Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-22-2019 5:52 AM
15 online now:
Jon (1 member, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,297 Year: 12,333/19,786 Month: 2,114/2,641 Week: 69/554 Day: 6/63 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


(5)
Message 31 of 293 (803581)
04-02-2017 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by forexhr
04-02-2017 7:43 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. ...

Except that evolution did and does happen, the objective empirical evidence demonstrates this every day in every species.

Therefore there is something wrong with your argument -- it is disproved by reality.

... 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?

The numbers can very well be in the right ballpark, but there is an element missing between them and what actually occurs.

What is obvious is that the bumblebee does in fact fly.

Regarding the taxonomy this is just another word for the concept of evolution ...

Nope, try again. Perhaps learning what evolution actually is might help. See Evolution 101 from Berkeley for starters.

... 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.

Correct, your opinion is entirely incapable of altering reality in any way shape or form.

It amuses me that you claim your argument is not a mathematical model of reality, yet all you argue with is numbers and their relationships, not objective empirical evidence.

Enjoy


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 30 by forexhr, posted 04-02-2017 7:43 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31081
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 32 of 293 (803583)
04-02-2017 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by forexhr
04-02-2017 7:43 AM


Go back to Alice
It's unfortunate that you seem to have no understanding of either reality or probability. Please go back to Message 9 and read the post over and over and over until you can understand the truth found there.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by forexhr, posted 04-02-2017 7:43 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15226
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 33 of 293 (803584)
04-02-2017 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by forexhr
04-02-2017 7:43 AM


quote:

It is really unfortunate that you view this as a pissing contest.

If that is how you view critique it is no wonder that your argument has problems.

quote:

I simply stated three facts from which it follows logically that evolution didn't happeN

It certainly does not logically follow. You need the form of your argument to be correct - and that includes stating all the premises - before we need to get into questioning your facts (although your claim about the proportion of protein sequences with "bio-functionality" is still in need of support)

quote:

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.

No. Linnaean taxonomy does not even assume that life did change over time.

quote:

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

You have it backwards. Evolution is not derived from first principles (a task that would be impossible - even the purely gravitational three-body problem has no analytical solution). Instead it is derived from higher-level empirical evidence, and we work back towards explaining it in lower-level terms.

quote:

he 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

That is not a valid reason. Evolution does not work by randomly - or exhaustively - sampling all arrangements of atoms. The idea is absurd.

quote:

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.

But that is only possibly true in the absence of evolution. Evolution is not just a human concept - it describes a process that occurs in nature (and has been used in human research, too). Any argument which ignores evolution is only valid so far as it describes entities which do not evolve - or in other words your argument is only possibly applicable to the origin of life, and not to its subsequent development.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by forexhr, posted 04-02-2017 7:43 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 34 of 293 (803588)
04-02-2017 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by forexhr
04-02-2017 7:43 AM


I simply stated three facts from which it follows logically that evolution didn't happen.

What then explains all the evidence we see that has led to the theory of evolution?

Are you thinking some supernatural cause maybe?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by forexhr, posted 04-02-2017 7:43 AM forexhr has not yet responded

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


Message 35 of 293 (803591)
04-02-2017 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by forexhr
04-02-2017 4:45 AM


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.

This observation is false, as I pointed out in the post immediately prior to where you wrote this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by forexhr, posted 04-02-2017 4:45 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 36 of 293 (803650)
04-02-2017 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by forexhr
03-31-2017 3:26 AM


Hi forexhr and welcome.

The first problem with your premise is that you are conflating evolution and abiogenesis. While that may seem to you to be a logical connection, it really is not. Evolution deals with biological life and how it changes over time and how those changes lead to the origin of new species. What you seem to be describing is the implausibility that life arose naturalistically, not the implausibility that organisms can modify existing patterns to produce novel proteins. If you are trying to describe evolution as implausible, you will need a completely different set of premises and calculations.

Not all of us who accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life believe in a wholly naturalistic account. I understand the question of origins in a theistic evolution context, although I don't particularly like the label. I simply do my best to learn what is true and then I accept it. If I find out later that something I hold to be true is not, I will change what I believe.

The idea of evolution is based on two fundamental premises. The first one says that mutations cause variations or re-arrangements of CHNOPS.

This is a strange way to put it and I would argue this statement is not a good representation of a key evolutionary premise. Yes, CHONOPS are the most abundant elements of life and are required for all known lifeforms and rearrangements of those elements occur during evolution, but to put it in this way, as a fundamental premise of evolution, is well... odd at best, but seems more like disingenuous.

But that begs the question: how did this selectable combination of CHNOPS(protein) came to be?

Evolution doesn't beg that question. That is a question for origin of life theories, such as abiogenesis or creationism or ID. Evolution starts with living entities that are capable of replication. How those entities came to be is not part of evolutionary theory.

But anyway, let's consider your arguments "against evolution"

There are virtually infinite number of ways in which CHNOPS comprising protein can be arranged, and most are junk, or non-selectable arrangements.

This is an example of how using CHNOPS is odd/misleading. Proteins don't arrange CHNOPS, they arrange amino acids (which yes, are made of CHNOPS) but I don't understand why you would need to bring up CHNOPS, why not just talk about proteins and amino acids?

For e.g. for a protein 92 AA long, with 10e122 possible AA combinatios, there is only 1 in every 10e63 functional sequence*

It seems to me that you didn't actually read these papers that you referenced. The way you are using the information you cite from them is basically dishonest.

The paper "Functionally acceptable substitutions in two alpha-helical regions of lambda repressor. " does state that 1063 figure, but it is in reference to the gamma-repressor folds, not all functional sequences in general. Your statement is that there are only 1 in 1063 functional proteins - meaning with any function. But that is not what the paper claims.

quote:
Nevertheless, the estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the gamma repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 in 1063 of the total number of possible 92-residue sequences.

They did not determine how many "functional proteins" could possibly be formed from a 92-residue sequence, but how many ways a functional protein could be mutated and still retain its unique functional fold.

Here is the paper that is not behind a pay wall if any one wants to actually read it: Functionally acceptable substitutions in two a-helical regions of gamma repressor

The second citation is just as bad.

On the other hand, published extreme upper limit estimates puts the maximum number of mutations or CHNOPS re-arrangements at 10e43**

Just reading the abstract suggests that the paper does not support your position.

quote:
We suggest that the vastness of protein sequence space is actually completely explorable during the populating of the Earth by life by considering upper and lower limits for the number of organisms, genome size, mutation rate and the number of functionally distinct classes of amino acids. We conclude that rather than life having explored only an infinitesimally small part of sequence space in the last 4 Gyr, it is instead quite plausible for all of functional protein sequence space to have been explored and that furthermore, at the molecular level, there is no role for contingency.

So, your using their "data" to suggest the opposite conclusion without arguing against their position is kind of uhmmm.... shady.

I challenge you to find the information you cite in that paper "maximum number of mutations or CHNOPS re-arrangements at 1043". It's not there. Here is the only places where the number 1043 is used.

quote:
This gives an extreme upper limit of 4×1043 different amino acid sequences explored since the origin of life. The contribution to this number of sequences by viral and eukaryotic genomes is difficult to estimate but it is very unlikely to be orders of magnitude greater than the 4×1043 sequences from bacteria.

It does not say the same thing your statement does.

Here is some other quotes from the paper

quote:
Protein sequence space is often viewed as a limitless desert of maladjusted sequences with only a few oases of working sequences linked by narrow pathways. The navigation over this space by natural selection is difficult and could take many different routes thus resulting in organisms with largely different protein compositions. This idea of contingency, if taken at the level of species, led Gould to suggest that if one was to rerun the ‘tape of life’ then evolution would take a totally different path and we, as a species, would only appear as a highly improbable accident. However, if there is any merit to our simple calculation then protein sequence analysis provides no support for the idea of contingency at a molecular level and it provides strong support for the ideas of convergence. If one was to rerun the tape, then the protein composition of organisms would be similar. Our calculation removes the almost impossibly unrealistic pressure on natural selection to navigate through protein sequence space avoiding the vast number of functionless sequences by simply indicating that most sequences have been tried are useful in some way, and that there are many possible routes to obtain proteins with desirable functions.

quote:
Finally, we conclude that the number 20100 and similar large numbers are simply ‘straw men’ advanced to initiate discussion in the same spirit as the ‘Levinthal paradox’ of protein folding rates. 20100 is now no more useful than the approximate 2×101834097 books present in Borges' (1999) fantastical ‘Library of Babel’ and has no connection with the real world of amino acids and proteins. Hence, we hope that our calculation will also rule out any possible use of this big numbers ‘game’ to provide justification for postulating divine intervention.

The paper is saying the complete opposite of what you are arguing and yet you lift a number out of it and assign it a different context and then cite the paper as support of your position.

I'd be willing to bet you did not formulate this argument and the information you cited did not come from your reading of these papers.

So, I would say there is not much to the argument, and it is pretty much just a lame attempt at the same old "improbability" canard.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


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

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 265 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 37 of 293 (803654)
04-03-2017 4:58 AM


I am genuinely stunned with the ability of the people in this thread to ignore the essence of my argument. This argument simply expresses the lack of the resources necessary to extract bio-functionality from organic matter, while most of the responses are just personal rationalizations of a priori belief in evolution. Only the last two posts are actually more or less direct responses, but are unfortunately flawed. Here is why.

caffeine writes:

This observation is false, as I pointed out in the post immediately prior to where you wrote this.


You pointed out that available evolutionary resources should be many orders of magnitude larger then 10e43. But, given the size of the combinatorial space (where for e.g. only a 1,000 nucleotides can be arranged into 10e602 different combinations), even if we use all the resources available in the universe from the Big Bang until now(10e80 atoms, 10e43 events per atom per sec for 10e25 sec => 10e148 resources), they are still not even remotely close to explore this space. Hence, your response is pure red herring.

herebedragons writes:

It seems to me that you didn't actually read these papers that you referenced. The way you are using the information you cite from them is basically dishonest.The paper "Functionally acceptable substitutions in two alpha-helical regions of lambda repressor. " does state that 1063 figure, but it is in reference to the gamma-repressor folds, not all functional sequences in general. Your statement is that there are only 1 in 1063 functional proteins - meaning with any function. But that is not what the paper claims.


So here you argue against the share of bio-functionality in organic matter composed of 92 amino acids, by suggesting that my statement about 1 functional in 10e63 protein sequences is 'dishonest'. Well, here is the fact - all 'functional sequences in general', as you put it, cannot neither perform concrete biological functions, nor fill specific environmental niches. The "gamma repressor fold" is an example of specific biological function. In the context of evolution, if an environmental niche exists that is filled with "gamma repressor fold", then obviously, first you need to extract this specific 'fold' from organic matter. 'Functional sequences in general' are irrelevant in that regard. Once specific 'fold' is extracted, the new allele will enter the gene pool and be subject to natural selection(allele frequency will either remain constant, increase or decrease.) But, as the paper claims, "the gamma repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 in 10e63 of the total number of possible 92-residue sequences". So, I am correct, you don't have enough resources to extract bio-functionality from organic matter. And this is just for one small protein composed of 92 building blocks. Now imagine a structure that is built from millions and millions of building blocks, like heart or kidney. The probability to extract bio-functionality from such a big number of building blocks is obviously zero.
Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Pressie, posted 04-03-2017 7:13 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2017 9:20 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2017 9:28 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 46 by herebedragons, posted 04-03-2017 2:06 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 04-03-2017 2:21 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 38 of 293 (803657)
04-03-2017 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by forexhr
04-03-2017 4:58 AM


forexhr writes:

I am genuinely stunned with the ability of the people in this thread to ignore the essence of my argument.

And I'm genuinly stunned by the lack of the ability of forexhr to try to consider the essence of reality.

Hey, even I can try word salads!

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by forexhr, posted 04-03-2017 4:58 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 293 (803662)
04-03-2017 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by forexhr
04-03-2017 4:58 AM


I am genuinely stunned with the ability of the people in this thread to ignore the essence of my argument. This argument simply expresses the lack of the resources necessary to extract bio-functionality from organic matter, while most of the responses are just personal rationalizations of a priori belief in evolution.

I find your argument unconvincing because your math is bad.

The denominator used in your odds way too high. You're using a number for all the physically imaginable arrangements of atoms that could conceivably be possible. That is the wrong number to use.

In order to explain why, I would have to use an analogy and we'd have to talk about the physiochemical implications.

If you want to hear about that, let me know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by forexhr, posted 04-03-2017 4:58 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 40 of 293 (803663)
04-03-2017 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by forexhr
04-03-2017 4:58 AM


star dust and the origin of life
I am genuinely stunned with the ability of the people in this thread to ignore the essence of my argument. This argument simply expresses the lack of the resources necessary to extract bio-functionality from organic matter, while most of the responses are just personal rationalizations of a priori belief in evolution. Only the last two posts are actually more or less direct responses, but are unfortunately flawed. ...

And yet bumblebees fly. The engineers that did the calculation went back and checked their assumptions, found where they were wrong, and in the process discovered an aspect of bumblebee flight they had not considered before. Something to consider.

Part of your problem is that you describe the issue in a way that limits the way resources available to create biotic and pre-biotic molecules are viewed.

Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I)

A lot of creationist propaganda involves probabilities, with seemingly huge improbabilities calculated for such things as assembling complex organic molecules (usually calculated with them assembling completely from pure raw materials in one single random action). Such calculations are flawed on many levels, and one of them is addressed in this essay.

This is the flaw of failing to properly account for the actual beginning basis: failing to take into account the organic molecules that were readily formed on the surface of the earth. This essay is a look at some of those molecules and the likely pre-existing conditions for the formation of life on earth. I call these {molecules \ conditions} "building blocks" to denote that the search for how life actually came to be was built on these foundations. If you are looking for discussions on the {actual \ initial} formation of RNA or DNA you will need to look elsewhere, as this is looking at a much more rudimentary level of the question.

What is the status of what we know?

First off we have some peptides built out of existing amino acids (reference 1), activated by geochemical conditions similar to possible early earth conditions. That these basic building blocks of life were formed by this process is not disputed by such creationist organisations as AnswerInGenesis (AIG) (reference 2).

Then there is the question of hydrocarbons in outer space. The implications here are that a ready source of such organic compounds could seed a young planet with a bias for carbon based life centered on these molecules, and that this could in effect jump-start the development of life systems out of a chemical soup.

... (read more)

My Conclusions

From these information sections it seems to me that the building blocks needed for beginning the creation of life were plentiful, not just on Earth but in space in general and from the earliest of times. Probably they have been around since long before even the Earth formed from the cosmic debris left behind by the life and death cycle of previous stars and planets, back to the beginning of time. These "seeds of life" no doubt extend through the far reaches of the universe as well as the depths of time (cue Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young ... "We are star dust ...").

It also seems to me that the natural processes for forming more complex structures from those basic building blocks were likely prevalent on the earth 4.5 billion years ago in a variety of forms, levels of completion and locations. We end with a scenario that has a random combination of plentiful and multitudinous organic molecules forming amino acids all over the earth, with a membranous system to contain and concentrate those molecules and their interactions within a protocell type capsule. We also see that random combination of plentiful and multitudinous amino acids into peptides and proteins is feasible, and that concentration and recombination within the membranous protocells enhances the probability that random combinations of them into the first "replicators" (the predecessors to RNA and DNA) is not as far fetched as it seemed at first. A simple building block process where the probability of a successful combination is almost inevitable: it is no longer a matter of "if" but of "when" it will occur under these conditions ... and once self replication occurs the frequency of replication will necessarily outpace the random action, and replicators that are faster and stronger will outpace their competition ... life seems inevitable when given the conditions for life.

That is my take on the probability of life on earth.

That was written 12 years ago, and since then further advances in the science of abiogenesis have occurred, increasing our knowledge of how life could develop with the resources available. It was followed by Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II), written 8 years ago.

Once developed, it would of course evolve, just as it continues to evolve today, in every known species. To evolve, it does not need to create new proteins de novo, it just needs to modify ones already in use, as is observed to occur in life today.

As you can see I come to very different conclusions than you do. Mine are evidence based, rather than mathematically and wishful thinking based.

Enjoy


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 37 by forexhr, posted 04-03-2017 4:58 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by forexhr, posted 04-03-2017 10:29 AM RAZD has responded

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 265 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 41 of 293 (803667)
04-03-2017 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
04-03-2017 9:28 AM


Re: star dust and the origin of life
I am well aware of just so stories that people use in order to rationalize their beliefs in evolution and you can use them in any way you like. But unfortunately, these are just unfalsifiable narrative explanations totally unrelated to the topic in question. This topic is about share of bio-functionality in organic matter and resources necessary to extract this bio-functionality. Better luck next time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2017 9:28 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2017 11:02 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2017 11:44 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 04-03-2017 11:49 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 293 (803669)
04-03-2017 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by forexhr
04-03-2017 10:29 AM


Re: star dust and the origin of life
This topic is about share of bio-functionality in organic matter and resources necessary to extract this bio-functionality.

"Extract" is an interesting word-choice...

Can you expound on what you mean by that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by forexhr, posted 04-03-2017 10:29 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 43 of 293 (803670)
04-03-2017 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by forexhr
04-03-2017 10:29 AM


Re: star dust and the origin of life
... But unfortunately, these are just unfalsifiable narrative explanations ...

That just list objective empirical evidence. Facts do tend to be rather unfalsifiable ...

... This topic is about share of bio-functionality in organic matter and resources necessary to extract this bio-functionality. ...

So "bio-functionality in organic matter" means ...

  1. in terms of what is needed for the formation of life:
    q: How many different combinations of the available amino acids (per Message 40) result in life?
    a1: (what IS life?)* ... unknown ... at least 1, because we observe one existing.
    a2: until this is known then calculating the number of possible configurations does not give you a complete picture.
    a3: knowing what amino acids are available at the start changes the number of possible protein arrangements of atoms to a much smaller number than ignoring them does.
  2. in terms of what is needed for life to evolve:
    ... where evolution is defined as:
    The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
    a: other life, nutrients, conducive habitat.

So again I come to the point where your argument is incomplete and based on you only looking at part of the issue and thinking you have a complete picture.

Bumblebees fly. If your calculations show that Bumblebees cannot fly, then the calculations are in error, bees don't suddenly drop to the ground. When engineers included the thrust generated during the backstroke, they showed the bees could fly.

Rather obviously, once you have life, you have all the "bio-functionality in organic matter" needed in the environment to allow organisms to grow, and thrive, and evolve. The fact that there are massive numbers of other possible combinations of organic molecules is totally and completely irrelevant to evolution occurring because the ones necessary for life to grow, and thrive, and evolve are assembled by existing life in the process of living.

Therefor it is impossible for your argument to inhibit life to grow, and thrive, and evolve. It won't suddenly stop because of your math. Your model is incomplete.

At best you have a (very) weak and incomplete argument against abiogenesis and none against evolution.

... Better luck next time.

Curiously, I don't need luck, I have objective empirical evidence to support my argument.

Enjoy

* simple definition for first life: something that can evolve.

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 41 by forexhr, posted 04-03-2017 10:29 AM forexhr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 04-03-2017 12:13 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16858
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 44 of 293 (803672)
04-03-2017 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by forexhr
04-03-2017 10:29 AM


Re: star dust and the origin of life
forexhr writes:

I am well aware of just so stories that people use in order to rationalize their beliefs....


Your math is a just-so story. Nobody has to "believe" in anything to question your math. Back up your math. Link it to reality.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by forexhr, posted 04-03-2017 10:29 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31081
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 45 of 293 (803675)
04-03-2017 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
04-03-2017 11:44 AM


Re: star dust and the origin of life
And, as was pointed out way back in Message 15, none of the things he listed (lungs, heart, blood vessels, stomach, liver, kidneys, muscles, brain, nerves, skin, hair, ovaries, uterus, testes, prostate, penis, bones, ligaments) are necessary components for life.

Yet life exists that has none of those things. In addition, we can look at the life forms without those things and actually see evolution happening.

Reality trump probability every time.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2017 11:44 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev12
3
456
...
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