Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (9005 total)
32 online now:
caffeine, CosmicChimp, PaulK (3 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,189 Year: 12,937/23,288 Month: 662/1,527 Week: 101/240 Day: 0/29 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16550
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(4)
Message 3 of 293 (803481)
03-31-2017 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by forexhr
03-31-2017 3:26 AM


This is essentially an old argument, which may be refuted by pointing out that the origin of the first replicators is outside the scope of evolutionary theory.

The answer, therefore, cannot directly refute evolutionary theory, and there is no reason to assume that it would be a problem for that theory.

I would also add that the assumption that the first replicators were proteins is very likely false and thus any argument centred around the difficulty of finding functional proteins is missing the mark

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


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 5 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 8:38 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16550
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 8 of 293 (803486)
03-31-2017 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by forexhr
03-31-2017 8:38 AM


quote:

This argument is not about the origin of the first replicators. It is about the origin of 'evolutionary-selectable' arrangements of CHNOPS(de novo proteins, molecular machines, organs or organ systems) in the context of the resources available to evolution and all the possible ways in which CHNOPS comprising bio-structures can be arranged.

So you are asking how we got from the first replicators to protein-based life ?

That is still not much of an argument. If evolution was basically false we should find that in the areas we know well, not in attempting to reconstruct the path between largely unknown start and end points.

quote:

Or, let us consider nucleotide arrangements needed to build a human heart.
If we assume that only 8.2 percent of human DNA is functional(1), and given the ratio between the heart-weight and body-weight in humans, there is approximately 1,230,000 nucleotides representing the information to build a human heart. This nucleotides can be arranged into 10e740,000 possible combinations.


And the vast majority of those would be MUCH more difficult to reach than the range of configurations corresponding to human hearts. Evolution does not try random combinations at the level of individual organs at all. Nor does DNA explicitly code for the locations of individual nucleotides. What you are likely to see is minor variations in the proteins - which will often be found in ALL the molecules of that protein or changes in size and shape produced by regulatory changes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 8:38 AM forexhr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 03-31-2017 9:32 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16550
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 18 of 293 (803496)
03-31-2017 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by forexhr
03-31-2017 11:51 AM


This does not seem to be a coherent argument.

Premise 2 seems irrelevant - the idea that purely random configurations of atoms are involved at the level of organs is so obviously false that it need not be considered.

Premise 4 is less obviously bad, but mutations do not produce completely random sequences either. However I note that the article cited in support of it also argues that life may well have tried every possible functional protein, which seems to directly contradict your argument on this point.

Premise 5 is in need of support - assertions that an article behind a paywall supports it seem obviously inadequate.

Premise 6 is contradicted by one of your citations with regard to proteins, and is just silly with regard to organs and anything larger.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 11:51 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 2:35 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16550
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 21 of 293 (803500)
03-31-2017 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by forexhr
03-31-2017 2:35 PM


quote:

Your objections are irrelevant to the problem in question since clusters of CHNOPS in the form of cells can also be arranged into virtually infinite number of junk configurations.

My objection stands. The cells are not arranged randomly nor does DNA directly specify the location of cells.

Since we only have to deal with the combinations reasonably accessible to evolution - and a lot of them will not be - your argument fails even before you take into account the "sharpshooter fallacy" aspect of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 2:35 PM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 3:03 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16550
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 23 of 293 (803502)
03-31-2017 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by forexhr
03-31-2017 3:03 PM


quote:

The DNA codes for spatial arrangements of cells in the form of functional bio-structures

You could say that, but if you think it directly codes locations of individual cells you would be dead wrong.

quote:

A heart valve is one such arrangement, while the ear is another. In between you have a nearly infinite number of junk arrangements

Then it's a good job that nobody thinks that ears evolved from heart valves.

quote:

You can't just wave a magic wand of mutations and jump from one bio-functional arrangement of cells to another, and than claim - natural selection did it!

And I don't. What I do say is that mutations are not the same as completely randomising the arrangement of cells - nowhere near.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 3:03 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16550
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 29 of 293 (803563)
04-02-2017 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by forexhr
04-02-2017 4:45 AM


Arrogantly declaring yourself the victor when you obviously don't know what you are talking about is hardly a winning move.

The simple point is that the mechanisms of evolution are not a random search over every possible configuration of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorous and sulphur atoms. Certain configurations are vastly more likely than others, and any argument that assumes otherwise is fatally flawed.

For comparison, consider a game of chess. While there are many possible configurations of chessmen possible on the board (do not forget to allow for capture and "queening") the rules of the game limit the number possible. Computer chess programs restrict the space further by rejecting options that seem bad - and even relatively simple programs can play the game.

Your observations are therefore largely irrelevant to actual evolution. Even protein evolution - where your argument is least weak - relies far more on modification of existing proteins than on creating new sequences.

quote:

I am not here to engage in endless debates about about evolution and creation or intelligent design, but to suggest people to stop thinking in terms of concepts created in human minds and start thinking in terms of physicochemical reality.

When do you intend to start doing that yourself ?

quote:

The theory of evolution is just a concept created in a human mind, or more specifically - a classification system that classifies living things according to similarity - nothing more nothing less.

That's taxonomy, not the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution deals with the mechanisms by which life is modified over time. And your argument ignores those mechanisms in favour of something that creates random assortments of atoms. Talk about ignoring physiochemical (and biological) reality !

You may certainly choose to run away, proclaiming an imaginary victory rather than face the fact that your argument is hopelessly flawed and obviously ignores observed reality. But that is hardly productive - although rather typical of creationists, it must be said.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by forexhr, posted 04-02-2017 4:45 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by forexhr, posted 04-02-2017 7:43 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16550
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


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


quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

Regarding the taxonomy this is just another word for the concept of evolution since mechanisms by which life is modified over time are physicochemical and not conceptual.

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

quote:

In other words, life is modified the same way as any collection of matter in our universe - particles or clusters of particles are interacting and changing their spatial arrangements on the basis of four fundamental forces of nature - gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Just because people created a concept that describes bio-similarity and just because clasters of particles in the form of molecules(or cells) are capable to change their spatial positions due to mutations for e.g., it does not follow that bacteria like arrangement of particles will become heart like arrangement of particles

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

quote:

he reason for that is simple - even if every proton in the observable universe were an organism, reproducing at the highest speed physically possible(10e43/sec - which is inverse of Planck time), from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when protons no longer exist), they would still need need a ridiculously longer time - more than two thousand orders of magnitude longer - to explore all possible spatial arrangements of just a thousand particles

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

quote:

The probability to find highly isolated clusters of bio-functionality(useful in terms of natural selection) in these arrangements is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event. No human concept can change that.

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


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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16550
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 47 of 293 (803692)
04-03-2017 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by forexhr
04-03-2017 4:58 AM


In other words you ignore valid criticisms of your argument because other people show errors in your premises.

Trying to brow-beat opponents into submission is not a workable strategy here.

I will repeat the basic flaw in your argument again. The number of possible arrangements of atoms is irrelevant because evolution does not work by random sampling.


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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16550
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(2)
Message 52 of 293 (803755)
04-04-2017 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by forexhr
04-04-2017 3:14 AM


So basically your argument boils down to the assumption that there must be places in the history of life where evolution would have had to cross an unbridgeable gap in "fitness space". Unfortunately for you, despite all your rhetoric that is just an assumption - and one that is not mentioned in your original argument.

So, at this stage, you have implicitly admitted the failure of your original argument and the replacement is hardly compelling. An assumption is hardly enough to overturn conclusions with a solid base in evidence. So, you may consider yourself refuted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by forexhr, posted 04-04-2017 3:14 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16550
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 58 of 293 (803816)
04-05-2017 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by forexhr
04-05-2017 7:27 AM


Back to the same mistake
quote:

Given the fact that a heart for e.g. is also a 3D structure composed of particles(cells) and given the fact that there are billions of these particles, no evolutionary model, hypotheses or fictional explanation can change the fact that 10e43 evolutionary changes in spatial arrangemants of particles(mutations) are insufficient to extract functional, pump like structure from these particles.

10^43 random rearrangements wouldn't be enough. Evolution doesn't work by random rearrangements.

Now do you actually have an argument that takes account of the actual processes involved or are you going to go on wasting your time repeating the same error again and again ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 7:27 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 8:37 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16550
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 63 of 293 (803830)
04-05-2017 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by forexhr
04-05-2017 8:37 AM


Re: Back to the same mistake
quote:

It is irrelevant how evolution works

If you are making claims about what evolution can and cannot do the fact that it is not equivalent to pure random guessing is very relevant.

quote:

Evolution is just a name for a human mental construct. What is relevant is to refute my claim that evolutionary resources are insufficient to extract functional bio-structures from clusters of particles.

Which I've just done. Your argument is based on a ridiculous false assumption which even you have backed away from. Until you fix that problem your argument is refuted.

quote:

This is actually you job. You have to provide an argument that takes account of the actual evolutionary processes and show how these processes overcome infinite potential of matter for non-biological manifestation.

If you can't be bothered to correct the major error in your argument why should I put any more effort into refuting it ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 8:37 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 9:36 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16550
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 74 of 293 (803860)
04-05-2017 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by forexhr
04-05-2017 9:36 AM


Re: Back to the same mistake
quote:

Sorry Paul, but you cannot refute an argument by saying: your argument is based on a ridiculous false assumption. You need to explain why the assumption is false

Since you claimed to have a logical proof it is quite definitely up to you to show that either the assumption is true or to explain why the total number of possible arrangements of atoms is at all relevant.

In fact since evolution, considered as a search, relies on iteratively generating variations and selecting from them, as you have admitted, it is clear that the assumption is false and that you know that it is false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 9:36 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020