of 14 (28630)
01-08-2003 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mozambu
01-06-2003 12:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mozambu:
quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
It's all a matter of probabilities ... and you'll find
that the problems with arguments along those lines are
vast and ranging.

Someone pointed out that the probability of an event ocurring
after the fact is meaningless. After all what are the odds of
rolling a three on a six sided dice after you've already rolled
it?

The other problem is, well, just suppose you hit all the right
proteins within the first week ... which you could do if you are
going through the whole search space the probability of not
finding the right one till the last try is just as startling
as finding it on the first try.


I guess you don't want to see the real problem. A protein contains information, and that information is submited to survival tests. Among all combinations that are possible within a protein only a few have termodynamic stability to conduct biological reactions. Natural selection will choose and preserve good and stable combinatios, and will discard the others. Nevertheless until the right ones can be selected, a blind mechanism must run through all possible combinations (unimaginable number of possible combinations). Live can not survive to these odds if information is being generated by a blind mechanism. Does this mean that God is creating this information? This conclusion can be wrong because there may be something else we don't know. After all, do we really know what chance is. But shouldn't we try to go beyond Darwinism searching for better answers? Maybe DNA, or RNA has some kind of mind capable of simulating combinations before testing them.

[This message has been edited by Mozambu, 01-06-2003]


I need to re-read some wokr on quantum computers ... but I think
it may be relevent to this line of reasoning.

I seem to remember that for quantum search strategies the optimum
number of states is 4, and that different combinations can be
tried simultaneously due to probablistic behaviours.

In a more direct response to your post, however::

1) Personally I am not satisfied with the analogy of information
used in a biological context ... I have reasons for this, and opened
a thread on the subject in the 'Intelligent Design' forum. I
am in a bit of a minority in this view, but my reasoning stems from
the question:: 'Do hydrogen and oxygen atoms contain information
on how to make water?'

2) 'Odds' and 'Chance' are pretty meaningless in terms of argument.
They are just basically saying 'I cannot believe that because
the odds are astronomical?' rather than investigating the way in
which the odds were generated in order to assess the model in
use.

3)My main reason for objecting to such argument is that they
appear to assume that ALL proteins found in living organisms
had to spontaneously generate in their current form for life
to come into being. I would anticipate that the chain of events
leading to life was more sedate ... starting with 'organisms' that
we may not even class as such should we came across them now.
It must be remembered that in an evolutionary model even the
simplest modern single celled organism is highly evolved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mozambu, posted 01-06-2003 12:34 PM Mozambu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-08-2003 4:29 AM Peter has responded
 Message 12 by Mozambu, posted 01-09-2003 1:05 PM Peter has responded

    
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 14 (28641)
01-08-2003 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Peter
01-08-2003 2:23 AM


quote:
I seem to remember that for quantum search strategies the optimum
number of states is 4, and that different combinations can be
tried simultaneously due to probablistic behaviours.

This sounds interesting - do you have any more on this?

quote:
Personally I am not satisfied with the analogy of information
used in a biological context ... I have reasons for this, and opened
a thread on the subject in the 'Intelligent Design' forum.

This also sounds like an interesting topic - is this a thread you've opened or intend to open?

PE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Peter, posted 01-08-2003 2:23 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Peter, posted 01-08-2003 5:27 AM Primordial Egg has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2031 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 11 of 14 (28644)
01-08-2003 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Primordial Egg
01-08-2003 4:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
quote:
I seem to remember that for quantum search strategies the optimum
number of states is 4, and that different combinations can be
tried simultaneously due to probablistic behaviours.

This sounds interesting - do you have any more on this?


I'll dig out the reference and post some more.

quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:

quote:
Personally I am not satisfied with the analogy of information
used in a biological context ... I have reasons for this, and opened
a thread on the subject in the 'Intelligent Design' forum.

This also sounds like an interesting topic - is this a thread you've opened or intend to open?

PE


I opened a thread a while ago .... but it's in the 'Evolution'
forum under 'Information and Genetics'

How do you post links to other forae by the way? (anyone?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-08-2003 4:29 AM Primordial Egg has not yet responded

    
Mozambu
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 14 (28748)
01-09-2003 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Peter
01-08-2003 2:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
quote:
Originally posted by Mozambu:
quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
It's all a matter of probabilities ... and you'll find
that the problems with arguments along those lines are
vast and ranging.

Someone pointed out that the probability of an event ocurring
after the fact is meaningless. After all what are the odds of
rolling a three on a six sided dice after you've already rolled
it?

The other problem is, well, just suppose you hit all the right
proteins within the first week ... which you could do if you are
going through the whole search space the probability of not
finding the right one till the last try is just as startling
as finding it on the first try.


I guess you don't want to see the real problem. A protein contains information, and that information is submited to survival tests. Among all combinations that are possible within a protein only a few have termodynamic stability to conduct biological reactions. Natural selection will choose and preserve good and stable combinatios, and will discard the others. Nevertheless until the right ones can be selected, a blind mechanism must run through all possible combinations (unimaginable number of possible combinations). Live can not survive to these odds if information is being generated by a blind mechanism. Does this mean that God is creating this information? This conclusion can be wrong because there may be something else we don't know. After all, do we really know what chance is. But shouldn't we try to go beyond Darwinism searching for better answers? Maybe DNA, or RNA has some kind of mind capable of simulating combinations before testing them.

[This message has been edited by Mozambu, 01-06-2003]


I need to re-read some wokr on quantum computers ... but I think
it may be relevent to this line of reasoning.

I seem to remember that for quantum search strategies the optimum
number of states is 4, and that different combinations can be
tried simultaneously due to probablistic behaviours.

In a more direct response to your post, however::

1) Personally I am not satisfied with the analogy of information
used in a biological context ... I have reasons for this, and opened
a thread on the subject in the 'Intelligent Design' forum. I
am in a bit of a minority in this view, but my reasoning stems from
the question:: 'Do hydrogen and oxygen atoms contain information
on how to make water?'

2) 'Odds' and 'Chance' are pretty meaningless in terms of argument.
They are just basically saying 'I cannot believe that because
the odds are astronomical?' rather than investigating the way in
which the odds were generated in order to assess the model in
use.

3)My main reason for objecting to such argument is that they
appear to assume that ALL proteins found in living organisms
had to spontaneously generate in their current form for life
to come into being. I would anticipate that the chain of events
leading to life was more sedate ... starting with 'organisms' that
we may not even class as such should we came across them now.
It must be remembered that in an evolutionary model even the
simplest modern single celled organism is highly evolved.


You think that live does not contain information?
Information means to give form. The universe crystallizes information in form. So if you put together 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom af Oxigen you have a new form and, obviously, you have information.

Odds and chance aren't that meaningless. I agree that we should investigate how odds are generated. But look to the Darwinian paradigm and tell me if there is anything about this problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Peter, posted 01-08-2003 2:23 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Peter, posted 01-13-2003 2:59 AM Mozambu has not yet responded

  
Andor
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 14 (28791)
01-10-2003 6:27 AM


But surely hemoglobin was not the first protein biosynthesized. It is not as if every new protein is "invented" entirely de novo. The first peptides probably were far much simpler and shorter. Life is the best economist: When something functions it is used, and used and reused, with ligth modifications for multiple purposes, as the porphyrin-proteins.
  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2031 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 14 of 14 (28973)
01-13-2003 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Mozambu
01-09-2003 1:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mozambu:

You think that live does not contain information?

I question the use of the term 'information' in connection
with the DNA sequences in organisms, and the subsequent use
of information theory in genetics.

quote:
Originally posted by Mozambu:

Information means to give form.

An atypical definition of information, and incredibly vague.

quote:
Originally posted by Mozambu:

The universe crystallizes information in form. So if you put together 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom af Oxigen you have a new form and, obviously, you have information.

That's not what I questioned ... I questioned whether the
hyrogen and oxygen atoms 'contain the information on how to
make water'.

Are you a physisist? I ask because I know that information
concepts are applied in cosmology, but differently to in
information theory and biology.

quote:
Originally posted by Mozambu:

Odds and chance aren't that meaningless.

Because something is highly improbably does not mean it
cannot happen.

If I ask about the odds of rolling a 7 on a standard
6-sided die one can say it's impossible (odds of 0).

If I ask about the odds of rolling a 6 one can say well that's
1:6 (1 in 6) .... that doesn't mean that I have to roll six times
to get a six, nor that if I roll six times I am guaranteed a
six.

Odds say very little about reality.

quote:
Originally posted by Mozambu:

I agree that we should investigate how odds are generated. But look to the Darwinian paradigm and tell me if there is anything about this problem.

Are you asking if the odds indicate that there is a problem
with the Darwinian paradigm?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Mozambu, posted 01-09-2003 1:05 PM Mozambu has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019