A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[pitabread]

Which is just what you don't know. You got started on all this because you observed (quite correctly) that the probability of evolution producing exactly the biosphere we have now is vanishingly small. But it really doesn't matter.

From a post-hoc perspective the probability of evolution producing our exact biosphere is 1. It already happened.

 

[stevevw]

Plus variation, don't forget--otherwise you're knocking down a straw man.

well yes it is the other sources of variation that are non-random that make selections job easier or minimized.Actually it is. What is at issue is the exact nature of the mechanism which produces variation.[/QUOTE] If that's the case then how do you explain this.

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory. Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization.

There is no evidence at any level of biological organization that natural selection is a directional force encouraging complexity. In contrast, substantial evidence exists that a reduction in the efficiency of selection drives the evolution of genomic complexity.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

So it seems that the evidence shows that natural selection is actually a hindrance to the evolution of organismal complexity.

The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes
This Analysis shows that many of the qualitative features of known transcriptional networks can arise readily through the non-adaptive processes of genetic drift, mutation and recombination, raising questions about whether natural selection is necessary or even sufficient for the origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies.
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n10/abs/nrg2192.html

Does Evolutionary theory need a rethink?
The standard evolutionary theory is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

 

[stevevw]

From a post-hoc perspective the probability of evolution producing our exact biosphere is 1. It already happened.

But that's not how it works. We are talking about anyone being here in the first place. We can calculate the odds from the number of specific conditions that need to be in place to even produce our universe, the earth within it and the ecosystem that will sustain and produce intelligent life. Any small variation from this and it will be different. That is why some propose a multiverse.

 

[VirOptimus]

But that's not how it works. We are talking about anyone being here in the first place. We can calculate the odds from the number of specific conditions that need to be in place to even produce our universe, the earth within it and the ecosystem that will sustain and produce intelligent life. Any small variation from this and it will be different. That is why some propose a multiverse.

probability doesnt work like that.

 

[stevevw]

Which is just what you don't know. You got started on all this because you observed (quite correctly) that the probability of evolution producing exactly the biosphere we have now is vanishingly small. But it really doesn't matter.

But it is because the probability of evolution creating the biosphere is vanishingly small that points to there being specific conditions, information, language, codes etc which infers to it being specified and complex.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

And yet the population remains, reproduces and evolves. It as if you think natural selection should somehow achieve, or certainly approach perfection. That is rarely (never?) the case.

You note that evolution is unable to weed out diseases.
Has Intelligent Design weeded out diseases?
Has the Creator weeded out diseases?
Why then would you expect natural selection to do so?

Why would you imply that evolutionists think this would be an inevitable? This is the sort of thing, I think, that led Vir Optimus to suggest you do not debate in good faith. I suspect that is incorrect. Rather, your arguments are ill formed, your challenges misdirected and your knowledge uncertain. That creates the impression that you are seeking to mislead. It is frustrating for those seeking to debate with you in an effective way.

 

[Speedwell]

But it is because the probability of evolution creating the biosphere is vanishingly small that points to there being specific conditions, information, language, codes etc which infers to it being specified and complex.

Only if you assume that evolution had to produce this particular biosphere.

 

[pitabread]

But that's not how it works.

No, that is exactly how it works. Post hoc probability of an event after it has already occurred is always 1.

Remember, probability is just about measuring the likelihood of a particular event occurring. If the event in question has already occurred then the likelihood of its occurrence is 100% because it already has occurred.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But it is because the probability of evolution creating the biosphere is vanishingly small

Really? Given that you have absolutely no idea what the probability space was, how can you make such a confident assertion?

that points to there being specific conditions, information, language, codes etc which infers to it being specified and complex.

And there you go again with this whole specified complexity assertion.

Specified complexity is not a valid concept as defined by Dembski et al. Why do you ignore this fact every time I point it out?

 

[stevevw]

Really? Given that you have absolutely no idea what the probability space was, how can you make such a confident assertion?

It seems that Speedwell agrees that it is unlikely. Yesterday at 11:14 PM#37. The probability space for producing what we see today including intelligent beings has already been determined with the fine tuning of the universe to produce the earth and intelligent beings. The probability of the many physical constants falling within the narrow settings that they occupy as opposed to the vast possible other settings is around 1 in 10 to the power of 234. That's a 10 with 234 zeros.

And there you go again with this whole specified complexity assertion.

Specified complexity is not a valid concept as defined by Dembski et al. Why do you ignore this fact every time I point it out?

Ok but besides what Dembski says do you think there is complexity and specified info in say the fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life. As I said specified complexity is not rocket science. If you look at the fine tuning of the universe we know that there is a lot of complex info involved. We also know that the physical parameters have to be a specific setting and not any setting to produce intelligent life. Do you think there a protein is complex and needs to have specific info to function.

 

[stevevw]

And yet the population remains, reproduces and evolves. It as if you think natural selection should somehow achieve, or certainly approach perfection. That is rarely (never?) the case.

You note that evolution is unable to weed out diseases.
Has Intelligent Design weeded out diseases?
Has the Creator weeded out diseases?
Why then would you expect natural selection to do so?

This is a common misconception that people have when I bring up or question the standard theory. They assume that I am denying evolution (natural selection) entirely. There is no middle ground either it should be fully supported or I am accused on completely denying things. That is not the case and you can go over all my posts and see that. I am saying that despite natural selection living things still become diseased. I am not saying this because I think that selection should produce perfection. Rather to give some perspective and balance. The same with how variation is produced from non-random processes and how selection plays a minimal role in that. From what I understand this is a contentious issue and it provokes reactions as the papers I have posted state. People are defensive in protecting the traditional theory of evolution and don't like any challenges.

Why would you imply that evolutionists think this would be an inevitable? This is the sort of thing, I think, that led Vir Optimus to suggest you do not debate in good faith. I suspect that is incorrect. Rather, your arguments are ill formed, your challenges misdirected and your knowledge uncertain. That creates the impression that you are seeking to mislead. It is frustrating for those seeking to debate with you in an effective way.

All I am trying to explain is that evolution is more complex than many say. Too much natural emphasis is placed on selection and random mutations. I have supplied ample support for this for example how do you explain the above papers and how they say natural selection is not quantitatively dominant or even sufficient for evolving the genetic networks in complex organisms. I may explain things badly as I am not the best at grammar but the papers speak for themselves and yet no one addresses this. These papers are not from religious sites and are from mainstream journals and scientists. Lets get some response to what the papers are saying rather than focusing on the man rather than the ball.

 

[Kylie]

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.

Of course natural selection is not the only thing happening. There's also sexual selection for one. You won't find anyone who understands evolution saying that natural selection is the only thing there is. But it is a very important part, I would say easily the most important part.

 

[stevevw]

No, that is exactly how it works. Post hoc probability of an event after it has already occurred is always 1.

Sorry for the confusion I was not talking about whether a post hoc probability stands for a past event. I was saying that this is not how things like for example the fine tuning argument work. Despite us being here that does not address the odds of that happening. There are many specific conditions that need to be right as opposed to many other possibilities that are wrong and producing no life, strange life, hostile conditions etc

Remember, probability is just about measuring the likelihood of a particular event occurring. If the event in question has already occurred then the likelihood of its occurrence is 100% because it already has occurred.

Then why do they put odds on the fine tuning argument for example. Even one of the parameters being the cosmological constant the odds are something like 1 possibility in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for it to be just right to have produced our universe and not something that either flies apart of collapses in on itself.

 

[stevevw]

Of course natural selection is not the only thing happening. There's also sexual selection for one. You won't find anyone who understands evolution saying that natural selection is the only thing there is. But it is a very important part, I would say easily the most important part.

Then why would those papers I posted earlier say when it comes to the genetic networks that build complex organisms natural selection is quantitatively minimal or even insufficient.

Also why would a prominent scientists and supporter of evolution who would know the current status say that most biologists see everything in adaptive terms (adaptations through natural selection). I have read many papers that same something similar plus from my experience with debating on this site I rarely if ever hear anyone acknowledge anything but natural selection as the driving force for evolution. All answers and examples are related to how adaptations through natural selection acting on random mutations can evolve just about anything through gradual slight modifications.

The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

The problem I have is when you consider the papers above that show that natural selection is not quantitatively dominant and even insufficient when it comes to evolving genetic networks in complex organisms and how there are other forces that can be more responsible for providing non random variation in the EES this equates to an important distinction that is being overlooked. It is giving credit to selection when other forces are responsible and even misleading. It is almost like religious belief in that it is like believing in something for the sake of it without verifying it is actually responsible.

 

[stevevw]

Only if you assume that evolution had to produce this particular biosphere.

So you are acknowledging that there is specified and complex info if we can show that certain situations such as the conditions for intelligent life on earth had to be a specific way. Does not the fine tuning argument show this.

 

[stevevw]

But that is not how design is usually detected. As pointed out, design is detected by prior experience and indications of agency, not probability.

So in your opinion how can this be done. How can we detect design.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It seems that Speedwell agrees that it is unlikely. Yesterday at 11:14 PM#37. The probability space for producing what we see today including intelligent beings has already been determined with the fine tuning of the universe to produce the earth and intelligent beings. The probability of the many physical constants falling within the narrow settings that they occupy as opposed to the vast possible other settings is around 1 in 10 to the power of 234. That's a 10 with 234 zeros.

Despite this assertion, the probability space is not known. The post hoc view you quote is irrelevant. If you don't understand that, find a credible source which says otherwise.

Ok but besides what Dembski says do you think there is complexity and specified info in say the fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life. As I said specified complexity is not rocket science. If you look at the fine tuning of the universe we know that there is a lot of complex info involved. We also know that the physical parameters have to be a specific setting and not any setting to produce intelligent life. Do you think there a protein is complex and needs to have specific info to function.

That's a lot of noise avoiding the issue: There is no such thing as specified complexity.

 

[SLP]

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.

Also, after Fernandez made the rounds on discussion forums hawking his "doctorate", and several people 'outed' him as having a mail-order, diploma mill rag that cost him $250, even his fellow creationists asked him to stop calling himself 'doctor.'

But sure - great paper!

 

[SLP]

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.

No need for that - the shadiness of the scammers involved was sufficient to make their claims suspect. Plus - open access journal....

 

[Speedwell]

So you are acknowledging that there is specified and complex info if we can show that certain situations such as the conditions for intelligent life on earth had to be a specific way. Does not the fine tuning argument show this.

No. In any case, you can't show it. You really have no idea what range of physical conditions will allow life to develop and diversify. No one does. That is one of the reasons science is so interested in discovering if there is life elsewhere than the Earth. In any case, the supposed "fine tuning" of the environment is not the topic. We are talking about the mechanism by which life diversifies and develops in an environment where it is possible.

So in your opinion how can this be done. How can we detect design.

It's not my "opinion;" that's how design is detected by everyone who looks for it.