A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[stevevw]

No you dont as you deny natural selection.

No that is your misunderstanding. I have always supported the idea of natural selection but have questioned its prominence. That is a common position nowadays by some scientists who are not religious.

 

[VirOptimus]

No that is your misunderstanding. I have always supported the idea of natural selection but have questioned its prominence. That is a common position nowadays by some scientists who are not religious.

Nope, its not.

What part, if any, does god have in evolution according to you?

 

[Speedwell]

T

The basic idea of evolution is about blind natural selection acting on random mutations. There is no goal or purpose.

How can you tell? How do you rule out intention from such a process?

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

Which mechanisms are you thinking of? Please detail one or two for me. I am at a loss to know what you may be thinking of. Please include in that detail an explanation of which aspects of the mechanism suggest design to you and why.

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.

Natural selection always has a goal. Select features with survival value. Your claim that natural selection is blind is a misleading one.

 

[stevevw]

Nope, its not.

What part, if any, does god have in evolution according to you?

I don't take any particular position strongly. If anything it would be more along the lines of theistic evolution. But I also support the idea of design in life where we should be able to see certain mechanisms that help living things to adapt to environments as well as natural selection. But natural selection can be mistaken for these mechanisms. For example in recent years we are hearing a lot more about convergent evolution. This is based on different creatures occupying similar environments and subject to similar pressures that cause them to evolve along similar pathways. This convergence is even being found now down to the molecular level.

But developmental processes can produce similar results in different creatures through developmental bias which can be mistaken for being the result of natural selection. Now some scientists are saying that the fundamental cause of some of the similarities is through development and natural selection comes in later as a refiner of the feature developed rather than just relying on extraordinary coincidences based only on natural selection sifting through random mutations. So developmental processes can produce certain features that are well suited to living things rather than any number of alternative features which may not be best which shows that these changes are more directed.

 

[stevevw]

Which mechanisms are you thinking of? Please detail one or two for me. I am at a loss to know what you may be thinking of. Please include in that detail an explanation of which aspects of the mechanism suggest design to you and why.

I have posted on example for VirOptimus and here is the the paper for this.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Natural selection always has a goal. Select features with survival value. Your claim that natural selection is blind is a misleading one.

As far as I understand natural selection is about weeding out the sick, slow, dysfunctional, non adaptive creatures and leaves the rest to survive and reproduce for whatever reason. Those that survive are not always the best functioning in their natural states.

 

[stevevw]

How can you tell? How do you rule out intention from such a process?

I rely on experts like Dawkins, He states

[Darwin’s] alternative to intelligent design was design by the completely mindless process of natural selection, according to which organisms possessing variations that enhance survival or reproduction replace those less suitably endowed, which therefore survive or reproduce in lesser degree. This process cannot have a goal, any more than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the present. Thus the concepts of goals or purposes have no place in biology (or any other of the natural sciences), except in studies of human behavior. (p. 282)

 

[Ophiolite]

I have posted on example for VirOptimus and here is the the paper for this.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Thank you. I shall study that and return with questions.

As far as I understand natural selection is about weeding out the sick, slow, dysfunctional, non adaptive creatures and leaves the rest to survive and reproduce for whatever reason.

Precisely. Natural selection selects for those with traits that favour survival. They reproduce because organisms that do not reproduce have selected their genes out of the population. It's not a reason, it's a characteristic. Why do you need there to be a reason?

Those that survive are not always the best functioning in their natural states.

Well, of course they are not. That is a very odd thing for you to say. Selection is subtle and impacted by contingent events. Some very "unfit" individuals will survive through pure luck; some individuals with excellent traits for survival will perish before they reproduce because of bad luck. However, overall beneficial genes will tend to increase in the population. Evolution is about populations, not individuals.

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't take any particular position strongly. If anything it would be more along the lines of theistic evolution. But I also support the idea of design in life where we should be able to see certain mechanisms that help living things to adapt to environments as well as natural selection. But natural selection can be mistaken for these mechanisms. For example in recent years we are hearing a lot more about convergent evolution. This is based on different creatures occupying similar environments and subject to similar pressures that cause them to evolve along similar pathways. This convergence is even being found now down to the molecular level.

But developmental processes can produce similar results in different creatures through developmental bias which can be mistaken for being the result of natural selection. Now some scientists are saying that the fundamental cause of some of the similarities is through development and natural selection comes in later as a refiner of the feature developed rather than just relying on extraordinary coincidences based only on natural selection sifting through random mutations. So developmental processes can produce certain features that are well suited to living things rather than any number of alternative features which may not be best which shows that these changes are more directed.

Just answer my question.

-edit- read it a bit hastily as your post is so long.

But yes, you want to insert god in science, thats a bad idea.

 

[stevevw]

Thank you. I shall study that and return with questions.

Thanks for engaging.

Precisely. Natural selection selects for those with traits that favor survival. They reproduce because organisms that do not reproduce have selected their genes out of the population. It's not a reason, it's a characteristic. Why do you need there to be a reason?

I am not saying there is a reason and in fact are saying that as Dawkins states , there is no reason, it is blind and purposeless. But I want to clarify that as far as I understand it as some say natural selection is about the survival of the fittest and not the arrival of the fittest. So there is no creative power but rather a sifting of those who cannot survive from those who can for whatever reason. It is environments that force change and cause some life to not be able to adapt.

Well, of course they are not. That is a very odd thing for you to say. Selection is subtle and impacted by contingent events. Some very "unfit" individuals will survive through pure luck; some individuals with excellent traits for survival will perish before they reproduce because of bad luck. However, overall beneficial genes will tend to increase in the population. Evolution is about populations, not individuals.

I just wanted to point out that selection is not always about the optimum living status. Some give natural selection this creative power like it is a god and can accomplish almost anything.

 

[stevevw]

Just answer my question.

-edit- read it a bit hastily as your post is so long.

But yes, you want to insert god in science, thats a bad idea.

Well you would have issues with just about all who supported theistic evolution.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well you would have issues with just about all who supported theistic evolution.

No I dont, as most dont mix religion and science. Just the ones who do which in my experience is very few and mostly from the US.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am not saying there is a reason and in fact are saying that as Dawkins states , there is no reason, it is blind and purposeless. But I want to clarify that as far as I understand it as some say natural selection is about the survival of the fittest and not the arrival of the fittest. So there is no creative power but rather a sifting of those who cannot survive from those who can for whatever reason. It is environments that force change and cause some life to not be able to adapt.

I think I must be missing something here. I am confused as to what you are saying. Some of it is trivial, some of it is wrong.

Using your terminology, mutations are the "arrival of the fittest", or at least the potential fittest. And, yes, the environment then determines which mutations are fit for that environment. The environment does not "cause some life to not be able to adapt". That makes no sense. Failure to adapt is a failure of suitable mutations to arise that would permit survival in a changing environment. Environments do not force change. Environments enable change - the change is forced by the mutations. The survival of the mutations is dependent upon natural selection.

Does that make sense to you?

I just wanted to point out that selection is not always about the optimum living status. Some give natural selection this creative power like it is a god and can accomplish almost anything.

Selection tends towards the optimum with the material that is available. I don't recall any research paper that accords natural selection the powers you speak of. Can you cite an example?

 

[SLP]

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

Huh?
That you are doing so is the problem. Pitabread explained the folly of your line of argumentation.

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

Were they also looking for ways to arrive at beta-lactamase active sites?

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?

I don't know - what are the odds that creationists move the goal posts when they have one of their main points undercut in their own reference? I'm estimating it to be >90%.

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.

My how you enjoy shifting goalposts!
Ok, so your creator god created electric organs only in some fish, in different groups of fish (again only some of them), by modifying genes involved in muscle function.
Explain how your creator did that.
Then explain how it created the muscle systems in the first place.
Then explain how this creator god came to be.

I have deleted the usual creationist attempt at a minor Gishing of the OP's point.

When in trouble, multiply the demands!

 

[stevevw]

No I dont, as most dont mix religion and science. Just the ones who do which in my experience is very few and mostly from the US.

Then what is the difference between theistic evolution and the standard evolutionary theory.

 

[Ophiolite]

Then what is the difference between theistic evolution and the standard evolutionary theory.

They are different things. Theistic evolution is a viewpoint about standard evolutionary theory. It is not, itself, a theory, or hypothesis. It is a philosophical standpoint. God created man (and the rest of the biosphere) through the medium of evolution, setting it in motion through the character of the universe.

That is my understanding of it. It seems an eminently sensible viewpoint for a theist to adopt.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then what is the difference between theistic evolution and the standard evolutionary theory.

None. The ToE just describes physical reality.

 

[Speedwell]

I rely on experts like Dawkins, He states

[Darwin’s] alternative to intelligent design was design by the completely mindless process of natural selection, according to which organisms possessing variations that enhance survival or reproduction replace those less suitably endowed, which therefore survive or reproduce in lesser degree. This process cannot have a goal, any more than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the present. Thus the concepts of goals or purposes have no place in biology (or any other of the natural sciences), except in studies of human behavior. (p. 282)

Well, you get what you deserve when you take metaphysics from a guy like Dawkins who doesn't know anything about it. In a way he is correct, however. The physical causality (in particular, the Efficient causes) which he is taking about do not themselves transmit Telos--which is why science does not treat of it.

 

[Speedwell]

I have posted on example for VirOptimus and here is the the paper for this.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

As far as I understand natural selection is about weeding out the sick, slow, dysfunctional, non adaptive creatures and leaves the rest to survive and reproduce for whatever reason. Those that survive are not always the best functioning in their natural states.

Yes, that is a very interesting discussion which evolutionary biologists are now having. However, whatever comes out of it will remain a fully naturalistic theory. There is no "gap" being contemplated which will require the insertion of divine tinkering.

 

[pitabread]

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

Because the relative proportion of functional versus non-functional sequences is something completely different from the number of mutations required to produce a functional sequence.

They're just not the same thing.

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.

There is no basis to assume that a single "part" (whatever that is supposed to mean) will be non-functional on its own.

In the context of the thread topic, the whole discussion is about the relative proportion of functional versus non-functional sequences. And by definition a functional sequence is, well, functional.

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).

The point about the lottery analogy is to illustrate the misuse of probability calculations. Right away you spot the error with the lottery claim (e.g. the fact there are multiple possible outcomes), but then make the same error all over again when talking about protein evolution.

In the case of evolution we have far more than billions of mutations to talk about. Even right now there are an estimated 5x10^30 bacteria on Earth; and that's just right now, not even counting all the various life that has existed on Earth for the past 4 billion years. That's not "billions of mutations". We're talking orders of magnitudes of orders of magnitudes of orders of magnitudes more than that.

So even if a particular sequence only occurred once in 10^30 instances, there is more than enough of both time and lifeforms to ensure it's probably happened at least once.

At any rate, by your own logic, James Bozeman Jr. shouldn't have won the lottery twice since the odds would be too great: Florida man claims $3M Lotto jackpot after winning $10M last year

But he did anyway. Which further illustrates why after-the-fact probability calculations (even if they can be meaningfully calculated) aren't particularly useful.