Definition of "design"?

[Pete Harcoff]

Looks like evolution hasn't passed peer review.

Hardy-har.

 

[laconicstudent]

The usual response to those who dont agree with what you believe.

If you have actual PROOF showing how and where I am wrong, please share it with me. You have cited no proof for anything you've said, spouted claims that are clearly wrong, used logical fallacies in all of your arguments. Why should anyone take you seriously?

 

[Meshach]

If you have actual PROOF showing how and where I am wrong, please share it with me. You have cited no proof for anything you've said, spouted claims that are clearly wrong, used logical fallacies in all of your arguments. Why should anyone take you seriously?

Again , typical response to one who doesn't believe as you believe.

 

[plindboe]

To get a grasp on the amount of mutations we are dealing with here...
A recent experiment on bacteria went through 40,000 generations to produce a single change that enabled it to digest something it had not previously been able to handle.

,,,which was a defining characteristic of that species of bacteria. Not a minor mutation at all, and it gradually evolved between generation 20.000 and 31.500, so 11.500 generations would be more accurate. On top of that, other major adaptions were recorded.

Between humans and a putative human-ape ancestor ten million years ago there are a maximum of perhaps one million generations, depending on the reproductive age at different stages.

Sounds fair enough.

On the basis of the experimental evidence, that gives time for about 25 minor changes in an asexual species.

Rather 100 major changes each accompanied by other major adaptions, using your method of calculation.

Of course the situations are so beyond comparison that it's not even funny. One reason being that the human genome is almost 1000 times bigger, another being sexual reproduction, the mutation rate in eukaryotes is from hundreds to thousands of times higher than in prokaryotes and of course we're dealing with a static vs. a non-static environment etc.

At a minimum some 30 million changes are required, all of which have to be fixed in the genes despite the hurdles of sexual reproduction.

Hurdles? Sexual reproduction speeds up evolution due to recombination during meiosis.

Peter

 

[DrkSdBls]

I don't agree with this line of thought. First of all, evolution is neither weak nor strong. It just is.

Second of all, we're not here in spite of anything. We're here because of the way things are. Suggesting we are here in spite of things, suggests that we are meant to be here no matter what. This obviously is not the case.

Nah, it's nothing to do with "pre-destiny."

Think about Baby Sea Turtles. Every Year, thousands of Sea Turtles lay a hundred eggs each. Of these hundreds of eggs, 10% never hatch. Another 30% get dug up by wildlife. After hatching, 40% never make it to sea. Once in the Sea, half never make it to adulthood.

Those Sea turtles that survived to start the cycle again have "Made it" dispite the odds.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Looks like evolution hasn't passed peer review.

First of all, I'm not a Scientist. I'm a Philosopher!

Second of all, Science is all about people disagreeing with each other's Point-of-views. This is how the truth is discovered!

 

[plindboe]

So its not true if we were closer to the sun we would burn , or farther away we would freeze?

Senseless question since you don't point out what distances you're talking about. Obviously 1 more meter wouldn't make a difference.

The Earth, when it's closest to the Sun is at a distance of 147,5 mil. km. and when it's fathest away is at a distance of 152,5 mil. km. If the distance varies 5 mil. km. obviously there's not a single perfect distance.

Just take it by faith plindboe, everything we need is conveniently here

I'm glad you recognize that faith is a bad thing best to be avoided. That's an important first step.

Luckily I don't suffer from it, despite your wishes.

Whats the matter? You dont think chance is involved. Oh yah, natural selection is your god.

It's good that you seem to realize that having gods isn't rational and best to be avoided. Good for you. Another important step towards recovery.

Fortunately I'm free of gods and dogma. You may get there some day.

And yes, I think there are elements of chance (mutation, drift, environmental disasters for example), but I don't adhere to your concept of perfection and perfect chance.

So agian, its not chance water is here? Natural selection did it?

Water is scattered throughout the Universe. Nothing to do with natural selection.

Very good Sherlock, good thing we have natural selection to thank for our brain so we can come to these conclusions.

Shame you didn't understand the argument..... or any of my arguments it seems. It seems you only provide "Says you" and "Oh yeah" responses.

So I can see things from your pont of veiw?

Learning doesn't necessarily mean you'll adopt the same view point as me. You can think of it as studying the enemy. You're bound to be a poor adversary when you attack something you don't understand.

One day soon we both will know who the fool is.

Oh, I know already.

Peter

 

[laconicstudent]

Again , typical response to one who doesn't believe as you believe.

Translation: "I'm gonna stuff my head into the sand and pretend the overwhelming scientific evidence against my position doesn't exist. When I am challenged to produce evidence, I will make some specious argument about probability that are absurd. And when my arguments are smashed, I will claim that I am being discriminated against. And then, at the very end, when my ignorance of the science involved becomes apparent, I will start repeating the same thing over and over in an attempt to deny reality."



I win. It was fun while you lasted, Meshach.

 

[AV1611VET]

When I am challenged to produce evidence, I will make some specious argument about probability that are absurd.

I haven't read this entire thread, but I believe that what you're calling a 'specious argument' goes something like this:

The chances of enzymes collecting in just the right order to form proteins in just the right order to form cellular life are so astronomical, they transcend possibility.

Here is an excellent website that shows the chance as 1 in 10[sup]415[/sup] power, where anything beyond 1 in 10[sup]50[/sup] constitutes an event that we can say with certainty will never happen:

The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution​

 

[Mike Elphick]

I haven't read this entire thread, but I believe that what you're calling a 'specious argument' goes something like this:

The chances of enzymes collecting in just the right order to form proteins in just the right order to form cellular life are so astronomical, they transcend possibility.

Here is an excellent website that shows the chance as 1 in 10[sup]415[/sup] power, where anything beyond 1 in 10[sup]50[/sup] constitutes an event that we can say with certainty will never happen:

The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution​

Why is it that anti-evolutionists imagine that for a protein to be functional it has to have an exact structure and precise sequence of amino acids? In fact this is not necessarily so. There are a variety of proteins that perform the same, or nearly the same, function but have different amino-acid sequences. For instance, there are enzymes that catalyse the same reaction, but have different structures:-

Isozymes (also known as isoenzymes) are enzymes that differ in amino acid sequence but catalyze the same chemical reaction. These enzymes usually display different kinetic parameters (e.g. different KM values), or different regulatory properties.
[wikipedia-Isoenzyme]

The enzymes of early life forms need not have been as well developed and efficient as those in modern organisms - all that was required was for them to be adequate. So, AV1611VET, doesn't this throw a huge spanner into the "faithalone" calculations?

 

[AV1611VET]

The enzymes of early life forms need not have been as well developed and efficient as those in modern organisms - all that was required was for them to be adequate. So, AV1611VET, doesn't this throw a huge spanner into the "faithalone" calculations?

Depends on what you mean by 'adequate'.

Even if you could rearrange the order, the fact is, they came together in the order that they did to produce life as we know it (so says the theory).

And that can properly be called a mathematical impossibility.

 

[Alunyel]

I haven't read this entire thread, but I believe that what you're calling a 'specious argument' goes something like this:

The chances of enzymes collecting in just the right order to form proteins in just the right order to form cellular life are so astronomical, they transcend possibility.

Here is an excellent website that shows the chance as 1 in 10[sup]415[/sup] power, where anything beyond 1 in 10[sup]50[/sup] constitutes an event that we can say with certainty will never happen:

The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution​

What a load of nonsense.

You'd love to say that evolution was mathematically impossible, wouldn't you?

Well, it's obviously not.

I suggest you stay away from Creationist propaganda sites, sites that knowingly lie and deceive, twist information and make things up. That article was literally full of complete nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

You'd love to say that evolution was mathematically impossible, wouldn't you?

Actually, I would --- but for your sakes, not mine.

I don't need math to know that evolution is wrong --- just the Bible.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Depends on what you mean by 'adequate'.

Even if you could rearrange the order, the fact is, they came together in the order that they did to produce life as we know it (so says the theory).

No one knows what these proto-life forms were like, but it is not considered a fact that early life "came together in the order that they did to produce life as we know it", which is impossible.

In hypotheses about abiogenesis, the various components (lipid micelles, RNA molecules etc) are thought to have formed very much simpler structures. Some of these may have incorporated other developing arrangements - who knows?

Proteins of various kinds need not have been nearly as efficient as those in organisms today, because competition would have been on a level playing field. That's what I mean by 'adequate'.

Your article tells us that Dr. Salisbury examined the formation of a specific DNA molecule though chance events. The article does not specify how large his molecule was, but the terrible mistake he makes is assuming that only one specified configuration would have had biological function, when in fact countless intermediary stages might have produced a protein with the same or other useful biologically activity. Of course, evolution is not just about 'chance events' but about continuous differential selection.

Creationist calculations based on producing "life as we know it" through "chance events" are totally flawed and need to be rejected.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationist calculations based on producing "life as we know it" through "chance events" are totally flawed and need to be rejected.

Are you telling me, Mike, that there's enough variation in the configuration to reduce 10[sup]415[/sup] power down to below 10[sup]50[/sup] power?

And remember, he starts off with the most viable of conditions.

 

[Alunyel]

Actually, I would --- but for your sakes, not mine.

I don't need math to know that evolution is wrong --- just the Bible.

If you want to get into the realms of mathematical improbability, what's mathematically impossible is 1 + 1 = 3.

What's mathematically impossible is all of the miracles written about in the Bible.

What's mathematically impossible is the Earth existing before the Sun.

The Bible is one big book of mathematical impossibility.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want to get into the realms of mathematical improbability, what's mathematically impossible is 1 + 1 = 3.

What's mathematically impossible is all of the miracles written about in the Bible.

What's mathematically impossible is the Earth existing before the Sun.

The Bible is one big book of mathematical impossibility.

I couldn't agree more.

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

(And for the record, it's 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.)

 

[Sophophile]

Depends on what you mean by 'adequate'.

Even if you could rearrange the order, the fact is, they came together in the order that they did to produce life as we know it (so says the theory).

And that can properly be called a mathematical impossibility.

Hi AV1611VET

Hope things are well with you.

Chemical biogenesis can not properly be called a mathematical impossibility.

The calculations given on the faithalone website are false and misleading in numerous important ways.

1. Borel's alleged "law" is not mathematically rigorous, and Borel himself was careful to point out that the "cutoff" probability for effectively impossible events changes depending on the physical system in question. For example, if you toss a coin 2000 times (something very easy to achieve) the probability of the resulting sequence of heads and tails is about 1 in 10^600.

2. Dr Frank Salisbury, author of the calculation, says of his 1969 paper: "I'm not saying that evolution doesn't work." So even he doesn't believe the calculation shows evolution is impossible.

3. Salisbury's 1969 calculation is based on random assembly of a 1000 nucleotide DNA molecule as the minimum self-replicator to get life started. We have since discovered the tetrahymena rhybozime which can self-replicate and is 141 nucleotides in size, showing his assumptions to be false.

4. Salisbury's 1969 calculation assumed only one replicating molecule of the specified size could get life started. But many possible molecules of the same size could possibly do the job; as you said, AV1611VET, "rearranging the order". But allowing for a number of possible arrangements hugely improves the probability of getting the right molecule, so that's another false assumption in the calculation.

Word to the wise: Don't ever rely on such probability calculations about evolution; they are always bogus.

Cheers
S.

 

[Sophophile]

Are you telling me, Mike, that there's enough variation in the configuration to reduce 10[sup]415[/sup] power down to below 10[sup]50[/sup] power?

The answer to that is: Yes, probably.

But nobody knows for certain.

S.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Sophophile ---

I'm doing well, thank you; and I hope (pray, actually) you are as well.

3. Salisbury's 1969 calculation is based on random assembly of a 1000 nucleotide DNA molecule as the minimum self-replicator to get life started. We have since discovered the tetrahymena rhybozime which can self-replicate and is 141 nucleotides in size, showing his assumptions to be false.

Okay, we have managed to pare 1000 nucleotides down to 141.

Does this reduce the improbability from 10[sup]415[/sup] to <10[sup]50[/sup]?