Creation By Random/Chance Mutation

[justlookinla]

Great article here discussing the view of creation by random/chance mutation....

The Mathematical Challenges of Darwinism

"The evolutionary explanation of life is thus "top down":

Life exists
Natural selection is the best (non-theistic) explanation we have for life
Natural selection must therefore account for the complexity of life and all information systems no matter how improbable it seems.

By contrast the "bottom up" view can be summarised along these lines:
The universe is described by a handful of dynamical equations.
The probability of informational complexity arising as a result of any purely stochastic system of laws is vanishingly small.
The observed informational complexity of life vastly exceeds anything a mutational model can deliver within the age of the universe.

A seldom documented problem is that the epistemological foundation of evolution rests entirely on the state of the universe - the assertion that truth is ultimately defined by nothing more than the location and velocity of molecules in what is in effect a cosmic pinball machine."

 

[Shemjaza]

Wow PRATTs!

If only abiogenesis and evolution weren't assumed purely the result of random chemistry where any chemical configuration wasn't as likely as any other! Oh wait!

Also, the comment about "unchanged" fossil species are so incorrect and have been for so long that I feel they are deliberate untruths.

 

[sandybay]

Great article here discussing the view of creation by random/chance mutation....

The Mathematical Challenges of Darwinism

"The evolutionary explanation of life is thus "top down":

Life exists
Natural selection is the best (non-theistic) explanation we have for life
Natural selection must therefore account for the complexity of life and all information systems no matter how improbable it seems.

By contrast the "bottom up" view can be summarised along these lines:
The universe is described by a handful of dynamical equations.
The probability of informational complexity arising as a result of any purely stochastic system of laws is vanishingly small.
The observed informational complexity of life vastly exceeds anything a mutational model can deliver within the age of the universe.

A seldom documented problem is that the epistemological foundation of evolution rests entirely on the state of the universe - the assertion that truth is ultimately defined by nothing more than the location and velocity of molecules in what is in effect a cosmic pinball machine."

The same thing applies to both of us, if one of our parents had turned left instead of turning right our parents might never have met, if one of our grand parents had been offered a job in another town our parents would never have met, life is full of what if's so why should it be any different for everything that lives or exists?

You are only concerned with evolution because it runs counter to what you want to believe, if you want to waste your time fighting reality it's OK but please don't think for one minute that believing what you want to believe changes anything in reality.

Magic has never been nor will ever be the answer.

 

[Loudmouth]

Life exists
Natural selection is the best (non-theistic) explanation we have for life

What are the theistic explanations, and where is the evidence for these explanations? How do these theistic explanations deal with the nested hierarchy and other observations?

Natural selection must therefore account for the complexity of life and all information systems no matter how improbable it seems.

You are committing the bridge hand fallacy where you calculate the improbablity of a hand being dealt after it has already been dealt. According to your creationist logic, it should be impossible to shuffle a deck of cards and deal 4 bridge hands.

When something has already happened, the odds of it happening are 1 in 1.

The probability of informational complexity arising as a result of any purely stochastic system of laws is vanishingly small.

You need to back this claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow PRATTs!

If only abiogenesis and evolution weren't assumed purely the result of random chemistry where any chemical configuration wasn't as likely as any other! Oh wait!

Also, the comment about "unchanged" fossil species are so incorrect and have been for so long that I feel they are deliberate untruths.

Yep, and the author shoots himself in the foot several times over. i love it when creationists site the Coelacanth as an argument against evolution. When they claim that the same fish is alive and healthy today they are doing the equivalent of saying that a lemur, not just a monkey but a lemur, is the same as a man. Coelacanths are an entire order of fish. Our order is that of primates So trying to claim that all Coelacanths are the same is equivalent to saying that all primates, man included, are the same.

 

[sfs]

What are the theistic explanations,

So far, natural selection is also the best theistic explanation.

 

[Loudmouth]

So far, natural selection is also the best theistic explanation.

I am fine with that, even if I don't share in those beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Also whenever I see a title that implies that there will be a mathematical argument against evolution there is usually not even a need to read the poor thing. They almost always point to a result and try to argue against that by the odds against that event occurring if the present life was a goal. What creationists can never seem to realize is that mankind was never a goal of evolution. On a personal level we can simply go back a few generations and see how "impossible" the birth of a specific individual was when various different aspects are considered. It quickly becomes obvious that all of us as individuals are "statistically impossible". Either someone is using statistics wrong or there is a constant streak of miracles occurring.

 

[Loudmouth]

Also whenever I see a title that implies that there will be a mathematical argument against evolution there is usually not even a need to read the poor thing. They almost always point to a result and try to argue against that by the odds against that event occurring if the present life was a goal. What creationists can never seem to realize is that mankind was never a goal of evolution. On a personal level we can simply go back a few generations and see how "impossible" the birth of a specific individual was when various different aspects are considered. It quickly becomes obvious that all of us as individuals are "statistically impossible". Now either someone is using statistics wrong or there is a constant streak of miracles occurring.

I like this image.

 

[ChetSinger]

Great article here discussing the view of creation by random/chance mutation....

The Mathematical Challenges of Darwinism

Thanks for that! I read only the introduction but I liked how he identified the limits of the selection space.

I think the size of his space was far too large since he allowed for 10^43 reactions per second, but that's his choice.

And I think his quote of Popper's conundrum is still valid:

What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. .... The code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a really baffling circle: a vicious circle, it seems for any attempt to form a model, or a theory, of the genesis of the genetic code.

And Popper realized that back in 1974!

 

[Loudmouth]

Thanks for that! I read only the introduction but I liked how he identified the limits of the selection space.

I think the size of his space was far too large since he allowed for 10^43 reactions per second, but that's his choice.

Lottery results produce more improbable occurences than that. If you take the last 20 winners, the odds of those specific people winning is more improbable than the probabilities creationists cite for abiogenesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like this image.

Except that shooter is still far too accurate to represent a creationist. It would be more realistic to have a barn the target and each shot would have one bullet drawn in the center with the barn cut to pieces after the fact. But yes, all that article uses is the Texas sharp shooter fallacy. it once again uses results as if they were goals and calculates the "odds" of those goals.

 

[justlookinla]

So far, natural selection is also the best theistic explanation.

But not random/chance mutation?

 

[Loudmouth]

But not random/chance mutation?

Can you give us an example of a random/chance process?

 

[justlookinla]

Can you give us an example of a random/chance process?

Mutation?

 

[Loudmouth]

Mutation?

How did you determine that mutations were random/chance?

More importantly, how did you determine that Leprechauns were not part of the mutational process?

 

[justlookinla]

How did you determine that mutations were random/chance?

Going by the UC-Berkley claim.

More importantly, how did you determine that Leprechauns were not part of the mutational process?

Hmmm.....you're going goofy on this?

 

[Loudmouth]

Going by the UC-Berkley claim.

I am asking YOU what YOU consider to be random/chance.

Hmmm.....you're going goofy on this?

I am wondering how you rule out completely unfalsifiable and undetectable entities.

 

[justlookinla]

I am asking YOU what YOU consider to be random/chance.

I have to trust the claims of 'science'. Which I don't.

I am wondering how you rule out completely unfalsifiable and undetectable entities.

I rule out mindless, meaningless creation.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have to trust the claims of 'science'. Which I don't.

Then don't trust them.

Tell me what YOU consider to be random/chance.

I rule out mindless, meaningless creation.

How?