Mathematicians PROVE evolution IMPOSSIBLE.

[Anguspure]

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.

The analogue of your observation of water freezing for Evolutionary science would be the observation of a new thing being invented in nature in the same way as a Zoologist observes the birth of a new creature according to the natural laws of the world.

If, however, a zoologist intervenes in the process to bring about a desired result (say a Panda born in captivity), this says nothing about the viability of the method in the natural world, and only demonstrates that these thing are indeed possible with the intervention of a mind.

The sequences of RNA you refer to would necessarily not be naturally selected for, at the point they met the desired result, in the name of the experiment, and so are not truly natural.

We already know that certain RNA sequences function in the way we are searching for and so we select at the point that the observed sequence serves the function we are looking for.

This, as Mendel pointed out a few years ago, is nothing more than animal breeding, and not anything at all remarkable or anything that resemble the way that in which a blind purposeless natural function might operate.

 

[Anguspure]

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.

The term "fantastically" used in "fantastically improbable" refers to a number that represents the number of possible events that have happened since the universe began. A number that is greater than this number of events is a fantastically large number in that it cannot be physically represented within the physical universe.

If you can work out that the probability of an event occurring at less than something like 1/10^80 then the chances of that event having occurred within the time frame, the probabilistic resources of the universe, are diminishingly less than 1.

So even if the chances of a biologically self replicating molecule are as you state then it might be possible that perhaps a few of these molecules have existed, but so what?

The next step of Mount improbable is at least equally large and you have already exerted all of the probabilistic resources available in order to assert the most basic biological step.

So if somebody, repeatedly over and over again, starts throwing down straight aces you can either believe them about their good luck or you can like the sensible ones, recognise whats going on and call it the deliberate influence of a clever mind

 

[Everybodyknows]

The term "fantastically" used in "fantastically improbable" refers to a number that represents the number of possible events that have happened since the universe began. A number that is greater than this number of events is a fantastically large number in that it cannot be physically represented within the physical universe.

If you can work out that the probability of an event occurring at less than something like 1/10^80 then the chances of that event having occurred within the time frame, the probabilistic resources of the universe, are diminishingly less than 1.

So what do you think the probability of a self replicating molecule is? Which of the two numbers presented in the video are you using as your benchmark probability and why? They are talking about proteins and even if any or all of them occurred by chance that still doesn't give us a replicator. I've been trying to show that it is possible for our original replicator to be orders of magnitude simpler based on what we know so far about RNA.

So even if the chances of a biologically self replicating molecule are as you state then it might be possible that perhaps a few of these molecules have existed, but so what?

So what??? You don't seem to understand the replicating part. If one exists for long enough to replicate, that is make another one, then those two make another two, then four make four etc. This is called exponential growth. If the replication process takes 1 week, for example, then after 1 year we would have 4.5x10^15 of them. If it's possible that one existed then very quickly the primordial ocean would have filled up with these things.

The next step of Mount improbable is at least equally large and you have already exerted all of the probabilistic resources available in order to assert the most basic biological step.

Once you have overcome the step above there are no more insurmountable steps, the only thing required is the persistence of favourable conditions which the Earth undeniably provides. The replicator just keeps replicating, occasionally making an error in the copying process. This usually results in duds but every now and then it makes a better replicator, that is one that can copy faster than it's predecessor. Now the better copier outcompetes the original for limited natural resources and eventually we have more of the improved version than the original. This is called natural selection. This process repeats and repeats and we keep getting better and better versions of our replicator. Staggering improbability no longer has a part to play once we reach a point where there is competitive natural selection.

So if somebody, repeatedly over and over again, starts throwing down straight aces you can either believe them about their good luck or you can like the sensible ones, recognise whats going on and call it the deliberate influence of a clever mind

I look at it more like we are just playing a game and waiting for someone to get a royal flush, and when it eventually happens then it's game over, winner takes it all.

 

[sfs]

The sequences of RNA you refer to would necessarily not be naturally selected for, at the point they met the desired result, in the name of the experiment, and so are not truly natural.

Why not? If the property being selected for is the ability to copy RNA, that's precisely what would be selected for. If the property is part of chemical chain that involves duplicating RNA, that would again be selected for. Those are the scenarios that researchers are envisaging for the origins of an RNA-based organism, and those are the scenarios you have to address.

 

[sfs]

If you can work out that the probability of an event occurring at less than something like 1/10^80 then the chances of that event having occurred within the time frame, the probabilistic resources of the universe, are diminishingly less than 1.

Besides the other problems w

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.

Um, so? My point was that much of life looks like it wasn't designed, contrary to your previous claim. Are you now agreeing with me? If life does look like something that isn't designed -- like the positions of these wires -- then what was your argument again?

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.

But I'm not arguing that design couldn't be present in biology. I'm criticizing your argument that design is evident.

As a student of biology the evidence is before you.

I know. And I told you what that evidence tells me. You clearly don't want to hear that conclusion.

 

[The Barbarian]

Abiogenesis is at least Organic Chemistry and not Inorganic Chemistry. So Abiogensis is still closer related to Evolution (aka the Origin of Species) than the GUT of physics.

Perhaps you could settle this by showing us what Darwin's five points say about the origin of life. You're on.
Let's see what you have.

 

[Anguspure]

Um, so? My point was that much of life looks like it wasn't designed, contrary to your previous claim. Are you now agreeing with me? If life does look like something that isn't designed -- like the positions of these wires -- then what was your argument again?

Your point seemed to be that because biological organisms appear to be messy they don't look designed. My point is that messiness is not a sign that something is not designed.

But I'm not arguing that design couldn't be present in biology. I'm criticizing your argument that design is evident.

A high level of functional coherence shows us that a thing is clearly designed because there is no other way for things that exhibit high levels of functional coherence to be invented.

I know. And I told you what that evidence tells me. You clearly don't want to hear that conclusion.

I don't mind hearing it. Why, sometimes I've heard as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

 

[Anguspure]

So what do you think the probability of a self replicating molecule is?

In so far as a self replicating thing will necessarily consist of a number of simpler components, functional proteins among them; Magnitudes less likely than the chance of any of the component parts being invented by accident.

Which of the two numbers presented in the video are you using as your benchmark probability and why?

Actually I'm basing my argument on the book "Undeniable" by Douglass Axe

They are talking about proteins and even if any or all of them occurred by chance that still doesn't give us a replicator. I've been trying to show that it is possible for our original replicator to be orders of magnitude simpler based on what we know so far about RNA.

Biologically self replicating and then inventing of its own component parts and the parts that replicate it? I seriously doubt that, fantastically seriously doubt it.

So what??? You don't seem to understand the replicating part. If one exists for long enough to replicate, that is make another one, then those two make another two, then four make four etc. This is called exponential growth. If the replication process takes 1 week, for example, then after 1 year we would have 4.5x10^15 of them. If it's possible that one existed then very quickly the primordial ocean would have filled up with these things.

We know the limits of the numbers and we also know the time frame. The probabilistic resources are simply not large enough.

Once you have overcome the step above there are no more insurmountable steps, the only thing required is the persistence of favourable conditions which the Earth undeniably provides. The replicator just keeps replicating, occasionally making an error in the copying process. This usually results in duds but every now and then it makes a better replicator, that is one that can copy faster than it's predecessor. Now the better copier outcompetes the original for limited natural resources and eventually we have more of the improved version than the original. This is called natural selection. This process repeats and repeats and we keep getting better and better versions of our replicator. Staggering improbability no longer has a part to play once we reach a point where there is competitive natural selection.

Each new invention that requires a saltational event where multiple components have to come together simultaneously and successfully in order to confer selective advantage demands exactly the same sort of cause as the original step.

I look at it more like we are just playing a game and waiting for someone to get a royal flush, and when it eventually happens then it's game over, winner takes it all.

Evolution is still a theory in crisis precisely because of this sort of thinking. It is very hopeful and scientifically optimistic but hand waves over some very significant hurdles and ignores many of the recent findings particularly in Evo Devo.

 

[sfs]

Your point seemed to be that because biological organisms appear to be messy they don't look designed. My point is that messiness is not a sign that something is not designed.

My point is that the messy parts of designed things aren't designed. And life is absolutely chock-full of messy parts.

 

[Anguspure]

My point is that the messy parts of designed things aren't designed. And life is absolutely chock-full of messy parts.

Another part of my point (which my image did not illustrate) is that apparant messiness is often mistaken for such by those who have much to learn.

But rather than considering messiness as a sign of poor design, I take a lesson from the apparant messiness of it all.

A designer who invents a highly complex and clever system that she wants to operate autominously in an equally complex and clever real world, needs to allow the same redundancy and flexibilty freedom in the system for it all to get a bit messy without the system failing, and perhaps because of this doesn't mind it all being a bit "messy" in the first place.

Perhaps the designer is more of an artist than a hard and fast mathematician.

 

[sfs]

A designer who invents a highly complex and clever system that she wants to operate autominously in an equally complex and clever real world, needs to allow the same redundancy and flexibilty freedom in the system for it all to get a bit messy without the system failing, and perhaps because of this doesn't mind it all being a bit "messy" in the first place.

Perhaps the designer is more of an artist than a hard and fast mathematician.

None of which supports your original claim, "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."

 

[Everybodyknows]

In so far as a self replicating thing will necessarily consist of a number of simpler components, functional proteins among them; Magnitudes less likely than the chance of any of the component parts being invented by accident.

Yawn... I'll say it again... RNA doesn't need proteins, it can do the job of proteins on itself which is why it is identified as the prime candidate for our first replicating molecule. Some of the research so far:

• Formation of RNA strands in ice, clay and geothermal vents
• RNA strands replicating via template directed polymerisation (base pairing). This can be done to any random RNA strand.
• RNAs that replicate a portion of their own sequence
• RNA that sequences another RNA strand longer than itself

All of this without specialised enzymes (proteins). So there is only one component, the RNA itself, it cant get any simpler.

Actually I'm basing my argument on the book "Undeniable" by Douglass Axe
Biologically self replicating and then inventing of its own component parts and the parts that replicate it? I seriously doubt that, fantastically seriously doubt it.

See above. The search is on for a molecule that replicates itself without component parts. With what is known about RNA so far it doesn't seem too far fetched.

We know the limits of the numbers and we also know the time frame. The probabilistic resources are simply not large enough.

This doesn't in any way address my point.

Each new invention that requires a saltational event where multiple components have to come together simultaneously and successfully in order to confer selective advantage demands exactly the same sort of cause as the original step.

There is invention and then there is mutation which confers a beneficial trait. Evolution works on incremental changes screened by natural selection rather than relying on saltational events.

Evolution is still a theory in crisis precisely because of this sort of thinking. It is very hopeful and scientifically optimistic but hand waves over some very significant hurdles and ignores many of the recent findings particularly in Evo Devo.

Only if you reject natural selection altogether. Once we have something that can replicate then natural selection will do it's job because no replicator is perfect.

 

[Anguspure]

None of which supports your original claim, "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."

I have no need for supporting evidence.

The fact is that the set of things that produce functional coherent inventions at the level of functional coherence observed in biology contains only one sort of thing and that is a mind or minds.

If a person wishes to demonstrate that something else also belongs within this set then it is for them to produce sufficient evidence to show that this "something else" belongs.

For now the subset of things, that are not minds, that are capable of inventing things that display functional coherence at a level that is fantastically improbable on chance, is very empty and could well be used as a definition of no-thing, nil, zip, diddly squat, nada, zero.

 

[Anguspure]

See above. The search is on for a molecule that replicates itself without component parts. With what is known about RNA so far it doesn't seem too far fetched.

This is nothing but rank carrot on a stick waving for those who wish to deny a creator. Just have faith in science and one day we'll come up with something....

There is invention and then there is mutation which confers a beneficial trait. Evolution works on incremental changes screened by natural selection rather than relying on saltational events.

I know that this is a necessary doctrine of Darwinian Evolutionary thinking, but there are many traits that have been identified that can only have arisen through saltational events. These must necessarily have had all components in place and operational before conferring any supposed selective advantage.

Only if you reject natural selection altogether. Once we have something that can replicate then natural selection will do it's job because no replicator is perfect.

Natural selection describes an observed natural phenomenon, that of natural fine tuning of functional biological forms to meet changing environmental conditions. But, because it first requires that a thing to be fine tuned has been invented, Darwins molecular fiddler has never, ever been demonstrated as an inventor of new things and to suggest that it could really puts the cart before the horse.

 

[Everybodyknows]

This is nothing but rank carrot on a stick waving for those who wish to deny a creator. Just have faith in science and one day we'll come up with something....


I know that this is a necessary doctrine of Darwinian Evolutionary thinking, but there are many traits that have been identified that can only have arisen through saltational events. These must necessarily have had all components in place and operational before conferring any supposed selective advantage.


Natural selection describes an observed natural phenomenon, that of natural fine tuning of functional biological forms to meet changing environmental conditions. But, because it first requires that a thing to be fine tuned has been invented, Darwins molecular fiddler has never, ever been demonstrated as an inventor of new things and to suggest that it could really puts the cart before the horse.

You're right. I've now become a young earth creationist.

 

[Anguspure]

You're right. I've now become a young earth creationist.

Oh dear.....

 

[Everybodyknows]

Oh dear.....

Now only @sfs still needs to be delivered from the grip of science. Come @sfs join us and together we can rule the galaxy!
P.S. I'm your father.

 

[sfs]

I have no need for supporting evidence.

Well, you do if you want your claims to reflect reality.

The fact is that the set of things that produce functional coherent inventions at the level of functional coherence observed in biology contains only one sort of thing and that is a mind or minds.

Right. What you've got there is a claim, one which you have not supported with any evidence. Worse, you haven't even defined the terms. How is "functional coherence" defined? How can one determine objectively whether it is present? How is it quantified? What counts as an invention? Once we know how to determine which things have this property you're talking about, then we can start investigating their origins.

 

[Anguspure]

Well, you do if you want your claims to reflect reality.Right. What you've got there is a claim, one which you have not supported with any evidence.

LOL You are asking me to show evidence that a thing that produces functional coherent inventions at the level of functional coherence observed in biology, apart from a mind, does not exist.

This is not possible because this thing does not exist, so by definition there is no evidence for (or against) such a thing.

The evidence that there is no evidence for such a thing is that the set belonging to these things is completely empty and anybody who insists that it is a fact that such things exist is completely unable to provide evidence that such thing actually exists.

Rather, they rely on the learned inclination of the believer towards Naturalistic explanation against the obvious presence of Creative Intelligence, and produce a just so story to satisfy.

Worse, you haven't even defined the terms. How is "functional coherence" defined?

Functional coherence is observed anywhere that an hierarchical arrangement of parts is needed to perform a higher level function with each part contributing in a coordinated way to the whole.

How can one determine objectively whether it is present?

Observe a thing that performs a function and determine whether an hierarchical arrangement of lower level parts is needed to perform the higher level function in such a way as each part contributes in a coordinated way to the whole.

How is it quantified?

May be quantified by the parts and the hierarchical levels needed in order for the higher level function to be carried out.

What counts as an invention?

An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process.

 

[Anguspure]

Now only @sfs still needs to be delivered from the grip of science. Come @sfs join us and together we can rule the galaxy!
P.S. I'm your father.

Oh dear, oh dear....