Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2019 4:19 PM
35 online now:
dwise1, edge, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211, Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,799 Year: 11,835/19,786 Month: 1,616/2,641 Week: 125/708 Day: 59/66 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 293 (803494)
03-31-2017 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by forexhr
03-31-2017 11:51 AM


Premise 5: There are 10e63 junk(non-selectable) arrangements of CHNOPS in just one simple bio-structure (protein).

Your source for this is behind a pay-wall. What are those arrangements based on? Are they spatial, physical, chemical? What kind of arrangements?

Proteins don't form mechanically so those odds probably aren't apt - most of the time we see this arguments about evolution being too improbable it is because the math is wrong - the statistics are based on the wrong calculations.

Added by edit:

Here some posts I wrote the last time an argument like this came up:

From Message 35

quote:
A major problem is that functional proteins appear to be exceedingly rare in the space of all proteins. Axe estimated it to be about 1/10^77. This makes de novo production of new proteins practically impossible.

I don't think those stats are correct for what you're trying to say. There's chemistry involved, so it's not going to be the same as like the odds of a purely-physical event happening, like coin flips or something. Like if there were electromagnetic forces involved in the coin flip, it might not be purely random anymore; the chemistry catalyzes certain reactions and not others, plus, the "space of all proteins" would include ones that aren't even realistic.

But to go with the coin flip analogy, you're saying something like: There are two ways in which a coin can land on its side, heads or tails. But, there are a almost an infinite number of ways that the coin could land one of the many places along its edge. Therefore, it is practically impossible for a coin flip to land on heads or tails.


From Message 61

quote:
Errr, no. It is quite obvious that the probability of landing on an edge is infinitesimal in the total result space.

That's what I'm saying. When you wrote:

quote:
A major problem is that functional proteins appear to be exceedingly rare in the space of all proteins. Axe estimated it to be about 1/10^77.

The probability of getting most of the proteins in "the space of all proteins" is also infinitesimal, so you have the wrong statistical estimate there. There is not equal weight on those improbable proteins forming so you can't include them like that in the estimate of the functional proteins forming. If you did, it would be just like including all the places where a coin could land on its edge in the calculation of the odds of it landing on heads or tails.

Rather the analogy would be that finding a functional proteins would correspond to a flipped coin landing on its edge.

Then something has to be wrong, because functional proteins do form. The problem is that proteins don't form from random pieces randomly coming together and joining mechanically. There's chemistry involved and some reactions are catalyzed and some are practically impossible. To calculate the odds of one particular protein forming out of the space of all proteins is not the right calculation to determine the chances of a particular protein forming.

In fact, some proteins could form inevitably.


From Message 71

quote:
And the same calculation done on the space of all coin landings shows us that coin flips landing on either the heads or tails side are exceedingly rare.

I assume you mean "neither the head or the tail".

No, I meant what I wrote.

Heads and tails are 2 out of a nearly infinite number of places that a coin flip can land, if you are included all the places along the edge. So, using that in your calculation of the odds of it landing on heads or tails will get you an almost impossible chance of it.

Similiarly, that's why using the calculation in the space of "all possible proteins" is also erroneaous, for the reasons I've prevoiusly explained.

It's a lot more than "chemical doing chemistry".

Like what? Do you have an example?

All biology can be boiled down to complex chemistry, just like all chemistry can be boiled down to complex physics.

There are no exceptions that I am aware of. You?

If that was all the frog in a blender experiment should work.

Wrong. It takes more than just setting the ingredients in the oven to get bread, but the bread is not made of more than the ingredients.

It is a nanotechnology machine powered by a flow of protons through a turbine.

That's still chemicals doing chemistry.

The extreme rarity of functional proteins means that it is practically impossible to get from one functioning protein to another by incremental beneficial steps. Let alone explaining the appearance of the original protein.

That is based on bad math though, so it isn't true.

Added by edit:

From [msg=-67]:

Put a frog in a blender and blend well. All the chemicals are there so the chemical reactions should continue if it's just chemicals doing chemistry.

No, this is completely wrong. Not all chemical reactions are the same. For example, some of them require catalysis while some of them are spontaneous.

The incredibly complex chemical system know as "a frog" cannot be created by simply setting all of the ingredients next to each other.

Salt water, on the other hand, yes - just mix them.


Edited by New Cat's Eye, : see Added by edit


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 11:51 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Astrophile
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 80
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


(1)
Message 17 of 293 (803495)
03-31-2017 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by forexhr
03-31-2017 3:26 AM


forexhr writes:

All bio-structures are built of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur(CHNOPS), and differ only in number and spatial arrangements of these elements. Hence, if we start with the simple self-replicating molecule(evolution's starting point), then the only way to find new proteins, molecular machines, organs or organ systems is by re-arrangement of CHNOPS.
The idea of evolution is based on two fundamental premises. The first one says that mutations cause variations or re-arrangements of CHNOPS. The second one says that the certain variations will be selectively preserved in response to environment. For example, when functional protein exists, and it is beneficial in the current environment, then - it will be selected. That's fine.

But that begs the question: how did this selectable combination of CHNOPS(protein) came to be? This is the crucial and the most important question. There are virtually infinite number of ways in which CHNOPS comprising protein can be arranged, and most are junk, or non-selectable arrangements. For e.g. for a protein 92 AA long, with 10e122 possible AA combinatios, there is only 1 in every 10e63 functional sequence*. On the other hand, published extreme upper limit estimates puts the maximum number of mutations or CHNOPS re-arrangements at 10e43**. So, the total number of evolutionary CHNOPS re-arrangements is 20 orders of magnitude insufficient to find only one selectable state for evolution to preserve - a protein, let alone molecular machines, organs or organ systems.

*Functionally acceptable substitutions in two alpha-helical regions of lambda repressor. Reidhaar-Olson JF, Sauer RT.
**How much of protein sequence space has been explored by life on Earth?, David T.F Dryden, Andrew R Thomson, John H White

So how do you explain the observational facts that have convinced almost all biologists that evolution is a real process?

Note: this is not a rhetorical question. I should appreciate an answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 3:26 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15201
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 18 of 293 (803496)
03-31-2017 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by forexhr
03-31-2017 11:51 AM


This does not seem to be a coherent argument.

Premise 2 seems irrelevant - the idea that purely random configurations of atoms are involved at the level of organs is so obviously false that it need not be considered.

Premise 4 is less obviously bad, but mutations do not produce completely random sequences either. However I note that the article cited in support of it also argues that life may well have tried every possible functional protein, which seems to directly contradict your argument on this point.

Premise 5 is in need of support - assertions that an article behind a paywall supports it seem obviously inadequate.

Premise 6 is contradicted by one of your citations with regard to proteins, and is just silly with regard to organs and anything larger.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 11:51 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 2:35 PM PaulK has responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 259 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 19 of 293 (803498)
03-31-2017 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by PaulK
03-31-2017 1:22 PM


Your objections are irrelevant to the problem in question since clusters of CHNOPS in the form of cells can also be arranged into virtually infinite number of junk configurations.

A heart valve for example is comprised of many millions of cells. Given the poly-3D enumeration mathematics, just a thousand cells can be arrangement into approximately 8.37x10e3,271 different combinations - 2e(n−7)ne(n−9) (n−4)(8ne8−128ne7+828ne6−2930ne5+7404ne4−17523ne3+41527ne2−114302n+204960)/6.

Hence, just for a heart valve you have a combinatorial space that is 8.37x10e3,271 in size. On the other hand, you have just 10e43 resources to scan through this space which means that evolution is physically impossible.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2017 1:22 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2017 2:45 PM forexhr has responded
 Message 27 by caffeine, posted 04-01-2017 7:51 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6950
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 20 of 293 (803499)
03-31-2017 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by forexhr
03-31-2017 3:26 AM


forexhr writes:

Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?

Why do you say that evolution is a secular argument?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 3:26 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15201
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 21 of 293 (803500)
03-31-2017 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by forexhr
03-31-2017 2:35 PM


quote:

Your objections are irrelevant to the problem in question since clusters of CHNOPS in the form of cells can also be arranged into virtually infinite number of junk configurations.

My objection stands. The cells are not arranged randomly nor does DNA directly specify the location of cells.

Since we only have to deal with the combinations reasonably accessible to evolution - and a lot of them will not be - your argument fails even before you take into account the "sharpshooter fallacy" aspect of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 2:35 PM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 3:03 PM PaulK has responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 259 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 22 of 293 (803501)
03-31-2017 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
03-31-2017 2:45 PM


The DNA codes for spatial arrangements of cells in the form of functional bio-structures. A heart valve is one such arrangement, while the ear is another. In between you have a nearly infinite number of junk arrangements. You can't just wave a magic wand of mutations and jump from one bio-functional arrangement of cells to another, and than claim - natural selection did it!

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2017 2:45 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2017 3:10 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-31-2017 6:36 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15201
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 23 of 293 (803502)
03-31-2017 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by forexhr
03-31-2017 3:03 PM


quote:

The DNA codes for spatial arrangements of cells in the form of functional bio-structures

You could say that, but if you think it directly codes locations of individual cells you would be dead wrong.

quote:

A heart valve is one such arrangement, while the ear is another. In between you have a nearly infinite number of junk arrangements

Then it's a good job that nobody thinks that ears evolved from heart valves.

quote:

You can't just wave a magic wand of mutations and jump from one bio-functional arrangement of cells to another, and than claim - natural selection did it!

And I don't. What I do say is that mutations are not the same as completely randomising the arrangement of cells - nowhere near.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 3:03 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19977
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 24 of 293 (803503)
03-31-2017 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by forexhr
03-31-2017 8:46 AM


Re: the math is not the mountain
I am not talking about models but physical resources available to evolution and virtually infinite number of ways in which CHNOPS comprising bio-structures can be arranged. ...

That is a mathematical model, and if you don't recognize it as such then you don't understand what you are arguing.

Message 13: I constructed an argument so simple that it cannot be misrepresented.

Premise 4: There were 10e43 resources(mutations) available in the whole evolution process.

Premise 5: There are 10e63 junk(non-selectable) arrangements of CHNOPS in just one simple bio-structure (protein).

And again, this is your mathematical model of reality. Surely you are aware of the old saw of aeronautical engineers proving mathematically that bumble bees cannot fly ... but since we KNOW they can and DO fly, then it is obvious that the math was erroneous. The bees did not suddenly fall to the ground unable to fly because of the math.

Likewise we have plenty of evidence that mutations occur, that selection occurs, that evolution occurs, so your argument is likewise invalid, no matter how pretty the numbers are to you.

Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?

It happens virtually every day, in virtually every species. It has been observed. Get used to it.

Real theories are based on evidence and then math may be used to analyze and verify the theory, but math can never invalidate a theory, only empirical objective evidence can do that.

Premise 4: There were 10e43 resources(mutations) available in the whole evolution process.

Premise 5: There are 10e63 junk(non-selectable) arrangements of CHNOPS in just one simple bio-structure (protein).

You look at those numbers and say the math shows evolution cannot happen.

I look at those numbers and say that evolution happening shows the numbers are irrelevant.

The difference is that my argument is based on evidence, while yours is based on wishful thinking.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 8:46 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 296 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 25 of 293 (803507)
03-31-2017 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by forexhr
03-31-2017 3:26 AM


finite number of ways in which CHNOPS comprising protein can be arranged, and most are junk, or non-selectable arrangements. For e.g. for a protein 92 AA long, with 10e122 possible AA combinatios, there is only 1 in every 10e63 functional sequence*. On the other hand, published extreme upper limit estimates puts the maximum number of mutations or CHNOPS re-arrangements at 10e43**. So, the total number of evolutionary CHNOPS re-arrangements is 20 orders of magnitude insufficient to find only one selectable state for evolution to preserve - a protein, let alone molecular machines, organs or organ systems.

Insufficient numbers, and empirically problematic to boot.

1) Not all proteins are equal
2) Whether something is functional, selectable, useful or beneficial depends on the entity it is functioning for. You are looking at specific protein for a highly evolved organism this is not comparable to a primitive life form that has no evolutionary history. What is functional for a bacterophage such as the lambda receptor, is likely useless for an early life form. And vice versa
3) You need to do more than use those numbers anyway - you need to establish how many functional proteins are clustered together in the context of the environment.

The problem you are trying to tackle is much more complex than merely comparing two numbers therefore your argument is insufficient to establish your conclusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 3:26 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 26 of 293 (803508)
03-31-2017 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by forexhr
03-31-2017 3:03 PM


The DNA codes for spatial arrangements of cells in the form of functional bio-structures. A heart valve is one such arrangement, while the ear is another. In between you have a nearly infinite number of junk arrangements. You can't just wave a magic wand of mutations and jump from one bio-functional arrangement of cells to another, and than claim - natural selection did it!

But mutations often do get us from one functioning organism to another. These mutations are of course not caused by natural selection, but they are preserved by it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 3:03 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1677
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 27 of 293 (803516)
04-01-2017 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by forexhr
03-31-2017 2:35 PM


On the other hand, you have just 10e43 resources to scan through this space which means that evolution is physically impossible.

There is one obvious flaw in your reasoning, even assuming the numbers are correctly calculated.

On the one hand, you are trying to count the total number of possible arrangements of molecules.

On the other hand, you are trying to calculate the total number of ways this arrangement could be changed. However, the number you actually present is supposed to be the number of possible mutations which could have happened.

Mutation is obviously not the only way in which the arrangement of these molecules can be changed. Environmental changes will also affect this, and the number of possible environmental effects is incalculably large. Your 10^43 should be many, many, many orders of magnitude larger.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 2:35 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 259 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 28 of 293 (803562)
04-02-2017 4:45 AM


Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei once said: "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."

And that's the beauty of my argument: it is easy to understand.

That is why people in this thread, who a priori believe in evolution, keep saying things that have nothing to do with my argument - they describe it, they put it in the categories, they ask questions irelevant to it, etc. But the fact is that nobody can argue against it because it's entirely based on three simple observaions:

A) All possible arrangements of building blocks(atoms, molecules, compounds or cells) for ordinary collections of matter are inconveniently large(for e.g. given the poly-3D enumeration mathematics, only a thousand building blocks can be arrangement into approximately 8.37x10e3,271 different spatial arrangements.)

B) Most collections of matter are junk with regards to anything meaningful in biology.(e.g. in a collection of just 90 molecules(amino acids) only 1 in 10e63 arrangements are biologically meaningful.

C) In a time span of around 4.5 billion years there have been only 10e43 resources available to search for these biologically meaningful collections of matter. In other words, the total number of resources available to evolution was insufficient to find only one simple bio-functional collection of matter composed of just 90 building blocks(amino acids), let alone bio-structures composed of billions and billions of building blocks.

These three simple observations will not change if we start to argue whether or not my argument is mathematical model, whether evolution is a fact or a theory, whether CHNOPS arrangements are spatial, physical or chemical, whether or not all proteins are equal, whether or not environment(besides mutations) can also affect spatial arrangement of matter, etc.

I am not here to engage in endless debates about about evolution and creation or intelligent design, but to suggest people to stop thinking in terms of concepts created in human minds and start thinking in terms of physicochemical reality. The theory of evolution is just a concept created in a human mind, or more specifically - a classification system that classifies living things according to similarity - nothing more nothing less. This concept has absolutely nothing to do with physicochemical reality of matter and its inconveniently large potential for non-biological manifestations. That is why I am not responding to most of the posts on this threat - they are simply irrelevant to physicochemical reality of matter but instead, they are instances of concepts.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2017 5:14 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 35 by caffeine, posted 04-02-2017 12:00 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15201
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 29 of 293 (803563)
04-02-2017 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by forexhr
04-02-2017 4:45 AM


Arrogantly declaring yourself the victor when you obviously don't know what you are talking about is hardly a winning move.

The simple point is that the mechanisms of evolution are not a random search over every possible configuration of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorous and sulphur atoms. Certain configurations are vastly more likely than others, and any argument that assumes otherwise is fatally flawed.

For comparison, consider a game of chess. While there are many possible configurations of chessmen possible on the board (do not forget to allow for capture and "queening") the rules of the game limit the number possible. Computer chess programs restrict the space further by rejecting options that seem bad - and even relatively simple programs can play the game.

Your observations are therefore largely irrelevant to actual evolution. Even protein evolution - where your argument is least weak - relies far more on modification of existing proteins than on creating new sequences.

quote:

I am not here to engage in endless debates about about evolution and creation or intelligent design, but to suggest people to stop thinking in terms of concepts created in human minds and start thinking in terms of physicochemical reality.

When do you intend to start doing that yourself ?

quote:

The theory of evolution is just a concept created in a human mind, or more specifically - a classification system that classifies living things according to similarity - nothing more nothing less.

That's taxonomy, not the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution deals with the mechanisms by which life is modified over time. And your argument ignores those mechanisms in favour of something that creates random assortments of atoms. Talk about ignoring physiochemical (and biological) reality !

You may certainly choose to run away, proclaiming an imaginary victory rather than face the fact that your argument is hopelessly flawed and obviously ignores observed reality. But that is hardly productive - although rather typical of creationists, it must be said.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by forexhr, posted 04-02-2017 4:45 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by forexhr, posted 04-02-2017 7:43 AM PaulK has responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 259 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 30 of 293 (803578)
04-02-2017 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by PaulK
04-02-2017 5:14 AM


It is really unfortunate that you view this as a pissing contest. I simply stated three facts from which it follows logically that evolution didn't happen. Which of those three facts do you deny: possible spatial arrangements for ordinary collections of matter, share of bio-functionality in these arrangements or the resources available to search for this bio-functionality?

Regarding the taxonomy this is just another word for the concept of evolution since mechanisms by which life is modified over time are physicochemical and not conceptual. In other words, life is modified the same way as any collection of matter in our universe - particles or clusters of particles are interacting and changing their spatial arrangements on the basis of four fundamental forces of nature - gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Just because people created a concept that describes bio-similarity and just because clasters of particles in the form of molecules(or cells) are capable to change their spatial positions due to mutations for e.g., it does not follow that bacteria like arrangement of particles will become heart like arrangement of particles. The reason for that is simple - even if every proton in the observable universe were an organism, reproducing at the highest speed physically possible(10e43/sec - which is inverse of Planck time), from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when protons no longer exist), they would still need need a ridiculously longer time - more than two thousand orders of magnitude longer - to explore all possible spatial arrangements of just a thousand particles. The probability to find highly isolated clusters of bio-functionality(useful in terms of natural selection) in these arrangements is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event. No human concept can change that.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2017 5:14 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2017 8:29 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 32 by jar, posted 04-02-2017 8:34 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2017 8:39 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 04-02-2017 10:03 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3456
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019