A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I thought I had already done that

If you've demonstrated that the current evolutionary synthesis is unable to account for the diversity of life, and supplied evidence in favour of 'other processes' - or, at least, a testable hypothesis for those processes, you haven't done it here.

If you think you have, that suggests that you don't understand what is necessary to do that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thats the prevailing view. But from the evidence I have seen many of the neutral mutations are actually slightly deleterious. Non-beneficial mutations can be tolerated and these may be mistakenly seen as neutral

That's not how it works. As I already explained, the status of a mutation (beneficial/neutral/deleterious) is contingent, i.e. can vary with circumstances; consider sickle-cell trait.

 

[Kylie]

Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives - November 2010
Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html

So you make a claim that most mutations have a negative effect on an organism, I ask you to support that claim, and you come back with a source that says any negative impact is very small. In fact, the source says that most variations no matter what their effect, have a very small effect, which is exactly what we'd expect - after all, any large variations would be likely harmful. So your attempt to imply that mutations are BAD THINGS seems to have backfired, since your own source doesn't support the "Oh no, mootayshunz!" fear mongering you've been spouting.

Robustness–epistasis link shapes the fitness landscape of a randomly drifting protein
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7121/full/nature05385.html

This is simply saying that when there are several mutations that have a negative influence, the combined negative influence is larger than simply the cumulation of each mutation individually. Since harmful mutations are weeded out by natural selection, this is not the death knell to natural selection you seem to think it is.

Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli
Excerpt: At least 80% of the mutations had a significant negative effect on fitness, whereas none of the mutations had a significant positive effect.
http://www.springerlink.com/co.....q5l0q3832/

First of all, this is talking about a single point of mutation that was artificially induced, so may not represent the way things behave when they mutate in a natural environment. Secondly, you seem to have missed the very first sentence: "Very little is known about the distribution of mutational effects on organismal fitness." So there could be flaws in the understanding of these results that stem from the fact they are dealing with things in an area that is not well understood.

Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction
Harvard University scientists have identified a virtual "speed limit" on the rate of molecular evolution in organisms, and the magic number appears to be 6 mutations per genome per generation -- a level beyond which species run the strong risk of extinction as their genomes lose stability.
Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction

Why does this surprise you? Evolution would not favour large changes in the genome, because the more you change it, the more likely it is to change to something that just doesn't work. This is not an argument against evolution - it's actually the way we'd expect it to work.

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

Oh goody, let's have a look at who wrote this, shall we?

George Montanez is an assistant professor of computer science, not biology. He is not, apparently, qualified in the field of genetics.

Robert J Marks II is an electrical engineer. Again, not qualified in genetics.

Jorge Fernandez was a bit hard to find information on, but he seems to be a YEC, who purchased his doctorate from an online diploma mill.

And while John Sanford is a geneticist, he's also a YEC.

There are plenty more if you need them.

Let's hope that any others you can provide are of better quality than what you've already tried.

 

[Kylie]

I have provided some papers that address this issue above.

And I didn't see a single thing in there that showed how a mutation that was harmful would NOT be selected against.

 

[pitabread]

It is not just complexity but specified complexity.

No, it's still not. "Specified complexity" is not used to detect design.

The info has to show signs of being directed towards something by Intelligence. So with SETI the info can be simple but it needs to be specified info such as Morse code, radio signals and other coded info that can only come from an intelligent mind.

I'm not sure what "the info" is supposed to mean here, but this still doesn't sound like how SETI detects design.

How SETI detects design is by looking for outputs from signal sources that are assumed to have an artificial source.

In traditional radio SETI the search was for narrow-band radio signals. The reason is that wide-band signals can have natural sources, but narrow-band signals are only known to come from artificially manufactured radio transmitters. The assumption is that if an alien civilization invented the same kind of radio transmitters we invented, they would produce similar narrow-band signals.

Similarly optical SETI attempts to detect artificial light sources (e.g. lasers) and distinguish them from natural ones.

In neither case is the content of the signal relevant. In fact, the signal could contain no meaningful information whatsoever. All that matters is that it appears to come from an artificially manufactured source.

Now once SETI does detect an extraterrestrial signal that appear to have come from an artificial source, then they can begin the process of trying to decipher it and determine if it contains any meaningful information.

When it comes to biology there is also functional info such as with DNA with information processing systems. Information that directs the construction of functional proteins. As Bill Gates said DNA is like a computer program but far far more advanced than any software ever created.

You're still trying to make an argument-via-analogy. As I said earlier, this doesn't work as an argument for design.

DNA is *not* a computer program.

 

[pitabread]

ok. we can speak about vision system if you want. can you as a designer able to made a minimal vision system that base on 1-2 parts?

What's the point of this question?

Is this because you're hoping that I'll respond that a biological vision system clearly requires numerous parts to be functional.

To which you'll respond that if a designer can't make a vision system based on so few parts, therefore we can't expect such a system to evolve naturally.

To which I'll respond that evolution works by building on what preceded it and that a vision system would develop out of earlier light-detection systems and refer to you previous literature I've referred you to before.

And then we'll play a reductionist game until we get to a gap in human in knowledge of the evolution of something, and you'll declare it a "gotcha!" moment and claim that therefore all of evolution is false.

Then I'll point out that gaps in human knowledge doesn't invalidate what we do know and that evolution is the only explanation for the diversity of biological organisms. And that if you want to argue for design, you need to start by explaining how a designer would go about creating biological organisms and build your case that way.

At which point, I think you usually stop responding until you try to restart the entire argument at a later point in time.

Is that how this is going to go? Because if you haven't noticed, I think we've been down this road already.

 

[stevevw]

The standard model of evolution already provides a way for life to adapt to changing environments. You just happen to believe that it is not adequate for that purpose. But the interesting thing is, that the additional mechanisms proposed by EES are thought to have evolved from that model.

Not really, at the very least they are seen as additions that change the way evolution works. But at most they are a revision and a new concept of evolution. Forces that cause and direct evolution and dictate what natural selection can and cannot do. The basic view is that natural selection has been given too much causal emphasis as the sole force of evolution and other process mentioned in the EES are also causes of generating variation which can often be well suited and therefore not needing to be sifted by natural selection.

The incorporation of new data into the existing conceptual framework of evolutionary biology may explain why calls for an EES are often met with skepticism; even if the topics discussed above were historically neglected, there is now a substantial amount of research dedicated to them. However, for a second group of evolutionary researchers, the interpretation given in the preceding section underestimates the evolutionary implications of these phenomena (table 2). From this standpoint, too much causal significance is afforded to genes and selection, and not enough to the developmental processes that create novel variants, contribute to heredity, generate adaptive fit, and thereby direct the course of evolution. Under this perspective, the sharp distinction between the proximate and the ultimate is undermined by the fact that proximate causes are themselves often also evolutionary causes [90]. Hence, the EES entails not only new research directions but also new ways to think about, and interpret, new and familiar problems in evolutionary biology.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

 

[stevevw]

No, it's still not. "Specified complexity" is not used to detect design.

I'm not sure what "the info" is supposed to mean here, but this still doesn't sound like how SETI detects design.

But you have not explained why specified complexity cannot detect design. When intelligent agents act they will produce specified complexity. That is because they will use choice directed towards intelligence as opposed to any possibility that is not. It is the ones that are directed towards intelligence that show ID.

As mentioned with SETI they attempt to match the transmissions they observe with certain patterns that show intelligent choice rather than other possibilities. When we use language we choose certain certain combinations as opposed to any combination that will give that sound/words meaning and intelligence. That is specified complexity as the information is chosen and directed towards something intelligent.

How SETI detects design is by looking for outputs from signal sources that are assumed to have an artificial source.

What is an artificial source. Even if it was artificial we can detect the difference say between the signals that come from space such as those in the cosmic microwave background and a signal that may have some intention in being different to that which has certain patterns.

In traditional radio SETI the search was for narrow-band radio signals. The reason is that wide-band signals can have natural sources, but narrow-band signals are only known to come from artificially manufactured radio transmitters. The assumption is that if an alien civilization invented the same kind of radio transmitters we invented, they would produce similar narrow-band signals.

And those radio signals are recognized because they have been designed as opposed to natural signals. They are specified towards a certain band as opposed to any position in the band width which could include a number of possible signals.

Similarly optical SETI attempts to detect artificial light sources (e.g. lasers) and distinguish them from natural ones.

Once again specified towards a certain light source.

In neither case is the content of the signal relevant. In fact, the signal could contain no meaningful information whatsoever. All that matters is that it appears to come from an artificially manufactured source.

maybe so but I would say they are not that simple. there is a certain level of complexity. But when it is specified towards certain signifies of intelligence then this adds to the detection of ID.

Now once SETI does detect an extraterrestrial signal that appear to have come from an artificial source, then they can begin the process of trying to decipher it and determine if it contains any meaningful information.

Yes specified info.

DNA is *not* a computer program.

I think Gates realizes this. He was saying it was like a computer program, comparing it to one.

 

[stevevw]

With SETI what is being looked for is not "information" but a kind of narrow-band microwave signal used by humans for communication but not thought to be produced by any natural source. As usual, what is being looked for is not evidence of intelligent design directly, but evidence of intelligent manufacture.

what is the difference between ID and intelligent manufacture.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What is 'specified complexity'? And how can one measure it?

 

[pitabread]

But you have not explained why specified complexity cannot detect design.

I didn't say "cannot". I said "is not". There is a difference.

Nobody is using specified complexity to detect design.

When intelligent agents act they will produce specified complexity. That is because they will use choice directed towards intelligence as opposed to any possibility that is not. It is the ones that are directed towards intelligence that show ID.

We need to talk about the term "specified complexity" because it's being thrown around here with no real consideration for its meaning.

In ID circles it was Dembski who originally proposed trying to detect design via specified complexity. In Dembski's case he formulated a mathematical approach based on probability. In a nutshell, if one wants to detect design they would calculate the probability of a particular output and if that output exceeded a certain threshold one would then conclude design.

Unfortunately Dembski's ideas have not to my knowledge ever been empirically tested or verified as a means to detect design. Likewise I've never seen any examples of anyone using Dembski's approach to detect design.

However, the terminology involving words like "complexity" and "specificity" (along with "functional" and "information") have made their way into the ID lexicon. Thus when reading ID literature it is common to see references to some variation or combination of the above terms, often times used interchangeably. Stephen Meyer is particularly guilty of this in his own writings (which is where I suspect you picked up the term from).

Such usage tends to be colloquial rather than empirical. People talk about intelligent output as having some variation of the above terms, but it's never presented as a demonstrable, empirically verifiable property of the same and consequently never formalized in an approach for design detection.

That is why when you look at real examples of intelligent design detection, you won't find such terminology anywhere near it.

And those radio signals are recognized because they have been designed as opposed to natural signals.

Not quite. Those radio signals are assumed to be the result of artificially manufactured transmitters because there is no known natural sources. That is why they are used for detection.

It's always possible that one day we discover a natural source of said radio signals.

there is a certain level of complexity. But when it is specified towards certain signifies of intelligence then this adds to the detection of ID.

Complexity is not a factor here. In fact, if you search the SETI web site you won't find complexity being discussed relative to the detection of signals.

The complexity of the signal is only relevant after it is presumed to come from an intelligent source. Complexity itself is not an indication of whether it is from an intelligent source however.

I think Gates realizes this. He was saying it was like a computer program, comparing it to one.

Which is just an analogy. An analogy does not make an argument.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When intelligent agents act they will produce specified complexity. That is because they will use choice directed towards intelligence as opposed to any possibility that is not. It is the ones that are directed towards intelligence that show ID.

What do you mean by "choice directed towards intelligence"? I can't make sense of that.

I can think of plenty of acts of intelligent agents that don't seem to produce specified complexity - can you give some examples of specified complexity that intelligent agents produce, and explain how you measured their specified complexity?

 

[xianghua]

What's the point of this question?

Is this because you're hoping that I'll respond that a biological vision system clearly requires numerous parts to be functional.

To which you'll respond that if a designer can't make a vision system based on so few parts, therefore we can't expect such a system to evolve naturally.

To which I'll respond that evolution works by building on what preceded it and that a vision system would develop out of earlier light-detection systems and refer to you previous literature I've referred you to before.

we actually do know that any minimal vision system need at least several parts. so you have two options in that case. one is to claim that its possible to get a functional vision system that base on a single or two parts. the second is to claim that the vision system evolved from other system that was not a vision system. so what is your explanation?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

we actually do know that any minimal vision system need at least several parts. so you have two options in that case. one is to claim that its possible to get a functional vision system that base on a single or two parts. the second is to claim that the vision system evolved from other system that was not a vision system. so what is your explanation?

I've explained this to you before; i.e. how a primitive eyespot could evolve and give rise to a simple eye.

 

[Speedwell]

we actually do know that any minimal vision system need at least several parts. so you have two options in that case. one is to claim that its possible to get a functional vision system that base on a single or two parts. the second is to claim that the vision system evolved from other system that was not a vision system. so what is your explanation?

Yes to both.

 

[pitabread]

we actually do know that any minimal vision system need at least several parts. so you have two options in that case. one is to claim that its possible to get a functional vision system that base on a single or two parts. the second is to claim that the vision system evolved from other system that was not a vision system. so what is your explanation?

I already answered this in my post (along with predicting the path of the subsequent conversation), since we already know where this going. You forget that we've had this conversation before.

At any rate, what is the point? You can skip ahead to the "gotcha!" moment if you want.

 

[stevevw]

What do you mean by "choice directed towards intelligence"? I can't make sense of that.

I can think of plenty of acts of intelligent agents that don't seem to produce specified complexity - can you give some examples of specified complexity that intelligent agents produce, and explain how you measured their specified complexity?

Intelligent beings make choices and those choices are directed towards intelligence as opposed to random chance. So with language a bunch of letters put together in a random order would not be specified but put into a coherent word or sentence is specified to mean something. When those specified letters are longer the more complex it will become. So we can have a single letter that is specified as it forms part of a bigger set of letters that can form language so this is specified but not complex. A lot of random letters that don't mean anything when put together may be complex info but not specified and say a section of a book may be complex and specified as the letters all fall into a sequence where the info is directed towards something meaningful and intelligent.

 

[stevevw]

Nobody is using specified complexity to detect design.

Then how is design detected in say human made items and info.

We need to talk about the term "specified complexity" because it's being thrown around here with no real consideration for its meaning.

In ID circles it was Dembski who originally proposed trying to detect design via specified complexity. In Dembski's case he formulated a mathematical approach based on probability.

Actually it was Paul Davies who came up with the concept when talking about abiogenesis, Dembski just extended this to other areas.

In a nutshell, if one wants to detect design they would calculate the probability of a particular output and if that output exceeded a certain threshold one would then conclude design.

Unfortunately Dembski's ideas have not to my knowledge ever been empirically tested or verified as a means to detect design. Likewise I've never seen any examples of anyone using Dembski's approach to detect design.

Other scientists have expanded and developed his ideas. Such as
A Unified Model of Complex Specified Information
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329700536_A_Unified_Model_of_Complex_Specified_Information
Measuring meaningful information in images: algorithmic specified complexity
https://digital-library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/iet-cvi.2014.0141

But there is also other articles that don't mention specified complexity but have research outcomes that produce similar findings. Really anything that talks about information needing to be specified using other words such defined, precise, distinctive, specified degree of function, occupying a narrow space of any possible sequence space such as functional protein sequences
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins
Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity
Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity

However, the terminology involving words like "complexity" and "specificity" (along with "functional" and "information") have made their way into the ID lexicon. Thus when reading ID literature it is common to see references to some variation or combination of the above terms, often times used interchangeably. Stephen Meyer is particularly guilty of this in his own writings (which is where I suspect you picked up the term from).

Such usage tends to be colloquial rather than empirical. People talk about intelligent output as having some variation of the above terms, but it's never presented as a demonstrable, empirically verifiable property of the same and consequently never formalized in an approach for design detection.

That is why when you look at real examples of intelligent design detection, you won't find such terminology anywhere near it.

Yet real examples of ID would have to contain some specified info as opposed to random, it stands to reason. When ever I have debated ID with anyone "information" seems to be a key word used by both sides. It is usually based around what sort of information. Complexity seems to be a logical hallmark of ID, the more complex the harder it is to create randomly.

Not quite. Those radio signals are assumed to be the result of artificially manufactured transmitters because there is no known natural sources. That is why they are used for detection.
It's always possible that one day we discover a natural source of said radio signals.

So your saying radio signals that require intelligent design may be the result of natural causes. yet if scientists discover those radio signals in outta space the headlines would be hailing how we have found intelligent life in the universe. Seems they want to hedge their bets.

Complexity is not a factor here. In fact, if you search the SETI web site you won't find complexity being discussed relative to the detection of signals.
The complexity of the signal is only relevant after it is presumed to come from an intelligent source. Complexity itself is not an indication of whether it is from an intelligent source however.

Then why would complexity be an important factor if it was established as being from an intelligent source.

Which is just an analogy. An analogy does not make an argument.

Yet scientists use these types of analogies all the time when explaining things like the cell and DNA such as sequences, language, codes, systems and patterns.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Intelligent beings make choices and those choices are directed towards intelligence as opposed to random chance. So with language a bunch of letters put together in a random order would not be specified but put into a coherent word or sentence is specified to mean something. When those specified letters are longer the more complex it will become. So we can have a single letter that is specified as it forms part of a bigger set of letters that can form language so this is specified but not complex. A lot of random letters that don't mean anything when put together may be complex info but not specified and say a section of a book may be complex and specified as the letters all fall into a sequence where the info is directed towards something meaningful and intelligent.

OK, I get the idea. However, it does sound like you're begging the question in describing the result of intelligent agents as 'specified' - in the language example you give, you can say the results are specified because you know they are the product of intelligent agents.

So can you explain how you determine whether something with unknown provenance is specified or not?

And can you answer the original question about how you would establish (calculate) the specified complexity?

 

[miggles]

i can't imagine a species evolving from an ape to a man, especially in just 5,000 years. God created man in His own image. i can't see God as an ape.