Mathematicians PROVE evolution IMPOSSIBLE.

[JacksBratt]

So evidently you believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and that the churches who don't adhere to that doctrine are apostate?

I guess I am.

 

[Everybodyknows]

So evidently you believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and that the churches who don't adhere to that doctrine are apostate?

Actually it's usually more like "Sola our particular interpretation of Scriptura"

 

[Anguspure]

I would not be surprised if a self copying RNA is produced in a lab in our lifetime judging by the progress that has been made in the field over the last couple of decades. I'm sure people will say "but it's not really life, just a copying robot", which leads us to the interesting question of how we actually define life.

If a self replicating RNA molecule is developed it will do absolutely nothing to provide evidence for this happening mindlessly, and in fact will supply even more confirmatory evidence that the operation of a mind is the only thing we know whereby high levels of functional coherence can be ordered from non functional components.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Clearly you don't understand functional coherence as a concept.

I think I understand what you mean. But maybe you could give a specific definition in the context of biochemistry to make sure I'm not misunderstanding the point you make.

 

[Anguspure]

I think I understand what you mean. But maybe you could give a specific definition in the context of biochemistry to make sure I'm not misunderstanding the point you make.

Functional coherence can be observed anywhere that a number of low-level functions work together as a whole to perform a higher function.
FC can be observed in anything from a written paragraph or a picture or the operation of a space rocket engine, to biological functions.

i.e.: At a bioligical level a functional protein consists of amino acids(1). These must be the right sort of amino acids and have the correct orientation (2). The amino acids then have to be arranged in the correct order and linked in order to form a chain (3). This chain then has to be folded into the correct shape (4).

In order for a functional protein to exist therefore, there are at least 4 levels between the prebiotic soup and a functional protein, and at each level precisely the correct choice from a vast number of possibilities must be selected in order for a protein of any functional use to appear.

For a mind it is relatively easy to see how this might all be arranged for. However when we exclude a mind we are left with an "as yet unidentified" law that once upon a time produced extremely high levels of functional coherence from chaos, but is clearly no longer observable. Or we are left with the laws of chance the calculation of which makes functional coherence, at even a basic level, vastly and fantastically improbable on this basis.

 

[Everybodyknows]

If a self replicating RNA molecule is developed it will do absolutely nothing to provide evidence for this happening mindlessly, and in fact will supply even more confirmatory evidence that the operation of a mind is the only thing we know whereby high levels of functional coherence can be ordered from non functional components.

Of course, producing an RNA based self replicator in a lab doesn't prove abiogenesis. But it would tell us that RNA replication is possible, and from there we could postulate a sequence chemical steps to get us to that point. Once we have established the steps and the probability of each of those steps, only then would we be able to give a meaningful probability of of angiogenesis occurring. It's all well and good to pull big numbers out of the air but they don't at all contribute to understanding real world possibilities.

 

[sfs]

Of course, producing an RNA based self replicator in a lab doesn't prove abiogenesis. But it would tell us that RNA replication is possible, and from there we could postulate a sequence chemical steps to get us to that point.

Especially since functional RNAs of this sort are usually found by creating pools of random RNAs and finding ones that have some weak function. (Followed by rounds of mutation and further selection.)

 

[Anguspure]

Of course, producing an RNA based self replicator in a lab doesn't prove abiogenesis. But it would tell us that RNA replication is possible, and from there we could postulate a sequence chemical steps to get us to that point. Once we have established the steps and the probability of each of those steps, only then would we be able to give a meaningful probability of of angiogenesis occurring. It's all well and good to pull big numbers out of the air but they don't at all contribute to understanding real world possibilities.

LOL of course its possible, and we already know that biogenesis occurred, on account of biological things existing!
The other thing that we know as a fact is that the only thing that is even remotely capable of inventing the sort of things that we observe in biology is a mind.

 

[sfs]

The other thing that we know as a fact is that the only thing that is even remotely capable of inventing the sort of things that we observe in biology is a mind.

How do you know that? I don't. The kinds of things I see in biology look more likely to be the product of some kind of organic process lacking overall design -- they look more like spaghetti code than carefully engineered software.

 

[Everybodyknows]

LOL of course its possible, and we already know that biogenesis occurred, on account of biological things existing!
The other thing that we know as a fact is that the only thing that is even remotely capable of inventing the sort of things that we observe in biology is a mind.

And how do you 'know' this 'fact' ???

So far we have not been able to replicate life so the 'fact' at this moment in time is that a mind is not capable of inventing these sorts of things. On what basis do you completely rule out naturalistic causes other than pulling big numbers out of the air? The point you miss is that until we can understand a full process that could lead to natural generation of random RNA chains we can't rule it one way or the other. Only when we have a ballpark figure of the probability of a replicating molecule occurring by chance can we make a conclusion like the one made in the OP video. Then we would either be able to say that life is either so fantastically improbable that it was unlikely to occur naturally or that the probability is high enough to make life arising from natural processes plausible. Until you have some firm numbers I'll take your comment as an article of faith rather than a position based on evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

LOL of course its possible, and we already know that biogenesis occurred, on account of biological things existing!
The other thing that we know as a fact is that the only thing that is even remotely capable of inventing the sort of things that we observe in biology is a mind.

How do you know?

 

[Everybodyknows]

RNA is protein based. Therefore in terms of functional coherence you at least have to have the levels of functionality that give us the correct proteins to perform the job. Then you have at least 2 or 3 levels of functionality to tackle before you even get to the level of RNA.

No. RNA is not protein based. RNA is based on 4 nucleotides, cell proteins are generally based on 20 amino acids (there go some zeros off the end of those big numbers). RNA is capable of forming ribozymes, that is enzymes which can do similar jobs to protein based enzymes . In modern cell chemistry DNA stores information to make proteins and proteins do the work of copying dna. RNA can do both jobs, it can store genetic information as well as form ribozymes which can catalyze reactions such as the polymerization of nucleotides into RNA stands (no proteins required, there go some levels of functionality). This is why the RNA World Hypothesis is the most widely accepted model, because RNA is the one molecule that can do it all.

We simplify things to the point of absurdity in order to demonstrate that even if life was as ridiculously basic and flat as a written paragraph or a simple robot that it couldn't have arisen by chance

You haven't simplified anything. The OP video deliberately selects 'big' numbers based on complex modern proteins. No simplification there, just a choice of complexity to give us numbers that support a belief. How about working out the probability of RNA polymerases occurring in randomly generated RNA sequences? No, that would require some real math and dealing with many unknown variables, we prefer to just wave our hands and cry impossible.

 

[Anguspure]

How do you know that? I don't. The kinds of things I see in biology look more likely to be the product of some kind of organic process lacking overall design -- they look more like spaghetti code than carefully engineered software.

I guess if you look at the switch board of a telephone exchange you would think the same thing....

....and clearly this all happened without the inventing influence of a mind as well.

Clearly whatever you make of it all, the spaghetti that you see has a very high level of functional coherence.

So we see this sort of unenlightened disparagement time and time again when it comes to scientific endeavor, particularly in biology, only to have it revealed later that what we see has very good reasons for being the way it is.

Maybe it is the knowledge of the observer that is lacking and needs to be disentangled from the unhelpful mode of thinking that denies design when it sees it.

 

[Anguspure]

And how do you 'know' this 'fact' ???

So far we have not been able to replicate life so the 'fact' at this moment in time is that a mind is not capable of inventing these sorts of things. On what basis do you completely rule out naturalistic causes other than pulling big numbers out of the air? The point you miss is that until we can understand a full process that could lead to natural generation of random RNA chains we can't rule it one way or the other. Only when we have a ballpark figure of the probability of a replicating molecule occurring by chance can we make a conclusion like the one made in the OP video. Then we would either be able to say that life is either so fantastically improbable that it was unlikely to occur naturally or that the probability is high enough to make life arising from natural processes plausible. Until you have some firm numbers I'll take your comment as an article of faith rather than a position based on evidence.

@Speedwell
Minds create things at a high enough level of functional coherence to invent a PC or an aircraft or a LHC. Can you propose a process that does not involve a mind that would have this result? The fact is that you cannot.

So it is a fact that the only thing that is even remotely capable of inventing these sorts of things is a mind. Functional coherence is a necessary part of invention

In biology we see much greater levels of functional coherence than are currently observed in the mindful invention of men, and we are only beginning to learn the extent of it all.

Clearly whatever it is that created the things of biology is capable of far greater levels of functional invention than human mind, so the proposal that the cause of these things is something of less creative inventive potential than a human mind is basically flawed.

 

[Anguspure]

Especially since functional RNAs of this sort are usually found by creating pools of random RNAs and finding ones that have some weak function. (Followed by rounds of mutation and further selection.)

Nevertheless the mind of the observer is involved. Even that certain elements are left to their own devices for a period of time in the experiment, before selection is conducted is a mindful action that influences the outcome strongly.

 

[sfs]

I guess if you look at the switch board of a telephone exchange you would think the same thing....

I do think the same thing about that photo. I think it very unlikely that anyone planned the layout of those wires in detail.

So we see this sort of unenlightened disparagement time and time again when it comes to scientific endeavor, particularly in biology, only to have it revealed later that what we see has very good reasons for being the way it is.

I'd respond to to this argument if I could discern an argument in it. I guess my unenlightened self can't grasp it.

Maybe it is the knowledge of the observer that is lacking and needs to be disentangled from the unhelpful mode of thinking that denies design when it sees it.

Maybe. Maybe if you could present some evidence instead of just repeating your claim about functional coherence my knowledge would increase. Of course, it's also possible that some of us observers actually know quite a lot about biological systems.

 

[Anguspure]

No. RNA is not protein based. RNA is based on 4 nucleotides, cell proteins are generally based on 20 amino acids (there go some zeros off the end of those big numbers). RNA is capable of forming ribozymes, that is enzymes which can do similar jobs to protein based enzymes . In modern cell chemistry DNA stores information to make proteins and proteins do the work of copying dna. RNA can do both jobs, it can store genetic information as well as form ribozymes which can catalyze reactions such as the polymerization of nucleotides into RNA stands (no proteins required, there go some levels of functionality). This is why the RNA World Hypothesis is the most widely accepted model, because RNA is the one molecule that can do it all.


You haven't simplified anything. The OP video deliberately selects 'big' numbers based on complex modern proteins. No simplification there, just a choice of complexity to give us numbers that support a belief. How about working out the probability of RNA polymerases occurring in randomly generated RNA sequences? No, that would require some real math and dealing with many unknown variables, we prefer to just wave our hands and cry impossible.

No problem, the only direction is up. The bigger and more complicated the equation the lower the chance of it ever occurring by accident and the stronger the point about functional coherence becomes.

It seems to me that you think that if it all becomes really, really super fantastically improbable that it is more likely to happen by accident!? Go figure!

 

[sfs]

Nevertheless the mind of the observer is involved.

So? The mind of the observer is involved when we watch water freeze in the driveway. That doesn't make ice a product of intelligent design. If random RNA sequences produce the function we're interested in, then the argument that intelligence had to be involved in producing functional RNAs fails.

 

[Everybodyknows]

No problem, the only direction is up. The bigger and more complicated the equation the lower the chance of it ever occurring by accident and the stronger the point about functional coherence becomes.

It seems to me that you think that if it all becomes really, really super fantastically improbable that it is more likely to happen by accident!? Go figure!

I think you've missed the point entirely. Shuffling a deck which consists of repetitions of only 4 cards has a higher probability of generating a particular sequence of length n than a deck of 20 repeating cards.

The only direction is up? Up from what? My whole point is that the numbers presented in the video aren't necessarily so. An RNA sequence with the ability to replicate could be much simpler (based on what has been achieved in labs so far). Simpler = higher probability, right? What if we end up working out that the probability is something like 1/10^40. That's well below the 1/10^50 arbitrarily chosen in the video as the cut off point for impossibility. Would you then consider that it is plausible that life could have arisen by chance?

But so far we just don't know how complex it would need to have been. So you can keep repeating "functional coherence" all you like but if you aren't actually connecting it to real numbers or real chemistry then you aren't really giving me any reason to be convinced.

 

[Anguspure]

I do think the same thing about that photo. I think it very unlikely that anyone planned the layout of those wires in detail.

If it is not necessary for the wires to be neat and tidy for the function of the system to be optimal, is it good design to do what is not necessary? Obsession over unnecessary order and neatness is a symptom of OCD.

I'd respond to to this argument if I could discern an argument in it. I guess my unenlightened self can't grasp it.

The argument is that criticism of design in biology more often comes from ignorance rather than any insight as to the nature of the cause and reason behind the observed function.

Maybe. Maybe if you could present some evidence instead of just repeating your claim about functional coherence my knowledge would increase. Of course, it's also possible that some of us observers actually know quite a lot about biological systems.

As a student of biology the evidence is before you. One doesn't need to have a whole lot of knowledge to observe the influence of a designer (it is even evident in something so basic as this paragraph), and the increase of knowledge (unimpeded by MN fairy tales) only underlines the point.