Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?

By your reasoning medical science would be would be falsified, ad-hoc mental constructs as well, as medical science is constantly reinventing itself, retracting old recommendations, discovering new explanations for medical phenomenon, discarding old treatments, etc. You have yet to address why the paper you cited concluded that there has been enough sampling to cover the entire functional landscape. That the actual space that needs to be searched is vastly smaller than your numbers predict.You have also failed to address the fact that you are drawing a target around a specific function and claiming it is impossible to hit that target, when in reality, there are numerous other targets that exist that could be landed on.HBD

I did that several times already. But I can repeat for you, no problem. Meaningful information in biology is an arrangement of particles(atoms, molecules, cells) with the ability to fulfil a particular structural or enviornmental niche. Examples of structural niches: intron-exon gene structure, female reproductive system, lactose, ATP, and DNA operator. Arrangement of particles with the ability to fulfil these structural niches: RNA splicing machine, male reproductive system, β-Galactosidase, ATP-binding protein and lambda repressor.I gave the empirical example for the ratio of sequences capable of adopting the lambda repressor fold(meaningful information) to the total number of possible 92-residue sequences(total sequence space of information). The ratio is 1 in 10^63. Hence, everything is calculated already but your brothers in faith are denying this empirical result with just so stories because evolution falls short by 20 orders of magnitude to produce just this one selectable effect or adaptation.

Medicine is neither a theory, nor an idea nor a hypothesis but human activity concerned with maintenance of health and the prevention, alleviation, or cure of disease. You are mixing apples and oranges. Finding functional landscape and covering functional landscape once it is found are two completely different things. My numbers are concerned with search for functional landscape. In biology targets are always specific. Ability of the lambda repressor to bind to lambda genome in order to regulate expresion of cI protein is a specific function. About what targets are you talking about? What that even means? Is this again an appeal to generality as an excuse for lack of proper response?

Medicine is based on theories, ideas and hypotheses that change as new discoveries are made. You are just playing word games.How about this: Evolution is also a human activity that is concerned with understanding how organisms change and adapt to the environment and varying selection pressures and how these processes likely affected life in the past as well. This makes no sense.And you still haven't addressed the papers you cited.They claim the estimated size of the possible sequence space is much smaller than the number you used. They argue that 20^x is a meaningless overestimation of the potential sequence space. They suggest that a more meaningful number should be 2^x or 2^x/3, which, if correct, makes your whole argument moot. That still misses my point. Your claim is that to go from target A to target B is impossible because the possible space is enormous (a figure opposed by the paper you cite) and the number of trials is 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the proportion of functional sequences. But this proportion of sequences only applies to target A. It does not establish the proportion of function sequences in target B nor does it establish the functional distance from target A to target B. What if target A and target B are only 10 mutations apart? would that be impossible?Also why does it have to go from target A to target B, and not target C or D or E or F ect. You are drawing the bulls-eye around the target B and claiming it is impossible to start at target A and then hit target B. So, miss target B and hit target Z instead.You also ignore the modularity of proteins. A protein can be made up of a series of domains. Rearranging those domains or deleting one domain (for example deleting a membrane association domain could allow the protein to function in the cytoplasm or the nucleus and completely change how it functions) or translocation of a domain from one location to another can change function without having to sift through the entire possible sequences.HBD

Can you even explain your word salad? You need to define what you mean by these words you strung together.

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

You need to learn some basic definitions. Medicine is a science, which means that it is based on systematic knowledge gained through observation and experimentation. Theories, ideas and hypotheses are just mental construncts that can be verified or falsified by knowledge gained through observation and experimentation. Your attempt to equate falsified mental construct (Darwinian evolution) with something that is based on systematic knowledge is really tragicomical and it shows that you dogmatic darwinists are worse than flat earthers. Understanding how organisms change and adapt to the environment has nothing to do with evolution but with biology. Every living organism has a built in ability to adapt to the environment(phenotypic plasticity). Gaining knowledge about phenotypic plasticity is a part of science. Darwinian evolution on the other hand is the falsified idea based on the assumption that by changing the positions of molecules in the bacterium-like organism you can ultimately turn this organism into lungs, heart, blood vessels, stomach, liver, kidneys, muscles, brain, etc. Biology is a natural science concerned with the study of living organisms that all have functional maintenance and reproduction apparatus. Darwinian evolution on the other hand is just a mental construct, an idea, conjecture..., that of course started as a valid hypothesis suitable for testing and falsification, but due to the fact that it was falsified with scientific discoveries, instead of becoming scientific theory, it became an atheistic dogma. You obviously don't understand the paper you are referring to. Possible protein sequence space is a mathematical fact. It can be represented as a space with n dimensions, where n is the number of amino acids in the protein. Each axis has 20 positions representing the 20 amino acids. I know that you evolutionists hate to talk about real biological examples because they bring into full light the absurdity of your beliefs, but the idea of evolution aims to explain the development of real biological structures that we observe around us. It does not aim to explain the development of your mental targets. So, you have two options: either you will choose real biological structures and explain what do you mean by "functional distance" or you can keep trolling with your ambiguous mental constructs. Here we go again, another false accusations. Now I am accused of ignorance of protein modularity because I stated the fact that the ability of the lambda repressor to bind to lambda genome in order to regulate expresion of cI protein is a specific function. But of course, as usual, you did nothing to prove your accusations. Regarding the translocation of a domain, we are not discussing how the pre-existing functional structures are moved from one position to another, but how these structures came to be in the first place. Your red herring abilities are really astonishing.

Your particular brand of snake oil, however, relies upon waiting for evolution to hit a point on a wall with a near infinite number of possible strike points, and then drawing a target around the strike point and calculating the chances of it hitting that particular point.Evolution is not a theory which anticipates the arrival at the precise forms of life we see today, from its starting point billions of years and trillions of generations ago. It is a theory which explains the pathways which life happens to have taken, to get to the point it happens to have got to.You're right that evolution isn't terribly concerned with possible evolutionary outcomes that didn't occur. Instead, that is something which has to be pointed out to someone who is trying to sell an argument founded on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.The pack of cards is the best way to demonstrate this. I can take a pack of cards, choose one at random 52 times, and put them in a pile. The chances of the pile being in that particular sequence of cards is 1 in 52! . The chances of a well shuffled deck of cards is 1 in 1. Nothing in evolutionary theory says that the end sequence has to be the sequence we see today - that's just how it worked out. I could have had 6 legs, 10 photo sensitive buds on stalks and glinkwurbles instead of hands. As it happens, I don't - no biggie.Edited by vimesey, : Autocorrect error

This is just another word salad. Nothing of value. Just more word salads.

This is because Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with biology.Here is just one example. Genes of today's eukaryotic cells are interrupted by noncoding sequences called introns that need to be removed via splicing machine from the RNA molecule before the process of protein synthesis can begin otherwise they would destroy the protein-coding capacity of genes. So, from the evolutionary perspective, the splicing machine is the complex evolutionary solution to the intron insertions problem, that began early in a cellular live, once these early cells got introns inserted into a critical gene. In other words, if evolution produced splicing machine, then this machine was a specific goal that evolution needed to achieve once early cells got introns within their genomes.Now of course this machine cannot be produced in a step-by-step manner because either you have all four subprocesses - recognition of mRNA and its intron-exon boundaries, cutting the introns out, rearranging the exons, releasing the rearranged molecule - or you are unable to rearrange the mRNA. For example: if we assume the existance of splicing helper proteins that assembly at the intron-exon borders to guide small nuclear ribo proteins to form a splicing machine, this partial correctness of the splicing process won't cause introns to magically disappear without a complete splicing machine. This partial correctness won't cause random, blind and unintelligent process to put aside these helper proteins because they're good for the future splicing function. Evolution has no long term goal, it cannot plan, there is no long distance target to serve as a criterion for selection.So we have a specific target that cannot be produced in a step-by-step manner. And this target is a massive complex comprising five non-coding RNAs and about 200 proteins:SmB/B, SmD1, SmD2, SmD3, SmE1, SmF1, SmG1, LSM2, LSM3, LSM4, LSM5, LSM6, LSM7, LSM8, U1-70kD, U1-A, U1-C, U2-A, U2-B, SF3a60, SF3a66, SF3a120, SF3b49, SF3b145, SF3b130, SF3b155, p14, PRP8, U5-200kD, U5-116kD, U5-102kD, U5-100kD, U5-40kD, U5-15kD, HPRP3, HPRP4, RY-1, USA-Cyp, 15.5 tri-snRNP, U2AF65, SF1, CBP20, CBP80, U2AF35, ASF/SF2, UAP56, PRP5, Tat-SF1, PTB, PRP19, PRP31, DDX16, PRP16, PRP17, SLU7, PRP18, PRP22, EWS, PRP43, PRP24, DDX3, CDC5, ISY1, SYF1, CRN, GCIP-IP, PRL1, BCAS2, SKIP, ECM2, SART1, p68, SPF45, SPF30, PSF, FLJ31121, SAD1, LUC7, SRm300, SRm160, SC35, SRp40, SRp55, SRp75, SRp30c, 9G8, SRp54, SFRS10, SRp20, REF, RNPS1, Y14, MAGOH, hTHO2, hHPR1, HsKin17, ASR2B, KIAA0983, C21orf66, PAB2, CF I-68kD, CF I-25kD, CPSF 160K, HDB/DICE1, Abstrakt, eIF4a3, DDX35, DDX9, KIAA0052, p72, CypE, KIAA0073, Cyp60, PPIL3b, PPIL1, SDCCAG10, KIAA1604, TIP39, G10, FLJ10374, MGC13125, ZNF183, FLJ10634, SF3b14b, SPF31, CHERP, F23858, CA150, SF3b10, SR140, RBM5, E1B-AP5, FLJ10805, MFAP1, KIAA0560, RED protein, Pinin, NOSIP, FLJ10206, PUF60, DGSI, Cactin, FRG1, PMSCL2, RBP 7, MGC23918, SNP70, OTT, IMP3, PRP4 kinase, AcinusL, RNPC2, FLJ90157, NuMA, hnRNP A1, hnRNPA2/B2, hnRNP A3, hnRNP C, hnRNP D, hnRNP F, hnRNP G, hnRNP H1, hnRNP K, hnRNP L, hnRNP M, hnRNPR, hnRNP U, hnRNP RALY, Ku70, PTB, Gry-Rbp, hUR, NF45, NF90, MAT3, YB-1, TLS ip, HSP70-2, HSP71, FUS.And according to darwinists, evolution produced this massive complex via 10^43 random changes while in reality sequence space of just one average protein in this complex is hundreds orders of magnitude larger than the number of these random changes. That is why Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with science. This is just a dogmatic belief system of atheists.

Another word salad. This time accompanied by a Gish Gallop.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

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 do you think it couldn't be produced gradually over time using predecessor processes that slowly became what we see today? Changes are random, but selection is not. There is no single right target. There are many targets. As others are pointing out, you're committing the sharpshooter fallacy.--Percy

Your list of 200 proteins are not all associated into one giant complex. The list you present appears to be all proteins known to have association of any kind to spliceosome activity.I will have to come back later to address some specifics, but some of them are from yeast some from human, so not all of these associate in one complex and at one time. So to represent this list of 200 proteins as a huge complex seems dubious.Do you have a source for this information?HBD

Given the discussion on this thread one interesting question arises: why people who argue for evolution cannot choose only one of many thousands of bio-sturctures and provide an empirical illustration for the ratio of non-bio-functional arrangements of particles to bio-functional arrangements of particles and then, through simple mathematical calculations, put this ratio in the context of resources available to evolution? Because that's what this discussion is all about - bio-functional arrangement of particles must first be present in the population before natural selection can act on it, which means that extracting bio-functional arrangement of particles is the only important physical task that must be completed before the process of adaptation can begin.But instead of illustrating this important point, they are doing everything they can to distract from it. The most used distraction is mantra that I don't understand how evolution works, which obviously has nothing to do with the physical reality of organic matter and its infinite potential for non-biological manifestation. Their other distraction method is asking questions totally unrelated to the issue at hand and making various false accusations. Since it is impossible to have a rational discussion that way, from now on, I will only respond to posts that are concerned with the above mentioned important point of this thread.