A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[Kylie]

At the same time in areas where malaria is more prominent those the sickle cell anemia mutation increase therefore increasing the risk of couples both having the mutation and mating which then increases the those in the population having the disease. If this continues to increase then we have a situation with a benefit on one hand but an increasing disease on the other. Overall the change is not really an improvement on the existing genetics but a dysfunction. The red blood cells should have smooth disc shapes but the red blood cells of those carrying the sickle-cell anemia are abnormally shaped. The more malaria resistance the more those abnormal blood cells get into the population. So it comes at a cost.

My point was one way or another whether through natural selection not being able to rid a disease because it also has a benefit, the harmful mutation is too small or there is not enough time to eradicate the mutations there are many diseases entering the populations of humans and other animals that natural selection is not able to purge and this is slowly causing an accumulation of harmful mutations which is having a negative effect.

Still, even if both parents have a single copy of the gene, there's only a 25% chance that their child will have two copies and will have SCA. But there's a 50% chance they have protection against Malaria. The benefit outweighs the risk.

 

[stevevw]

Your whole post appears to rely on the assumption that there is such a thing as specified complexity. Dembski and the few others who claim it is measurable have failed to demonstrate that it is a viable concept. All attempts so far have been shown to be inadequate.

All specified complexity is about is specifying something to the level that goes beyond chance. Surely even if we use human design as an example we can come up with a method that is measurable. Otherwise how do we measure design in human invention.

 

[stevevw]

Still, even if both parents have a single copy of the gene, there's only a 25% chance that their child will have two copies and will have SCA. But there's a 50% chance they have protection against Malaria. The benefit outweighs the risk.

But the point is the benefit is not for everyone and ultimately if natural selection is preserving this benefit it will spread. The more it spreads the more chance it will become detrimental to more people. It just seems like a funny way for evolution to work. If this is how it works then eventually all the population will get sick and die out. Plus you still haven't addressed the fact that humans and other species are accumulating diseases that natural selection is not purging out which is declining fitness.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Otherwise how do we measure design in human invention.

We don't. That's the point you're missing.

 

[Kylie]

But the point is the benefit is not for everyone and ultimately if natural selection is preserving this benefit it will spread. The more it spreads the more chance it will become detrimental to more people. It just seems like a funny way for evolution to work. If this is how it works then eventually all the population will get sick and die out. Plus you still haven't addressed the fact that humans and other species are accumulating diseases that natural selection is not purging out which is declining fitness.

Evolution doesn't care about the individual. If the gene for it conveys a reproductive advantage (which it does because there's a greater chance you'll get a benefit rather than a disadvantage), then it will spread throughout the population.

 

[stevevw]

The reason I used this example is because it's a case where design is not immediately obvious. It's possible to find natural stones that have the appearance of stone tools, but on closer examination are not.

In contrast, obvious examples of design (e.g. a stone bust) only require pre-existing knowledge that humans make sculptures coupled with our intrinsic pattern recognition. The latter is especially adept at recognizing faces.

No fancy calculations or close scrutiny needed.

yes but we can extract a lot of information out of human made artifacts that can help us in measuring design as opposed to chance events. Even with the simple stone tool a closer examination is needed to find those design signs to determine it from a naturally occurring stone. It is determining that the work is made by an intelligent mind that can use a tool to make those specific marks and shapes rather than happening by random chance which build the case for specified info complex or not. By determining that a natural event could not do this makes a case for specified complexity and ID.

Pattern recognition. We don't need to do any complex calculations to recognize a human face or other objects where we have preexisting knowledge of their creation.

But to determine that a random chance event could cause this to happen we need to d the calculations. This will show the odds of it not being able to happen and therefore build support for specified info. The more complex the more a case can be made. It is a bit like the fine-tuning argument in that there are a number of physical parameters set within a tiny value in among many possible values.

This as some scientists have said goes beyond a chance event and coincident where chance happen to make them all fall into place. It is because the odds are against it being chance that we can make a case for it being specified and complex. That specificity then can make a case for an intelligent agent. As Fred Hoyle said “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics”

Did you read it?

Yeah and this paper seems a better one for understanding the application of specified complexity when measuring meaning in images as opposed to those that contain random info. It gives a more practical way to understand specified complexity compared to random chance.

It's depends on what we're specifically talking about.

In the case of biology like GM organisms, current methods require existing knowledge of the genetic sequences and/or biological products in question. And methods to detect GM organisms are being developed based on the knowledge of how GM organisms are created and specific biological characteristics common to GM organisms based on their creation.

In the case of completely unknown designers and design we have neither of these to rely on. So how can we possibly detect design in those circumstances?

I would have thought there were some fundamental principles of design that can apply across the board. Going back to the stone tool and the bust. We can investigate the way certain shapes and meaning is incorporated in these items. The shapes and lines have been chosen to represent a meaning and this is built upon. A bit like reverse engineering, I guess. Scientists use reverse engineering to understand how an insect may fly for example to improve human flying or invent new forms of aerodynamics.

Meanwhile we also have a known process (evolution) by which populations of biological organisms modify themselves over time. We even utilize this process in the design of biological organisms and by-products (directed evolution).

How would one distinguish a genetic sequence deliberately programmed as such versus a sequence arising from directed evolution versus a sequence arising from unguided evolution?

Well isn’t random mutations a chance thing. If using sequences don’t people say that this can be likened to language. So, a functional sequence has language that makes sense. A random mutation can alter this change it into incoherent language. In that sense it shows that existing sequences that build proteins are made up of rare and specific language and any random mutation will have a negative effect.

But also if you look at processes contained in the EES you can see a fundamental difference to the way the standard theory relies on adaptations which are primarily subjecting life to chance. As opposed to more directed, organised and structured changes that produce certain outcomes that are well suited and integrated. For example the standard theory sees convergent evolution as extraordinary coincidences with similar features being produced through similar environments. But there are also contradictory situations where different outcomes happen that SET cannot account for. The EES sees similar features a result of development where certain features are the only outcomes and will be the same for most living things regardless of environments.

If you believe you have posted papers that should how to detect design in relation to biology, then please quote the relevant papers and sections thereof that support this. The paper you cited presents a hypothetical model. But where is the empirical testing and verification of its validity?

The paper above do not specifically talk about biological info. But it and the other paper give a method of being able to show how random chance events cannot produce the level of info we see in what is usually regarded as designed or in things like a living cell. Therefore, this points to the content being specified complexity. The odds of that info being produced by chance is beyond chance and this infers something more specified. This model can be applied to anything including biology.

You're talking about the infamous Douglas Axe paper (2004) which was cited by the OP. The paper does not support the conclusion it is being used to support (e.g. the rarity of viable protein folds among all of biology).

I believe we already discussed this earlier in this thread.

Maybe so but the findings can be applied to a large range on proteins and considering that these are needed as the building blocks of life it seems to be comprehensive. Once again it is a bit like the fine-tuning argument but applied to the rarity of functional proteins. Like the parameters of each physical constant having to be within a very small range and if change even slightly they will break down.

It is the same for proteins in that there are very rare functional proteins that fall with very narrow forms. Any random mutation that comes in will undermine this and it break down. This also supports specified complexity in that the info in proteins is complex and the functional folds are specific. They can be determined from any possible fold that occupies a massive non-functional space that can be the result of random chance.

So, the odds for a specific mutational change that needs to be made to change a function and be viable is beyond chance. Like scientists have quipped about the fine tuning of the universe this can make a case for some involvement of intelligence.

The problem is that "specified complexity" is entirely too nebulous a term. Per Dembski's original writings, he was formulating a mathematical probability test. As stated, I'm not aware of his method ever being empirically verified with respect to biology.

There are a number of papers out that use similar methods. It is not about verifying specified complexity itself. It is about showing that random chance cannot account for certain things. That the odds for chance producing them go beyond chance. This then infers specified complexity. That is what those papers I posted were about. People get things wrong when they think that we need to verify specified complexity. It is more about showing how random chance cannot account for what we see.

 

[stevevw]

We don't. That's the point you're missing.

That does not seem right. I can think of one architecture off the top of my head. If we did not measure design in human inventions and industry everything would fall apart. Everything has to be measured in design to ensure it is safe and works properly. We continue to invent new designs in cars, and just about everything. Design engineering is another industry. Reverse engineering looks at nature such as how wings work on birds and insects and tries to lean how to apply this to human applications. IT has many design applications and that's why we call things patterns, programs and codes because they follow design.

Then there is robotics, biotechnology, graphic design and fashion designer and I could name many areas in the arts that incorporate design. It is everywhere so therefore we must have methods for detecting that design. I would say engineering would be one of the biggest areas of design. When they plan for buildings of motor cars they will be looking at aerodynamics, load bearings, ergonomics, practical applications, etc. These are all hallmarks of design.

There is also some irony to not measuring human design. How would we tell if something is designed. You say by recognizing it. So that means something will be determined as designed by peoples personal views as there can be no measuring (assessment). A pile of rocks may be classed as designed by someone and so how do we tell if that person is wrong. Dawkins says life has the appearance of being designed but it is only in appearance and is not really designed. But without any measurement how do we tell. If it is based on recognition as you say then that would mean that living things are designed as we recognize that design in appearance.

 

[Speedwell]

It is everywhere so therefore we must have methods for detecting that design.

We do. The point was that "specified complexity" isn't one of them.

I would say engineering would be one of the biggest areas of design. When they plan for buildings of motor cars they will be looking at aerodynamics, load bearings, ergonomics, practical applications, etc. These are all hallmarks of design.

Be careful here; you appear to be confusing "design" as intention with "design" as functional complexity.

 

[SLP]

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation
It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11].
The growing evidence for a high degree of optimization in biological systems, and the growing evidence for multiple levels of poly-functionality within DNA, both suggest that mutations that are unambiguously beneficial must be especially rare.
The theoretical scarcity of beneficial mutations is compounded by the fact that most of the beneficial mutations that do arise should confer extremely small increments of improvement in terms of total biological function. This makes such mutations invisible to natural selection.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~gmontane/pdfs/montanez-binps-2013.pdf
There are plenty more if you need them.

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation
George Montañez1 , Robert J. Marks II2 , Jorge Fernandez3 and John C. Sanford4§

A computer scientist, an engineer, a clown with a Christian diploma mill 'doctorate', and the guy who thinks that evolutionary genetics postulates that new genes must form one beneficial mutation after another, in order....

Most interesting - Fernandez lists his affiliation as "FMS Foundation, 7160 Stone Hill Rd. Livonia, NY 14487".

FMS Foundation is "Feed My Sheep Foundation" - which is listed as a 'biological research' tax free foundation (seems fishy), c/o John Sanford. No tax filings since 2017. One of its listed sources of income was 'workman's comp claims.' Sounds like a scam for creationists to make some money and sound official.

Anyway, 10 citations in 6 years - 6 of which were other articles by Sanford or Marks. 1 by Moonie creationist Jon wells, and 1 by some dude with the 'Creation Research Society'. Oh, and 5 of those were articles in a creationist book on 'information.'

Bottom line, I won't waste my time reading it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That does not seem right. I can think of one architecture off the top of my head. If we did not measure design in human inventions and industry everything would fall apart. Everything has to be measured in design to ensure it is safe and works properly. We continue to invent new designs in cars, and just about everything. Design engineering is another industry. Reverse engineering looks at nature such as how wings work on birds and insects and tries to lean how to apply this to human applications. IT has many design applications and that's why we call things patterns, programs and codes because they follow design.

Then there is robotics, biotechnology, graphic design and fashion designer and I could name many areas in the arts that incorporate design. It is everywhere so therefore we must have methods for detecting that design. I would say engineering would be one of the biggest areas of design. When they plan for buildings of motor cars they will be looking at aerodynamics, load bearings, ergonomics, practical applications, etc. These are all hallmarks of design.

Do you understand the difference between recognising and measuring? We do not measure design. Do you consider a building to be more designed than an arrow? What would you measure to determine that, and what units would you use to express it?

 

[stevevw]

We do. The point was that "specified complexity" isn't one of them.Be careful here; you appear to be confusing "design" as intention with "design" as functional complexity.

Then if not specified how do we measure human design. From what I understand any design from a human perspective which happens to be intelligent needs to be specified. Otherwise it can be mistaken as being random chance. Human design will only occur within a narrow criteria thus is specified.

Here is the definition of design from Wiki. It mentions specification twice and basically says it is specified.
A design is a plan or specification for the construction of an object or system or for the implementation of an activity or process, or the result of that plan or specification in the form of a prototype, product or process.
Design - Wikipedia
Here is a definition from Quora which is not a religious site.
Generally speaking something is designed if it is meant to serve a specific purpose.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-tell-if-something-is-designed-teleology

So it seems on an everyday commonsense meaning design does mean something that is specified towards a certain meaning.

 

[stevevw]

Do you understand the difference between recognising and measuring? We do not measure design. Do you consider a building to be more designed than an arrow? What would you measure to determine that, and what units would you use to express it?

Isn't a building measured in its design as in the building plans. We would measure an arrow by its specific shape that makes an arrow as opposed to any shape. Though it is a simple shape it is specified in being an arrow that conforms to an arrow shape. The arrow shape is a symbol used by humans (intelligent beings) and has a certain meaning attached to it. It usually means direction towards something that can give us more info. A lookalike arrow shape made by chance can be distinguished by a number of signs. What it is point to, (context) and the shape can be analysed to see if it is made by intelligence. This can all be found in a building except in more detail and complexity.

 

[VirOptimus]

Isn't a building measured in its design as in the building plans. We would measure an arrow by its specific shape that makes an arrow as opposed to any shape. Though it is a simple shape it is specified in being an arrow that conforms to an arrow shape.

No, this is all wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation
George Montañez1 , Robert J. Marks II2 , Jorge Fernandez3 and John C. Sanford4§

A computer scientist, an engineer, a clown with a Christian diploma mill 'doctorate', and the guy who thinks that evolutionary genetics postulates that new genes must form one beneficial mutation after another, in order....

Most interesting - Fernandez lists his affiliation as "FMS Foundation, 7160 Stone Hill Rd. Livonia, NY 14487".

FMS Foundation is "Feed My Sheep Foundation" - which is listed as a 'biological research' tax free foundation (seems fishy), c/o John Sanford. No tax filings since 2017. One of its listed sources of income was 'workman's comp claims.' Sounds like a scam for creationists to make some money and sound official.

Anyway, 10 citations in 6 years - 6 of which were other articles by Sanford or Marks. 1 by Moonie creationist Jon wells, and 1 by some dude with the 'Creation Research Society'. Oh, and 5 of those were articles in a creationist book on 'information.'

Bottom line, I won't waste my time reading it.

You forgot to include that the University where the research was done is based in Waco the home of a David Koresh and the Branch Davidians lol.

 

[stevevw]

No, this is all wrong.

How is it wrong

 

[stevevw]

Evolution doesn't care about the individual. If the gene for it conveys a reproductive advantage (which it does because there's a greater chance you'll get a benefit rather than a disadvantage), then it will spread throughout the population.

Yes, I agree

 

[Kylie]

Yes, I agree

Then why did you try to show that natural selection couldn't account for it if you agree with my explanation for why it can?

 

[Ophiolite]

No, this is all wrong.

I don't think it is coherent enough to be wrong.

 

[VirOptimus]

How is it wrong

I'm not really interested in debating with you as you do not debate in good faith.

 

[stevevw]

Then why did you try to show that natural selection couldn't account for it if you agree with my explanation for why it can?

Believe it or not both can happen. I never said natural selection was not capable of allowing living things to survive and reproduce. I was saying that it is not as all powerful as some say. It is also unable to weed out diseases because of various reasons explained which can also spread throughout the population.