Premise 2: In order to find functional bio-structures - lungs, heart, blood vessels, stomach, liver, kidneys, muscles, brain, nerves, skin, hair, ovaries, uterus, testes, prostate, penis, bones, ligaments..., it is necessary to change spatial arrangements of CHNOPS.
This is your first mistake. Life needs none of those things. Bacteria get along just fine without any of those features.
Premise 3: In order to change spatial arrangements of CHNOPS we need resources.
Premise 4: There were 10e43 resources(mutations) available in the whole evolution process.
Premise 5: There are 10e63 junk(non-selectable) arrangements of CHNOPS in just one simple bio-structure (protein).
You have these really wrong:
"Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). " http://www.talkorigins.org/...ction4.html#protein_redundancy
There are 1E93 possible combinations of amino acids that will produce a functional cytochrome c protein, and that is just one protein. When you expand this to all functional proteins, your 1E43 calculation appears to be way off.
I am not an expert in this area, but Barbara McClintock, who was, said that the occurrence of the movement and placement of transposable elements is non-random. I believe that these elements are used by cells to regulate specific coding regions of the genome in response to a certain environmental factor. How this happens, exactly, I don’t know.
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.
Does that make sense? No.
If beneficial mutations are possible then it is only a matter of time until a random mutation is beneficial, just as it is only a matter of time until a random lottery will produce a winner. Since we can see that DNA differences between species are beneficial in those species, then we already know that beneficial mutations can happen. You don't need to preprogram mutations. Random mutations will find those beneficial changes just fine.
I have read her papers. The mechanisms of mutation she points to produce neutral, beneficial, and detrimental mutations. They are random with respect to fitness.
We're talking about the causes of the jumps, and not about the characteristics of transposable elements.
Those causes are not tied to fitness in any meaningful manner. A transposon does not jump to one specific genetic locus and only that locus in response to a specific environment stimuli. No one, including McClintock, has shown this to be the case. Transposons jump all over the genome, and those insertions can be neutral, beneficial, or detrimental.
Also, the ToE has nothing to do with biology, but it is a concept, a human mental construct about unseen past events that is contradicted by every instance of observation in biology.
The theory of evolution explains the morphology of fossils, genetic divergence between species, and the distribution of physical characteristics seen in living species. All of these things are seen here and now. You also haven't produced a single observation that contradicts the theory.
I already said why I think so: "given the fact that most mutations are neutral or harmful, while mutation in British peppered moths resulted in a phenotypic effect(non-neutreal) and it didn't negatively affect the protein-coding capacity of the cortex gene(non-harmful) that indicates that this mutation was pre-programmed in the genome."
If most random mutations are neutral or harmful, then that means some random mutations are beneficial.
How do you know that the mutation was not non-random(pre-programmed)?
The same way that we know that fingerprints are not planted at crime scenes by mischievous leprechauns.
If you want to claim that mutations are preprogrammed, then you have the burden of proof for showing us the evidence and mechanism by which they are preprogrammed. You don't get to invoke magic without any evidence, and then claim magic is true until someone disproves it.
"Predictable evolution trumps randomness of mutations"
"In the new study, published online today in Public Library of Science Biology5, Doebeli and colleague Matthew Herron, also at UBC, went back to the frozen samples from three of their test tubes and sequenced 17 gene samples from various stages of the experiment. The DNA showed that in some cases identical mutations appeared independently in all three test tubes: despite the random nature of mutations, the same changes in the environment favoured the same genetic solutions"
And... what does randomness or non-randomness of shape modification have to do with my argument about the lack of resources?
Were those the only mutations that occurred? I guarantee that they weren't.
If you have a random process that assigns lottery number and enough trials you will still have two people who have the same numbers on their tickets. Does this mean that the process is not random? No.
Just as with a lottery there is not just one winning solution. There are lots of solutions that can be winners; maybe smaller prizes but still winners. But there is the advantage that in living things unlike lottery tickets, even the ones that did not win the last lottery are carried forward and so might win the next lottery.
Only those mutations that are so bad you don't get to stick around for the next lottery are completely weeded out. They don't get to play and those players are marked "EXTINCT".
Precisely. We can use poker as a good example. After a hand of poker, we can calculate the odds of the winning person getting those exact 5 cards (if my math skills are correct 1/(52!-48!)), and those odds would be extremely low. However, someone wins every hand of poker, even though the odds of getting that winning hand are extremely low.
What ID/creationists just can't get their heads around is that the biology we see isn't the only possible outcome. They paint the bullseye around the arrow, thinking that what we see was planned from the start. Contingency isn't a word in their dictionary.
"Given the fact that most mutations are neutral or harmful, while mutation in British peppered moths resulted in a phenotypic effect(non-neutreal) and it didn't negatively affect the protein-coding capacity of the cortex gene(non-harmful) that indicates that this mutation was pre-programmed in the genome."--forexhr
You are claiming that it had to be pre-programmed because it was a winner.
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.
In the case of the peppered moth, we already know that they have a winning lottery ticket. Are you saying that you wouldn't believe anyone who told you that they won the lottery by random chance? Are you saying that someone has to rig the lottery in order for someone to win?
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.
How is it unknown? We can observe transposons jumping randomly within a genome. Even you have said that transposon mutagenesis can result in negative, neutral, or even beneficial changes. That is the very definition of a random process of mutation.
Re: Your capacity for non sequiturs is breathtaking
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.
You can also have different 3D structures that perform the same function. That's the part you keep missing.
About 20 years ago, I was "lucky" enough to screen about 3,000 mutants for a specific gene knockout after a round of transposon mutagenesis. This was prior to modern times where a bacterial genome can be quickly sequenced and annotated. I know that transposons can randomly mutate a genome because I've personally watched it happen.
Like Genomicus, I also find it interesting that creationists can brazenly make sweeping conclusions about a vast area of biology with little or no knowledge of the relevant science. At some point, these threads are more about the psychology of creationism than the actual science, since the creationists really aren't all that interested in the science to begin with. How does a belief system remove curiosity and replace it with denial and unfounded confidence? An interesting question, for sure.
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.
Please explain why transposons have nothing to do with the topic.
In this thread, I proved that there haven't been enough resources in the history of life to find these 3D shapes.
You made the assertion, but never provided the proof.
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.
There are other 3D shapes that can perform the same functions, and other functions that can result in a viable species.
From the very start, you are committing the Sharpshooter fallacy, and it destroys the rest of your argument.
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.
You never demonstrated that a single one of those genes is required for the development of a heart. You only showed that those are the genes that result in a heart in the mouse. Until you understand the difference between those two things, you will continue to commit the same logical fallacies.