A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[pitabread]

not at all. it is actually shows that the punda's thumb article is incorrect since its not even a functional protein.

Except per the paper you cited, they did identify functional proteins. Trying to claim they aren't functional is again just an exercise in goal-post shifting.

and even if it was true its still irrelevant since if the chance to get a functional protein (according to your article) is about 10^10 then the chance to get a multiprotein system (that contain 3 proteins) is about one to 10^30. using panda's thumb own calculations.

No, that's a gross misuse of probability.

First, the 10^10 number is not a probability; rather it's simply the approximate number of functional sequences among non-functional ones. Calculating an actual probability of emergence of said functional sequences requires more variables.

If you re-read the Panda's Thumb article, they allude to this in the discussion of 1000 liters of pond water filled with bacteria where they state that in just a few thousand generations the probability of such functional sequences arising will approach 1. In other words, it becomes a near certainty.

Second, you would only multiply probabilities in cases where there is strict dependence on a sequence of events. For example, calculating the probability of rolling three ones in a row on a six sided die. The probability of the outcome being strictly dependent on each roll of the dice.

When it comes to protein evolution, even in a multi-protein system, we don't necessarily know what the relative dependence of each step is. Especially when one considers what we know of evolution and that proteins can be multi-functional or undergo functional shifts. We also don't necessarily know the total probability space for potentially viable outcomes.

Finally, even if the relative probability of a specific outcome is extremely small, calculating the probability after-the-fact is meaningless. It would be like calculating the specific probability of a specific individual winning the lottery. The chance of which may be infinitesimally small, but after-the-fact such calculation is irrelevant.

 

[SLP]

not at all. it is actually shows that the punda's thumb article is incorrect since its not even a functional protein. and even if it was true its still irrelevant since if the chance to get a functional protein (according to your article) is about 10^10 then the chance to get a multiprotein system (that contain 3 proteins) is about one to 10^30. using panda's thumb own calculations.

I have not posted here for some time, but I have stopped by to read posts now and then, and this includes xianghua's. I get that English is not his first language, but something about this post struck me as odd - "punda's thumb" and then later "panda's thumb".
Broken English phrasing "it is actually shows" then later "and even if it was true its still irrelevant since if the chance to get a functional protein (according to your article) is about 10^10 then the chance to get a multiprotein system (that contain 3 proteins) is about one to 10^30. using panda's thumb own calculations."

I have seen students attempt to cover up cheating by randomly changing a word here and there to make it look like it is not copied.

I am seeing something similar here - clumsy 'broken English' at the start with a dubious misspelling, followed by a near perfect (well, internet forum perfect) and far more complicated and much longer sentence fragment... Just seems odd...
'

 

[Speedwell]

I have not posted here for some time, but I have stopped by to read posts now and then, and this includes xianghua's. I get that English is not his first language, but something about this post struck me as odd - "punda's thumb" and then later "panda's thumb".
Broken English phrasing "it is actually shows" then later "and even if it was true its still irrelevant since if the chance to get a functional protein (according to your article) is about 10^10 then the chance to get a multiprotein system (that contain 3 proteins) is about one to 10^30. using panda's thumb own calculations."

I have seen students attempt to cover up cheating by randomly changing a word here and there to make it look like it is not copied.

I am seeing something similar here - clumsy 'broken English' at the start with a dubious misspelling, followed by a near perfect (well, internet forum perfect) and far more complicated and much longer sentence fragment... Just seems odd...
'

Yes, he's been throwing cut-and-paste at us for several years. It seems to me that he finds some of these ID arguments plausible to the limited degree that he understands them, but can't defend them adequately on his own words. In fact, I don't think he has any real intention of defending ID as such but merely to discredit evolution for religious reasons. All he's doing with ID is looking for a "gotcha."

 

[stevevw]

If you are correct (given your posting history there is absolutely no reason to think you are) how does it show that evolution is impossible? It would merely suggest that the diversification of life is not fully understood, rather than make the mountains of evidence for common descent magically disappear.

You're letting your religious fervour cloud your thinking.

There could be another option where we can still support common decent but not use the Darwinian evolution which would rely on a blind and random process to find those very rare proteins as the main mechanism. It may be that there were processes that allowed those rare proteins to be tapped into because that,s the way life was equipped so they could vary and adapt to their environments. It seems logical if life needed to have the ability to change because earths environments often changed and they would be domed to die otherwise. Why risk putting living creatures at risk and in situations where they had to blindly fight to survive in a dog eat dog world when they could naturally change along with entire ecosystems. Why make everything about adaptations when there may be natural processes that life was built with to allow them more control to change.

 

[xianghua]

Correction - according to Axe's paper, a pre-specified functional active site in an enzyme will appear about one in every 10^77 sequences:

i actually do talking about specific function. so there is no need for correction here.

So generous. What is this premised on?

on the numbers that the panda's thumb article is taking about for instance.

Did you read the paper? All of the proteins involved are modified already-existing proteins (i.e., coded for by modified pre-existing genes; i.e., evolution). I found another paper that found 2 homologs in humans, so not only are these not 'brand new' proteins, they are not even unique to these fish.

irrelevant. even if all of these proteins are already exist in the genome, what is the chance to mix about several of them (say 5-10 out of 30 genes) to evolve this electric organ? its also make it even worse since now you need to expain how the other complex systems that these genes were taken from evolved stepwise. so you actually push back the problem.

Bottom line, these assertions about things being 'impossible' usually do not take scale, rates, etc. into consideration.

we can talk about that too. but first lets see if we can agree about that number.

What, for example, are the odds that the deity that you ascribe to exists?

very high actually. take a look at my signature link.

Define "new". Define "anatomical part". "Vision part" is a bit too... vague.

a new part just mean a new part. human eye for instance has many different parts (lens, retina etc) as we can see here:

(image from wiki)

 

[xianghua]

First, the 10^10 number is not a probability; rather it's simply the approximate number of functional sequences among non-functional ones.

what make you think that is so different from the number of mutations we need to evolve these functions?

If you re-read the Panda's Thumb article, they allude to this in the discussion of 1000 liters of pond water filled with bacteria where they state that in just a few thousand generations the probability of such functional sequences arising will approach 1. In other words, it becomes a near certainty.

off course. if we are talking about a single new part. by im talking about several of them at once. this is a different story.

Second, you would only multiply probabilities in cases where there is strict dependence on a sequence of events.

again this is what im talking about- several parts at once or nothing. remember that a single part will not be functional unless the other parts will exist.

Finally, even if the relative probability of a specific outcome is extremely small, calculating the probability after-the-fact is meaningless. It would be like calculating the specific probability of a specific individual winning the lottery. The chance of which may be infinitesimally small, but after-the-fact such calculation is irrelevant.

its not the same as lottery since in lottery there are millions of people that by a ticket. so someone should win the lottery usually. this isnt true for proteins evolution- the chance is so low that even if we had billions of mutations during the age of the earth is still too low number (say compare to 10^30).

 

[Speedwell]

again this is what im talking about- several parts at once or nothing. remember that a single part will not be functional unless the other parts will exist.

How do you know it won't be?

its not the same as lottery since in lottery there are millions of people that by a ticket. so someone should win the lottery usually. this isnt true for proteins evolution- the chance is so low that even if we had billions of mutations during the age of the earth is still too low number (say compare to 10^30).

That is why it is necessary to consider the number of individuals in the species when making such calculations--you never do.

 

[VirOptimus]

There could be another option where we can still support common decent but not use the Darwinian evolution which would rely on a blind and random process to find those very rare proteins as the main mechanism. It may be that there were processes that allowed those rare proteins to be tapped into because that,s the way life was equipped so they could vary and adapt to their environments. It seems logical if life needed to have the ability to change because earths environments often changed and they would be domed to die otherwise. Why risk putting living creatures at risk and in situations where they had to blindly fight to survive in a dog eat dog world when they could naturally change along with entire ecosystems. Why make everything about adaptations when there may be natural processes that life was built with to allow them more control to change.

Weak sauce. Just another unsopported unscientific post that try to support god(s) without stating so.

My guess is that you next try to support with the same papers you always use that you dont understand and where you refuse to write to the authors.

•yawn•

 

[Ophiolite]

There could be another option where we can still support common decent but not use the Darwinian evolution which would rely on a blind and random process to find those very rare proteins as the main mechanism. It may be that there were processes that allowed those rare proteins to be tapped into because that,s the way life was equipped so they could vary and adapt to their environments. It seems logical if life needed to have the ability to change because earths environments often changed and they would be domed to die otherwise. Why risk putting living creatures at risk and in situations where they had to blindly fight to survive in a dog eat dog world when they could naturally change along with entire ecosystems. Why make everything about adaptations when there may be natural processes that life was built with to allow them more control to change.

There is no sound reason to suppose that the existence of heretofore unidentified mechanisms that favour positive, useful mutations requires a God, or any other form of Intelligent Designer.

 

[stevevw]

There is no sound reason to suppose that the existence of heretofore unidentified mechanisms that favour positive, useful mutations requires a God, or any other form of Intelligent Designer.

The point is these mechanisms are identifiable and compared to Darwinian evolution they show design. If they show design then this points to a designer. For me it is a bit like having a software program that allows additional applications, info and functions. This is based on universal codes and laws. So the question needs to be asked where did this come from. They are more directed rather than by chance so point to design regardless of who may be the designer.

The basic idea of evolution is about blind natural selection acting on random mutations. There is no goal or purpose. Whereas these mechanisms associated with the EES and the like have direction and purpose and are designed to often do the thing Darwinian evolution claims but are self organised and thus bypassing the hit and miss of Darwinism. This makes more sense as far as there being an inbuilt method that all life was given to help them adapt and survive.

These mechanisms have been around from the beginning or at least way too early for there to be time for the gradual evolution Darwin talks about to account for the level of complexity and variety seen. They had to be around from the beginning as all life is based on the same basic forms which have not changed such as with the Cambrian period.

 

[stevevw]

Weak sauce. Just another unsopported unscientific post that try to support god(s) without stating so.

My guess is that you next try to support with the same papers you always use that you dont understand and where you refuse to write to the authors.

•yawn•

Hello VirOptimus nice to hear from you again. Heres one of those papers if you want to check it out. It would be good to get your views on it.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

 

[VirOptimus]

Hello VirOptimus nice to hear from you again. Heres one of those papers if you want to check it out. It would be good to get your views on it.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

One for one.

You have mis-used it for years.

Its 5 years old too.

•yawn•

 

[stevevw]

One for one.

You have mis-used it for years.

Its 5 years old too.

•yawn•

What does one for one mean. It is your opinion that I am misusing the paper. My basic argument is that the mechanisms in that paper are alternative ways that life can change and that natural selection has been mistakenly attributed with some of these changes. The paper states this so I cannot see the problem. It does not matter that it is 5 years old. At Uni papers up to 10 years were acceptable so long as it has been scientifically supported. The info discussed is also found in newer papers but I choose to use this one as it is the best at explaining things.

 

[VirOptimus]

What does one for one mean. It is your opinion that I am misusing the paper. My basic argument is that the mechanisms in that paper are alternative ways that life can change and that natural selection has been mistakenly attributed with some of these changes. The paper states this so I cannot see the problem.

One for one as my prediction was true.

We had this debate several years ago.

You still dont understand the article, I suggest upu write the authors with your interpration.

But I know you wont as its religion for you, not science.

 

[stevevw]

One for one as my prediction was true.

We had this debate several years ago.

You still dont understand the article, I suggest upu write the authors with your interpration.

But I know you wont as its religion for you, not science.

Still do not understand what you mean. My prediction is true !. This is an area I have studied at Uni so I don't need to contact any authors. I did not realize that the new criteria for posting papers is we have to contact authors. How about just addressing the content and how you think I am getting things wrong. In the time that I have known you you have never done this. This would allow the discussion to develop and we could get some meaningful insights.

 

[VirOptimus]

This is an area I have studied at Uni so I don't need to contact any authors. I did not realize that the new criteria for posting papers is we have to contact authors. How about just addressing the content and how you think I am getting things wrong. In the time that I have known you you have never done this. This would allow the discussion to develop and we could get some meaningful insights.

I have.

And I already know you are ignorant about science with no education in biology as you studied psychology.

 

[stevevw]

I have.

And I already know you are ignorant anout science with no education in biology as you studied psychology.

And that is what the paper is primarily about (social sciences). But I have also studied evolution as part of my degree as it related to the psychological and social changes. So it shows you are just dismissing things and have not read it.

 

[VirOptimus]

And that is what the paper is primarily about (social sciences). But I have also studied evolution as part of my degree as it related to the psychological and social changes. So it shows you are just dismissing things and have not read it.

U hu.

But you only argue against the ToE because of your religious beliefs.

Your arguments are void of scientific merit.

 

[stevevw]

U hu.

But you only argue against the ToE because of your religious beliefs.

Your arguments are void of scientific merit.

That does not make sense as I support evolution. Just not as dogmatically as some which I think is a wise position.

 

[VirOptimus]

That does not make sense as I support evolution. Just not as dogmatically as some which I think is a wise position.

No you dont as you deny natural selection.