Is Evolution Intellectually Viable?

Back in post #13, Tranquility said:

quote:

---

And I believe in evolution too - just not the molecules to man extrapolation.

---

I think that is where nos got the impression for writting post #17. Of course he incorrectly may have thought that was me speaking.------------------

JohnThe mosiquito genome just came out. Have you read the Science paper? The mosquito has thousands of genes not in the fly and not in anything else.The data fully supports the genome per kind idea. You pick a genome and there are thousands of conserved housekeeping genes, and given the genomes we have so far, hundreds and thousands of kind-specific genes.

Isn't it true that the genes that differ most between organisms are those subject to the strongest selective pressures to change such as those involved in reproduction. Its almost as if natural selection was responsible for the observed differences.

ItzpapalotlI would agree with you that genes track the environment by natural selction. But macroevoltuion of new gene families is simply an evoltuonary assumption that is extrapolated from allelic adaptation under natural selction. We can watch a bacterial phosphatase sequence morph according to environment - it is still always a phosphotase.The genomes contain species-specific and cellular-process-specific folds and gene families that are not allelic variaitons. You can propose that the new folds can arrive, and you might even find a few examples in the lab but there is very little evidence that this is how novelty arose. To go from fold to fold you may as well start with random DNA. Macroevoltuion is an unjustifiable extrapolation of well understood genomic plasticity.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-06-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Have you read the Science paper?

---

No. I haven't read it.

quote:

---

The mosquito has thousands of genes not in the fly and not in anything else.

---

I'm not sure why you are excited about this. Different critter, at least a few different genes.Thousands of genes eh? That is less than 1% of the mosquito's genome. Sorry TB, I don't feel the Earth shaking.

quote:

---

The data fully supports the genome per kind idea.

---

You don't have a genome-per-kind idea. You cannot tell us how to determine kinds-- you have failed miserably every time your've tried-- and until you can take that very simple step you cannot claim that anything supports it. You have no theory. If you have no theory it cannot be tested or supported or anything of the sort.

quote:

---

You pick a genome and there are thousands of conserved housekeeping genes, and given the genomes we have so far, hundreds and thousands of kind-specific genes.

---

Without knowing exactly what makes a 'kind' you cannot know if a gene is kind-specific.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

John,

quote:

---

And your evidence for this statement is what?

---

"the spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability."(W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 304)Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacteria (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell). The number that was found was 1 over 10^40000. (This is an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros next to 1) Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, New York, Summit Books, 1986. p.127Regards,
Ahmad(P.S. In mathematics, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10^50 are accepted as "zero probability")

mark24,

quote:

---

I thought you were talking about evolution, but judging from your actual post you are talking about abiogenesis. Make your mind up!

---

How do naturalistic evolutionist account for the first life on earth that supposedly triggered a series of changes leading from a single celled organisms to mult-cellular organisms?Regards,
Ahmad

Tranquility Base,

quote:

---

Your representaion of the evoltuionary scenario is too simplistic and your facts about proteins are plain wrong. Take it from a creationist who does protein engineering and follows the directed evoltuion literature.

---

I am open for correction as I am just a science student. So if I am wrong, please correct me.Let me see if I can get this right,Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took place within a very long period of time and that this long period made the impossible possible. Nevertheless, no matter how long the given period may be, it is not possible for amino acids to form proteins by chance. William Stokes, an American geologist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of Earth History writing that this chance is so small "that it (protein) would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids." W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 305So, if the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times more impossible for about one million of those proteins to come together properly by chance and make up a complete human cell. What is more, a cell is at no time composed of a mere protein heap. In addition to the proteins, a cell also includes nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals like electrolytes arranged in a specific proportion, harmony, and design in terms of both structure and function. Each of them functions as a building block or co-molecule in various organelles. Right?Regards,
Ahmad

Hi TB,"The genomes contain species-specific and cellular-process-specific folds"as far as i was aware the distribution of protein folds follows the pylogeny proposed by evolution. For example there are eukaryote specific folds that bacteria do not share, these common folds are used in a large number and variety of proteins consistant with an ancient origin followed by diversification. As you go up the tree there are plant specific folds and these are used in fewer proteins than the eukaryote wide folds consistant with a more recent origin.It is true that the occurence of new folds is difficult to explain and seems to be a rare event, which is why there are so many folds specific to groups of organisms. Because they split from related groups before the specific folds were formed. Does fold distribution define 'kind' if so then 'kind' may well include many organisms, How about mammal 'kind'. I am also not aware of any species specific folds, i would be interested to find out what they are.In fact the distribution of folds according to relatedness rather that according to function would seem to indicate common descent rather than common design. Why would a designer restrict certain folds to certain groups of organisms?."We can watch a bacterial phosphatase sequence morph according to environment - it is still always a phosphotase."There are examples of genes that change function completely, antifreeze from trypsinogen in fish for example. Similar events that happened anciently would no longer be recognisable.Although genes do exhibit minor variation due to environmental pressures there are many genes that are subject to very intense diversifying selection and so have a very high nonsynonymous mutation rate, this leads to genes changing alot not just into different alleles. So although functional category such as 'gamete recognition' may be preserved from an ancestoral protein to the current one it may no longer be possible to recognise the origin of the protein.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ahmad:
"the spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability."(W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 304)[/b][/quote]Actually, I don't really care what 'seems' beyond all probability. This is nothing more than an argument from indredulity. [quote][b]Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacteria (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell).[/QUOTE]This is a misuse of probability. It is like throwing a rock down a hill, recording every twitch, spin, and roll it makes on the way down, calculating the probablility of it taking that particular path and then concluding that it COULDN'T have taken the path it did because it is statistically 'impossible'------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

John,

quote:

---

Actually, I don't really care what 'seems' beyond all probability. This is nothing more than an argument from indredulity.

---

Not incredulity but the Mathematical Theory of Probability.

quote:

---

This is a misuse of probability. It is like throwing a rock down a hill, recording every twitch, spin, and roll it makes on the way down, calculating the probablility of it taking that particular path and then concluding that it COULDN'T have taken the path it did because it is statistically 'impossible'

---

Your analogy of Probability is faulty and misleading. Do you assume that the rock could have been thrown a conscious thrower who will record this "twitch, spin, and roll"?? You are jumping to conclusions. Why would we statistically calculate the probability of the rock taking the particular path when the rock had actually taken the path and we observed it in situ??And besides (in comparison with your analogy), you have yet to prove that coincidence actually was responsible for protein formation before saying that they, indeed, were formed by mere coincidence. If not, then let us be assured that a Supreme Consciousness did de facto intervene in protein formation and a host of several other non-coincidental, non-chanced processes and mechanisms.Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
Not incredulity but the Mathematical Theory of Probability.

---

Probability calculations are not deterministic. You can have one hundred trillion to one against and it still happen.

quote:

---

Your analogy of Probability is faulty and misleading.

---

It wasn't an analogy of probability. It was an argument analogous to one made by many creationsist. You statements implied this argument.

quote:

---

Do you assume that the rock could have been thrown a conscious thrower who will record this "twitch, spin, and roll"??

---

Why is this relevant?

quote:

---

You are jumping to conclusions.

---

Such as... ? Thus far, you haven't pointed out any.

quote:

---

Why would we statistically calculate the probability of the rock taking the particular path when the rock had actually taken the path and we observed it in situ??

---

That is a very good question, yet that is exactly what creationists do when they argue that life could not have arisen without divine intervention. Think about it. We are standing at the bottom of the hill and have found the rock. We can't climb the hill but we can look up it with our eyes and with binoculars, radar, whatever. This is us standing in the present looking back through time via the geological record, DNA sequencing, whatever we can find. While we can't see every zig and zig the rock made, we can see where it hit the ground here and there. We can see where it broke a brandh off of a tree. That sort of thing. Scientists try to figure out what path the rock took. Creationsist look at the same data and calculate the chances of it making a three-quarter turn before hitting a pebble and bouncing seven inches to right, landing oriented a turn and half from its laundh orientation, then rolling two feet, spinning counterclockwise, and breaking a blade of grass. The odds are going to be astronomically against this sequence, yet it happened. This is the misuse of probability.

quote:

---

And besides (in comparison with your analogy), you have yet to prove that coincidence actually was responsible for protein formation before saying that they, indeed, were formed by mere coincidence.

---

I don't recall saying this.

quote:

---

If not, then let us be assured that a Supreme Consciousness did de facto intervene in protein formation and a host of several other non-coincidental, non-chanced processes and mechanisms.

---

Assuming for a moment that neither of us has any evidence, why should I assume an additional entity for which I have no evidence?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

John,

quote:

---

Probability calculations are not deterministic. You can have one hundred trillion to one against and it still happen.

---

Such as....?? If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance or to accept that there is conscious intervention? The answer should be obvious.

quote:

---

It wasn't an analogy of probability. It was an argument analogous to one made by many creationsist. You statements implied this argument.

---

Understood. But the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein molecule still stands. How, pertaining, to this have you based your analagous argument?

quote:

---

Why is this relevant?

---

Since the basis of my argument is whether chance or a consciousness was responsible and since your analogous argument was pertaining to my statements, I would say it is more than relevant.

quote:

---

That is a very good question, yet that is exactly what creationists do when they argue that life could not have arisen without divine intervention. Think about it. We are standing at the bottom of the hill and have found the rock. We can't climb the hill but we can look up it with our eyes and with binoculars, radar, whatever. This is us standing in the present looking back through time via the geological record, DNA sequencing, whatever we can find. While we can't see every zig and zig the rock made, we can see where it hit the ground here and there. We can see where it broke a brandh off of a tree. That sort of thing. Scientists try to figure out what path the rock took. Creationsist look at the same data and calculate the chances of it making a three-quarter turn before hitting a pebble and bouncing seven inches to right, landing oriented a turn and half from its laundh orientation, then rolling two feet, spinning counterclockwise, and breaking a blade of grass. The odds are going to be astronomically against this sequence, yet it happened. This is the misuse of probability.

---

The falling of a rock from a hill (whether by chance or a conscious thrower; you haven't clarified) is far from creating an analogous argument against the impossibility of the coincidental formation of a single protein molecule. Give me a better analogy.Let me elaborate. The viability of proteins depends on three strict conditions. First condition: that all the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequenceSecond condition: that all the amino acids in the chain are left-handedThird condition: that all of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called "peptide bond".Are you saying that coincidence resulted in the agreement of these three strict conditions for a useful protein all out of the blue??Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously "by coincidence". Yet at this point, evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to sustain its presence, it would need to be isolated from the natural setting that it is in and protected under very special conditions. Otherwise this protein would either disintegrate from exposure to natural earth conditions or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical compounds, losing its properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance. Think about it.

quote:

---

Assuming for a moment that neither of us has any evidence, why should I assume an additional entity for which I have no evidence?

---

If chance is not(and cannot) responsible for the formation of the building-blocks of the living cell, what then is?? What other validations or alternatives do you assume for the formation of useful proteins? Is this not enough for an evidence??Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
Such as....?? If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance or to accept that there is conscious intervention?

---

If a coin turns up heads every time in a million tossed, all you known is that the probability of it turning up heads is effectively 100%. You don't know anything about WHY it is turning up heads.

quote:

---

The answer should be obvious.

---

It is. The coin is loaded. Your jump to the conclusion that an unseen conscience entity is involved is unwarranted.First, how can you even include an unseen entity in the calculations at all?Second, being unseen, how do you know it is conscious?

quote:

---

Understood. But the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein molecule still stands. How, pertaining, to this have you based your analagous argument?

---

No, it isn't understood, and the argument does not stand. You are just restating claim, but I don't think you are doing it to be obtuse. If you take something simple, like Penrose tiles, select an arbitrary starting pattern, and start laying them out. The probability that they will evolve into SOMETHING is 100%. If you then take the end result and calculate the chance that THIS PARTICULAR pattern will emerge from an arbitry starting point, the probabilities could be off the scale against. That is what you are doing with the proteins. You take the end result and calculate backwards. It simply doesn't work like that. There is nothing that says these particular proteins, enzymes, or gene had to have evolved. There is nothing that says anything had to evolve. It just happens to be the case that it did. Also consider that your probability calculations are performed with having maybe 99% of the relevant information-- like starting conditions.

quote:

---

Since the basis of my argument is whether chance or a consciousness was responsible and since your analogous argument was pertaining to my statements, I would say it is more than relevant.

---

I gave you an example of a situation wherein your use of probability would give an answer in contradiction to what is observed. It doesn't matter to the example whether or not the rock was thrown by my buddie or just dislodged due to the wind. In either case your probability arguments lead to the same contradictions.

quote:

---

The falling of a rock from a hill (whether by chance or a conscious thrower; you haven't clarified) is far from creating an analogous argument against the impossibility of the coincidental formation of a single protein molecule. Give me a better analogy.

---

It isn't an analogy about the formation of a protein molecule. It is meant to demonstrate the flaw in your use of statistics.

quote:

---

Are you saying that coincidence resulted in the agreement of these three strict conditions for a useful protein all out of the blue??

---

Are you saying that whole and happy proteins would have had to pop up from the 'soup' without any precursors? I doubt any researcher in abiogenisis would make this claim, and hence you are attacking a straw man.

quote:

---

Yet at this point, evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to sustain its presence, it would need to be isolated from the natural setting that it is in and protected under very special conditions.

---

What were the conditions in which the molecules formed, and what are the conditions within which they reside? You don't know. No one knows. Without that information the refutation has no teeth.

quote:

---

If chance is not(and cannot) responsible for the formation of the building-blocks of the living cell, what then is??

---

You have not made a case for this.And you have not answered the question either. Why assume an extra entity?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
Understood. But the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein molecule still stands. How, pertaining, to this have you based your analagous argument?

---

quote:

---

Let me elaborate. The viability of proteins depends on three strict conditions. First condition: that all the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequence

​

Second condition: that all the amino acids in the chain are left-handed

​

Third condition: that all of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called "peptide bond".

---

First off Ahmad, do you realise that there is a slight problem here. If point one is correct (ie if the correct sequence) then point three has been met, other wise there would be no sequence.OK, now I know that you have been corrected on the FACT that evolution does not require abiogenesis. God could have made the first cell. Hell, an undetermined entity whom I will call Bob could have made the first cell, it does not matter. As to the protein arguement, it requires the same pre-supposition that many other creationists prior to you make. That ALL proteins currently around were required 3.5 billions years ago and that ALL functions required, require a single protein sequence (it is called a primary sequence by the way) which is pure, total, unadulterated BS. I think that TB, a creationist, will back me up on this fact although we disagree on the interpretation. (OK TB, you disagree with 3.5 BYr but I think that yo get my point.)Please do this experiment, it is similar to the on which John alluded to. Take a deck of cards, lay it out card by card. Now, what are the odds of that sequence occuring. The math phrase is 52! or ~ 1 x 10^68 (this is a memory so please check the value, some $%$(^$)^%_&&(* borrowed my calculator).Do you begin to get my point.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 11-07-2002]