A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[stevevw]

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

Exactly. So because we have intelligent life in our universe the conditions must be conducive for intelligent life. So at least in our universe and if there was only our universe we have specific physical parameters for producing intelligent life.

 

[stevevw]

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.

For me mindfulness of strokes would be like seeing brush strokes that have created a landscape compared to no mindfulness such as a tin of paint that spilled onto a canvas.

 

[Speedwell]

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

Those are all interesting papers, but none of them appear at first glance to support ID. Can you discuss them, or did you just link them off some ID website?

 

[Speedwell]

Exactly. So because we have intelligent life in our universe the conditions must be conducive for intelligent life. So at least in our universe and if there was only our universe we have specific physical parameters for producing intelligent life.

And do your realize what that means? Your legs are fine-tuned to be exactly the right length. If they were any longer you would have to walk around with your knees bent, and if they were any shorter your feet wouldn't touch the ground.

 

[stevevw]

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?

I never said evolution is rand. I said blind natural selection acting on random mutations. Is has no purpose or direction. What can be regarded as beneficial for one generation for reproduction can become something that wipes out creatures in the next. Evolution has no way of knowing that and seeing ahead of time. So it can continue to produce creatures that end up sick and dying out as much as those who go on to reproduce. I also introduces deadly mutations into a finely tuned and already working genetic network that needed to maintain its current status. Despite selection being said to weed these out the damage can already be done and not all gets weeded out. So in that sense it is random because there is no direction for ensuring fitness.

 

[Speedwell]

I never said evolution is rand. I said blind natural selection acting on random mutations. Is has no purpose...

I thought we'd been over this already. You can't falsify purpose by examining the process itself.

...or direction.

It has the direction of increasing adaptedness.

What can be regarded as beneficial for one generation for reproduction can become something that wipes out creatures in the next. Evolution has no way of knowing that and seeing ahead of time. So it can continue to produce creatures that end up sick and dying out as much as those who go on to reproduce.

If creatures with a certain trait fail to reproduce, then that trait will be rapidly extinguished.

I also introduces deadly mutations into a finely tuned and already working genetic network that needed to maintain its current status. Despite selection being said to weed these out the damage can already be done and not all gets weeded out. So in that sense it is random because there is no direction for ensuring fitness.

And that is just word salad.

 

[stevevw]

Those are all interesting papers, but none of them appear at first glance to support ID. Can you discuss them, or did you just link them off some ID website?

No these are papers I have come across in my studies from mainstream journals. There are journals full of these types of papers. This is a growing area of study. The first paper is about measuring the algorithmic specified complexity in images. This is done by determine if an image contains randomness or patterns and meaning. Portable network graphic file format’s compression is used as I guess this is easier format to measure images for meaningful content. I guess images are a good way to measure complexity as you can use many different formats and subjects to compare. I am not a specialist in Systems science but have a basic understanding. But I like this paper as it is a bit easier for me to get my head around in understanding how to measure specified complexity as opposed to bioinformatics.

 

[stevevw]

And do your realize what that means? Your legs are fine-tuned to be exactly the right length. If they were any longer you would have to walk around with your knees bent, and if they were any shorter your feet wouldn't touch the ground.

why would you have to walk around with your knees bent if legs were any longer.

 

[stevevw]

I don't want to be the only one for the proposal, where is everyone else on my side. Help.

 

[stevevw]

I thought we'd been over this already. You can't falsify purpose by examining the process itself.

Then why do supporters of evolution say that evolution is a blind and purposeless process.

It has the direction of increasing adaptedness.

Adaptive evolution has been questioned as being the reason creatures change. Other processes such as developmental bias, plasticity and niche construction are responsible for giving direction to evolution because they can dictate what selection can and cannot do. Also adaptive evolution is said to be insufficient for producing the network structures that produce complex organisms. So I am not sure adaptive evolution has as much influence as people think.

 

[Speedwell]

Then why do supporters of evolution say that evolution is a blind and purposeless process.

Because the process itself is, but that does not falsify purpose. The notion that a contingent process like evolution defeats or impairs divine providence is theologically insupportable.

Adaptive evolution has been questioned as being the reason creatures change. Other processes such as developmental bias, plasticity and niche construction are responsible for giving direction to evolution because they can dictate what selection can and cannot do.

No, they do not dictate selection. Natural selection selects what works. The processes hypothesized by EES influence variation.

Also adaptive evolution is said to be insufficient for producing the network structures that produce complex organisms. So I am not sure adaptive evolution has as much influence as people think.

What you think other people think about it seems not very accurately informed and in any case has no bearing on the discussion.

 

[Speedwell]

why would you have to walk around with your knees bent if legs were any longer.

It's a joke, son.

 

[pitabread]

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.

For starters, this 10^30 isn't even a real number since we've established that the ratio of the evolution of functional to non-functional proteins is far higher than that (e.g. in the 10^10 to 10^12) range.

You only came up with 10^30 by incorrectly multiplying the 10^10 ratios based on an arbitrary assumption of probability dependence and simultaneous occurrence. However, we don't even know if that's necessary or true in such cases.

When taking into account how things really evolve (especially factoring selection into the mix) such a scenario is not appropriate.

Second, as discussed given the relative size and generational time of populations of life on Earth even if something does have a 1 in 10^30 chance of occurring, there has been far more than enough time for such an outcome to potentially occur.

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.

Reptiles didn't evolve in isolation. They are extant species that diverged from previously life forms. Consequently any prior evolutionary history would be inherited.

You appear to be assuming that organisms evolve completely from scratch and completely independently. That's not at all how evolution works.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't want to be the only one for the proposal, where is everyone else on my side. Help.

They are increasingly few as time goes on. Most theists have come to recognize ID as a failure.

 

[pitabread]

I don't want to be the only one for the proposal, where is everyone else on my side. Help.

You're about a decade too late. :/

 

[pitabread]

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.

RNA translation doesn't need intelligent agents. Cells do this on their own just fine.

It support comes from the fact that the level of specified and functional complexity can only be provided by an intelligent agent.

This is an unsupported assertion. In my general experience with ID arguments, the terms "specified", "functional" and "complexity" often get thrown around carelessly.

If you want to make an argument re: the above you'll have to define the terms in question (including measurable metrics if you're going to talk about "levels"), demonstrate how they apply to biology and demonstrate that they represent real properties of biological forms that can only arrive from intelligent intervention.

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.

Biological organisms are not computers or machines. Argument-from-analogy doesn't work. It invariably results in the false equivalence fallacy.

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.

What you describe as "intuition" is just pattern recognition based on preexisting knowledge. That is how we recognize a designed object like a carving on a beach.

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.

This is the assertion ID proponents keep making, but it's yet to bear out any demonstrable results.

 

[Astrophile]

If we find a carving on a beach we know it is designed as opposed to something the result of chance.

If you found a partly broken branch hanging from a tree and swinging (or 'penduluming') to and fro in the wind with a constant period, would you conclude that it had been designed as a rudimentary time-keeper as opposed to being the result of chance?

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't want to be the only one for the proposal, where is everyone else on my side. Help.

Sometimes everybody sees when the emperor have no clothes.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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

Two of those articles don't actually measure anything, one of them claims to measure functional complexity. Where is any measure of specified complexity? And then where is any link to ID?

 

[Kylie]

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.

There are many things. We could also say that carvings have marks indicating what kind of tool was used. There are many differences between them.

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.

I'm sure God with his infinite knowledge and infinite ability would be able to both come up with something that would serve as indisputable proof and also be able to provide that.

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.

Well, there's the thing. You've taken something that is Absolutely essential for your idea to work and decided that you aren't interested in it. No branch of science would ever look at something fundamental to that branch of science and say, "Oh, no, we don't concern ourselves with that!"

As opposed to something that is caused by blind chance.

You know, I've told you that evolution is not blind chance enough times by now that you should know it. Why do you keep saying it's random when you know it isn't true?

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?

It doesn't use the scientific method. Show me one experiment that has been done based on ideas present in ID that are not present in evolution.

ID bases itself on logical fallacies.

not really. How is that.

How is that?

That is wrong.

That's how it is.

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.

No we haven't. You're just asserting it.

Take a deck of cards, shuffle it thoroughly, the deal it out. The chances of the deck being in that order are astronomically small. So small that there are more possible orders of the cards than there have been seconds in the entire history of the universe. And yet, did you fine tune the deck to get that order?

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'm not talking about other dimensions, I'm talking about other universes. Have you been getting your scientific knowledge from Star Trek? I recommend against it.

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.

You seem to have missed the point.

Perhaps neither has any direct verifying evidence, but only one has evidence against it.