Re: Amazingly, evolution STILL explains the diversity of life including complexity
I have already proved by citing facts and authorities that natural selection explains only adaptation, not common descent.
And people have patiently explained to you that it is the theory of evolution that explains common descent.
Which part of this is too difficult to grasp? Only I'm not sure that it's possible to make this any simpler for you.
This group is not interested in biology, but in justifying their immature feeling that they are more enlightened and more rational that people who believe in God: Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindues, and Budhhists.
Telling dumb lies to us about what we think is not going to help you to convince us that you're right. It's going to help convince us that you're a dumb fantasist with no concern for the truth. If any further persuasion is needed.
It was understood from the very beginning that natural selection could not explain the evolution of something as complex as the human eye.
And it was understood from the moment that Darwin published that the theory of evolution was sufficient to explain the evolution of something as complex as the human eye.
With the discovery of the structure of proteins and DNA it was possible to quantify the complexity of life by caculating the probability of a protein evolving by random chance. A very crude calculation is one in 20600. I pick the number 600 because that is the number of letters in a sonnet. I mention sonnets because the number of letters in the alphabet is about equal to the number of amino acids.
This calculation is crude for two reasons. It ignores natural selection and it assumes that the jumping around of amino acids is what produces complexity. My layman's understanding of faciliated variation is that it is clumps of amino acids that jump around in evolution.
A computer program can simulate evolution by calculating how long it would take a computer to reproduce a sonnet by randomly generating dictionary words. Dictionary words, not letters, because of facilitated variation. Natural selection is accounted for by accumulating partial reproductions of the sonnet.
So far as I know, this calculation has only been done for short sequences, for example, "to be or not to be." A computer can generate a short phrase in a short length of time. Without facilitated variation and natural selection, that is, just randomly generating letters and spaces, the time is millions of years.
The weakness of these calculations is that it assumes that the complexity of the primary structure of a protein is a measure of the complexity of life. In my opinion, this does not even begin to describe the complexity of life. It excludes the complex molecular machinery and the timing of biological processes.
This is why the calculation is done only for short sequences of words. To do the calculation for a whole sonnet would imply that you think the primary structure of a protein describes the complexity of life.
Insofar as this gibberish is meaningful, it is irrelevant, since it does not even begin to discuss the theory of evolution.
---
Oh, I'm just going to quote this bit again:
This calculation is crude for two reasons. It ignores natural selection and it assumes that the jumping around of amino acids is what produces complexity.
BWAHAHAHA! BWAHAHAHA!
---
Biologists, with the exception of anti-religous fanatics like Dawkins, understand that life is too complex to have evolved through natural selection.
Biologists, including Dawkins, know that the mechanisms of evolution are described in the theory of evolution and that the law of natural selection is indeed insufficient to explain evolution.
Re: and yet, curiously, it is still explained by evolution ...
They mean high degrees of complexity can't evolve by Darwinian mechanisms. They are quite right, as I explain, yet again, in detail in detail a few minutes ago.
So, you admit that the ID people disagree with biologists about biology, just like you do?
Unlike creationists, I don't think we're in a position to calculate probabilities of even simple sequences like A, B and T, but I think your number probably represents an extremely low lower bound.
I would definitely agree. I'm just using this as a hypothetical to suggest that more realistic starting assumptions show how erroneous the whole approach is as a basis to conclude anything.
In fact looking back I'm not sure where my X10s came from, the numbers look more like they should be (4^55)*(4^13)*(4^48) giving a probability of 1.44890865 10^-70 which is a virtual certainty the way these probability conversations tend to run.
Just to clarify, all 3 elements are required for auto catalytic replication so I think requiring all three to co-occur in a single trial is a reasonable requirement if looking for an initial self replicating sequence being produced from randomly generated sequences as a starting point for sequence evolution to kick off. It doesn't do any good if the complementary sequences are on the other side of the planet.
Re: Amazingly, evolution STILL explains the diversity of life including complexity
Hi again dkroemer,
We don't doubt that complexity evolved.
Good, but the question still remains - how do you define complexity.
How do you measure whether one organism is more or less complex than another.
You say that there is an observable difference between modern bacteria and monkeys -- what is it?
If we assign 100 "roemers" of complexity to, say, Escherichia coli (a well known and documented bacteria in science), then how many "roemers" does a Rhesus Macaque (another well studied species) have?
The question is what were the processes?
Evolution and speciation, as has been explained.
The U. Mich lessons say nothing unscientific. But the Berkeley lesson says natural selection explains the complexity of life.
Can you provide the link to the actual Berkeley statement you are using for this?
And then show that the process discussed on the Berkeley page is entirely missing from the UMich pages?
I'm just curious why you see it this way.
The U. Mich lessons say nothing unscientific. But the Berkeley lesson says natural selection explains the complexity of life. Likewise Gerhart and Kirsner and Kenneth Miller do not say natural selection explains the complexity of life, but Richard Dawkins does.
And yet all of them say that evolution as a whole explains the diversity of life.
The diversity of life necessarily includes any variations in complexity, no matter how you define complexity, so explaining the all the known diversity of life necessarily includes explaining all the known complexity of life.
Re: Amazingly, evolution STILL explains the diversity of life including complexity
Hi dkroemer, still repeating falsified claims?
I have already proved by citing facts and authorities that natural selection explains only adaptation, not common descent.
Which amusingly, does not mean that common descent does not occur and is not observed all around you.
Common descent occurs through speciation, and natural selection is ONE of the mechanisms that can contribute (but doesn't have to) to the process of evolution that leads to speciation, in general, and the formation of nested hierarchies of descent from common ancestors, in particular.
This group is not interested in biology, but in justifying their immature feeling that they are more enlightened and more rational that people who believe in God: Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindues, and Budhhists. Since opponents of Darwinism tend to be religious, promoting Darwinism is an exercise in bigotry.
And I'm a deist, so your claim is obviously a false opinion based on confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, rather than reason and evidence.
It was understood from the very beginning that natural selection could not explain the evolution of something as complex as the human eye.
Which is also obviously a false opinion based on confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, rather than reason and evidence, because Darwin discussed how an eye could evolve by stages in his original book, The Origin of Species, first edition:
quote: ... p186/187 ... Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.
You can do a couple of simple experiments on your own:
go out and stand in the sun with a blind-fold on -- can you detect which side is facing the sun?
take the blindfold off but keep your eyes closed -- can you detect the light through your eyelids and tell the direction and elevation of the sun?
put on a pair of glasses with a prescription counter to your vision so that everything is out of focus -- can you determine general shapes and movements of things around you?
Can you describe how each of these sensations would not have a selective advantage over an organism that did not have these sensations?
... A very crude calculation is one in 20600. I pick the number 600 because that is the number of letters in a sonnet. I mention sonnets because the number of letters in the alphabet is about equal to the number of amino acids.
This calculation is crude for two reasons. It ignores natural selection and it assumes that the jumping around of amino acids is what produces complexity. My layman's understanding of faciliated variation is that it is clumps of amino acids that jump around in evolution. ...
And the calculation is not only crude but totally bogus from start to finish. It is bogus because (1) it does not model how natural systems evolve, and (2) the calculation is mathematically wrong. See the old improbable probability problem for some of the basic math errors.
In particular see Message 23, where I've used 2051 bonds between molecules, instead of your 20600:
quote:Common error #2 The secondary fallacy of these "calculations" is that they do not calculate the probabilities properly. I'll have to spend a little time and space on this to show the mathematical error involved in these calculations:
Let us assume a protein is formed with the pattern
51 bonds between 52 amino acids all in one particular order, where each letter represents one of 20 amino acids, and the resultant calculation by {creationist\IDist\etcist} is that the probability of this forming is
pm = (1/20)51 = 4.44E-67 or 1 in 2.25E+66
Your typical "creatortionista" number. But this only calculates one way this molecule can form: this ignores the fact that the bonds in the molecule can be formed in any order and still end up with the same final result.
The probability of the first bond forming is not (1/20), because any one of the 51 bonds can form first.
To calculate this mathematical probability properly, first we calculate the probability that not one of the bonds forms, and the mathematical probability of this bonding {not} occurring is:
p{NOT}51 = {1-(1/20}51 = 0.07310 or 1 in 13.7
And this means that the probability of the first bond forming is actually:
p51 = 1-p{NOT}51 = 1-{1-(1/20}51 = 0.92690 or 1 in 1.079
Almost a sure thing eh?
We do the same thing for the next bond, any one of the remaining 50 bonds has the mathematical probability of:
p50 = 1-p{NOT}50 = 1-{1-(1/20}50 = 0.92306 or 1 in 1.083
A little less sure, but still a pretty solid likelihood eh? Let's carry on ...
p49 = 1-p{NOT}49 = 1-{1-(1/20}49 = 0.9190 or 1 in 1.0881 p48 = 1-p{NOT}48 = 1-{1-(1/20}48 = 0.9147 or 1 in 1.0932 p47 = 1-p{NOT}47 = 1-{1-(1/20}47 = 0.9103 or 1 in 1.0986 p46 = 1-p{NOT}46 = 1-{1-(1/20}46 = 0.9055 or 1 in 1.1043 p45 = 1-p{NOT}45 = 1-{1-(1/20}45 = 0.9006 or 1 in 1.1104 p44 = 1-p{NOT}44 = 1-{1-(1/20}44 = 0.8953 or 1 in 1.1169 p43 = 1-p{NOT}43 = 1-{1-(1/20}43 = 0.8898 or 1 in 1.1238 p42 = 1-p{NOT}42 = 1-{1-(1/20}42 = 0.8840 or 1 in 1.1312 p41 = 1-p{NOT}41 = 1-{1-(1/20}41 = 0.8779 or 1 in 1.1391 p40 = 1-p{NOT}40 = 1-{1-(1/20}40 = 0.8715 or 1 in 1.1475 p39 = 1-p{NOT}39 = 1-{1-(1/20}39 = 0.8647 or 1 in 1.1564 p38 = 1-p{NOT}38 = 1-{1-(1/20}38 = 0.8576 or 1 in 1.1660 p37 = 1-p{NOT}37 = 1-{1-(1/20}37 = 0.8501 or 1 in 1.1763 p36 = 1-p{NOT}36 = 1-{1-(1/20}36 = 0.8422 or 1 in 1.1873 p35 = 1-p{NOT}35 = 1-{1-(1/20}35 = 0.8339 or 1 in 1.1992 p34 = 1-p{NOT}34 = 1-{1-(1/20}34 = 0.8252 or 1 in 1.2119 p33 = 1-p{NOT}33 = 1-{1-(1/20}33 = 0.8160 or 1 in 1.2255 p32 = 1-p{NOT}32 = 1-{1-(1/20}32 = 0.8063 or 1 in 1.2403 p31 = 1-p{NOT}31 = 1-{1-(1/20}31 = 0.7961 or 1 in 1.2561 p30 = 1-p{NOT}30 = 1-{1-(1/20}30 = 0.7854 or 1 in 1.2733 p29 = 1-p{NOT}29 = 1-{1-(1/20}29 = 0.7741 or 1 in 1.2919 p28 = 1-p{NOT}28 = 1-{1-(1/20}28 = 0.7622 or 1 in 1.3120 p27 = 1-p{NOT}27 = 1-{1-(1/20}27 = 0.7497 or 1 in 1.3339 p26 = 1-p{NOT}26 = 1-{1-(1/20}26 = 0.7365 or 1 in 1.3578 p25 = 1-p{NOT}25 = 1-{1-(1/20}25 = 0.7226 or 1 in 1.3839 p24 = 1-p{NOT}24 = 1-{1-(1/20}24 = 0.7080 or 1 in 1.4124 p23 = 1-p{NOT}23 = 1-{1-(1/20}23 = 0.6926 or 1 in 1.4437 p22 = 1-p{NOT}22 = 1-{1-(1/20}22 = 0.6765 or 1 in 1.4783 p21 = 1-p{NOT}21 = 1-{1-(1/20}21 = 0.6594 or 1 in 1.5164 p20 = 1-p{NOT}20 = 1-{1-(1/20}20 = 0.6415 or 1 in 1.5588 p19 = 1-p{NOT}19 = 1-{1-(1/20}19 = 0.6226 or 1 in 1.6060 p18 = 1-p{NOT}18 = 1-{1-(1/20}18 = 0.6028 or 1 in 1.6590 p17 = 1-p{NOT}17 = 1-{1-(1/20}17 = 0.5819 or 1 in 1.7186 p16 = 1-p{NOT}16 = 1-{1-(1/20}16 = 0.5599 or 1 in 1.7861 p15 = 1-p{NOT}15 = 1-{1-(1/20}15 = 0.5367 or 1 in 1.8632 p14 = 1-p{NOT}14 = 1-{1-(1/20}14 = 0.5123 or 1 in 1.9519 p13 = 1-p{NOT}13 = 1-{1-(1/20}13 = 0.4867 or 1 in 2.0548 p12 = 1-p{NOT}12 = 1-{1-(1/20}12 = 0.4596 or 1 in 2.1756 p11 = 1-p{NOT}11 = 1-{1-(1/20}11 = 0.4312 or 1 in 2.3191 p10 = 1-p{NOT}10 = 1-{1-(1/20}10 = 0.4013 or 1 in 2.4921 p9 = 1-p{NOT}9 = 1-{1-(1/20}9 = 0.3698 or 1 in 2.7045 p8 = 1-p{NOT}8 = 1-{1-(1/20}8 = 0.3366 or 1 in 2.9711 p7 = 1-p{NOT}7 = 1-{1-(1/20}7 = 0.3017 or 1 in 3.3150 p6 = 1-p{NOT}6 = 1-{1-(1/20}6 = 0.2649 or 1 in 3.7749 p5 = 1-p{NOT}5 = 1-{1-(1/20}5 = 0.2262 or 1 in 4.4205 p4 = 1-p{NOT}4 = 1-{1-(1/20}4 = 0.1855 or 1 in 5.3910 p3 = 1-p{NOT}3 = 1-{1-(1/20}3 = 0.1426 or 1 in 7.0114 p2 = 1-p{NOT}2 = 1-{1-(1/20}2 = 0.0975 or 1 in 10.2564 p1 = 1-p{NOT}1 = 1-{1-(1/20}1 = 0.0500 or 1 in 20.0000
Notice that the last bond formed is the only one that has the mathematical probability of (1/20). Now to calculate the probability of all 52 amino acids lining up in the above formation with the bonds formed in any order we multiply the probabilities of each of the bonding stages, and we get:
pm = (0.9269)x(0.9231)x(0.9190)x(0.9147)x(0.9103)x(0.9055) x(0.9006)x(0.8953)x(0.8898)x(0.8840)x(0.8779)x(0.8715)x(0.8647) x(0.8576)x(0.8501)x(0.8422)x(0.8339)x(0.8252)x(0.8160)x(0.8063) x(0.7961)x(0.7854)x(0.7741)x(0.7622)x(0.7497)x(0.7365)x(0.7226) x(0.7080)x(0.6926)x(0.6765)x(0.6594)x(0.6415)x(0.6226)x(0.6028) x(0.5819)x(0.5599)x(0.5367)x(0.5123)x(0.4867)x(0.4596)x(0.4312) x(0.4013)x(0.3698)x(0.3366)x(0.3017)x(0.2649)x(0.2262)x(0.1855) x(0.1426)x(0.0975)x(0.0500) = 5.39E-13 or 1 in 1.85E+12
Which, while still large is significantly "more likely" than 1 in 2.25E+66. In fact it is 1.21E+54 times more likely.
And the longer you take these kinds of calculations out the disparity between the "creatortionista" calculation and the real mathematical calculation grows.
And this still does not adequately model all the possible ways the molecule could form.
For starters, there are only 20 amino acids so those 52 positions have to have some repeats: the likelihood of a certain amino acid forming a "wrong" bond for one location does not mean that it is not "right" for another location, and the more often a certain amino acid is repeated in the whole protein the more this becomes a factor. To properly model this you need to apply it to specific examples.
For further possibilities, there are any number of larger molecules that could be formed with "mistake" sections in them, where one or more amino acids are injected into the above sequence during formation, but which are then knocked out (cosmic ray bombardment, copy error, etc) leaving the proper formed molecule. This is not included in the "creatortionista" calculations, it is not even addressed.
As you should be able to figure out, if we do this for your 20600 instead, that due to the fact that only the last one is 1/20 and that the numbers you add to the multiplication will be between 0.9269 (at the top of the list) and (your top of the list) ...
p599 = 1-p{NOT}51 = 1-{1-(1/20}599 = 1-4.53e-14 =0.999999999999955 or 1 in 1.000000000000045
... and the longer the chain the closer this first value approaches 1.
In order to properly calculate the probability of an event occurring you have to model all the possible different ways the event could occur, and this has yet to be addressed by the creationists in general and you in particular.
I have already proved ...
You have "proved" nothing other than an incredible misundertanding of evolution.
... by citing facts and authorities that natural selection explains only adaptation, not common descent. ...
Cherry picked quote mines are not facts, and ignoring quotes by the same authors that contradict your claim is called confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias does not lead you to truth. You can find positive evidence for anything, even that the earth is flat. The problem is not that you need to find evidence to support your position, but that you cannot ignore evidence that contradicts it and have a valid claim.
Calling a university that contradicts your claim "liars" is not dealing with the evidence that contradicts your claim. This is called delusion:
... This group responds by giving me lectures about evolution ...
To show you the multiple errors in your misunderstanding of evolution.
... and by saying you can't prove you are right by quoting biology textbooks and experts in the field. ...
Because quote mining does not turn confirmation bias and fantasy into reality. If you only cherry pick the bits and pieces that conform to your interpretation and ignore and deny the evidence that contradicts you (like claiming that the whole Berkely biology department are liars), then you are not proving anything.
... My YouTube video gives a very concise and easy-to-understand refuation of Darwinism.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Logic based on false premises is false.
Repeating false assertions does not make them correct.
Putting false assertions on YouTube does not make them correct.
Re: Amazingly, evolution STILL explains the diversity of life including complexity
Complexity is a measure of the amount of knowledge there is about the particles making up a system. A trillion gas molecules in one liter is more complex that a trillion gas molecules in two liters. A protein is more complex than a soup of amino acids because the location of every amino acid in the protein is known. A human is more complex than a fish because it has more proteins.
Just as there is no scientific explanation for the big bang and the origen of life, three is no scientific explanation for the increase in the complexity of life. The second law of thermodynamics states that nature tends towards a state of greater disorder, that is, less complexity.
I know that many non-biologist say natural selection explains the complexity of life, but you shouldn't believe everything you read.
Re: Amazingly, evolution STILL explains the diversity of life including complexity
I know that many non-biologist say natural selection explains the complexity of life, but you shouldn't believe everything you read.
Given how many times you have been corrected on this, we don't believe anything you say now.
Why can't you understand and accept empirical evidence? Is your mind so closed by belief that you no longer listen to, or accept evidence to the contrary, no matter how well documented?
As Heinlein wrote years ago,
Belief gets in the way of learning.
I'm afraid you are showing yourself to be the poster child for this bit of wisdom.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Re: Amazingly, evolution STILL explains the diversity of life including complexity
I could not follow your calculations. Why do you only do a calculation for a protein with only 50 amino acid? Proteins involve hundred of amino acids. The reason professional biologists don't do these calcuations is that the primary structure of proteins does not begin to describe the complexity of life. In my YouTube video ("The Truth About Evolution and Religion") I explain Gerhart and Kirschners calcuation for , in effect, a 15 amino acid protein.
Re: Amazingly, evolution STILL explains the diversity of life including complexity
The second law of thermodynamics states that nature tends towards a state of greater disorder, that is, less complexity.
The 2LoT says absolutely nothing of the sort. How anyone with a Ph.D. in any area of science could make this claim is completely behind me, and futher bolsters my suspicion that you are some sort of Davisonesque crank.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Re: Amazingly, evolution STILL explains the diversity of life including complexity
In my YouTube video ...
And in the hour-long lecture by a professor of biology/mathematics at U. of Washington, that I referred you to back about post #61 or something, it is shown that you are entirely wrong.
In case you missed it, here it is again:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
Seems well explained to me, what it calculates is the probability that each bond could not form at each stage and deducts that from 1.
Take the first bond -- there are 52 molecules in the example, so there are 51 bonds that need to form to make the overall molecule chain, and the probability that NOT ONE of them will form is:
p{NOT}51 = {1-(1/20}51 = 0.07310
Then you subtract this from 1 to find the probability than ONE of the bonds will form:
p51 = 1-p{NOT}51 = 1-{1-(1/20}51 = 0.92690 or 1 in 1.07886
Fairly certain eh?
If you think about it, there are only 20 amino acids, and the probability of any two of them combining is 1 (given that they spontaneously combine by normal chemistry), so it's just a matter of any two combining matching any one of the ordered bonds in the overall molecule chain.
The longer the overall molecule chain is, the more likely it is that any bond between ANY two amino acids will replicate one of the bonds in the overall molecule chain, so the longer the molecule is, the more the probability of this first bond approaches 1.
When it is done for a 600 molecule chain with 599 bonds between amino acids, the probability of the first bond NOT forming is:
p{NOT}599 = {1-(1/20}599 =4.5336e-14
Then you subtract this from 1 to find the probability than ONE of the 599 bonds in the overall molecule chain will form:
p599 = 1-p{NOT}599 = 1-{1-(1/20}599 =0.999999999999955 or 1 in 1.000000000000045
Or almost certain to form, as predicted above.
Why do you only do a calculation for a protein with only 50 amino acid?
Actually it is 52 amino acids in the overall molecule chain in my calculation, not 50.
Curiously, it is not the length of the chain that is important here, but the method of calculating the correct probability. Once you have the correct methodology you can apply it to any chain length.
Amusingly, once you go past 52 molecules with 51 bonds, then end result is not significantly different, because the probability of the first bonds are close to 1:
The probability of forming the first of 51 bonds is 0.92690227348712233718942033985896
The probability of forming the first of 599 bonds is 0.99999999999995466437910255345756
And therefore we know that all the bonds between 51 and 599 are between these values, and not 1/20.
Why do you only do a calculation for a protein with only 50 amino acid?
Because the purpose is to show that the (1/20)x method of calculation is wrong. In the case of 52 molecules it is off by 54 ORDERS OF MAGNETUDE -- a pretty large error eh?
Proteins involve hundred of amino acids.
There is no real point in providing such a calculation for an actual molecule, because (1) even this calculation does not model all the ways that such a molecule could form, and (2) this still does not model how proteins are made in natural processes that involve modification and selection.
The reason professional biologists don't do these calcuations is that the primary structure of proteins does not begin to describe the complexity of life.
No, the reason that professional biologists don't do these calculations is because they know they do not model the way proteins are formed by natural processes that involve modification and selection. They know there is no point in doing pointless calculations.
In my YouTube video ("The Truth About Evolution and Religion") I explain Gerhart and Kirschners calcuation for, in effect, a 15 amino acid protein.
Amusingly, your video is based on your opinion (which is full of misrepresentation and misunderstanding), and as such is not any kind of reference for the validity of your opinion. Do you understand the fallacy of circular logic? Your video showing your opinion is not validation for your opinion.
You have misunderstood and misrepresented so much, it is highly possible that what Gerhart and Kirschners say is not accurately portrayed. Fascinatingly, it doesn't matter, because the issue is what biology in general and evolution in particular say, how things work in the real world.
Re: Amazingly, evolution STILL explains the diversity of life including complexity
The empirical evidence proves that the big bang occures 13.7 billion years ago and life began 3.5 billion years ago as bacteria. It then evolved into chimps.
Humans are embodies spirits, not because of empirical evidence, but because humans are rational animals. However, the bodies of humans evolved from animals. Body and soul are the metaphysical categories of form and matter.
Natural selection and facilitate variation are theories that attempt to explain evolutiion. Intelligent design is not a theory, but pseudo-science. Natural selection certainly explains why species are adapted to their environment, so it has scientific validity.
The idea that natural selection explains the complexity of life is propagated by anti-religious fanatics and intelligent design advocates. Intelligent desing advocates promote this idea by not quoting mainstream biologists in explaining the limitations of Darwinism. They do this to promote themselves, I suppose. My video and book reviews relies on mainstream biologists to explain evolutionary biology.
Re: Amazingly, evolution STILL explains the diversity of life including complexity
Intelligent design is pseudo-science. Any quote that criticizes intelligent design and considers it an alternative to science is irrational. I'm sure your references, unless they are crackpots like Dawkins, do not say natural selection explains the complexity of life. Your quote only mentions that there is a "robust" model.
Intelligent design advocates say there is a "controversy" about evolution. There is no controversy.
There used to be a controversey about the "big bang." It was true that some physicists were more in favor of it than others. But they all acknowledged that the final determination would be made by observations. When the background radiation was discovered, all accepted the truth of it. The idea that there can be a disagreement among scientists about science is inconsistent with a scientific attitude.
I can't understand the relevance of the probability of a bond forming? If you have two amino acids A and B, there are tw possible combinations AB and BA. The probability of getting AB is 50%.
possible combinations AB and BA. The probability of getting AB is 50%.
™ Version 4.2
(1)