Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2068 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 263 of 293 (805585)
04-19-2017 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by bluegenes
04-19-2017 10:15 AM


please stop B.S-ing and put your arguments on the table
bluegenes writes:
Well, that was a waste of time. So, if they all have different letters in all positions, it would take 17,576 * 10^9 to get a billion words. You haven't even attempted to refute my actual point.
Your actual point was even more nonsencical since it used resources needed in order to produce a simple protein composed of 80 AA that performs half-functional binding function, as an explanation for emergence of all complex and structurally independent bio-functions that proteins perform in living systems.
bluegenes writes:
No, you couldn't be more wrong. What I did was take the approximate figure it needs to get a target function, 10^11, as the resources to get one functional protein in the life system, and then, by addition, figured out that it would take (10^11)*(10^9)=10^20 to get 1 billion proteins. It's aproximate, but if you understand the implications of the Szostak paper, that's a reasonable conclusion. And it blows out your O.P. claim.
You keep repeating the same B.S. about my O.P. claim, and all that you have is the Szostak paper that produced simple binding function with 10^11 resources.
Can you please finally explain what are those implication? Saying "...If you could actually grasp the implications of the two papers..." is not an argument - this is B.S. ing.
P.S. I predict that your explanation will use already spent resources as a basic premise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by bluegenes, posted 04-19-2017 10:15 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by bluegenes, posted 04-19-2017 8:27 PM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2068 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 264 of 293 (805587)
04-19-2017 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Taq
04-19-2017 10:58 AM


forexhr writes:
Let's look at your logic.
The vast majority of lottery tickets are losers. Therefore, if someone wins this means that the lottery machine was pre-programmed so that specific person would win.
No, this is not my logic, but your non sequitur.
My logic is this.
If the vast majority of lottery tickets are losers, if someone would told me that he has the winning ticket I would not believe it until I see verification. Since we don't have the verification that the jump was random, I prefer to believe what is more probable.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Taq, posted 04-19-2017 10:58 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by caffeine, posted 04-19-2017 2:15 PM forexhr has replied
 Message 266 by Taq, posted 04-19-2017 4:59 PM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2068 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 268 of 293 (805670)
04-20-2017 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by caffeine
04-19-2017 2:15 PM


caffeine writes:
Your analogy is flawed. We already know the ticket is a winning ticket - since winning the lottery is supposed to be analogous to a mutation being beneficial. Since most mutations are not beneficial; one that is cannot be a random mutation - it was 'pre-programmed'.
What you're actually saying is that if somebody showed you the winning lottery ticket, you would chose to believe that the lottery was rigged, since this is more likely than someone winning it by chance.
Yes, I agree, my analogy is flawed. You made a good point. To conclude, we can say that it is unknown whether the jump was random or non-random.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by caffeine, posted 04-19-2017 2:15 PM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Taq, posted 04-20-2017 10:43 AM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2068 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 269 of 293 (805671)
04-20-2017 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by bluegenes
04-19-2017 8:27 PM


Re: please stop B.S-ing and put your arguments on the table
bluegenes writes:
No. I proposed 10^11 for any first protein in the life system, meaning 10^12 for ten proteins and 10^20 for 1 billion proteins. If you disagree with Szostak's estimate, based on searching a random library for an "arbitrary specific function" why don't you write to him and give him the benefit of your expertise? I also pointed out that the number of proteins required for a highly complex organism with many complex systems, Homo Sapiens, is ~18,000, so it needs ~18*(10^14) protein search resources to get us, step by step over several billion years.
You proposed a fantasy, something totally unrelated to reality. Life is not composed of 18,000 binding functions without a specific 3D shapes, but of structurally independent and specific 3D shapes. Why would I disagree with Szostak? From what exactly it follows that I disagree? Szostak just showed that you need 10^11 resources in order to produce half-functional ATP binding protein that does not require neither any specific 3D shape, nor the ability to release ATP. You can produce binding function with myriad number of 3D shapes. In a functional sense this is a piece of cake.
But when simple binding is not enough and when, in addition to that, you also need some level of 3D specificity to perform bio-function, like in the example of lambda phage genome regulation, then you need 10^63 resources to achieve this function. And although both, lambda represor and ATP binding protein, are composed of similar number of AAs(92 vs. 80), due to the 3D specificity requirement, the functional degeneracy is increased by 52 orders of magnitude.
In the case of enzymes, where you need the highest level of 3D specificity, functional degeneracy would be even higher.
Hence, your fantasy has nothing to do with biology, this is just your personal rationalization to feel comfortable with your dogmatic Darwinism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by bluegenes, posted 04-19-2017 8:27 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by bluegenes, posted 04-20-2017 4:03 AM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2068 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 271 of 293 (805676)
04-20-2017 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by bluegenes
04-20-2017 4:03 AM


Your capacity for non sequiturs is breathtaking
bluegenes writes:
No. I told you about superfamilies and how completely unrelated AA sequences can perform the same function, so why are still going on about the 10^63 figure? The authors of the paper in your O.P. certainly don't make that claim.
It is really amazing how you insist on these non sequiturs. It is true that the relationship between the AA sequence and the 3D structure of a protein is not unique - a large number of modifications in the sequence within a protein family can be tolerated and will result in a similar 3D structure. But that has absolutely nothing to do with resources that are necesary to find a particular 3D structure. If you have 10^57 different AA sequences that result in a similar 3D structure this high degree of conservation of the 3D structure, compared to sequence conservation, does not change the fact that you need 10^63 reources to find this specific 3D structure. Your capacity for non sequiturs is breathtaking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by bluegenes, posted 04-20-2017 4:03 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Percy, posted 04-20-2017 7:16 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 273 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2017 7:40 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 276 by Taq, posted 04-20-2017 10:46 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 282 by bluegenes, posted 04-21-2017 7:14 AM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2068 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 279 of 293 (805846)
04-21-2017 6:03 AM


The development of the discussion on this thread is a beautiful example of why the ToE, although it meets all of the criteria, is still not officially declared a pseudoscience. Since biology is a pretty complex area of science, there are myriad number of retorical niches to which darwinists have adapt in order to be able to defend their pseudoscience and in the same time create the illusion that their darwinism is a valid scientific theory. Currently the discussion on air is about the jumping genes. Darwinists in this thread are on them like piranhas on a prey. But, jumping genes have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. They are just the pre-existing sequences that can move from one location in the genome to other. Evolution on the other hand, is supposed to explain the origin of higher life forms that are characterized by organs, organ systems, de novo molecular machines, metabolic pathways,... or in short - specific 3D shapes that we observe in living systems.
In this thread, I proved that there haven't been enough resources in the history of life to find these 3D shapes. But, darwinists in this thread completely ignored this important issue, either via non sequiturs, red herrings, appeals to authority, ad hominems and various others pseudoscientific techniques. It is really interesting to watch how pseudoscience operates.
In my next post I will conclude this discussion with easy-to-understand falsification of evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Tangle, posted 04-21-2017 6:23 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 281 by Pressie, posted 04-21-2017 7:07 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 283 by Percy, posted 04-21-2017 7:25 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 285 by bluegenes, posted 04-21-2017 10:13 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 286 by Taq, posted 04-21-2017 10:56 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 287 by Genomicus, posted 04-21-2017 4:39 PM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2068 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 289 of 293 (806312)
04-24-2017 12:16 PM


This will be my last post on this thread and in it I will do two things:
A) summarize the main points of my argument
B) illustrate the pseudo-scientific character of the responses to my argument
No matter what level of bio-organization we choose, it is comprised of specific 3D shapes that perform specific bio-functions such as processing visual detail, reproduction, blood pumping, nutrient metabolism, etc. These 3D shapes are all built from some elementary constituents, (e.g.,molecules, cells). Each constituent has a set of possible states it can be in. The information about these states is memorized in the organism genome. The genome is composed of the four DNA nucleotides: A,T,G and C, which means that each 3D shape can be represented as a space with n dimensions, where n is the number of nucleotides. Each axis has 4 positions representing the 4 nucleotides. There are 16 possible 2 nucleotide DNA sequences which can be arranged in a 2D grid. The 64 sequences can be arranged in a 3D cube. Most genes are longer than 1000 nucleotides and so occupy large, multidimensional spaces containing an astronomical number of possible sequences. For example, there are 10^602 possible 1000 nucleotide DNA sequences which can be arranged in a 1000D grid.
To illustrate this astronomical number let us consider blood-pumping function. According to this study(1) there are over 1,700 genes that are required for mouse heart development. The expected average gene length in eukaryotes is 1346 bp. (2)
(1) Just a moment...
(2) Average Gene Length Is Highly Conserved in Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes and Diverges Only Between the Two Kingdoms | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic
Given these numbers, there are 2,288,200 nucleotides that represent 3D shapes requireds for blood-pumping function which gives the sequence space of 4^2,288,200 or 4.70*10^1,377,633. To explore this sequence space and thus, extract the 3D shapes requireds for blood-pumping function, there have been only a 10^43 nucleotide rearrangements in the history of life. This is insufficient to explore even the sequence space of one average-size gene required for mouse heart development.
Since it is obvious that with 10^43 nucleotide rearrangements we cannot explain the origin of 3D shapes that comprise organs and organ systems, in this thread I argued that with such a small number of rearrangements, we can't even explain the origin of one below average protein - lambda represor. To prove my point, in the O.P. I gave the paper whose authors concluded, I quote: "the estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the gamma repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 in 10^63 of the total number of possible 92-residue sequences.
In other words, there are 10^57 possible functional sequences for lambda represor function and in order to extract one such functional sequence we need on average 10^63 nucleotide rearrangements. Given the 10^43 nucleotide rearrangements in the history of life, it is easy to conclude that the ToE cannot explain the origin of one below average protein.
According to the logic of the average believer in evolution, since nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact, the conclusion that the ToE cannot explain the origin of just one simple and below average protein is obviously false. But, given the fact that appeals to the majority are pseudoscientific, the evolutionists on this thread tried to respond to this conclusion through some actual points. These points were all boiling down to this:
1) The sequence space of size 10^122 contains many functional sequences that might perform many different bio-functions(non-Lambda represor functions), and therefore populations don't have to search 10^63 times in order to find them.
2) Proteins with very different sequences can also perform the Lambda represor function.
As we shall see later on, these points are totally irrelevant to my argument about the lack of resources, but instead, they are just ad hoc excuses, empty claims, that were brought up not because they have some scientific or logical merit, but because it is necessary to have some excuse to label my argument as creationist nonsense.
The first point argues that proteins of size ∼92 AA can perform not only Lambda represor function but also many different bio-functions. We can express this point by using an analogy. With three letters we can produce many different meaningful words, and not only words that name animals, for e.g. This is of course true, but it is completely irrelevant to evolution. Why?
Whenever the proponents of the ToE talk about the origin of some bio-function, they will say that this function is simply an evolutionary adaptation by which the organism provides a solution to the problem that the environment sets.
Example:
Meiosis as an Evolutionary Adaptation for DNA Repair
https://www.intechopen.com/...nary-adaptation-for-dna-repair
So, according to the ToE, a particular bio-function is an evolutionary adaptation, while the eonviornment is something to which an organism must adapt.
Given this evolutionary narrative, let us use our three-letter words analogy and set up one population(P) of organisms and its gene pool:
Population P:
organism 1: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 2: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 3: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 4: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 5: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
So, we have our population and its gene pool which contains 7 evolutionary adaptations(bio-functions).
After the reproduction, an extra copy of a gene is made in the genome of the "organism 2", which gives us the following gene pool:
Population P:
organism 1: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 2: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---wox-
organism 3: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 4: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 5: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
This duplicated gene is free to explore new adaptations(bio-functions). But, given the evolutionary narrative, in order for an organism to adapt, we also need an environment. So let us suppose that the following new environment emerges:
"All three-letter words that name animals".
In the contect of this environment this adaptations are functional:
ant, ape, auk, bat, bee, bot, boy, bug, cat, cod, dab, doe, dog, eel, eft, elk, emu, ewe, fly, fox, gnu, guy, hen, hog, jay, kea, kit, owl, pig, ram, rat, sow, teg, cow
Since the sequence space of three-letter words is 17,576(26 letters ^3) and we have 35 functional sequences, it follows that only 1 in 502 three-letter sequences is functional. In other words, on average we need 502 resources in order to adapt to our new enviornment.
Now, given the first point made by evolutionists on this thread, they would respond in the following way:
"Forexhr, you made a major technical mistake in assuming that you need 502 resources to adapt to "All three-letter words that name animals" enviornment, because the Scrabble Dictionary recognizes 1015 three-letter words that are also functional."
The above claim presupposes that because theoretically we can create 1015 different "functions" with three-letter words, it follows that we don't need to spend 502 resources in order to find "functional" three-letter words that name animals, but only 17 (17,576/1015).
This is of course nonsense of a high order because there is no causal relationship between theoretically possible functions(adaptations) and a particular environment, that would reduce the number of resources that are necessary for adaptation at a particular physical locus in a gene pool. It is like saying that because there have been many winning lottery tickets in the history of lottery games, we don't need 13,983,816 different lottery tickets(on average) to get a winner in a particular 6/49 lottery game, but we must sum up all winning lottery tickets in the history of lottery games and then divide 13,983,816 with the number we get.
The absurdity of such reasoning is obvious. We cannot use all actual, or potential bio-functions that were, or will be produced with 92 AAs and then claim that the existance of these bio-functions reduces the resources necessary to adapt to a particular environment.
Given our population P:
organism 1: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 2: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---wox-
organism 3: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 4: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 5: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
The fact that the three-letter words - "are", "bit", "hop", "fun", "vox", "too" and "yes" exist in the gene pool of the population, cannot change neither the sequence space of three-letter words(17,576), nor the number of three-letter words that are required for adaptation to the current environment("All three-letter words that name animals") at the "wox" loci.
So, the first point is pure nonsense.
The second point, which argues that proteins with very different sequences can also perform the lambda represor function, is like saying that we can use very different three-letter words to fulfil the above mentioned ecological niche - "All three-letter words that name animals".
As such, this point is just redundant rhetoric because if 10^57 possible sequences for Lambda represor are functional that also means that many of them are "very different". But of course, 1 in 10^63 ratio still stands. Likewise, in the group of three-letter words that name animals, many of them are very different(fox vs. gnu for e.g.), but from that it doesn't follow that the above mentioned ratio(1 in 502) is not valid.
As we can see, the responses given are totally unfounded, they are just nonsensical ad hoc excuses whose only purpose was to keep faith in the ToE and to have some justification for labeling my argument a fallacy(sharpshooter for e.g.). Therefore, my statement, that evolution can't even explain the origin of one below average protein is correct.
Since convincing an evolutionist that the ToE is false is like convincing a flat-earther that the Earth is spherical, there's nothing here for me anymore. Hence, over and out.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Taq, posted 04-24-2017 1:11 PM forexhr has not replied
 Message 291 by bluegenes, posted 04-24-2017 3:11 PM forexhr has not replied
 Message 292 by bluegenes, posted 04-25-2017 8:46 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 293 by Sarah Bellum, posted 05-26-2019 10:52 PM forexhr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024