Can an evolutionist explain these odds to me please?

Nathan Poe · Sep 24, 2002

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
I didn't realize that Hippocrates was that advanced.

Yep. He was the father of modern medicine for a reason. He may not have had much to work with, but he was one of the early scientists back in 4 B.C.:

"Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time."

Late_Cretaceous · Sep 24, 2002

I really do not understand why people connect complexity with God?
A lot of things are complex, but how would that affirm someone's belief? Math is, at least to me it is, but it does not lead me to say "I don't understand multivariant calculus, therefore God exists" (I do beleive in God, BTW, I just do not require - nor see - any evidence or proof thereof).

What we see as complex are really just the patterns that result from simple fundamental principles (in biology,cosmology, mathematics, or quantum mechanics).

seebs · Sep 24, 2002

I see the ability to get amazing complexity from simple inputs, and yet, to get amazingly simple things again if you work at it long enough, as quite telling.

chickenman · Sep 25, 2002

239 protein molecules? 445 amino acids per protein molecule?

where did you get these numbers from (or did you make them up)

Each strand contains 4 billion bits of information!!

each strand of what exactly? E.Coli DNA, human DNA? amoeba DNA?

seebs · Sep 25, 2002

For that matter, I think it's worth pointing out that, if you have a bunch of common molecules, the number of bits of real information isn't as high as it looks. "Three hundred copies of this sequence: [...]" is a lot less information than the same number of random sequences.

DNAunion · Sep 25, 2002

chickenman: 239 protein molecules? 445 amino acids per protein molecule?

where did you get these numbers from (or did you make them up)

DNAunion: I don't know for sure, but he might be basing the "239 protein molecules [needed for life]" on the minimal genome studies involving a mycoplasma.

ocean · Sep 25, 2002

The mycoplasma in no way needs 239 protein molecules, that bad science and bad math(statistics).

DNAunion · Sep 25, 2002

Ocean:The mycoplasma in no way needs 239 protein molecules, that bad science and bad math(statistics).

DNAunion: Right, it needs more than 239 (well, that was the consensus a little over 2 years ago).

The genetic information of Mycoplasma genitalium is 5,000 times smaller than the human genome, but this diminutive genome provides a starting point to define the essential genes required for life.

In the paper, published in the December 10 issue of Science, the minimum number of protein-coding genes required for cellular life in the laboratory is between 265 and 350.
(http://www.tigr.org/new/press_release_minimal.html)

Researchers believe that the simplest living thing on Earth would be a bacterium with between 265 to 350 genes. It is an organism that does not exist in nature - but we may be able to build it.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/556958.stm)

Scientists have found the essence of life - at least on a genetic level - and it comes down to about 300 genes. A team from the Institute for Genomic Research (Tigr) in Maryland pared-down the tiniest-known living organism, a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium, to its essential genes. "The analysis suggests that 265 to 350 of the 480 protein-coding genes of M. genitalium are essential under laboratory growth conditions, including about 100 genes of unknown function," the Tigr scientists have reported in the journal Science.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/556984.stm)

DNAunion: Do a Google search on mycoplasma genitalium 265 and a few PDF hits will come up on the first result page too.

mealzonwheelz · Sep 25, 2002

What i don't understand is that some can look at a cell and all its complexity and say, "That happend by time and chance." Do you think millions of years of wind and water damage caused 4 presidents faces on the edge of a cliff? No, it's an impossibility! Also, we are constantly listening to the stars, in search of ineligent life. Scientists believe the life forms will send a signal in the wave forms such as 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, ec. If such a thing ever happens, no one will say, "They arrived by chance." They would recognize the chances for such complexity could only have arrived from an inteligent source.

Morat · Sep 25, 2002

  What I don't understand is why people take a look at a complex theory, don't understand it, and immediatly decide that the problem is with the theory, and not their understanding of it.

    If they understood in the first place, I could see the jump.

 

SLP · Sep 25, 2002

WHICH RNA did you have in mind?

mealzonwheelz · Sep 25, 2002

i understand the complexity quite well. I am also willing to listen to evolutional theory, but i havn't yet been presented with any evidence that it exists. Evolution is a religion.

seebs · Sep 25, 2002

mealz: It's not a religion, because it's not a cosmology. You could argue that it's a theory which people believe for insufficient reasons, and at least it would be a reasonable claim.

I'm a religious guy; my religion is Christianity. I believe in God, and I believe that He sent His son to die for me. That's my religion.

I think evolution is the best currently available theory to explain a number of observations that have been made about the world I live in. That's science. It's not a religion. Now, you could argue that it could be disproven later; that's fine! It's just my current working understanding; I have very little emotional attachment to it.

However, I have seen an awful lot of evidence which I find compelling. You may not find the evidence compelling; it may not have been presented to you. However, there's a big gap between you not having been convinced of it, and there being no evidence for it anywhere.

fragmentsofdreams · Sep 25, 2002

Originally posted by mealzonwheelz
i understand the complexity quite well. I am also willing to listen to evolutional theory, but i havn't yet been presented with any evidence that it exists. Evolution is a religion.

Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. are religions. Evolution is a scientific theory. Contrary to popular belief (on both sides) it does not have any implications about the existence of God, only how God works within the world. The simplest evidence for evolution comes from looking at the variation in life preserved in the fossil record. More recently, the genetic similarity of species which are closely related. I'm sure someone else who has studied this more closely will be able to give you more extensive descriptions of the evidence.

LouisBooth · Sep 25, 2002

I actually talked to a friend of mine that is a math major about this and he did explain to me that evoultion wasn't possible given the time frame put forth by them in terms of probablity and statistics.

Late_Cretaceous · Sep 25, 2002

Well Louis, why doesn't your friend publish his research in a scientific journal. You could be lucky enough to personally know a Nobel Lauriate.

chickenman · Sep 26, 2002

louis, what does your friend actually know about the first life form.

I'll answer for him; "nothing"

no-one actually knows, so calculating probabilities (especially if you don't actually understand the biological/chemical processes) is totally pointless.

RufusAtticus · Sep 26, 2002

Originally posted by LouisBooth
I actually talked to a friend of mine that is a math major about this and he did explain to me that evoultion wasn't possible given the time frame put forth by them in terms of probablity and statistics.

Too bad the actual evidence contradicts his calculation.

fragmentsofdreams · Sep 26, 2002

Originally posted by LouisBooth
I actually talked to a friend of mine that is a math major about this and he did explain to me that evoultion wasn't possible given the time frame put forth by them in terms of probablity and statistics.

The problem is that while a math major would be able to look at the probabilities and combine them to make a prediction, without advanced study in biochemistry, he won't be able to make sure that his assumptions are correct.

I find it strange that people claim to be able to derive a probability of life when Ph.D. biochemists are still trying to understand why one protein is stable and another is not.

Morat · Sep 26, 2002

  Loius: Yes, that's very impressive. Please ask him to post his calculations here, okay?

  Or at least give them to you, so you can post them. Until then, you don't mind if we file you're friends opinion in the bin marked Lies, [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ed Lies, and Abiogenesis Statistics.

  Of course, if it was evolution and not abiogenesis he was talking about, I'd really love to see his math.

 

Can an evolutionist explain these odds to me please?

Well-Known Member

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

God Made Me A Skeptic

evil unamerican

God Made Me A Skeptic

Well-Known Member

Banned (just kidding)

Well-Known Member

Member

Untitled One

Senior Member

Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Critical loyalist

Well-Known Member

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

evil unamerican

PopGen Grad Student

Critical loyalist

Untitled One

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

<font color="#880000" ></font&g

<font color="#880000" ></font&g