Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?

Your source for this is behind a pay-wall. What are those arrangements based on? Are they spatial, physical, chemical? What kind of arrangements?Proteins don't form mechanically so those odds probably aren't apt - most of the time we see this arguments about evolution being too improbable it is because the math is wrong - the statistics are based on the wrong calculations.Added by edit:Here some posts I wrote the last time an argument like this came up:From Message 35

quote:

---

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

​

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

​

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

---

From Message 61

quote:

---

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

​

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

​

quote:

---

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

---

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

In fact, some proteins could form inevitably.

---

From Message 71

quote:

---

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

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

​

No, I meant what I wrote.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Like what? Do you have an example?

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

That's still chemicals doing chemistry.

​

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

​

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

​

Added by edit:

​

From Message 67:

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

---

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

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.

"Extract" is an interesting word-choice...Can you expound on what you mean by that?

Jumps? More like drudges...What are you talking about? Not really. With regards to the things that are evolving, all of the involved bio-structures are going to be functional. If not, they won't reproduce.And there are no jumps to wholly different structures - just functional modifications to pre-existing ones, else no reproduction. Are you describing fitness landscapes? 'Cause those are kinda like that, but not really. Here's a gif of a dynamic one: Wikimedia ErrorNotice how there are no "jumps" in the population, and that it gradually drudges from one island to another? I'm struggling with the analogy, but the "stepping stones" would be like a pile of toppled dominoes that are all partially laying on top of each other rather than like a stone walkway in a garden. Everything is connected and there are no gaps. Well, I'm sure that "probability" is based on bad math, so until you address that I'll continue assuming you're wrong here.But you also don't seem to be considering that if we are talking about populations of organisms that are evolving, then the ones that are reporoducing are going to have to be fully formed and functional - otherwise they won't reproduce. True, but that is nothing to do with evolution. No, because that organism cannot function - therefore it cannot reproduce and therefore it will not contribute to evolution.Also, you're failing to account for another important factor: the changing environment. What was once something that couldn't function well could end up being something that does when the environment is changing. No, your explanation is wrong and you won't address the rebuttals. It turns out that your math is bad and you're either unwilling or unable to address it.

Then why are you avoiding all the posts that talk about that stuff? That's wrong. Not all physical arrangements of particles are possible structures in reality. There are constraints.This error is ruining your probability calculation and your math is bad so your claim is false. And you're wrong because your math is wrong. See my previous posts for more explanations. If you are going to provide an argument against evolution, then the thing you are arguing against has to actually be evolution.This nonsense you are describing and calling evolution is not what scientists call evolution. You're arguing a straw man. Or, on the other hand, we can continue to point out that there is no infinite potential to overcome - that's based on bad math that you are wrong about. We're trying; you're just not replying to those posts. Whatever it is you think you are describing, it isn't how evolution is proposed to actually work. You are not making an argument against evolution, but rather your own cartoon version of it.This, too, has been pointed out to you more than once. Not necessarily, another possibility is that these things don't assemble randomly like your bad math calculations require.

BZZT! Wrong again.Organisms don't evolve, populations do.

Au contraire, the author was talking about chemical processes within individual organisms so they could not be talking about populations.Too, they didn't refer to "organisms", the referred to "an organism".

I don't believe you. Well this is really confusing. I mean, here you come along and tell us that you have an argument against evolution. Then, it turns out that the thing you are arguing against isn't the Theory of Evolution that people ususally mean when they say "evolution". Instead, you are arguing against some different kind of evolution that you are saying is the real biological reality - but also that it cannot work Suppose I told you that dogs don't exist - because in biological reality dogs are green and have five legs and those things just don't exist. Wouldn't you think that's weird? Okay, well I don't know anything about this new evolution of individual organisms you are talking about.I'm only familiar with the Theory of Evolution as put forward by Darwin. By "population genetics", are you referring to the thing that scientists study? Or are you talking about some new biological reality thing that nobody else knows about? Okay, but by "evolution" you are NOT talking about the Theory of Evolution that Darwing originated, correct? There's this thing that helps that is called self-replication. You should learn about it. An ovum doesn't need a heart to divide. It was unable to pass its genes to the next generation in that particular way, but it must be true that is was able to pass on its genes to the next generation in some other way - otherwise it wouldn't be here. It is also wrong. As an evolutionsist, I will respond by saying that I don't believe in the thing that you are talking about when you use the word "evolution", and the scientific theory that I accept is very different from what you are describing. First off, machines are not alive and cannot reproduce. You do know where babies come from, right?Second, other modes just mean its possible - not that it must be that way. Organisms are self-replicating and car engines are not. Organisms can do things that car engines cannot, like reproduce and grow. That matters. Cool story.You should learn about the Theory of Evolution that scientists study. It has a really good explanation for how species have evolved.

And yet, there is a large diversity of species.You can say all you want, meanwhile scientists will continue to employ the Theory of Evolution to solve problems and learn new stuff. It simply works as an explanation despite your erroneous attempts to say it doesn't.Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.With evolution, practically everything does make sense. And the theory works. So there's that. You could've told us that in the beginning...So anyways, to the question of your thread:"Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?"The answer is: Yes, the argument has been disproved in multiple ways by a number of people.

It's obvious they have no idea what they are talking about...

No, seriously: You are so confused about how evolution is proposed to work. And you really need to learn about that Sharpshooter Fallacy.That is so far off that you're not even wrong.If you weren't so conceited and condescending I'd try to explain it to you, but it's obvious that you're a waste of time.Have a nice day.

Why would you argue that? What evidence suggests that to you? Okay, so in the analogy:

quote:

---

Words are genes. Word is a smallest unit of language that functions as a principal carrier of meaning just as gene is a smallest unit of biology that functions as a principal carrier of meaningful molecule(exp. lambda repressor fold). A sentence is a linguistic unit consisting of more words that are grammatically linked into meaningful statement, question, request, command, exclamation, etc., just as assembly of genes is a biological unit consisting of two or more genes that are functionally linked together to perform an important function of the cell or the body. (exp. group of genes that code for RNA splicing machine).

---

How do these words reproduce additional words?What method would you like us to use?Copy and paste characters and then delete the ones we don't want?Or something else?I'll give it a shot: So, using the above method of copying and pasting and then deleting:"of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the nation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the namplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the nament of objectives, such as scientific investigation the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the names, such as scientific investigation the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the names fic investigation the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the names fon the ntific investigation. Technology can be the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the names for the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the names for the daccomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the names for the day can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the names for the days for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the names for the days or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the names for the days of investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be""the names for the days of the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for the ds or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the names for services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be"And so on... looks like I'd need to add a "W" to get the next word, but I think the point is obvious.

I wouldn't do that because it is completely stupid and idiotic and only shows that the person asking the question doesn't understand how evolution is proposed to work.

You, yourself, are the one who set up the challenge to have a target goal in mind! In reality, there is no target goal so your analogy is off to begin with.But I was trying to humor you by sticking within the analogy. And now you're saying that it doesn't count because I could plan for hitting the target that you, yourself, set up in the challenge.That's hilarious! It fails as any kind of argument against evolution, but it is funny nonetheless.You're misunderstanding the nature of selective pressures. There is no target goal in mind, but the environment is what it is. The individuals in the population are either going to reproduce or not, and the environment is going to select which ones do or don't.So in the analogy, I am just the environment - it's not that I'm using magical a priori knowledge of what the target goal is, it's that I'm playing a blind unthinking environment that applies the selective pressures the will only allow the letters in the words to "reproduce" if they are fit for the environment - and fitness to the environment was pre-defined as meeting a selected groups of words.Makes sense?

What do you mean by "built into"?