Evolution is mathematically impossible

[Speedwell]

I'm trying to understand how an organism can evolve before it has the means to do so. What you are implying is that whenever or however "life" began it contained all the complexity needed to evolve. But based on those requirements it is unthinkable that they "sprang" into existence with that incredible ability.

Of course it is "unthinkable," and no scientist thinks so.

 

[TBDude65]

I'm trying to understand how an organism can evolve before it has the means to do so. What you are implying is that whenever or however "life" began it contained all the complexity needed to evolve. But based on those requirements it is unthinkable that they "sprang" into existence with that ability.

Again, this isn't an issue with evolution, it's how we define what the earliest and simplest life form would have been. We can't discuss how that "life" form comes into existence nor how it evolves if we can't agree about what it is

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Again, this isn't an issue with evolution, it's how we define what the earliest and simplest life form would have been. We can't discuss how that "life" form comes into existence nor how it evolves if we can't agree about what it is

I want to know how the first life form obtained the ability to evolve. There seems to be a gap there.

Evolution is based on tracing everything back in time isn't it?

 

[TBDude65]

I want to know how the first life form obtained the ability to evolve. There seems to be a gap there.

The first life form. What I am asking you is what you think that must have been? (ergo, are you aware of how scientists define this via the hypotheses regarding the origin of life?)

 

[Speedwell]

I want to know how the first life form obtained the ability to evolve. There seems to be a gap there.

Only to you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The first life form. What I am asking you is what you think that must have been? (ergo, are you aware of how scientists define this via the hypotheses regarding the origin of life?)

Your response reminds me of a humorous hunting video segment where one hunter said that he thought he heard a deer, and if it was a buck it would probably score at least 150.

 

[Speedwell]

So, no answer?

Not unless you can tell us more clearly where you think the "gap" may be. It appears that you think that there is a difference of some kind between life forms that can reproduce and life forms that can evolve. That is why we need to know how you are defining "life" so we can explore the possibility of that "gap."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not unless you can tell us more clearly where you think the "gap" may be. It appears that you think that there is a difference of some kind between life forms that can reproduce and life forms that can evolve. That is why we need to know how you are defining "life" so we can explore the possibility of that "gap."

The gap would be space between the inability to evolve as a simple life form and the sudden acquisition of the ability to evolve.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No life has the ability evolve. Evolution happens to life.

 

[Speedwell]

The gap would be space between the inability to evolve as a simple life form and the sudden acquisition of the ability to evolve.

That means we have to test the following assumptions:

1. That there is such a thing as a simple life form without the ability to reproduce, and

2. That the ability to evolve was acquired suddenly.

Neither of these are scientific assumptions, so you're going to have to help us out here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution requires God to intervene from time to time to reduce the mathematical probabilities of events occurring, so that they become possible. This intervention is invisible to scientists because they aren't looking for it.

Where is the evidence that supports this? You would need to show that there are these supposed mathematical probabilities. Odds arguments may look impressive to those that do not understand this subject, but everyone that I have seen has been based upon a false premise. A claim at the very start that is incorrect. They base their calculations on this false premise. That means if the premise fails then entire argument fails.

 

[Ophiolite]

No life has the ability evolve. Evolution happens to life.

I've given this statement considerable thought and find it either wrong, or depending upon such a subtlety of terminology as to be practically meaningless.

Life is able to replicate. Life is able to do this because of the characteristics of DNA. DNA is able to mutate. Mutation provides subsequent generations with additional variety. The variety is then tested by natural selection. Thus evolution is dependant upon the ability of life to provide different proportions of alleles.
Summary: Life is able to evolve.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I've given this statement considerable thought and find it either wrong, or depending upon such a subtlety of terminology as to be practically meaningless.

Life is able to replicate. Life is able to do this because of the characteristics of DNA. DNA is able to mutate. Mutation provides subsequent generations with additional variety. The variety is then tested by natural selection. Thus evolution is dependant upon the ability of life to provide different proportions of alleles.
Summary: Life is able to evolve.

I'd say it's a matter of semantics. Life might be able to evolve per your usage. But about OWG's question, evolution isn't a skill to be acquired. AFAIK; I'll bow to brighter lights. Mutations happen. Any given procreating entity doesn't choose a set of mutations to pass on. Any given species doesn't choose to experience Natural Selection. Mutations happen; NS happens. No skills involved.

Now, anticipating correction, I can grant that mutations/NS etc., are intrinsically part of life, if we define it that way.

But, my quibble would rewrite your statements thus: Life replicates; DNA mutates; NS selects. No ability. Just is.

OWG's question is when did gravity decide to make things fall. (I exaggerate for effect.)

 

[Astrophile]

But female elephants don't breed until age 10 and are in gestation for two years. That is a small mutation every twelve years. Pretty slow.

But that is the whole point of evolution at a snail's pace; there is plenty of time for small changes to accumulate. One generation every twelve years means 500,000 generations in six million years (back to the Late Miocene epoch) and a million generations in twelve million years (back to the Middle Miocene). Also, there is not only one small mutation every twelve years; each new generation introduces tens of small mutations. Some time ago you said that you were an old earth creationist, so you can't deny that there has been plenty of time for the evolutionary process to produce large large changes by the accumulation of small changes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That means we have to test the following assumptions:

1. That there is such a thing as a simple life form without the ability to reproduce, and

2. That the ability to evolve was acquired suddenly.

Neither of these are scientific assumptions, so you're going to have to help us out here.

Of course what he is arguing here is not evolution, he is arguing against abiogenesis. I am sure that it has been pointed out to him countless times that evolution does not rely on a specific abiogenesis event. Evolution occurs once life is here.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'd say it's a matter of semantics. Life might be able to evolve per your usage. But about OWG's question, evolution isn't a skill to be acquired. AFAIK; I'll bow to brighter lights. Mutations happen. Any given procreating entity doesn't choose a set of mutations to pass on. Any given species doesn't choose to experience Natural Selection. Mutations happen; NS happens. No skills involved.

Now, anticipating correction, I can grant that mutations/NS etc., are intrinsically part of life, if we define it that way.

But, my quibble would rewrite your statements thus: Life replicates; DNA mutates; NS selects. No ability. Just is.

OWG's question is when did gravity decide to make things fall. (I exaggerate for effect.)

Precisely as per the emboldened sentence. And meaning is contingent upon usage and biologists routinely speak of organisms as having abilities and being able to do A, B, and C.

 

[Speedwell]

It appears to me that OWG is under the impression that replication with variation was not initially a property of living organisms, but only appeared later at a level of complexity which could not be reached without evolution which could not occur without replication with variation. Thus he sees a "gap" based on his erroneous assumption.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No life has the ability evolve. Evolution happens to life.

That's downright spooky.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It appears to me that OWG is under the impression that replication with variation was not initially a property of living organisms, but only appeared later at a level of complexity which could not be reached without evolution which could not occur without replication with variation. Thus he sees a "gap" based on his erroneous assumption.

So evolution, like the first life form, appeared out of thin air. You are doing what every evolution paper I have ever read does:

Around the bush and down the rabbit hole.

 

[Speedwell]

So evolution, like the first life form, appeared out of thin air. You are doing what every evolution paper I have ever read does:

Around the bush and down the rabbit hole.

Not "out of thin air" but from only slightly less complex organic chemicals.