A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[pitabread]

Identifiable way. they sure look like amazing and very well coordinated machinery that appear designed. Just like we recognize design in Mt Rushmore we should be able to recognize design in a living cell.

Once again, we recognize Mt. Rushmore as being designed because of pre-existing knowledge of its construction by humans.

What pre-existing knowledge do we have of an intelligent designer creating living organisms?

 

[stevevw]

here's another one. looks like a mess but the protein has to be folded is a very precise way and so does every protein. This take a high level of specified and functional complexity.

 

[Speedwell]

here's another one. looks like a mess but the protein has to be folded is a very precise way and so does every protein. This take a high level of specified and functional complexity.

And...?

 

[stevevw]

Those are human-made animations/diagrams of biological structures.

So are you saying that the living cell and flagella do not look or work like the diagrams and animations. The video that the cell machinery cam e from claims that they were real life replications but with colour added.

What do those have to do with how life forms were created?

If it looks designed then maybe it is designed. I think humans have an intuition about design. We can recognize it when we see it.

 

[stevevw]

And...?

only something designed could produce this.

 

[Speedwell]

So are you saying that the living cell and flagella do not look or work like the diagrams and animations. The video that the cell machinery cam e from claims that they were real life replications but with colour added.

If it looks designed then maybe it is designed.

Maybe; as the presence of design is an unfalsifiable proposition, you can assert it whenever you want. It could even be present if those biological structures evolved naturally. So what?

You want to prove the presence of design. In order to do that you have to have a process by which the design gets into the structures.

 

[Speedwell]

only something designed could produce this.

That is what you are trying to prove. You can't use it as a premise in your argument.

 

[pitabread]

So are you saying that the living cell and flagella do not look or work like the diagrams and animations. The video that the cell machinery cam e from claims that they were real life replications but with colour added.

I'm saying that is completely besides the point. The picture I showed of Mt. Rushmore showed it during the process of its construction.

Can you show me a living organism under the process of construction by an intelligent designer?

If it looks designed then maybe it is designed.

"Looks designed" doesn't tell us anything useful. By the same token, I could say they look evolved and therefore are evolved.

And indeed we have knowledge of the processes by which organisms can and do evolve; the same cannot be said for intelligent design as put forth by ID proponents.

If you want to argue that living things are the product of design, you need to start with the process of how that occurred.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

only something designed could produce this.

You keep saying that. But you've not given any evidence that it was designed.
Just showing us a picture of the thing and saying "Oh, it has to be designed" is not evidence for it being designed.

 

[Kylie]

This type of info is hard to create with a blind and random process.

You know, considering how many times you've been told that evolution is not random, I just have to assume that you are deliberately ignoring it so you can hold onto your strawman argument.

And if that's the case, why should anyone bother discussing it with you?

 

[Kylie]

Do you have to prove who did a rock carving or just prove it was made by something intelligent as opposed to say wind or water erosion.

But erosion has certain characteristics that are not present in a carving.

Actually I am not asking for direct evidence for a multiverse or trying to prove God directly but simply saying that using ideas that cannot be directly verified as you are with the multiverse to counter fine tuning is like someone trying to prove God with indirect evidence. So I am actually acknowledging the futility of trying to prove the unverifiable whether that be a multiverse of God.

Of course, I've never seen an argument for God or ID that doesn't contain logical fallacies, and believers seem to be okay with that, but I'd never suggest that anyone accept the multiverse idea as definitely true unless it had support, but, well....

Whether God or an alien or some other god or entity we don,t know about is responsible does not matter. ID is concerned with processes and verifying those processes scientifically so a god cannot enter the equation as this cannot be verified scientifically.

But there's the thing...

If we are going to say that life on Earth needs ID to explain it, then where did the alien intelligent designer come from? Did they require ID as well? In which case, nothing's really been explained, we've just pushed back the flaw in the idea a step. Or perhaps the aliens did NOT require ID, in which case we've shown that intelligent life can arise without using ID, so why not just say that life on Earth arose without the need for ID as well?

And if you are going to try to get around it by saying that it was God instead of aliens, then you're admitting that ID is just creationism in disguise, and let's treat it like the religious idea it is instead of trying to pretend it's scientific.

yes. That is what it comes down to. Or for science to show that directly that there is a multiverse. But at the moment all we have is one universe we know of.

But there's nothing that shows that a multiverse is impossible. The lack of evidence for a multiverse is rather different to the logical flaws that speak against ID.

As far as I know the pothole analogy is based on one pot hole. The original example does not specify that there were other potholes out there in some multiverse. Remember they cannot use other potholes within the same universe as this is not the same as a fine tuned universe for intelligent life. There is not mention of other planets in our universe with intelligent life.

Just because the puddle isn't aware of other potholes doesn't mean there aren't any, just like how we may be unaware of other universes, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

That sounds a lot like what some say counter when others say God cannot be proven in saying that God cannot be disproved either.

I can give lots of examples of lines of reasoning that suggest that God is unlikely, as can, I'm sure, most atheists. So it's not really just a case of there not being any evidence to support, it's a case of there actually being evidence against. So far as I'm aware, there isn't any evidence to show that a multiverse is impossible.

But just like on our planet and in our universe we are betting on our particular physical settings any other planet in another universe will be betting on their specific physical settings. So each of these bets will be betting on a completely different outcome. So we can only take our particular situation if we are to access the odd correctly. Why would we for example want to bet on some unverifiable planet in an non unverifiable universe on a situation we have in our universe and visa versa.

I do not think you understand my point.

If every outcome happens and one of those outcomes is life, then life will happen. It doesn't matter how low the chances of it are. If every outcome happens, then even the lowest probability outcome WILL happen.

But the puddle example is only speaking about one chance isn't it. If it is speaking about some puddle multiverse can you show me where it mentions this.

It is talking about the one OUTCOME where the puddle of that shape is in the pothole of the corresponding shape.

Let's say there were an infinite number of potholes of every shape and you tried putting identical puddles into each. If the puddle fits, then it stays. If it doesn't fit, then the puddle is removed. You're going to end up with only one puddle remaining - the one in the pothole that fits. And that outcome was guaranteed, since if the potholes are in every possible shape, then it was guaranteed that one of those shapes would match the shape of the puddle.

You forgot that I stated if we don't appeal to a multiverse then life and the conditions have to be a certain way.

True.

But you've given no good reason not to do so.

I see where the confusion is coming from. I understand the concept of a multiverse and that is not the issue. The puddle example is not based on a multiverse but you are injecting one into it. We are going back and forth between fine tuned and multiverse. I keep saying that you cannot use a multiverse to counter fine tuning because it is unverified but you keep using it. It is a circular argument.

Well, of course the puddle example wasn't originally intended to talk about multiverses. It was originally intended to show that life will adapt to fit whatever conditions it finds, just like how a puddle, made of a liquid, is able to change shape to perfectly fit whatever hole it finds itself in. However, you (having decided for some reason that life can only exist in one form and so assumed the puddle can only exist in one shape, must find a pothole that perfectly fits it) completely missed the point.

It seems I am now repeating myself. The puddle example does not use a multiverse idea. So it does not explain how the specific physical conditions that the fluid life adapted to got there as opposed to the many other settings for the physical parameters. You keep introducing the multiverse idea into the puddle example when it is not based on this. If it is can you show me or are you just assuming this. I think the puddle is only based on being on planet earth and only in our universe. But please correct me if I am wrong.

Again, the original point of the puddle example was to show that life adapts. You have constantly said that this doesn't happen, claiming that the universe needed the right conditions to support the life that would later arise. I attempted many times to correct you by telling you that life would adapt to fit whatever conditions were present, but you just didn't seem to understand.

Hence I decided to humour you and show you that even if we assumed the shape of the puddle was fixed an unalterable, if we have an infinite number of potholes, then one of them would still fit.

Which idea am I arguing for that scientists have dismissed.

Intelligent design.

Actually it was the other way around. I said the fine tuning argument requires a multiverse to counter it and that's why scientists use it.

But you've constantly assumed that life could only be the way we see it. If the conditions were different, life would adapt to suit those conditions.

yes I remember but what you forgot was that the lottery did not work and I linked a couple of well known atheist scientists to support that. ie

For them all to be what they are by random chance is the very unlikely probability of 1 part in 10 to the power of 234. You certainly would not bet on these odds.
How Did We Wind Up in Such an Unlikely Universe?

As Lee Smolin states who is a atheist
Lee Smolin, The life of the Cosmos, page 53:
Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229. To illustrate how truly ridiculous this number is, we might note that the part of the universe we can see from earth contains about 10^22 stars which together contain about 10^80 protons and neutrons. These numbers are gigantic, but they are infinitesimal compared to 10^229. In my opinion, a probability this tiny is not something we can let go unexplained. Luck will certainly not do here; we need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case.
How Did We Wind Up in Such an Unlikely Universe?
So a lottery is not going to explain these extremely high odds of it happening.

If you are thinking about bringing in the multiverse idea again and then having a lottery on each planet and in each universe it still won't work as each will be subject to the same odds and will not be a combined effort as each is betting on the physical conditions of their own universe and not ours. They don't even know our universe exists. It just spreads the problem. besides we are getting into non-scientific areas now. And I am not trying to verifying God

You completely missed the point - once again.

If you have every ticket, it doesn't matter how low the odds are, you are still guaranteed to win.

 

[stevevw]

I'm saying that is completely besides the point. The picture I showed of Mt. Rushmore showed it during the process of its construction.

Can you show me a living organism under the process of construction by an intelligent designer?

So what about the machinery I posted that builds proteins. Proteins are the building blocks for living things. These can be the mechanisms that an intelligent agent uses for design. It support comes from the fact that the level of specified and functional complexity can only be provided by an intelligent agent. Just like we know that the level of info and complexity in a computer program or machine comes from an intelligent agent (humans). The same with a protein that builds organs and bodies.

"Looks designed" doesn't tell us anything useful. By the same token, I could say they look evolved and therefore are evolved.

It is more about a humans intuition rather than going into any depth of inquiry. As humans we know design when we see it. If we find a carving on a beach we know it is designed as opposed to something the result of chance.

And indeed we have knowledge of the processes by which organisms can and do evolve; the same cannot be said for intelligent design as put forth by ID proponents. If you want to argue that living things are the product of design, you need to start with the process of how that occurred.

Having knowledge and showing how evolution can account for that level of design is another thing. That's when we can begin to see that evolution cannot account for what we see and that there may be other ways to account for how life came about. That is why I support ideas like in the EES. They support mechanisms that life is design with that add direction to how life changes rather than blind chance.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[stevevw]

But erosion has certain characteristics that are not present in a carving.

Or it could be the other way around where a carving has certain characteristics that are not present in something caused by erosion. Those characteristics are what determine design. The certain angles and lines, the mindfulness of the strokes.

Of course, I've never seen an argument for God or ID that doesn't contain logical fallacies, and believers seem to be okay with that, but I'd never suggest that anyone accept the multiverse idea as definitely true unless it had support, but, well....

So if you wanted to verify something like God how would you do that considering that you can never see God directly as He is in some other dimension. It is a bit like the multiverse and I agree that neither can be verified directly. But just like some scientists want to verify some ideas that stem from quantum physics use indirect support I think this should be also applied to God with ID.

But there's the thing...

If we are going to say that life on Earth needs ID to explain it, then where did the alien intelligent designer come from? Did they require ID as well? In which case, nothing's really been explained, we've just pushed back the flaw in the idea a step. Or perhaps the aliens did NOT require ID, in which case we've shown that intelligent life can arise without using ID, so why not just say that life on Earth arose without the need for ID as well? [/quote] That's why we don't try to explain or verify who the designer is as it can go on and on and is futile. It is not relevant to verifying ID as ID can be verified through its level of specified and functional complexity. There are criteria for it to measure things and to determine if it meets that criteria. As opposed to something that is caused by blind chance.

And if you are going to try to get around it by saying that it was God instead of aliens, then you're admitting that ID is just creationism in disguise, and let's treat it like the religious idea it is instead of trying to pretend it's scientific.

But if it states that it uses the scientific method how can it then include the super-naturalism of creationism. Its like saying that evolution includes a supernatural component that causes life to evolve. You cannot just claim that the founders of ID who claim that ID does not include the supernatural and then say it does without showing how it does. As I posted earlier ID has predictions and tests observations in life to see if they meet specified and functional complexity which has the level of info that intelligence has rather than being the result if blind chance processes.

Intelligent design theory detects design through only the scientific method. Intelligent design theory tells us (i.e. "knows") that life was designed by using the scientific method and uses no reliance upon faith or divine revelation.
FAQ: Is ID just a religious or theological concept?

But there's nothing that shows that a multiverse is impossible. The lack of evidence for a multiverse is rather different to the logical flaws that speak against ID.

not really. How is that.

Just because the puddle isn't aware of other potholes doesn't mean there aren't any, just like how we may be unaware of other universes, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

But the other other universes in a multiverse only come into play to counter the fine tuned argument because we have accepted that our universe is fine tuned. The original puddle analogy that you are using is only about our world and universe and is only looking at cause and effect in our universe. You are changing the puddle example by introducing other puddles in other universe. I accept that you can change the analogy to include a puddle multiverse but that is different to the thinking is with the puddle original puddle example. That is why it can be shot down because it cannot appeal to other puddles in other dimensions.

I can give lots of examples of lines of reasoning that suggest that God is unlikely, as can, I'm sure, most atheists. So it's not really just a case of there not being any evidence to support, it's a case of there actually being evidence against. So far as I'm aware, there isn't any evidence to show that a multiverse is impossible.

Such as. Lines of evidence about ideas/hypothesis are one thing but direct verifying evidence that disproves God is another. Just like a multiverse that occupies other dimensions God occupies another dimension so we can never occupy that space to directly know that either are verified.

 

[Speedwell]

So what about the machinery I posted that builds proteins. Proteins are the building blocks for living things. These can be the mechanisms that an intelligent agent uses for design. It support comes from the fact that the level of specified and functional complexity can only be provided by an intelligent agent. Just like we know that the level of info and complexity in a computer program or machine comes from an intelligent agent (humans). The same with a protein that builds organs and bodies.

How is the machinery which builds proteins built?

It is more about a humans intuition rather than going into any depth of inquiry. As humans we know design when we see it. If we find a carving on a beach we know it is designed as opposed to something the result of chance.

Maybe for you, but science requires something better--an objective, repeatable test.

Having knowledge and showing how evolution can account for that level of design is another thing. That's when we can begin to see that evolution cannot account for what we see and that there may be other ways to account for how life came about. That is why I support ideas like in the EES. They support mechanisms that life is design with that add direction to how life changes rather than blind chance.

EES is part of evolutionary biology. If "evolution" is "blind chance" then so is EES. If you re-ran the biological clock with EES you wouldn't be likely to get the present biosphere either--which seems to be your objection to evolution.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That's why we don't try to explain or verify who the designer is as it can go on and on and is futile. It is not relevant to verifying ID as ID can be verified through its level of specified and functional complexity. There are criteria for it to measure things and to determine if it meets that criteria. As opposed to something that is caused by blind chance.

What are the units of measurement? Please provide specific examples of where specified and functional complexity have been measured.

 

[Speedwell]

Or it could be the other way around where a carving has certain characteristics that are not present in something caused by erosion. Those characteristics are what determine design. The certain angles and lines, the mindfulness of the strokes.

Yes, characteristics like tool marks, drilled holes which supported scaffolding, things like that. Evidence of intentional design never resides in the object itself, only evidence of intentional manufacture from which intention can be inferred. "Mindfulness of the strokes" is just woo.

 

[stevevw]

I do not think you understand my point.

If every outcome happens and one of those outcomes is life, then life will happen. It doesn't matter how low the chances of it are. If every outcome happens, then even the lowest probability outcome WILL happen.

So you are disputing the links I posted from greater minds than you or I who understand the odds say that any betting or lottery comparisons will not work because it is beyond those sort of comparisons.

It is talking about the one OUTCOME where the puddle of that shape is in the pothole of the corresponding shape.

Let's say there were an infinite number of potholes of every shape and you tried putting identical puddles into each. If the puddle fits, then it stays. If it doesn't fit, then the puddle is removed. You're going to end up with only one puddle remaining - the one in the pothole that fits. And that outcome was guaranteed, since if the potholes are in every possible shape, then it was guaranteed that one of those shapes would match the shape of the puddle.

OK we are going back and fourth on this now and getting no where. Lets just say that on the one hand we have the idea of a fine tuned universe for intelligent life and on the other hand to counter this we can have a multiverse or multi puddle scenario where there are many variations of universes or holes that make the fine tuned universe for intelligent life not so special.

True.

But you've given no good reason not to do so.

Apart from the fact that the only real scenario we can look at and test is our universe which shows it is fine tuned for intelligent life. All else is speculation.

Well, of course the puddle example wasn't originally intended to talk about multiverses. It was originally intended to show that life will adapt to fit whatever conditions it finds, just like how a puddle, made of a liquid, is able to change shape to perfectly fit whatever hole it finds itself in. However, you (having decided for some reason that life can only exist in one form and so assumed the puddle can only exist in one shape, must find a pothole that perfectly fits it) completely missed the point.[/quote] The only reason I thought it could only exist in one form for verification purposes is because that is the only form we have (us) who happen to be intelligent life. If we start using non-verified ideas then we are stepping outside science. It could say that all the other universes have God made intelligent beings in them as well. How would you dispute them directly. It is the same as how would you verify there are many other universes that have varying types of life. So it is really a thought experiment and nothing more.

Again, the original point of the puddle example was to show that life adapts. You have constantly said that this doesn't happen, claiming that the universe needed the right conditions to support the life that would later arise. I attempted many times to correct you by telling you that life would adapt to fit whatever conditions were present, but you just didn't seem to understand.

But if we only had one universe and the conditions were not right for life how does it adapt to those conditions.

Hence I decided to humour you and show you that even if we assumed the shape of the puddle was fixed an unalterable, if we have an infinite number of potholes, then one of them would still fit.

Yes what you keep forgetting when I say that life had to be a certain way is that in real terms the only thing we can talk about is the universe we live in (this one) which happens to be a certain way. Introducing multiverses for universe and potholes is a good idea and counter but it is just an idea, a though experiment and not scientifically verified. Sometimes I think I am the atheists debating a person who believes (has faith) in the great pot hole multiverse god.

Intelligent design.

Oh OK, but not all scientists

But you've constantly assumed that life could only be the way we see it. If the conditions were different, life would adapt to suit those conditions.

If the conditions were different where, on this planet and in our universe or in a multiverse.

You completely missed the point - once again.

If you have every ticket, it doesn't matter how low the odds are, you are still guaranteed to win.

actually the odds they are talking about you would need more people that there possible is to sell enough tickets to meet the odds. In other words you would only sell a small fraction of the amount of tickets then run out of people by something like 10 to the power of 230. Which is a 10 with 230 zeros. A trillion only has 12 zeros so it is massively big odds beyond anything we could imagine and bet on.

 

[xianghua]

In this case what you are talking about is a probability distribution. (Personally, I'd caution at using strict averages since they can be highly misleading due to outliers).

That's still not the same thing as a strict number of mutations, which is what you are implying every time you say "number of mutations".

10^30 is still a huge number and if a tipical new system will need so much mutations i dont think that it can happen even in billions of years.

What's the difference? Life all uses the same basic DNA code and in a discussion of functional versus non-functional proteins, the type of organism involved seems irrelevant.

the difference is in the size of the population. bacteria can reach about 10^30 mutations per day. when for say a reptile it may take about the whole age of the earth.

 

[Speedwell]

But if we only had one universe and the conditions were not right for life how does it adapt to those conditions.

Then there wouldn't be any life, duh! And nobody sitting around wondering why there wasn't any.

 

[stevevw]

What are the units of measurement? Please provide specific examples of where specified and functional complexity have been measured.

Here are some examples
Measuring meaningful information in images: algorithmic specified complexity
We have estimated the probability of various images by using the number of bits required for the PNG encoding. This allows us to approximate the algorithmic specified complexity (ASC) of the various images. We have shown hundreds of thousands of bits of ASC in various circumstances. Given the bound established on producing high levels of ASC, we conclude that the images containing meaningful information are not simply noise. Additionally, the simplicity of an image such as the solid square also does not exhibit ASC. Thus, we have demonstrated the theoretical applicability of ASC to the problem of distinguishing information from noise and have outlined a methodology where sizes of compressed files can be used to estimate the meaningful information content of images.
https://digital-library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/iet-cvi.2014.0141
Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity
Functional information, which we illustrate with letter sequences, artificial life, and biopolymers, thus represents the probability that an arbitrary configuration of a system will achieve a specific function to a specified degree. In each case we observe evidence for several distinct solutions with different maximum degrees of function, features that lead to steps in plots of information versus degree of function.
Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins
We have extended Shannon uncertainty by incorporating the data variable with a functionality variable. The resulting measured unit, which we call Functional bit (Fit), is calculated from the sequence data jointly with the defined functionality variable. To demonstrate the relevance to functional bioinformatics, a method to measure functional sequence complexity was developed and applied to 35 protein families. Considerations were made in determining how the measure can be used to correlate functionality when relating to the whole molecule and sub-molecule. In the experiment, we show that when the proposed measure is applied to the aligned protein sequences of ubiquitin, 6 of the 7 highest value sites correlate with the binding domain.
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins