the self replicating watch argument

[Speedwell]

I do recognise the handy work of the Gardener when I see it and you are right the elegance and innovation and care taken to produce is something beautiful to behold.
How wonderful are His works!

In a way, you are right: "design" equals "purpose." But you still seem to be making the assumption that products of random variation and selection cannot reflect God's purpose.

 

[46AND2]

Specifically how is the math missapplied?
If I have a choice of 500 amino acids and only wish to use 20 of these in a specific sequence of say 50 aminos, what is the probability that I could construct my desired sequence by pulling it blindly out of a hat?

1. That would be fine if we only had one draw from the hat, and

2. We had to get the entire sequence in one shot.

But neither applies here. As has been pointed out, a huge number of draws from the hat likely occurred. Given enough draws from the hat, an incredibly improbable event becomes LIKELY...in fact, a fantastically improbable event even becomes a virtual certainty if given infinite draws.

Secondly, the 50 amino acid sequence need not happen all at once, if a smaller sequence is sufficient to sustain the organism. Then small changes can be added piecemeal after that.

Your probability estimate is not analogous to evolution or abiogenesis, because it assumes 1 pull from the hat, and a larger initial target from that one pull.

 

[Anguspure]

Why must that be first?

Why can't sets of molecules that tend to catalyze themselves be first?

Maddox discussed this way back in 1999 as a possible direction for a biogenesis theory. It looked unlikely then, for the reasons I have been putting forward, and now a few years down the track looks even more absurd.

True. And sets of molecules that tend to catalyze themselves could develop into more advanced sets.

By what natural process? Surely you are aware of the entropic principle. Your theory calls for extraordinarily low entropy at a level that is only ever observed in conjunction with an intelligent causal agency.

 

[Anguspure]

In a way, you are right: "design" equals "purpose." But you still seem to be making the assumption that products of random variation and selection cannot reflect God's purpose.

...and conversely you are very faithful to the idea that the things are products of random variation and selection.

Anyway I am not saying any such thing. If God wishes to set the ball rolling that allows the system to produce through these means that is fine.

What I am observing is that there are certain saltational events that are observable in the biological record, including biogenesis itself, but also certain taxa defining traits that have no antecedant and display the level of functional coherence that is always only found cause by intelligent agenicies.

 

[Speedwell]

...and conversely you are very faithful to the idea that the things are products of random variation and selection.

Not really. The ToE is only a scientific theory, and like all scientific theories it has the potential for being wrong. Right now it is by a long way the most plausible explanation for the diversity of life as we observe it, but that's all it is.

What I am observing is that there are certain saltational events that are observable in the biological record, including biogenesis itself, but also certain taxa defining traits that have no antecedant and display the level of functional coherence that is always only found cause by intelligent agenicies.

And many others, scientistist trained in the field, do not see them at all as saltation events. You may think that it is because they are trying to "deny God" but that is not plausible; there are too many theists, Christians included, who take that view.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ma. It looked unlikely then, for the reasons I have been putting forward, and now a few years down the track looks even more absurd.

What argument? All I have seen is your argument from probability that a specific chain is unlikely. Sure, but I am not taking about specific chains, but about non-specific chains that have a slight tendency to catalyze something like themselves.

By what natural process? Surely you are aware of the entropic principle. Your theory calls for extraordinarily low entropy at a level that is only ever observed in conjunction with an intelligent causal agency.

Are you aware that in an open system entropy at a local point can decrease?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Your theory calls for extraordinarily low entropy at a level that is only ever observed in conjunction with an intelligent causal agency.

Huh? What is the minimum values of s (entropy) that can be obtained without an intelligent causal agency? Who discovered this limit to the value of s? Where did he publish his findings?

Are you just making stuff up?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Are you just making stuff up?

No. How many times does he have to assert that it's obvious before you see The Truth?

 

[xianghua]

Secondly, the 50 amino acid sequence need not happen all at once, if a smaller sequence is sufficient to sustain the organism. Then small changes can be added piecemeal after that.

the problem is that many functions need more then 50 amino acids (a small protein is about 100aa long). so in those cases it will not work.

 

[Larniavc]

how exactly?

ToE did not predict it.

Have you forgotten what we are talking about?

I’ve already explained why in post 328.

Are you even paying attention?

 

[xianghua]

ToE did not predict it.

Have you forgotten what we are talking about?

I’ve already explained why in post 328.

Are you even paying attention?

you only said that: "If mammals evolved twice identically we would be well on the road to a falsification of TOE"

without any explanation or evidence to back up this claim.

 

[46AND2]

the problem is that many functions need more then 50 amino acids (a small protein is about 100aa long). so in those cases it will not work.

1. To function as it does NOW, perhaps it does need that many. A primitive cell, not so much.

2. His number was arbitrary, as was my response. The point is that creationists assume, as you showed, that cells had to be formed in their present state, when they have had millions of years to evolve from their primitive state.

 

[xianghua]

1. To function as it does NOW, perhaps it does need that many. A primitive cell, not so much.

i dont think its possible. we need to start from something. we know for instance that even a simple function like binding to a molecule will need about 40-50 amino acids (by experiment). so if we assume at least 2 parts for a minimal protein function (say a protein that bind two molecules to each other). we will need about 90-100 aa to begin with.

 

[doubtingmerle]

i dont think its possible. we need to start from something. we know for instance that even a simple function like binding to a molecule will need about 40-50 amino acids (by experiment). so if we assume at least 2 parts for a minimal protein function (say a protein that bind two molecules to each other). we will need about 90-100 aa to begin with.

How do you know it began with proteins? We don't know, but many think it began with self-catalyzing RNA.

 

[xianghua]

How do you know it began with proteins? We don't know, but many think it began with self-catalyzing RNA.

i dont talk about abiogenesis. according to evolution many new proteins evolved during animal evolution.

 

[Larniavc]

you only said that: "If mammals evolved twice identically we would be well on the road to a falsification of TOE"

without any explanation or evidence to back up this claim.

I give up.

 

[Speedwell]

you only said that: "If mammals evolved twice identically we would be well on the road to a falsification of TOE"

without any explanation or evidence to back up this claim.

It is self-evident to anyone who understands the theory of evolution. It is implicit in any statement of the theory.

 

[xianghua]

It is self-evident to anyone who understands the theory of evolution. It is implicit in any statement of the theory.

and your evidence is?...

 

[doubtingmerle]

i dont talk about abiogenesis. according to evolution many new proteins evolved during animal evolution.

But your thread had been hijacked. We were talking about abiogenesis.

 

[doubtingmerle]

and your evidence is?...

...Biology 101.