the self replicating watch argument

[doubtingmerle]

Shark, human proteins are surprisingly similar | Cornell Chronicle

“We were very surprised to find, that for many categories of proteins, sharks share more similarities with humans than zebrafish”

or:

Genes of elephant shark closer to human than zebrafish

You misunderstand nested hierarchy. We are not saying everything fits perfectly with a particular order. Rather the claim is that the standard hierarchy is shown to match with very high statistical significance for a majority of categories.

There are many reasons a fish that descended from something in the middle might have different digestive proteins from a shark and a human. The protein could have been established early, with the shark and human keeping it, but the fish not needing it and letting it atrophy.

Not so with cars and trucks. Go find 50 random vehicles on a used car lot and mark down a list of attributes such as price, cargo capacity, tire brand, emblem on the hood, number of doors, air conditioning, power windows ,CD player, type of spark plugs, etc. Then come back and tell us if the categories all tend to end up with the same nested hierarchy.

 

[Heissonear]

See Could cars reproduce?.

Now that millions of things have been made by man, can you list one item that is able to seft replicate?

Just one item: for example a paper clip, rubber tires for a play size John Deere tractor, an alignment of lithium ions with a carbon terminal and transitional terminal battery cell, or a finger nail file or clippers.

List one thing natural processes has been able to reproduce beside complex biochemical and genetic lifeforms?

Why the gap that exists in such replication of items?

Is not finger nail clippers rather simple compared to the spectrum of exzymes that exist - and needed for lifeforms to make and decompose compounds?

 

[Heissonear]

Something as complex as a bear is so much more complex in constituents and processes of formation.

Why has there been no masses or objects evolved that are specilized in materials and process makeup for said lifeforms, like a bear.

Is a sandbar intricated with coral to form a inner lagoon pool about as complex as it gets?

Let's see the list of items beyond creatures.

 

[Heissonear]

Like all items man has made takes intelligence to make and duplicate, it is the same with life on Earth past and present. Intelligence is required.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

List one thing natural processes has been able to reproduce beside complex biochemical and genetic lifeforms?

Why would anything other than a lifeform be expected to self-replicate? That has got to be one of the worst, most ignorant arguments against evolution ever presented.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Why do we not see other materials organizing and evolving into structures of use?

Snowflakes, Crystals, Oxidisation, Hydrocarbon formation, Fusion?

Why only the so called biochemistry you conclude "it happened"?

Oh, you mean only Life-like organizing and evolving into structures of use? ....because life already has a monopoly on that?

Gravity, radiation, thermal cycle conditions, soils in mechanical meshing, and such to derive better structures by materials and natural processes for select plants to grow, or animals to proliferate.

But we have zip from natural processes and materials towards generating structures and evolved masses for life forms.

Only caves produced by water dissolution of minerals in the bedrock.

Get our sense of "specialized replication" only uses biomolecules? And very intense complex reaction form such in open system condition (heat and salinity cycling), influx of metal ions and salts, flux in acidity, flux in van der Waal and dipole surface charge from surface-force-dominated particles that are less than 200 nm in size, ..........

Any other life-like structuring and evolution would be hard pressed getting a start in an environment where they would be consumed by the biochemical processes already existing here.

 

[xianghua]

I am asking you if you think it is possible that God took the nearly identical DNA of the Hyracotherium and made a few (instantaneous) changes to make the Eohippus. Do you or do you not think it is possible God did this?

as i said: anything is possible by designer. but you ask me why we should not believe in a designed evolution so i gave you at least 2 reasons: lack of evidence and the fact that every designed object we know about was design by instantaneous process.

There are many reasons a fish that descended from something in the middle might have different digestive proteins from a shark and a human. The protein could have been established early, with the shark and human keeping it, but the fish not needing it and letting it atrophy.

by this explanation we can expain anything. so its not a scientific claim. this is the problem with talkorigin argument. if we will find for instance that a dolphin has genes that are more similar to bats genes then to other dolphins you can just claim that its the result of convergent evolution.

Not so with cars and trucks. Go find 50 random vehicles on a used car lot and mark down a list of attributes such as price, cargo capacity, tire brand, emblem on the hood, number of doors, air conditioning, power windows ,CD player, type of spark plugs, etc. Then come back and tell us if the categories all tend to end up with the same nested hierarchy.

you just repeat what i already falsified. again: we found many cases of such contradictions even by checking many genes and not just a single one. even among apes many genes contradict their accepted phylogeny. this claim is wrong.

 

[xianghua]

Where are you even getting that number from? One cannot quantify how many times evolution has occurred (especially given that its a continuous process, not an incremental one). Even if every organism that had ever lived had the same mutation rate, one can't even quantify how many organisms have ever been alive in our planet's history, so that's not quantifiable either.

start with this one: There are fewer microbes out there than you think

multiply by the number of generations since earth history, multiply by the number of mutations per generation and you will not get more then 10^50 mutations.

-_- not all organisms have the same DNA length, and all mutations are not equally likely.

sure. you can reduce it from about 4 to 2 possible codons. it will not change much the big picture. 2^1000 or 3^1000 is still a huge number.

One cannot calculate the chances of "winning a lottery" when we can't quantify all the combinations that can win.

sure. how many combinations do you think are functional? like the number of sand grains on earth? you can even miltiply it by itself and it will still be a small number compare to the whole number.

 

[DogmaHunter]

actually it shows your ignorance since according to evolution many different structures suppose to evolve into other different structures.

This is just not true.
If you would understand the basics of evolution, you'ld know and understand that.

of course that there are many other functional structures out there that evolution could find (i never said otherwise). but even if we have about 10^100 different possible functions it will still be nothing compare to the whole space.

More nonsense.

In reality, no matter how "improbable" any change is in hindsight, the fact is that only viable systems will survive.

You are completely ignoring the role of natural selection and the ridiculous amount of "trials" evolution gets over the course of deep time.

and how many is say 10^60 (number of tries evolution may had) out of 4^1000?

It doesn't matter since these figures are pulled from a hat.

this is true if we assume that all functional sequences are near each other. but why they should be near each other at all?

No. It is true, always.
The accumulation of micro-changes inevitable end up in enormous changes.

1+1+1+1+1+....+1+1+1 = ginormous number

 

[DogmaHunter]

both can be change by a natural process ( a car can change its color by a natural process for instance). so what make you think that a car cant evolve into a truck via natural process given millions of years?

Because cars don't reproduce with modification and thus do not pass on their slightly changed traits to the next generation! How many times must it be repeated???

according to evolution it should be possible.

Maybe in lala-land. Or in the movies "cars" from disney.
Back here in reality, not so much.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Now that millions of things have been made by man, can you list one item that is able to seft replicate?

Just one item: for example a paper clip, rubber tires for a play size John Deere tractor, an alignment of lithium ions with a carbon terminal and transitional terminal battery cell, or a finger nail file or clippers.

List one thing natural processes has been able to reproduce beside complex biochemical and genetic lifeforms?

Why the gap that exists in such replication of items?

Self-replication (with variation) is what life does.

Not sure what you are complaining about or what you are objecting to....

Is not finger nail clippers rather simple compared to the spectrum of exzymes that exist - and needed for lifeforms to make and decompose compounds?

So?

Is not a hurricane more complex then a walking stick?
Is a hurricane a natural phenomena?
Yet walking sticks are designed. And they are (or at least: can be) rather extremely simple... it's just a stick, after all......

 

[DogmaHunter]

Something as complex as a bear is so much more complex in constituents and processes of formation.

Why has there been no masses or objects evolved that are specilized in materials and process makeup for said lifeforms, like a bear.

Is a sandbar intricated with coral to form a inner lagoon pool about as complex as it gets?

Let's see the list of items beyond creatures.

Is a hurricane complex?
How about a walking cane?

Of these two, which is the designed thing and which is the natural thing?

conclusion: complexity... NOT an indicator of design.

 

[Heissonear]

Why would anything other than a lifeform be expected to self-replicate? That has got to be one of the worst, most ignorant arguments against evolution ever presented.

Please re-evaluate. From an increase in complexity point of view.

Why have not natural processes and materials not assembled into structures with complexity - that have fuction in design?

Has hydrothermal veins in limestone increased in natural processes over billions of years?

Have turbidites, with energy, mass, water, and gravity increased in complexity over time, in noticeable locations on seafloors?

 

[Speedwell]

Why have not natural processes and materials not assembled into structures with complexity - that have fuction in design?

Because they lack the information processing capacity of the evolutionary mechanism.

 

[xianghua]

Because cars don't reproduce with modification and thus do not pass on their slightly changed traits to the next generation! How many times must it be repeated???

who is talking about generations at all? i just used evolutionery logic. means small steps+time= big step. so i gave one example that disprove this logic.

 

[PsychoSarah]

start with this one: There are fewer microbes out there than you think

multiply by the number of generations since earth history, multiply by the number of mutations per generation and you will not get more then 10^50 mutations.

-_- dude, bacteria don't reproduce at a set rate. Some species divide more than once an hour, while others go months without dividing or more. The number of generations that life on this planet has gone through is not a known number.

Furthermore, mechanisms to fix and prevent mutations present in modern cells likely weren't present in the first life on this planet, meaning that early on, there were likely far more mutations per generation than what occurs in a modern bacterial cell. This and more contributes to the fact that mutations throughout all of Earth's history are not quantifiable.

Plus, taking into account your source's number of microbes which are just on the ocean floor (an area bereft of nutrients to the point that it isn't representative of the majority of microbes alive currently at all, but still to high for your 10^50 assertion nevertheless) which is approximately 2.9x10^29. Unlike in petri dishes, bacteria in nature do not have exponential growth curves due to nutrient limitations and predation by other organisms, so let's say that these have been maintaining their numbers for 10 generations and that each generation occurs at a crawl of 1 per year. So, I'll do the calculation as if half of them die and the other half divide every year, meaning that 1.45x10^29 are produced every generation. Bacteria generally have a mutation rate of 0.003 per generation, so in one generation here 4.35x10^26 mutations would occur every generation, and in that mere 10 year time span with this very slow to divide population, that would of course be 4.35x10^27 mutations. So, in this example that doesn't even cover all of the bacteria currently alive and assumes an extremely long generation time, they exceed your "calculated limit on the number of mutations that has occurred in all life" in less than 300 years. So I ask again, where are you actually getting 10^50, because it isn't your source giving it.

sure. you can reduce it from about 4 to 2 possible codons. it will not change much the big picture. 2^1000 or 3^1000 is still a huge number.

You entirely missed my point; it doesn't matter how unlikely a specific given mutation is when it demonstrably wouldn't have to proceed the exact same to get an identical result. You are behaving as if because life on this planet ended up as it is genetically that the process by which it formed MUST guarantee that those specific genes arise, but that is simply not the case. This isn't winning a lottery, this is having a lotto ticket which has numbers that add up to one that's divisible by 3. There's a lot of tickets that would work, and it is just the one that ends up happening first that persists.

sure. how many combinations do you think are functional? like the number of sand grains on earth? you can even miltiply it by itself and it will still be a small number compare to the whole number.

I explained in my previous post that the number of functional combinations are not quantifiable. Any opinion I have on the possible number is irrelevant as it would be purely speculative. But, again, without that number being known, it would be impossible to even begin to determine the probability of functional sequences arising... though plenty of known functional sequences are so short that their appearance would be an inevitability.

 

[xianghua]

. So, in this example that doesn't even cover all of the bacteria currently alive and assumes an extremely long generation time, they exceed your "calculated limit on the number of mutations that has occurred in all life" in less than 300 years. So I ask again, where are you actually getting 10^50, because it isn't your source giving it.

here is one reference:

How much of protein sequence space has been explored by life on Earth?

"This gives an extreme upper limit of 4×10^43 different amino acid sequences explored since the origin of life"

I explained in my previous post that the number of functional combinations are not quantifiable. Any opinion I have on the possible number is irrelevant as it would be purely speculative.

i dont think so. we know for instance that a specific function is rare as about one in 10^77 sequences:

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

"this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77"

 

[Rivga]

here is one reference:

How much of protein sequence space has been explored by life on Earth?

"This gives an extreme upper limit of 4×10^43 different amino acid sequences explored since the origin of life"

You do realise that the link provided above comes to the conclusion:

"Therefore it is entirely feasible that for all practical (i.e. functional and structural) purposes, protein sequence space has been fully explored during the course of evolution of life on Earth (perhaps even before the appearance of eukaryotes)."

A part from that do you actually realise what they are saying, they are talking about maximum possible limits. Not all of the possible sequences would be actually possible, due to the nature of how cells fold.

And finally they say: I am guessing you did not understand a word of this

"Finally, we conclude that the number 20^100 and similar large numbers (e.g. Salisbury 1969; Maynard Smith 1970; Mandecki 1998; Luisi 2003; Carrier 2004; de Duve 2005) are simply ‘straw men’ advanced to initiate discussion in the same spirit as the ‘Levinthal paradox’ of protein folding rates (Levinthal 1969; Zwanzig et al. 1992). 20^100 is now no more useful than the approximate 2×10^1 834 097 books present in Borges' (1999) fantastical ‘Library of Babel’ and has no connection with the real world of amino acids and proteins. Hence, we hope that our calculation will also rule out any possible use of this big numbers ‘game’ to provide justification for postulating divine intervention (Bradley 2004; Dembski 2004)."

lol really you have just provided us with the research written to Debunk your argument.

 

[Heissonear]

here is one reference:

How much of protein sequence space has been explored by life on Earth?

"This gives an extreme upper limit of 4×10^43 different amino acid sequences explored since the origin of life"




i dont think so. we know for instance that a specific function is rare as about one in 10^77 sequences:

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

"this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77"

I'm with you bro.

Some are posting by quick reviewing by Google

What a mess to reply to, with apprehension low.

The nail has been hit many times by your hammer about the OP Reality.

May God bless.

 

[Heissonear]

You do realise that the link provided above comes to the conclusion:

"Therefore it is entirely feasible that for all practical (i.e. functional and structural) purposes, protein sequence space has been fully explored during the course of evolution of life on Earth (perhaps even before the appearance of eukaryotes)."

A part from that do you actually realise what they are saying, they are talking about maximum possible limits. Not all of the possible sequences would be actually possible, due to the nature of how cells fold.

And finally they say: I am guessing you did not understand a word of this

"Finally, we conclude that the number 20^100 and similar large numbers (e.g. Salisbury 1969; Maynard Smith 1970; Mandecki 1998; Luisi 2003; Carrier 2004; de Duve 2005) are simply ‘straw men’ advanced to initiate discussion in the same spirit as the ‘Levinthal paradox’ of protein folding rates (Levinthal 1969; Zwanzig et al. 1992). 20^100 is now no more useful than the approximate 2×10^1 834 097 books present in Borges' (1999) fantastical ‘Library of Babel’ and has no connection with the real world of amino acids and proteins. Hence, we hope that our calculation will also rule out any possible use of this big numbers ‘game’ to provide justification for postulating divine intervention (Bradley 2004; Dembski 2004)."

lol really you have just provided us with the research written to Debunk your argument.

A tap dance of clipboard and paste. And therefore you debunked.

Sorry to see such mishandled.

The complexity of life forms never happened. Evolution is on foundations of conjecture.

And generating a string of complex molecules in a select environment physically and chemically for RNA and DNA formation is pure conjecture.

Show us how man in the lab can make a string of DNA enzymes, and then produce such DNA selective to make a cricket, and then make crickets.

Yes, man presents like he has mastered biochemistry and genetic engineering, but when it comes to show time, we see zip. Zero other than modifications and other lifeform base constitutes (like enzymes) the source of the soup.