A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[Speedwell]

Processes I have posted earlier associated with the EES such as developmental bias, plasticity, niche construction and extra genetic inheritance include epigenetics.

Those are all natural processes. No special intervention by a "designer" seems to be required.

 

[pitabread]

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. ie

This paper appears to specifically deals with mutations related to the production of proteins. Most of the genome doesn't encode for proteins. That paper doesn't support the idea that most mutations are deleterious.

 

[xianghua]

But you're just making that up. You're treating a ratio of functional/non-functional proteins as a probability and assuming arbitrary dependence for said probability.

There is no basis for this.



This is just a soundbite from a news article. It's not a demonstrable scenario on how electric eels evolved.

Quite frankly it tells us nothing of real value.



You don't know that. In fact, I've noticed any time probability arguments get brought up invariably those invoking them completely ignore selection effects.

ok so your main counter argument is natural selection. so lets be focus on that. do you think that we can design a complex system a step by step when every step is functional by itself? if so show me how. we can start with your cell phone. show me how your cell phine can be functional even in the first step and for what. and dont tell me that we cant compare living things with non-living things since in this case its irrelevant to the argument since you as designer can change anything you want, like mutations.

 

[Speedwell]

ok so your main counter argument is natural selection. so lets be focus on that. do you think that we can design a complex system a step by step when every step is functional by itself? if so show me how. we can start with your cell phone. show me how your cell phine can be functional even in the first step and for what. and dont tell me that we cant compare living things with non-living things since in this case its irrelevant to the argument since you as designer can change anything you want, like mutations.

Think of a different example. None of us know enough about cell-phone circuity to make it any fun.

 

[Ophiolite]

ok so your main counter argument is natural selection. so lets be focus on that. do you think that we can design a complex system a step by step when every step is functional by itself? if so show me how. we can start with your cell phone. show me how your cell phine can be functional even in the first step and for what. and dont tell me that we cant compare living things with non-living things since in this case its irrelevant to the argument since you as designer can change anything you want, like mutations.

Pick up a suitable rock. By suitable, I mean a silicate rock containing the various elements that constitute a silicon chip that lies at the heart of cell phone technology. Now throw the rock at someone, using it as a a weapon. Even today this ancestral function is still found from time to time. If you don't believe me, you haven't met my wife. She often throws things at me, including cell phones. (Actually, I prefer the term "mobile phone". They are certainly mobile when they hit me.)

Edit: In the interest of full disclosure and protecting the innocent, the foregoing is an illustrative example or moral fable that, while containing a Truth, is not necessarily true in detail. If we ignore the incident of the clothing iron my wife has never actually thrown anything at me.

 

[pitabread]

ok so your main counter argument is natural selection.

No. My counterargument is that you're using meaningless numbers to do a meaningless calculation to get a meaningless result.

As for the rest, I'm not going down the rabbit hole of discussing cell phones when the subject is biology. If you'd rather talk about cell phones then I suppose our discussion has come to an end.

 

[stevevw]

Those are all natural processes. No special intervention by a "designer" seems to be required.

I would expect God to use natural processes in a natural world. But as opposed to blind and random Neo-Darwinism the EES processes and the like give life inbuilt mechanisms that allow them to change with environments. It makes sense that God would include the some ways where life can adapt to changing environments.

 

[stevevw]

This paper appears to specifically deals with mutations related to the production of proteins. Most of the genome doesn't encode for proteins. That paper doesn't support the idea that most mutations are deleterious.

As far as I understand for bacteria just about all the DNA encodes for proteins. It is only in large portions of eukaryotic that DNA don't encode for proteins. But proteins are an important part that is the building blocks for life.

But mutational changes in non-coding areas can also cause harm.

It is well established that changes in genes can alter a protein’s function in the body, potentially causing health problems. It is becoming clear that changes in regions of DNA that do not contain genes (noncoding DNA) can also lead to disease.
Can changes in noncoding DNA affect health and development?

 

[stevevw]

The problem is that you don't know any of that, because we have only one example at hand of evolution producing a biosphere All that is required for us to be is to have a certain level of self-aware intelligence. We needn't be a primate or even a mammal. For all we know, evolution will always tend to produce some kind of creature with self-aware intelligence.

If that's the case it sounds a lot like design. A process that guarantees to produce a certain outcome over and over again seems like it is not subject to blind and random processes that could produce any number of outcomes.

Yes, but ID posits periodic acts of tinkering with molecular genetics by the "designer." Fine tuning of initial states with no mundane intervention subsequently is not ID.

No that is not ID, that is supernatural creation. ID only looks for signs of ID. This means a level of complexity and functioning that is beyond chance. This may be seen in how the living cell operates or how the earth is finely tuned for intelligent life in that the odds of a chance process setting the many physical conditions to be just right is incredibly high to the point that it is beyond chance and coincidence. Scientists say that even within the first split seconds of the big band the parameters had to be just right to produce what we have today.

Yes. And I think that is exactly what God intended. The existence of everything natural can be explained by natural forces. You are not going to be able to show using science that God exists.

I am not trying show God exists with science and I know that would be impossible. But I think we can see within those natural processes some order and design that go beyond chance. But I agree that natural processes can be used by God. What some see as nature creating itself therefore no God required can also be seen as Gods way of creation in a natural world.

Still I think people can fall into the thinking that we should dismiss any talk of showing design or direction in evolution because they are so fixated on maintaining the traditional theory. Non-religion scientists question the standard theory and support processes that show more direction in how life changes. So regardless of ones belief we can still look for design in life even if some say it only appears to be designed.

 

[Larniavc]

Yes, but ID posits periodic acts of tinkering with molecular genetics by the "designer."

Have any such things been found?

 

[Speedwell]

Have any such things been found?

No, not a trace. IDists cannot even suggest how it might happen.

 

[pitabread]

ID only looks for signs of ID. This means a level of complexity and functioning that is beyond chance.

That's not how design is typically detected though.

This is why ID proponents have failed to come up with a methodology to detect design in biology. They have been focusing on the wrong things.

When you look at other examples of design detection (e.g. SETI, archeology, paleontology, GM organisms, etc.) complexity, function, and/or probability has nothing to do with it. If fact, those aspects are arguably irrelevant.

 

[Larniavc]

Has anyone brought up magical animal cars yet?

 

[stevevw]

That's not how design is typically detected though.

This is why ID proponents have failed to come up with a methodology to detect design in biology. They have been focusing on the wrong things.

When you look at other examples of design detection (e.g. SETI, archeology, paleontology, GM organisms, etc.) complexity, function, and/or probability has nothing to do with it. If fact, those aspects are arguably irrelevant.

It is not just complexity but specified complexity. 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. 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.

 

[xianghua]

Think of a different example. None of us know enough about cell-phone circuity to make it any fun.

what about a car? can a car drive without wheels, chassis etc?.

 

[xianghua]

Pick up a suitable rock. By suitable, I mean a silicate rock containing the various elements that constitute a silicon chip that lies at the heart of cell phone technology. Now throw the rock at someone, using it as a a weapon. Even today this ancestral function is still found from time to time. If you don't believe me, you haven't met my wife. She often throws things at me, including cell phones. (Actually, I prefer the term "mobile phone". They are certainly mobile when they hit me.)

 

[xianghua]

No. My counterargument is that you're using meaningless numbers to do a meaningless calculation to get a meaningless result.

As for the rest, I'm not going down the rabbit hole of discussing cell phones when the subject is biology. If you'd rather talk about cell phones then I suppose our discussion has come to an end.

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?

 

[Speedwell]

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?

Why does it matter how many parts it has?

 

[Speedwell]

It is not just complexity but specified complexity. 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. 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.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

I would expect God to use natural processes in a natural world. But as opposed to blind and random Neo-Darwinism the EES processes and the like give life inbuilt mechanisms that allow them to change with environments. It makes sense that God would include the some ways where life can adapt to changing environments.

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.