A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

Speedwell said:

Yes, it doesn't take very long for people who know something about math and information theory. It can be done quickly. And that is part of the problem you are having with your present line of argument. You may find it convincing, but for the rest of us it has been debunked for years. It was only ever a hoax anyway, concocted by a bunch of radical Calvinists at the Discovery Institute as a Trojan Horse for their political agenda. Is there really anything to ID? I don't know. In a way it's like Cold Fusion. People are still tinkering with it, and who knows what they may eventually discover? But Fleischmann and Pons will be pariahs forever.

Click to expand...

The thing is the author of that paper George D. Montañez is not part of the discovery organisation and has also used the same findings in mainstream work and it is accepted there. The work is peer reviewed and he has a long history of other similar works as well as receiving awards for his work. It is unfair to just say his work is wrong because of the journal it is in. Are you saying he is just making up the work because of his beliefs.

lasthero said:

It could just be that the water was poured into the hole, frozen, then taken out. That would be the logical conclusion, I think. I certainly wouldn't assume that someone designed the ice to fit in the hole. I suppose it's possible that someone cut the ice just right to fit in a hole that they designed, but since it's easier to just pour water in the hole and freeze it, I'd assume that was happened.

Click to expand...

But the puddle argument does not address the specific complexity of fine tuning. The data shows that there are 30 plus constants that are independent of the laws of nature falling into the range that allow for life to exist which seems statistically impossible to happen. If any were off by a the tiniest of margins we would not exist. The puddle example fails to address the specific complexity in fine tuning. It is begging the question by assuming what you want to argue by appealing to the naturalistic presupposition that life happens to be there because the constants just happen to be where they should be to allow life.

Bungle_Bear said:

I started by laughing that you think a paper in an ID mouthpiece should be taken as anything other than a biased article.

Click to expand...

The article is open to peer review you know like any science and therefore can be assessed. Did you also know that this happens in mainstream science. The majority of articles submitted for peer review have been found to be wrong due to sloppy work and bias.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

I then pointed out that the article says nothing new and provides no new support for ID.

Click to expand...

You have misunderstood my first point and ignored the second.[/QUOTE] Ok sorry, then are you saying that we have already been able to measure the specified complex info required in things like a living cell.

stevevw said:

The thing is the author of that paper George D. Montañez is not part of the discovery organisation and has also used the same findings in mainstream work and it is accepted there. The work is peer reviewed and he has a long history of other similar works as well as receiving awards for his work. It is unfair to just say his work is wrong because of the journal it is in. Are you saying he is just making up the work because of his beliefs.

Click to expand...

No, I am under the impression that he is merely making the same post hoc assumption that you make. Indeed, the odds against evolution producing the biosphere we see today are truly astronomical.

stevevw said:

What do you mean respond to selection.

Click to expand...

Selection is the final arbiter of all variations in phenotype, however they were produced.

stevevw said:

But Natural selection is blind and acts on random mutations so it has no overall purpose.

Click to expand...

And that is merely your metaphysical assumption--that physical process with randomizing elements can have no purposes.

Speedwell said:

No, I am under the impression that he is merely making the same post hoc assumption that you make. Indeed, the odds against evolution producing the biosphere we see today are truly astronomical.

Click to expand...

Actually he makes no assertions in that paper. He is just providing a way of measuring specified complexity. His specialist area is machine learning.

Speedwell said:

And that is merely your metaphysical assumption--that physical process with randomizing elements can have no purposes.

Click to expand...

No it is what the experts say about evolution.

Richard Dawkins
Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all.

Douglas Futuyma a prominent evolutionary biologist states that evolution 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 science

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) even teaches that evolution has no purpose
The diversity of life on earth is the result of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

Speedwell said:

Selection is the final arbiter of all variations in phenotype, however they were produced.

Click to expand...

Yes I would agree.

stevevw said:

No it is what the experts say about evolution.

Richard Dawkins
Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all.

Douglas Futuyma a prominent evolutionary biologist states that evolution 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 science

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) even teaches that evolution has no purpose
The diversity of life on earth is the result of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am familiar with those quotations. We see them cited frequently by creationists who are trying to prove that the theory of evolution is the tool of a satanic conspiracy to deny the existence of God. That's not what I'm talking about.

stevevw said:

The article is open to peer review you know like any science and therefore can be assessed. Did you also know that this happens in mainstream science. The majority of articles submitted for peer review have been found to be wrong due to sloppy work and bias.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False


Ok sorry, then are you saying that we have already been able to measure the specified complex info required in things like a living cell.

Click to expand...

That's not what I said. What I said was: he has claimed to have a method to post hoc decide that it is highly improbable that something would evolve. He has not measured specified complexity in any meaningful manner.

stevevw said:

Maybe but that does not mean that there were other mechanisms that created the creature and feature for evolution (natural selection) to refine. IE natural selection is good at explaining survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest.

Click to expand...

And it's never claimed to explain the origins of life.

That doesn't mean that some intelligent entity designed it.

And it doesn't mean we should accept any claim without evidence to back it up.

But Natural selection is blind and acts on random mutations so it has no overall purpose. It cannot see ahead to know what would is needed. As mentioned the EES mentions that there are many processes that produce phenotype that are not random. It can dictate what natural selection can and cannot do.

Click to expand...

No it isn't blind. The variations are random, yes, but if the variation conveys some advantage, then the individual that has that variation is more likely to survive long enough to reproduce and thus pass on that advantageous variation. If the variation causes a disadvantage, then the individual that has it is not as likely to survive long enough to reproduce, and thus the chances that this variation will be passed on are lower.

So, the likelihood of a variation being passed on is a direct result of what effect that variation has. This is not blind.

This is a basic concept in evolution. If you do not understand this, I would suggest that a discussion about evolution is not the best place for you at the moment.

Yes there is a lot of complex math that is over my head. But I can understand enough through the summaries and commentaries how it offers a general mathematical definition of specified complexity and how this can be used to measure if something has specified complexity or not. It is a fallacy to say that a person cannot use a paper as support if they cannot completely understand it at the level of the author in that area. If this was the case no one could make any claims because all we would have is specialist in those fields and personal claims which would be even less supported. I am pretty sure that of all the claims on this thread they are all not from professionals at the degree or masters level.

But this is what I find a lot is that the claim is made that there is no support for ID or its measurement and when there is all sorts of fallacies are put forward like people don't understand enough to comment or the source is suspect in some way.

Click to expand...

When it comes to information theory, I've found that if you think you understand it but you aren't an expert in the field, then you don't understand it. I'm not kidding when I said it is INSANELY complex. I steer clear of that field because I know I don't have the skill to understand it.

stevevw said:

Evolution works with blind selection which cannot know what is needed ahead of time and random mutations that can throw up anything which selection has to sift through. That creates a hit and miss process where non-beneficial mutations are entered into the mix which can undermine situations especially where specific info is needed for complexity despite selection trying to weed this out. In fact this process can be detrimental to complex systems that are delicate and require specificity.

That is why the processes mentioned in the EES make more sense. They throw up well suited and integrated features which are not a risk or problem to the living thing and make it easier for selection to consolidate.

Click to expand...

That's not exactly how natural selection works.

Natural selection does not determine what variations are made, it determines what variations are spread throughout the population.

yes why not. Supporters of theistic evolution take this position.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence to support such a position, that's why not.

No see that is the misconception of ID. It is a science so it will look for the smaller steps and anything that can be scientifically supported to show how an intelligent designer would use with the way life develops and is self organised to achieve the outcomes.

Click to expand...

This does not make any sense. Why should an intelligence start off with baby steps if it has the capability to do it in one step?

From the position of someone who believes in a creator we will say that it cannot happen without God.

Click to expand...

But you don't actually have any evidence to support that claim.

Whether that is creationism (supernatural) or theistic evolution (supernatural and scientific). I and some others just happen to think there should be more evidence out there which is just adding some more science to the equation. But it is not just a case of life being complex so God must have done it because I am looking for the scientific evidence that I believe should be out there. It is really just theistic evolution with some add on's I guess.

Click to expand...

Yet this evidence which you claim should be out there is nowhere to be seen.

I guess I may be taking a bigger view of things. How the universe was geared just right to allow earth. How earth was geared just right to allow life. How life has certain inbuilt mechanisms that ensure life will adapt to earth and produce the type of life we have today. I don't think Darwinian evolution guarantees that.

Click to expand...

And you said the puddle story doesn't apply? This is exactly the same thing! You say the universe was designed just right to allow life! The puddle said the hole was shaped just right to allow the puddle! How can you not see that the same faulty logic is being used in both cases?

I often find spoons missing. Could it be the dinner plate fairies evolving.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. Your dinner plates aren't the ones with the little metal rim around the outside, are they? They may be stealing spoons to make those rims!

yeah but I don't think that applies here either. That would be like someone getting a hose and filling the hole up with water. But then we would know that an intelligent agent did that. A better example for fine tuning would be if the there was frozen lump of water with all its jagged edges and a hole was found that just happened to fit that frozen water shape. That would seem too perfect to be by chance.

Click to expand...

No, that isn't correct.

There was a hole that was not formed by any intent or design. It rained, and the rain formed a puddle in the hole.

You see, your mistake is in thinking that the final shape of the puddle is fixed from the start. It is not. The puddle is a fluid, it changes shape to fit whatever conditions are present. Likewise, evolution produces life forms that are adapted to the conditions present.

Speedwell said:

Yes, I am familiar with those quotations. We see them cited frequently by creationists who are trying to prove that the theory of evolution is the tool of a satanic conspiracy to deny the existence of God. That's not what I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

Actually the quotes were taken from Jerry Coyne's site who is an avid supporter of evolution.
Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless

The reason evolution is blind is because it cannot know what is needed ahead of time. It only responds to the present environmental pressures. So if a creature has evolved to fit a certain environment and that environment changes the features that were beneficial for it to survive and reproduce become the features that can cause it to die out. Natural selection cannot know that the environment has changed and will still produce the same features that are now unsuitable. In this sense according to evolution theory creatures are not evolved to be more optimal but to reproduce. They will carry remnants of vestigial traits that are no long useful. Some may only survive a short time but still be able to reproduce.

That is why the mechanisms mentioned in the EES are important. They allow creatures to produce features that are well suited to environments without having that blind process because the environment pressure can influence the type of feature produced by having an effect on their cells and tissues. Creatures can also change environments so that they are more suitable to them therefore bypassing the need to adapt (the environment adapts to the creature rather than the creature adapt to the environment). Creatures can also make themselves more adaptable through cultural and social processes.

Kylie said:

That's not exactly how natural selection works.

Natural selection does not determine what variations are made, it determines what variations are spread throughout the population.

Click to expand...

Yes but sometimes even non-beneficial mutations end up spreading in a population as well because selection cannot see them to weed them out. Because mutations are random they can undermine the evolution of complex organisms especially for smaller populations like erythrocytes and especially when the level of complexity increases. So increases in complexity are more likely to stem from non-adaptive sources IE

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

Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the non-adaptive 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.
What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

As Lynch states in his paper why have single celled organisms succeeded so well when compared to multi-celled complex life. It is because adaptive evolution introduces mutations that undermine the delicate and complex genomic structures in complex organisms. Despite natural selection attempting to weed out the mutational effects that cause dysfunction the process of random mutations causes genomes to be undermined by the fact that these fine tuned structures need to be upheld and any change needs to be the right kind to maintain this.
Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13). It may be no coincidence that such species also have substantially higher extinction rates than do unicellular taxa (47, 48).

There is no evidence to support such a position, that's why not.

Click to expand...

I wasn't making a claim about it being verified just agreeing with you that the current theory as used by supports of theistic evolution can be used as a way of how God allowed life to survive on earth.

[/quote] This does not make any sense. Why should an intelligence start off with baby steps if it has the capability to do it in one step?[/quote] Not really, ID is a science so it is not going to support a process that can create life in one step. That is more associated with creationism. It is only concerned with signs of design in life and supporting this scientifically.

But you don't actually have any evidence to support that claim.

Click to expand...

Directly no but indirectly we can find some support. That is why people look at the fine tuning argument. ID is really based on the same idea that life is fine tuned to survive so there may be evidence of this. It may not verify a God but it can support some sort of agency. Some scientists in finding it hard to support how life began on earth claimed that an intelligent alien race seeded earth with life. Though this is not about evolution the same sort of logic can be used.

Yet this evidence which you claim should be out there is nowhere to be seen.

Click to expand...

That depends on how you see the evidence. Take the fine tuning argument. Many people use this as a sign of intelligent agency setting the parameters for intelligent life to exist on earth. ID is based on a similar logic. How can the living cell be so fine tuned to build proteins for life. There are only a set amount of protein that require highly complex info in an information pot of unlimited possibilities. How did this happen. Some of the papers showing how rare functional proteins are can help build a case for there being very specific structures and info required for the living cell that points to intelligence.

And you said the puddle story doesn't apply? This is exactly the same thing! You say the universe was designed just right to allow life! The puddle said the hole was shaped just right to allow the puddle! How can you not see that the same faulty logic is being used in both cases?

Click to expand...

No the fine tuning arguments show how each of 30 physical parameters need to be finely tuned to allow life. This can be measured and we can see that any slight variation may produce a universe that does not produce intelligent life. The puddle example does not give any explanation of how the particular jagged edges are the way they are. Applied to the fine tuning argument it would assume that the 30 parameters for life happen to be just right because we have intelligent life. It does not make an argument. You need to tell us why the hole which equates to the 30 physical parameters for producing life was that shape as opposed to billions of other possible shapes.

Perhaps. Your dinner plates aren't the ones with the little metal rim around the outside, are they? They may be stealing spoons to make those rims!

Click to expand...

Darn plates I knew they were up to no good.

No, that isn't correct.

There was a hole that was not formed by any intent or design. It rained, and the rain formed a puddle in the hole.

You see, your mistake is in thinking that the final shape of the puddle is fixed from the start. It is not. The puddle is a fluid, it changes shape to fit whatever conditions are present. Likewise, evolution produces life forms that are adapted to the conditions present.

Click to expand...

The mistake with your idea is that you are assuming there is only one hole with a certain jagged shape (set of parameters). The fine tuning argument has 30 parameters and each is set at a specific condition in a sliding scale that could have been set at any setting in the billions and billions maybe unlimited. So your hole only deals with one set of parameters. So for the puddle example to work the specific jagged shape of that hole would have to be set as opposed to other shaped holes and only that hole could be fill with water despite there being many other holes around it. Otherwise you assuming things and are begging the question in that life came about because all the physical parameters were right and all the parameters were right because life came about. The water fits the puddle because the puddle fits the water.

stevevw said:

Actually the quotes were taken from Jerry Coyne's site who is an avid supporter of evolution.
Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless

Click to expand...

Yes, and I agree with them. As I said, I was talking about divine Telos, which is something else altogether. I was just commenting that these same quotes are often misused by creationists trying to show that evolution cannot be an instrument of divine providence.

The reason evolution is blind is because it cannot know what is needed ahead of time. It only responds to the present environmental pressures. So if a creature has evolved to fit a certain environment and that environment changes the features that were beneficial for it to survive and reproduce become the features that can cause it to die out. Natural selection cannot know that the environment has changed and will still produce the same features that are now unsuitable.

Click to expand...

That is why random variation is fundamental to the success of evolution. The variation of a trait in the population is randomly distributed--that is, according to bell curve--so that as the environment changes, there are always individuals, outliers at the "tails" of the distribution to take advantage of the changed conditions. You are right in supposing that if the environment changes too fast it will outrun the distribution and the population will become extinct.

Speedwell said:

Yes, and I agree with them. As I said, I was talking about divine Telos, which is something else altogether. I was just commenting that these same quotes are often misused by creationists trying to show that evolution cannot be an instrument of divine providence.

Click to expand...

OK haven't heard of that one.

That is why random variation is fundamental to the success of evolution. The variation of a trait in the population is randomly distributed--that is, according to bell curve--so that as the environment changes, there are always individuals, outliers at the "tails" of the distribution to take advantage of the changed conditions. You are right in supposing that if the environment changes too fast it will outrun the distribution and the population will become extinct.

Click to expand...

Bungle_Bear said:

That's not what I said. What I said was: he has claimed to have a method to post hoc decide that it is highly improbable that something would evolve. He has not measured specified complexity in any meaningful manner.

Click to expand...

All the author has done was devise a detailed mathematical theory of what specified complexity is, what it does and how it can be used to rule out proposed explanations. It is more like a formula that allows others to come up with models they can to use in their own work to measure specified complexity.

stevevw said:

OK haven't heard of that one.

Click to expand...

Start with Aristotle and his four kinds of causality.

Here is a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas which I also like:

"Divine providence imposes necessity upon some things; not upon all, as some formerly believed. For to providence it belongs to order things towards an end. Now after the divine goodness, which is an extrinsic end to all things, the principal good in things themselves is the perfection of the universe; which would not be, were not all grades of being found in things. Whence it pertains to divine providence to produce every grade of being. And thus it has prepared for some things necessary causes, so that they happen of necessity; for others contingent causes, that they may happen by contingency, according to the nature of their proximate causes."

The mechanism of evolution is a contingent cause.