Evoluiton can't account for higher-level animal behaviour

[durangodawood]

If something evolved as a means, then it has a purpose and must have been directed.

What would it mean for something with a purpose to originate via an undirected process?

Not so sure, unless you are using a special sense of the word "means". I see no need for a director or purpose in the basic definition:

means
noun
1.
an action or system by which a result is brought about; a method.
"resolving disputes by peaceful means"

 

[pitabread]

So it's up to random chance to get to the new protein. But the fact that there are 10^130 (ten to the 130 power) permutations of even a short protein with 100 amino acids, would seem to rule chance out too. After all, the universe is less than 10^18 seconds old.

The number of permutations by themselves doesn't matter. What matters is the relative ratio of functional to non-functional proteins. In that respect, there are no issues with respect to the evolution thereof.

For example:

Functional proteins from a random-sequence library

Functional primordial proteins presumably originated from random sequences, but it is not known how frequently functional, or even folded, proteins occur in collections of random sequences. Here we have used in vitro selection of messenger RNA displayed proteins, in which each protein is covalently linked through its carboxy terminus to the 3′ end of its encoding mRNA1, to sample a large number of distinct random sequences. Starting from a library of 6 × 10^12 proteins each containing 80 contiguous random amino acids, we selected functional proteins by enriching for those that bind to ATP. This selection yielded four new ATP-binding proteins that appear to be unrelated to each other or to anything found in the current databases of biological proteins.
​

The overwhelming majority of chains of amino acids don't even fold correctly and therefore do nothing useful at all. No benefit. Natural selection has no benefit to select.

Majority is not the same thing as "all". Even though functional proteins are in the minority with respect to total protein sequences, functional proteins still can evolve and provide something for natural selection to act upon.

 

[KenJackson]

Not so sure, unless you are using a special sense of the word "means".
...
means ... an action or system by which a result is brought about; a method.

I was referring to FrumiousBandersnatch's post in which he proposed that consciousness evolved as a means of facilitating something. You seem to merely substitute method for means. That doesn't change the issue.

If consciousness, or any trait, originated to provide a means or a method, then it fulfills a purpose. Where there's a purpose, there's direction.

 

[KenJackson]

The number of permutations by themselves doesn't matter. What matters is the relative ratio of functional to non-functional proteins. In that respect, there are no issues with respect to the evolution thereof.

There are two problems here.
First, you've made an unstated assumption here. The assumption is that along the path to the protein that's needed for the next step in evolution, each "stepping stone" functional protein is beneficial at that time. But for example, if the eye hadn't yet evolved, what benefit would rhodopsin provide? It would be just as worthless as a chain that doesn't fold correctly.

Second, the distance between stepping stones is far too large for random chance to ever step across. It's been estimated that only about one in every 10^77 chains of amino acids will even fold correctly, let alone provide a functional benefit.

The example you cited produced four small proteins, but I wonder if they provided any benefit. Also I wonder if the selection process of "enriching for those that bind to ATP" is sufficiently undirected to mimic real natural processes. Finally, I wonder how this process would scale. If it works in the lab with only 80 amino acids, there's no guarantee the universe is old enough for it to work with 100. Or 400.

 

[VirOptimus]

There are two problems here.
First, you've made an unstated assumption here. The assumption is that along the path to the protein that's needed for the next step in evolution, each "stepping stone" functional protein is beneficial at that time. But for example, if the eye hadn't yet evolved, what benefit would rhodopsin provide? It would be just as worthless as a chain that doesn't fold correctly.

Second, the distance between stepping stones is far too large for random chance to ever step across. It's been estimated that only about one in every 10^77 chains of amino acids will even fold correctly, let alone provide a functional benefit.

The example you cited produced four small proteins, but I wonder if they provided any benefit. Also I wonder if the selection process of "enriching for those that bind to ATP" is sufficiently undirected to mimic real natural processes. Finally, I wonder how this process would scale. If it works in the lab with only 80 amino acids, there's no guarantee the universe is old enough for it to work with 100. Or 400.

If you want to challange the ToE, write an article for peer-review. If you cant your views dont matter. Especially when they are all PRATTs.

 

[durangodawood]

I was referring to FrumiousBandersnatch's post in which he proposed that consciousness evolved as a means of facilitating something. You seem to merely substitute method for means. That doesn't change the issue.

If consciousness, or any trait, originated to provide a means or a method, then it fulfills a purpose. Where there's a purpose, there's direction.

Our problem here is we lack good words for complex advantageous outcomes that are sort of director-neutral.

When he says "consciousness evolved as a means of..." it sounds to me like he means it evolved because it allows for this group of advantageous behaviors. Its the same director-less process as every other example of natural selection.

Thats my guess anyway, given that he seems to assent to natural selection as an explanatory model.

 

[KenJackson]

If you cant your views dont matter.

That's right. My views don't matter. I know.

But I'm fascinated by evolution because I'm still shocked to see that so many intelligent, knowledgeable people have been duped into having faith in the indefensible. You don't have to have a PhD to see that science has been twisted to support it.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's right. My views don't matter. I know.

But I'm fascinated by evolution because I'm still shocked to see that so many intelligent, knowledgeable people have been duped into having faith in the indefensible. You don't have to have a PhD to see that science has been twisted to support it.

its against the rules calling science ”faith”.

 

[pitabread]

First, you've made an unstated assumption here. The assumption is that along the path to the protein that's needed for the next step in evolution, each "stepping stone" functional protein is beneficial at that time.

The point is simply that the ratio of functional to non-function proteins is sufficiently adequate that the evolution thereof is not prohibited via simple probability.

There is also no reason to assume that every functional protein need strictly be beneficial with respect to evolution.

Second, the distance between stepping stones is far too large for random chance to ever step across. It's been estimated that only about one in every 10^77 chains of amino acids will even fold correctly, let alone provide a functional benefit.

Yes, I'm familiar with the infamous Axe paper; it gets cited here a lot. However, it's not proper to draw that conclusion that "only about one in every 10^77 chains of amino acids will even fold correctly" based on the experiment Axe performed.

If you want to know more, I suggest reading the following article which explains the experiment in question: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function

The actual ratio of functional-to-non-functional proteins is actually far more frequent as per the paper I cited.

The example you cited produced four small proteins, but I wonder if they provided any benefit. Also I wonder if the selection process of "enriching for those that bind to ATP" is sufficiently undirected to mimic real natural processes. Finally, I wonder how this process would scale. If it works in the lab with only 80 amino acids, there's no guarantee the universe is old enough for it to work with 100. Or 400.

To put things in context, they discovered 4 functional proteins for binding ATP out of 6x10^12 total sequences. Meanwhile the estimated number of current bacterial organisms on Earth is about 5x10^30. And they've been evolving for about 4 billion years.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If something evolved as a means, then it has a purpose and must have been directed.

You're right to pick me up on that; I was using the 'intentional stance', and it's sloppy language in this context. I apologise; the correct way to express it is that consciousness evolved because it facilitated dynamic, flexible behaviour.

It's ironic because I find it annoying when other people do it, but I guess it just shows how easy it is to fall into teleological thinking...

What would it mean for something with a purpose to originate via an undirected process?

Purpose, like meaning, is something we attribute to, or project onto, behaviours and events. At a human behaviour level of description, they are useful concepts - purpose is a way of describing and expressing why we plan ahead, make choices, and defer gratification in favour of long-term goals; it captures something of how it feels to want to do these things.

It seems likely that the teleological view of nature is a projection, partly of how we experience making decisions, and partly from our ancient tendency to attribute agency to unexplained events or the activities of complex things (hyperactive agency detection). Interestingly, we often use it knowingly about inanimate objects - 'this microwave hates me', 'the car refused to start', etc.

 

[pitabread]

But I'm fascinated by evolution because I'm still shocked to see that so many intelligent, knowledgeable people have been duped into having faith in the indefensible.

Evolution is an applied science. Companies have even patented applications based on it. It's not going anywhere.

That's the reality of things.

You don't have to have a PhD to see that science has been twisted to support it.

If evolution were as false as creationists claim it was, the first place you'd hear about it would be industry. Yet instead, we see the theory of evolution being applied to solve real-world problems in biology.

In short, such claims as the ones you just made don't hold any water.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Random mutation and natural selection fully explain all sorts of features that are “means to an end” with no need to tack on some sort of directive agent.

Yes, but talking of “means to an end” in evolution is a retrospective attribution that suggests that the process has a goal, which is misleading to people unfamiliar with how it works.

 

[durangodawood]

...It seems likely that the teleological view of nature is a projection, partly of how we experience making decisions, and partly from our ancient tendency to attribute agency to unexplained events or the activities of complex things (hyperactive agency detection). Interestingly, we often use it knowingly about inanimate objects - 'this microwave hates me', 'the car refused to start', etc.

So interesting. I've long considered that we humans are "meaning junkies". And if we cant find it, we'll invent it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not so sure, unless you are using a special sense of the word "means". I see no need for a director or purpose in the basic definition...

Yeah, but when used with 'end' (as in 'means to an end') it carries connotations of goal-directed activity, which is potentially misleading. I was careless to use it in such a sensitive context as evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So interesting. I've long considered that we humans are "meaning junkies". And if we cant find it, we'll invent it.

Yes, exactly; and we like making narratives to give events meaning. If things work out, we did well; if they don't work out, we were unlucky...

No wonder it's been suggested we should be called 'Homo narrans', 'man the story-teller'

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But for example, if the eye hadn't yet evolved, what benefit would rhodopsin provide? It would be just as worthless as a chain that doesn't fold correctly.

Many proteins have more than one application, and, with slight variations, multiple applications. The opsin family has a wide range of functions outside of mammalian eyes. They're most common in bacteria, where they supply a variety of light-activated functions, switching on/off membrane ion pumps, activating/deactivating enzymatic activity, etc.

Mammalian visual opsins are a bit different, but it's thought plausible that they derive from an ancient 'toolkit' of genes that has serves a variety of purposes and so is highly conserved. This would also plausibly explain how eyes have evolved independently so many times - the 'building blocks' are part of a common inheritance.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Evolution is NOT totally random.

Really? What controls it? Don't tell me natural selection. And whose definition of evolution are you using? At last count there were 7. Evolutionists can't agree on a definition. Mine is

"The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that life resulted; and that all living things have descended from that common ancestral form of life.”

Emphasis here is unguided.

I got that from "Science against Evolution", site set up by a computer scientist who worked for the military, including the AIM-9 missile. He's a genuine genius. And very funny.
Science Against Evolution Official Home Page

 

[Speedwell]

Really? What controls it? Don't tell me natural selection. And whose definition of evolution are you using? At last count there were 7. Evolutionists can't agree on a definition. Mine is

"The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that life resulted; and that all living things have descended from that common ancestral form of life.”

Emphasis here is unguided.

I got that from "Science against Evolution", site set up by a computer scientist who worked for the military, including the AIM-9 missile. He's a genuine genius. And very funny.
Science Against Evolution Official Home Page

If that's one of your seven definitions it doesn't give me much confidence in the accuracy of the other six.

 

[pitabread]

And whose definition of evolution are you using? At last count there were 7. Evolutionists can't agree on a definition.

Is this a reference to Kent Hovind's teachings? Because if that's where you are getting your ideas about evolution, you might want to try a new source.

I got that from "Science against Evolution", site set up by a computer scientist who worked for the military, including the AIM-9 missile. He's a genuine genius. And very funny.
Science Against Evolution Official Home Page

Since 1996, it has been Science Against Evolution's objective to make the general public aware that the theory of evolution is not consistent with physical evidence and is no longer a respectable theory describing the origin and diversity of life.

That web site sure looks like it was made in 1996. It's even using <FONT> tags!

At any rate, why would you go to a computer scientist to learn about evolution? Would you take your taxes to a plumber? Would you hire an accountant to fix your roof?

Evolution is part of biology. Why not find out what biologists have to say about it?

 

[expos4ever]

Deleted own post.