Behe Video: Lengthening Odds

[busterdog]

Proteins and complexity

http://www.blinkx.com/video/michael...ingle-protein-molecule/sj7w0SBgQxWcSOMK8ERaYg

Why should the odds always get longer? The more the detail we amass, the more improbable the whole evolution thing seems.

Isn't science supposed to progress toward better odds that its theory actually works? Is there a reason why lengthening odds should be satisfactory?

 

[juvenissun]

A while ago, I thought the study of genetics could shed some lights to either support or discredit the idea of evolution. But genetics is such a monster that I have serious doubt on how much it could help on this issue now. Currently, all genetic biologists are so busy in studying the codes and the functions of genes. When they found something is changing in time sequence (days, or months), they misused (or "stole") the world "evolution" as if it were really a true fact. Since genetic information could not be preserved well in the geological environment (fossils), no matter what achievement they would get in genetics, the results probably could not be applied to the study of life changes in the past history of the earth. So, if paleontological argument could not convince creationist, perhaps couldn't either the genetic argument.

If fact, I am pretty disappointed by this implication.

 

[busterdog]

A while ago, I thought the study of genetics could shed some lights to either support or discredit the idea of evolution. But genetics is such a monster that I have serious doubt on how much it could help on this issue now.

Say more, because I think this is a very interesting response.

Interesting scripture:

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Why would God hide anything? It must have been a natural consequence of sin, which is generally how punishment comes.

Truth is hidden when the Pharisees are disinterested in the truth from the get go and want their orthodoxy to be their truth instead of God.

Eg, Adam sins by eating. In Gen. 3:17, the particular curse is the sweat of winning bread from the ground and contending with thorns. I am not just matching them symbolically, I am saying that this is a natural consequence of trying to go it alone in terms of eating.

What of genetics? The drift is toward greater improbability and greater complexity. Now, if one were to be able to understand exactly why it is 52.5478 degrees F here in New York, one might have mastered an understanding of the complexity of weather or how to change it. One can study agronomy endlessly and still have hordes of starving humans. So, being able to record and catologue data, and plot out the complexities of a system is not necessarily a victory. One could argue that it represents the increasing difficulty of a particular field.

Currently, all genetic biologists are so busy in studying the codes and the functions of genes. When they found something is changing in time sequence (days, or months), they misused (or "stole") the world "evolution" as if it were really a true fact.

Yes, I dont see the relationship between reading code and proving origins.

Since genetic information could not be preserved well in the geological environment (fossils), no matter what achievement they would get in genetics, the results probably could not be applied to the study of life changes in the past history of the earth. So, if paleontological argument could not convince creationist, perhaps couldn't either the genetic argument.

The fossil record and index fossils are separate arguments, of course.

If fact, I am pretty disappointed by this implication.

Perhaps we have chosen the wrong goal if we want to prove who God is and how creation happened through genetics. Some scientists have tried. It seems Behe's goals are more modest.

I understand your disappointment, but perhaps there is something better for us.

The TEs will suggest my thesis is to abandon the pursuit of "creation science" as sour grapes, if not science itself. But, I am really talking about a shared problem evident in conventional science. There is no point to speaking of whether to abandon a pursuit at the end of the game. Since the kingdom is so seldom sought "first" in such matters, who cares what to do with the detritus of a pursuit that avoids God. We should focus on seeking the kingdom first, as some do, including TEs.

But, the odds of evolution being fact simply get longer all the time. The same is true of cosmology. I agree, this is a monster.


By the way, what's up with the ying-yang? (yin yan) Curious.

 

[juvenissun]

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Why would God hide anything? It must have been a natural consequence of sin, which is generally how punishment comes.
....
The TEs will suggest my thesis is to abandon the pursuit of "creation science" as sour grapes, if not science itself. But, I am really talking about a shared problem evident in conventional science. There is no point to speaking of whether to abandon a pursuit at the end of the game. Since the kingdom is so seldom sought "first" in such matters, who cares what to do with the detritus of a pursuit that avoids God. We should focus on seeking the kingdom first, as some do, including TEs.

Very good point. The challenge (for a scientist) is to have a Godly motivation to engage in any scientific research at the first place. And then to know how to start any scientific research with a purpose of seeking the Kingdom of God. In other words, a Christian (Creation) scientist MUST know why to study science and how to study science with God's glory in mind from the beginning to the end of any research project.

To me (a layman to genetics), the science of genetics is a very significant part in the construction of the second (modern) version of the Tower of Babel. We do can see the glory of God by building this tower. But there is no way to disprove God (thus proves the evolution) by just discovering a very small corner of His secret. Currently, there are probably millions of people who are actively studying genetics. In lieu to the verse you quoted from Luke, God only "hides" His secret from those scientists who engaged in science, but without having God in their mind at the first place. To Christian (Creation) scientists who are doing the same genetic researches, they are, in fact, the babes of God. To me, there is no way we could ultimately understand how genetics work, just like we still do not know the nature of gravity.

By the way, what's up with the ying-yang? (yin yan) Curious.

I have been searching a logo for myself for twenty years. Yet I could not find, or design one which is satisfied to me. The yin-yan figure seems to be my second choice. In fact, I would like to see the white part be more dominant than the back part. But that would lose the beauty of the graph. This Daoism (Taoism) logo is almost perfectly designed according to the philosophy of Dao. Its meaning is well known and to a significant degree, consistent with Christianity.

I think you might have seen this marvelous figure of CMB pattern:

 

[busterdog]

Very good point. The challenge (for a scientist) is to have a Godly motivation to engage in any scientific research at the first place. And then to know how to start any scientific research with a purpose of seeking the Kingdom of God. In other words, a Christian (Creation) scientist MUST know why to study science and how to study science with God's glory in mind from the beginning to the end of any research project.

To me (a layman to genetics), the science of genetics is a very significant part in the construction of the second (modern) version of the Tower of Babel. We do can see the glory of God by building this tower. But there is no way to disprove God (thus proves the evolution) by just discovering a very small corner of His secret. Currently, there are probably millions of people who are actively studying genetics. In lieu to the verse you quoted from Luke, God only "hides" His secret from those scientists who engaged in science, but without having God in their mind at the first place. To Christian (Creation) scientists who are doing the same genetic researches, they are, in fact, the babes of God. To me, there is no way we could ultimately understand how genetics work, just like we still do not know the nature of gravity.

Some would say that we really do know how genetics works. (Wonder if Mark would weigh in here.) We have the tall peas and the short peas of course. We can sequence an entire genome. In what sense dont we know how genetics works? I would guess you mean, we dont know, for example, how genetics could possibly change a bump on the head into an eye or why the code for an eye even exists.

There are many theories for gravity. Some may be getting close. Since we dont know whether there even was gravity at Big Bang T -1 second, I dont exactly see how there is a comprehensive understanding of gravity either. THere is lots of data on its behavior, though, for whatever that is worth.

I have been searching a logo for myself for twenty years. Yet I could not find, or design one which is satisfied to me. The yin-yan figure seems to be my second choice. In fact, I would like to see the white part be more dominant than the back part. But that would lose the beauty of the graph. This Daoism (Taoism) logo is almost perfectly designed according to the philosophy of Dao. Its meaning is well known and to a significant degree, consistent with Christianity.

I think you might have seen this marvelous figure of CMB pattern:

Just as I thought, a heretic.

http://woodside.blogs.com/cosmologycuriosity/

Your gif lead to the plasma cosmology series with all sorts of radical creationist wackos like Fred Hoyle and Hans Alfven. Heresy indeed. (But, of course the latter are not young earth, or creationists.)

 

[shernren]

Who's "Hubert Jockey"? Can you find him online? Because I can't.

 

[huldah153]

Hasn't Ken Miller already debunked this stuff before?

Behe still believes that humans descended from apes, much to the dismay of the YECs.

 

[juvenissun]

Some would say that we really do know how genetics works. (Wonder if Mark would weigh in here.) We have the tall peas and the short peas of course. We can sequence an entire genome. In what sense dont we know how genetics works? I would guess you mean, we dont know, for example, how genetics could possibly change a bump on the head into an eye or why the code for an eye even exists.

One example I read a long while ago that impressed me was that a gene (or part of a gene?) is found to be responsible for the growth of a certain body part. But it was found later that other unidentified genes should also be responsible for the whole function of that particular body part. I could not remember the detail. But it is something of this nature.

If genes have one-to-one correspondence to functions/structure/morphology of a life, that might be possible to handle. If many genes all contribute at different degrees to the control of one element of a life, then I am not sure how complicate would the situation become.

 

[busterdog]

One example I read a long while ago that impressed me was that a gene (or part of a gene?) is found to be responsible for the growth of a certain body part. But it was found later that other unidentified genes should also be responsible for the whole function of that particular body part. I could not remember the detail. But it is something of this nature.

If genes have one-to-one correspondence to functions/structure/morphology of a life, that might be possible to handle. If many genes all contribute at different degrees to the control of one element of a life, then I am not sure how complicate would the situation become.

So, if you were to plot this one out, you have on the X axis, the amount of raw information and data derived about the subject of genetics. The y axis would be all the number of unknowns that have emerged for further inquiry. There would arguably be a parabolic increase in y with every advance of one unit along the x axis. In your case of these various genes, if a trait is expressed by cross-reference and combination across a multitude of sites, then would seem to have a very large number of possible combinations for the expression of a trait. The combination for the expression of the trait would represent a whole other order of magnitude.

However, what about the ability of a scientist to take a gene for luminescence and to clone a green glowing pig? Doesnt that suggest that these traits can be defined?


In physics anyway, it does seem there is an expansion of the regions unknowns. Before Hubble, there was one galaxy known to man. After Hubble, there were millions. The resolving power of science advanced one unit, but the unknowns increased by a factor of millions. Working backwards to the big bang, not only do several of these processes represent impossibly precise tuning or coincidence, but the singularity itself represents a region where our physical laws no longer apply. The possibilities are virtually infinite at that point. This does seem to establish a parabolic relationship.

In agriculture, we have perhaps a more tragic example. You have more colleges for agronomy and agriculture than ever, but many more people starving. And, of course, that is a Genesis 3 problem, since it reflects the curse of disobedience.

I did the following diagram for Sunday School:

This diagram is made to track the M particle. M goes from elipse to rectangle to triangle to the three rectangle region. Theortically, one could track the movements of M by time, distance, region, frequency, etc. By increasing the resolfing power, one can then examine its movements within the large elipse in the top left hand corner. M goes from rectangle to rectangle in a measureable pattern.

Consider that one could measure these movements so precisely that the probability of a particular trip could be predicted accurately for the next series of 20 trips or more. Maybe even a hundred. Any number of statistics could be generated to understand the movements of M.

But, what do you know? As you increase resolving power, you know less. Because then you are faced with a new combination of trips within elipses.

So, what happens when you know what M is?

Lets say M is mom. Mom goes from store to church to mall to home. You can figure out more or less when Mom is going to do what, but until you know who Mom is, you know very little. From the diagram, the fact of who Mom is and why these things happen is virtually impossible to know. And, even if you did know, how would make sense of what Mom does and why? You need to grow up with Mom and understand Mom. Not only is that another order of magnitude in terms of the data that you need to understand this situation, but arguably the data will never yield good results in order to understand Momness and how to live with Mom as God intended.

Mom goes from fridge to stove to table, etc. All so she can put dinner on the table. And why? Because Mom loves you. How do you crunch that data?

So, what we tried to do with this model is to understand different orders of magnitude in raw data and the variables created by deeper and deeper examination of a subject. I also think we demonstrated that to understand reality, you need to know the person. Fundamentally, this is not something that works well scientifically. And, it is an awful lot like trying to understand creation through the perspective of a person -- Jesus, who is God and the very Word by which the whole thing was ordered. Because He is a person, obviously we are to evaluate His Word like any one else's WOrd. He is either reliable or He isnt. He is either on our side or He isnt. He meets us, people who grew up in families with human values and knowledge. He meets us there with the only thing that can make sense of the whole mess --- a person who is God.

 

[juvenissun]

However, what about the ability of a scientist to take a gene for luminescence and to clone a green glowing pig? Doesnt that suggest that these traits can be defined?

I believe that is exactly genetic biologists are trying to do now. First map out the gene map. Then find out what each gene controls. After that, try to change life or to duplicate life.

However, I think there is an obvious BIG BIG scientific hole in this plan: Even we seemingly identified the function/control of each gene, we do not know HOW does it work. It is like to push a button in one room at NY and find out something happened in the other room at LA. We will soon find which button controls what as a quick linkage. But we still do not know how did it happen and how would it change with time.

So, anyone can see that there are a LOT of potential disastrous factors hidden in between.

 

[mark kennedy]

Proteins and complexity

http://www.blinkx.com/video/michael...ingle-protein-molecule/sj7w0SBgQxWcSOMK8ERaYg

Why should the odds always get longer? The more the detail we amass, the more improbable the whole evolution thing seems.

Isn't science supposed to progress toward better odds that its theory actually works? Is there a reason why lengthening odds should be satisfactory?[/QUOTE]

To start, the first living bacteria would require a precisely sequenced 100 amino acid protein followed but over 1,000,000 interdependent protein molecules of longer sequences. Here are the formulas for calculating it:

If any combinations of the 20 L-amino acids that are used in constructing proteins are equally possible, then there are:​

• (20^100) =1.3 x 10^130 possible amino acid sequences in proteins being composed of 100 amino acids.

This impossibility, of finding even one "required" specifically sequenced protein, would still be true even if amino acids had a tendency to chemically bond with each other, which they don't despite over fifty years of experimentation trying to get amino acids to bond naturally (The odds of a single 100 amino acid protein overcoming the impossibilities of chemical bonding and forming spontaneously have been calculated at:

• less than 1 in 10^125

It's not actually that complicated when you get to how Darwinian logic works. First you stretch our how old the universe is, decide how long the earth would take to cool and then assume the first living organism had all the time from then until the Cambrian Explosion. That is, you quite literally, have all the time in the world. The reason that you cannot fathom these mysteries is because you have not been enlightened by the a priori assumption of elemental forces that gave rise the this living system based on chance and necessity. Then you simply use similarities to form homology arguments and when the differences are found you insert some form of the expression 'natural selection' (positive or adaptive...etc).

That's why you can't understand the mystery, you are not enlightened.

 

[busterdog]

Isn't science supposed to progress toward better odds that its theory actually works? Is there a reason why lengthening odds should be satisfactory?

To start, the first living bacteria would require a precisely sequenced 100 amino acid protein followed but over 1,000,000 interdependent protein molecules of longer sequences. Here are the formulas for calculating it:

If any combinations of the 20 L-amino acids that are used in constructing proteins are equally possible, then there are:​

• (20^100) =1.3 x 10^130 possible amino acid sequences in proteins being composed of 100 amino acids.

This impossibility, of finding even one "required" specifically sequenced protein, would still be true even if amino acids had a tendency to chemically bond with each other, which they don't despite over fifty years of experimentation trying to get amino acids to bond naturally (The odds of a single 100 amino acid protein overcoming the impossibilities of chemical bonding and forming spontaneously have been calculated at:

• less than 1 in 10^125

It's not actually that complicated when you get to how Darwinian logic works. First you stretch our how old the universe is, decide how long the earth would take to cool and then assume the first living organism had all the time from then until the Cambrian Explosion. That is, you quite literally, have all the time in the world. The reason that you cannot fathom these mysteries is because you have not been enlightened by the a priori assumption of elemental forces that gave rise the this living system based on chance and necessity. Then you simply use similarities to form homology arguments and when the differences are found you insert some form of the expression 'natural selection' (positive or adaptive...etc).

That's why you can't understand the mystery, you are not enlightened.[/quote]

Well, just to illustrate my point, didnt there USED to be all the time in the world? Isnt the problem that conventional science is finding more and more complexity requiring more time than is available in the convention theory? That seems to be one upshot of Altenburg. It is also the driving force behind the notion that these things just must have an affinity for evolving, since there isnt enough time for it to happen by chance. Either way, the deeper you look, it seems the more zeros you have in the equation.

 

[mark kennedy]

To start, the first living bacteria would require a precisely sequenced 100 amino acid protein followed but over 1,000,000 interdependent protein molecules of longer sequences. Here are the formulas for calculating it:

If any combinations of the 20 L-amino acids that are used in constructing proteins are equally possible, then there are:​

• (20^100) =1.3 x 10^130 possible amino acid sequences in proteins being composed of 100 amino acids.

This impossibility, of finding even one "required" specifically sequenced protein, would still be true even if amino acids had a tendency to chemically bond with each other, which they don't despite over fifty years of experimentation trying to get amino acids to bond naturally (The odds of a single 100 amino acid protein overcoming the impossibilities of chemical bonding and forming spontaneously have been calculated at:

• less than 1 in 10^125

]It's not actually that complicated when you get to how Darwinian logic works. First you stretch our how old the universe is, decide how long the earth would take to cool and then assume the first living organism had all the time from then until the Cambrian Explosion. That is, you quite literally, have all the time in the world. The reason that you cannot fathom these mysteries is because you have not been enlightened by the a priori assumption of elemental forces that gave rise the this living system based on chance and necessity. Then you simply use similarities to form homology arguments and when the differences are found you insert some form of the expression 'natural selection' (positive or adaptive...etc).

That's why you can't understand the mystery, you are not enlightened.

Well, just to illustrate my point, didnt there USED to be all the time in the world? Isnt the problem that conventional science is finding more and more complexity requiring more time than is available in the convention theory? That seems to be one upshot of Altenburg. It is also the driving force behind the notion that these things just must have an affinity for evolving, since there isnt enough time for it to happen by chance. Either way, the deeper you look, it seems the more zeros you have in the equation.​

They don't have an answer for the probability argument and random mutations has never been much of an argument. The problem is that the a priori assumption is well before the evidence. They call this a culture war and while the battle lines are fluid I feel I do my part by exposing the essence of the Darwinian error. They assume entirely too much and what is infinitely worse, they insist that we all do. Behe has a good, solid argument for banging out the probability but the prize is how things actually evolve. I just wish I had the time and the means to pursue it.

Grace and peace,
Mark​

 

[busterdog]

They don't have an answer for the probability argument and random mutations has never been much of an argument. The problem is that the a priori assumption is well before the evidence. They call this a culture war and while the battle lines are fluid I feel I do my part by exposing the essence of the Darwinian error. They assume entirely too much and what is infinitely worse, they insist that we all do. Behe has a good, solid argument for banging out the probability but the prize is how things actually evolve. I just wish I had the time and the means to pursue it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I agree.

But, I think the increasing mathematical problem has forced a change in approach. Years ago, the creationists said the eye was just too unlikely a creation of evolution. In many ways, that was sort of an intuitive argument. Well reasoned, but there werent hard numbers behind it for the most part. Your example of the protein is the result for evolutionary science looking more deeply and finding the hard numbers and lengthening odds.

Thus, the shift in approach. Evolution has admitted the problem, but has tried to conceal it behind a new approach.

Now, to me, this seems the natural consequence of mistaken science. I think the Bible teaches very precisely that secular science will lead there one way or another -- to more data, but less of a grip on the ultimate solution.

 

[29apples]

This video is a classic example of Sir Hoyle's fallacy.

/thread

 

[busterdog]

This video is a classic example of Sir Hoyle's fallacy.

/thread

Yes, but evolution has a bent Kranitz rod.

Its slithy, even.

 

[29apples]

Yes, but evolution has a bent Kranitz rod.

Its slithy, even.

....wut?

how is evolution slimy and easily bent?

For clarification, Hoyle's fallacy is basically that he assumed that the creation of a protein is a independent and random event. This is an ignorant assumption. A google search will reveal the nature of Hoyle's fallacy (I cannot post links).

Protein sequences are not determined de novo. They are synthesized based on the previous sequence. So we cannot assign a probability of a sequence's formation because we do not know the ancestral sequence. Moreover, this video assumes that these sequences are random and they are not. The sequence has been guided using natural selection, and that is a nonrandom process.

You cannot have it both ways (recognize that microevolution is real and involves selection, but then say it is random because random implies no selection).

 

[shernren]

Its slithy, even.

(... proof that evolution never happened; the Jabberwocky is irreducibly complex.)

 

[busterdog]

....wut?

how is evolution slimy and easily bent?

For clarification, Hoyle's fallacy is basically that he assumed that the creation of a protein is a independent and random event. This is an ignorant assumption. A google search will reveal the nature of Hoyle's fallacy (I cannot post links).

Protein sequences are not determined de novo. They are synthesized based on the previous sequence. So we cannot assign a probability of a sequence's formation because we do not know the ancestral sequence. Moreover, this video assumes that these sequences are random and they are not. The sequence has been guided using natural selection, and that is a nonrandom process.

You cannot have it both ways (recognize that microevolution is real and involves selection, but then say it is random because random implies no selection).

Take it to OT.

Not here.

Slithy, as in slithy toves, from the poem, Jabberwocky. The words are really of no consequence.

 

[busterdog]

(... proof that evolution never happened; the Jabberwocky is irreducibly complex.)

Good job. A frabjous reply ......