Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 6:31 PM
24 online now:
edge, jar, ooh-child, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,882 Year: 11,918/19,786 Month: 1,699/2,641 Week: 208/708 Day: 35/40 Hour: 4/13


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 136 of 293 (804400)
04-09-2017 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Straggler
04-08-2017 8:11 AM


Re: Predictions and Discoveries
Straggler writes:

The theory of evolution has successfully led to discoveries.

The initial motivation which can led to some discovery might be some subconscious feeling, but this does not make subconscious feelings science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Straggler, posted 04-08-2017 8:11 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Straggler, posted 04-09-2017 5:24 AM forexhr has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 137 of 293 (804402)
04-09-2017 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by forexhr
04-09-2017 3:18 AM


Re: Predictions and Discoveries
I gave you a specific example of how the application of evolutionary theory led directly to a specific discovery. You clearly have no adequate response to that so let's move on.

Zygote -> fully formed body. Please explain how your idea of statistical likelihood with regard to molecular arrangements explains how this development process can occur.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by forexhr, posted 04-09-2017 3:18 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by forexhr, posted 04-09-2017 7:31 AM Straggler has responded

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 138 of 293 (804403)
04-09-2017 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Straggler
04-09-2017 5:24 AM


Re: Predictions and Discoveries
Straggler writes:

I gave you a specific example of how the application of evolutionary theory led directly to a specific discovery. You clearly have no adequate response to that so let's move on.

And here is the specific example of how the application of subconscious feeling led directly to a specific discovery - Scorpius X-1. This is the qoute from Bruno Rossi:

"The initial motivation of the experiment which led to this discovery was a subconscious feeling for the inexhaustible wealth of nature, a wealth that goes far beyond the imagination of man."

Straggler writes:

Zygote -> fully formed body. Please explain how your idea of statistical likelihood with regard to molecular arrangements explains how this development process can occur.

In the context of this discussion your statement about prenatal development was so meaningless that there was nothing for me to respond. Prenatal development occures due to the pre-existing information written in the DNA, while the discussion in this thread is about the origin of this information. Hence, prenatal development has nothing to do with statistical likelihood but with necessity that arises from the DNA.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Straggler, posted 04-09-2017 5:24 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Straggler, posted 04-10-2017 7:35 AM forexhr has responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 671 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 139 of 293 (804406)
04-09-2017 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by forexhr
03-31-2017 3:26 AM


The Texas sharpshooter rides again
forexhr writes:

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

I've looked at the two papers you've linked to, and I'll try to explain what how you've come to the wrong conclusion from them.

Supposing we have a random six-figure number generator. Certain numbers are special, let's say those that begin and end with "6", so we know that, given enough trials, about 1% of our numbers will be in that set. We do a trial, and by chance we get a special number, 673916. The probability of getting a special was 1/100, but the probability of that specific number was 1/1,000,000. If we viewed 673916 as a specific target, we'd consider ourselves amazingly lucky to hit it, but if just any special number is the target, then lucky, yes, but nothing amazing about it.

In that example, we know that 1% of numbers are special, but what's missing from your O.P. is the proportion of all random AA combinations that are special (functional in any way). One specific protein with many functional variations for a specific function totalling 1 in 10^63 of all random combinations doesn't tell us the proportion of combinations that are functional in some way. So, lets look at this paper: Functional Proteins from a random sequence library which comes up with an estimate of 1 in 10^11 combinations having some function. Then, for simplification, let's assume that all individual functional proteins with their variations would each only be ~1 in 10^63 of total combinations, like the one in your paper. Therefore, if a life system had run 10^43 random trials, and achieved a "hit" on 1 in 10^11, it would easily have have enough functional proteins for millions of species with billions of functions yet any and every specific protein would appear highly improbable in isolation, in a similar way that the number 673916 seems amazing in my number game if we consider it as a target.

So, there's nothing to disprove in your argument, because you've made a mistake in your way of viewing probabilities. The specific protein in the paper that gives you the 1 in 10^63 figure was never a target; no specific protein, organ or organism is essential to a life system, and all should look highly improbable individually if a model like the one I've described above is correct.

Edited by bluegenes, : missing word


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 3:26 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by forexhr, posted 04-09-2017 10:55 AM bluegenes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18587
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 140 of 293 (804407)
04-09-2017 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by forexhr
04-09-2017 3:16 AM


Re: There you go again writing checks the bank won't cash.
forexhr writes:

Well I am still waiting for a proper response to my first argument that talks about the lack of resources. All your responses were either red herrings or can be boiled down to this statement: "Evolution does not start from scratch but it builds on what already exists."

There were no red herrings, and the answer hasn't changed.

This statement is of course deeply flawed since it neglects one critical aspect of biological reality, and that is: in the context of new structural or environmental niches, the pre-existing functional bio-structures are - junk.

This is where you've gone wrong. Gradually changing ecological niches drive gradual evolutionary change. Over time the accumulated changes can become significant, but across consecutive generations the changes are minute.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by forexhr, posted 04-09-2017 3:16 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 141 of 293 (804408)
04-09-2017 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by forexhr
04-09-2017 3:16 AM


Re: There you go again writing checks the bank won't cash.
forexhr writes:

Well I am still waiting for a proper response to my first argument that talks about the lack of resources.

You have been given the answer many times by many people. The proper response is that since evolution does happen there are enough resources.

forexhr writes:

This statement is of course deeply flawed since it neglects one critical aspect of biological reality, and that is: in the context of new structural or environmental niches, the pre-existing functional bio-structures are - junk.

There you go making truly stupid assertion, writing checks no one will cash. The pre-existing bio-structures are existing living things; hardly junk.

The rest of you post is simply word salad.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by forexhr, posted 04-09-2017 3:16 AM forexhr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Percy, posted 04-09-2017 9:39 AM jar has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18587
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 142 of 293 (804414)
04-09-2017 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by jar
04-09-2017 8:57 AM


Re: There you go again writing checks the bank won't cash.
jar writes:

There you go making truly stupid assertion, writing checks no one will cash. The pre-existing bio-structures are existing living things; hardly junk.

The rest of you post is simply word salad.

He *is* making a coherent argument, wrong as it is. He's saying that existing biological structures are useless when it comes to the needs of new environmental requirements. Though it's obviously not true, we can understand why he might think this since he seems unable to set aside his need for sudden change. Invasive species are an obvious counterexample to his views, where drastic environmental change causes a dramatic increase in success. The opposite also occurs, where a drastic environmental change causes death, but imported foreign species that are unsuccessful go largely unnoticed.

But the case we're typically thinking of (and that Foxexhr doesn't seem to grasp) is where environmental change, however small or great, however sudden or gradual, causes selection pressures that drive evolutionary change. As long as the result isn't extinction then the species will gradually become better and better adapted.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by jar, posted 04-09-2017 8:57 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by jar, posted 04-09-2017 10:02 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 143 of 293 (804417)
04-09-2017 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Percy
04-09-2017 9:39 AM


Re: There you go again writing checks the bank won't cash.
That's a small part of it but wait, there's more.

The reality is at there is no single "environment" rather reality is that Environment is actually the sum of literally millions of unique environments and while the Environment changes often the individual environments behave independently, some changing, some remaining the same.

It is those individual environments that effect individual populations while major Environmental changes effect across populations.

Look at Yellowstone. There are things that do great in hot pools filled with minerals that would instantly kill things that live on the valley floor or in the mountains. The conditions in those pools though remains pretty constant for millions of years where the condition on the valley floor might and do change in mere generations.

It is these varied rates of local environmental changes that have varied effects on populations, many remaining pretty much the same for long periods, others change far more rapidly. Even the conditions in one valley may be different in another valley on the other side of a mountain range allowing the evolution of two different species of the same original critter.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Percy, posted 04-09-2017 9:39 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 144 of 293 (804418)
04-09-2017 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by bluegenes
04-09-2017 8:45 AM


Re: The Texas sharpshooter rides again
bluegenes writes:

I've looked at the two papers you've linked to, and I'll try to explain what how you've come to the wrong conclusion from them.
Supposing we have a random six-figure number generator. Certain numbers are special, let's say those that begin and end with "6", so we know that, given enough trials, about 1% of our numbers will be in that set. We do a trial, and by chance we get a special number, 673916. The probability of getting a special was 1/100, but the probability of that specific number was 1/1,000,000. If we viewed 673916 as a specific target, we'd consider ourselves amazingly lucky to hit it, but if just any special number is the target, then lucky, yes, but nothing amazing about it.
In that example, we know that 1% of numbers are special, but what's missing from your O.P. is the proportion of all random AA combinations that are special (functional in any way). One specific protein with many functional variations for a specific function totalling 1 in 10^63 of all random combinations doesn't tell us the proportion of combinations that are functional in some way. So, lets look at this paper: Functional Proteins from a random sequence library which comes up with an estimate of 1 in 10^11 combinations having some function. Then, for simplification, let's assume that all individual functional proteins with their variations would each only be ~1 in 10^63 of total combinations, like the one in your paper. Therefore, if a life system had run 10^43 random trials, and achieved a "hit" on 1 in 10^11, it would easily have have enough functional proteins for millions of species with billions of functions yet any and every specific protein would appear highly improbable in isolation, in a similar way that the number 673916 seems amazing in my number game if we consider it as a target.
So, there's nothing to disprove in your argument, because you've made a mistake in your way of viewing probabilities. The specific protein in the paper that gives you the 1 in 10^63 figure was never a target; no specific protein, organ or organism is essential to a life system, and all should look highly improbable individually if a model like the one I've described above is correct.


You made one critical error in your reasoning: you defined function with relation to - nothing. In biology, function is always defined with relation to something. Even you paper has done this, I quote: "we selected functional proteins by enriching for those that bind to ATP". In my paper, this function was lambda repressor fold. If the ability to bind to ATP is considered a closed stuctural niche, only for that function you need to spend 10^11 evolutionary resources. If to this we add resources needed to extract lambda repressor fold, we are already 31 orders of magnitude short with regards to all evolutionary resources. Now add to this all differnt protein folds, organs and morphological structures and you will get a clear picture of the extent of the problem

Also, in your paper they started with small proteins, each containing 80 amino acids. On the other hand, average length of, for e.g. human protein, is 480 amino acids (1). Finally, your random six-figure number generator is totally unrelated to biology since its sequence space is 1.000.000 while for an average protein this space is 10^624 in size.

(1) https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~asiegel/posts/?p=7

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by bluegenes, posted 04-09-2017 8:45 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by bluegenes, posted 04-13-2017 4:31 AM forexhr has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 145 of 293 (804483)
04-10-2017 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by forexhr
04-09-2017 7:31 AM


Re: Predictions and Discoveries
So the theory of evolution has led directly to predictions leading to discoveries. As demonstrated. Your idea has lad to nothing of the sort.

Waffle about "subconscious feelings" is not how competing theories are assessed in science. Competing theories are assessed by their ability to explain, predict and discover. So on that score you don't have a leg to stand on here.

Anyway...

Prenatal development occures due to the pre-existing information written in the DNA, while the discussion in this thread is about the origin of this information.

You asked about the formation of functioning bodies from single cells. I gave you an example of that being readily observable.

If you accept the role of replicating molecules (e.g. DNA) accept the role of variations in those replications (e.g. Genetic mutations) and accept selection based on environment then you have all the ingredients for accepting evolution.

Take a simple organism, apply the above over numerous replications/generations and you end up with a (potentially much more complex) organism highly adapted to the environment in question.

Which part of any of that is refuted by this 'statistical likelihood of molecular arrangements' notion you are presenting here?

Your issue seems to be with the origin of life rather than evolution per se.
If you are claiming the origin of life is too unlikely to have occurred naturally then what alternative are you proposing?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by forexhr, posted 04-09-2017 7:31 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by forexhr, posted 04-11-2017 7:33 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 293 (804541)
04-10-2017 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by forexhr
04-09-2017 3:16 AM


Re: There you go again writing checks the bank won't cash.
This statement is of course deeply flawed since it neglects one critical aspect of biological reality, and that is: in the context of new structural or environmental niches, the pre-existing functional bio-structures are - junk

This statement is not necessarily true. At any given time, there are varieties of creatures due to mutation. When the environment changes, if one of those varieties has a competitive advantage, it thrives so that its features dominate the population.

Your objection assumes that the variety somehow appears as needed or in response to a change in environment or circumstance. That is not the theory of evolution. If there is not sufficient variation to fill an environmental niche in time to adapt to a change in the environment or other circumstance, then the species may not be successful in that circumstance.

Edited by NoNukes, : clarify.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by forexhr, posted 04-09-2017 3:16 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 147 of 293 (804562)
04-11-2017 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Straggler
04-10-2017 7:35 AM


Re: Predictions and Discoveries
Straggler writes:

Competing theories are assessed by their ability to explain, predict and discover. So on that score you don't have a leg to stand on here.

Well, the problem with your reasoning is that I didn't presented any theory at all. I presented scientific facts that there hasn't been enough resources to extract bio-functionality from particles comprising living systems and that the maintenance and reproduction apparatus of these systems cannot exist in a simpler mode. On the other hand, your theory is built on the assumptions that are in direct contradiction with these scientific facts. But that's nothing new. Your theory started with its fundamnetal hypothesis of divergence. But then completely opposite scientific facts were discovered - animals on different branches which have homologous traits that comes from a different common ancestor. Simply put - fundamental evolutionary hypothesis was falsified. In order to save the theory, evolutionists invented an excuse - ad hoc classification scheme in the form of unfalsifiable convergent evolution. Your theory also started with the fundamnetal hypothesis of perfect branching pattern. When science discovered "genealogical discordance so widespread that no single tree topology predominates", then evolutionists simply invented unfalsifiable, ad hoc mental construct called incomplete lineage sorting.
Since in science, reclassifying things and inventing ad hoc mental constructs doesn’t verify a theory, nor explain how nature functions, it is clear to every critically thinking individual that your theory is not only unable to explain or predict, but is has become unfalsifiable and thus pseudoscience. But of course, pseudoscientific theories can also led directly to discoveries.

Straggler writes:

You asked about the formation of functioning bodies from single cells. I gave you an example of that being readily observable. If you accept the role of replicating molecules (e.g. DNA) accept the role of variations in those replications (e.g. Genetic mutations) and accept selection based on environment then you have all the ingredients for accepting evolution.
Take a simple organism, apply the above over numerous replications/generations and you end up with a (potentially much more complex) organism highly adapted to the environment in question

In a time span of 4.5 billion years, those "numerous replications/generations" produced 10^43 changes in the spatial positions of particles comprising organic matter. On the other hand, empirical science shows that in order to extract just one functional macromolecule(lambda repressor fold) from these particles, you need 10^63 changes in the spatial positions of particles. Hence, evolution falls short by 20 orders of magnitude to produce just one selectable effect or adaptation. It is really mind blowing that given thousands and thousands of real biological structures you cannot pick just one and mathematically explain how bio-function is extracted from particles comprising them, but instead you just repeat over and over again your ambiguous mantras about the power of variation and natural selection.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Straggler, posted 04-10-2017 7:35 AM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 04-11-2017 8:14 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 151 by herebedragons, posted 04-11-2017 12:27 PM forexhr has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18587
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 148 of 293 (804564)
04-11-2017 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by forexhr
04-11-2017 7:33 AM


Re: Predictions and Discoveries
You're just repeating your original already-rebutted arguments. You have to address the rebuttals, for instance that your numbers are pulled out of context and don't show what you think they do. And for instance that similar environmental niches are often exploited in similar ways by unrelated lineages, called convergent evolution - the eye and flight are examples.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by forexhr, posted 04-11-2017 7:33 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by forexhr, posted 04-11-2017 8:33 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 149 of 293 (804568)
04-11-2017 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Percy
04-11-2017 8:14 AM


Re: Predictions and Discoveries
You can rebutt my argument only one way - by showing the empirical ratio of meaningful information to total sequence space of information that represent existing bio-structures and which is in line with available resources in evolution. Repeating just so stories like: "similar environmental niches are often exploited in similar ways by unrelated lineages, called convergent evolution"... have nothing to do with this empirical ratio.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 04-11-2017 8:14 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by JonF, posted 04-11-2017 8:51 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 155 by Theodoric, posted 04-11-2017 4:03 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5010
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 150 of 293 (804569)
04-11-2017 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by forexhr
04-11-2017 8:33 AM


Re: Predictions and Discoveries
You can rebutt my argument only one way - by showing the empirical ratio of meaningful information to total sequence space of information that represent existing bio-structures and which is in line with available resources in evolution.

Nobody knows how to calculate your "meaningful information" or " total sequence space of information" since you have failed to define what you mean by "information". An operational definition is the first step. Ball's in your court.

But pointing out that you have misunderstood your numbers and they are not relevant is rebutting your claims.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by forexhr, posted 04-11-2017 8:33 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by forexhr, posted 04-11-2017 2:10 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
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