Common sense is useless in a discussion of scientific topics.

reply to post by Raiment


You are right, the evolution is not completely random, it is directed. By natural selection. Only mutations are random.

The origin of humanity is getting amino acids from the prebiotic soup. Just getting one functional protein is 10 to the 164th power.

Thats the origin of protein based life, not humanity. And Its very likely that it evolved from simpler proto-life, or replicating mutating system. See RNA world

And your probability is incorrect - Simple coin-toss unrelated probability of amino acid combinations is incorrect if natural selection and replication are involved, since the natural selection is not random, only mutations. You dont have to search all the solution space randomly to arrive at sufficiently functioning protein. See genetic algorithms and evolutionary algorithms .

Just getting one functional protein is 10 to the 164th power.

I would like to see proof of this statement, using correct evolutionary probability, not simple coin-toss. Just be careful, functional protein is never only one. What is the probability of eventually getting one fuctional protein from the sum of many possible functional and non-functional proteins, using evolutionary algorithms? That is the correct question

Wouldn't the origin of protein-based life be the basis of eventual human life, in evolution? I don't see getting one functional protein as a simple coin toss, as many constants had to be in place. This reminds me of one reason I do not find the card hand theory very useful as an analogy. With the card hand, constants are already in place, including the deck and even the intent of the dealer.

reply to post by Raiment

Originally posted by Raiment
The origin of humanity is getting amino acids from the prebiotic soup. Just getting one functional protein is 10 to the 164th power.

...um...you mean 1 in 10^164?
Where are you getting this number?

You can't just state random numbers in a matter of fact manner.

A minimally complex cell needs 250 proteins of 150 amino acids, or 1 to the 41,000th power (more zeros than I can write here and make the post efficient).

Again, where are you getting this?
Also, that would be...well, there are less than 1^41000 protons in the visible universe...that number is just ridiculous.

So where is the calculation for this?

It makes the card hand seems possible. And does not even count all the other constants that had to be in place.

It doesn't seem to take into account anything actually. All it seems to be is a really big number that's been pulled out of nowhere.

Non-directed evolution has not been proven from the fossils or geological remains we have now. Evolution on a large scale has been suggested, but not proven.

Except that I've shown quite a bit of it. Didn't I link you the videos on phylogeny? Or was that a different user?

There is a lot of evidence for evolution, but not for change on a large scale; say, change above the species or order level.

There's an insane amount of direct observation of speciation, see my previous post in this thread for some direct instances of speciation.
And phylogeny proves change at the order level.

That's why they (evolution and design) should have equal footing .

You mean a theory that has an incredibly amount of supporting evidence and a hypothesis that has no supporting evidence whatsoever should be held on equal footing?

The gaps in evolution are filled in with scientific hope, as in, we hope scientists will resolve this in the future.

There are no verified transitional fossils (reptile>bird);

Does the velociraptor count? What about about all the other feathered raptors?
And again, birds didn't evolve from reptiles, they evolved from dinosaurs.

And there are a lot of transitional fossils. That's just from wikipedia, I can give you more credible sourcing if you'd like.

geological formations are missing hundreds of millions of years of evolution;

You said this already, and I've asked for evidence. Please cite your sources.

the fossil explosion, to name a few examples.

What's the 'fossil explosion'? Are you referring to the cambrian explosion?

How can the origin of life by non-directed evolution by proven? It can only be pieced together and the gaps filled in with 'could possibly this or that' said by scientists.

Well, you've yet to point out a single gap in evolutionary theory.
It's been proven, you just seem to be uninformed as to the proof.

But this thread is simply about common sense and science.

reply to post by Maslo

You are right, the evolution is not completely random, it is directed. By natural selection. Only mutations are random.

You got that about half right.

Mutations are random : right.
Evolution is not completely random: half right. (it isn't random at all).
Evolution is directed by natural selection: wrong. Natural selection 'drives' evolution and evolution is not directed.

Natural selection does not plan ahead, it just picks winners from the pool of random mutations that occur. If evolution were being 'directed' by natural selection, then the mutation would have to be NOT random, it would have to be planned. That is why the anti-scientists discuss directed evolution.

One population of organisms is not "more evolved" than another population of organisms, they are just evolved differently from each other. Every organism is totally evolved at a point in time, and when a population undergoes a 'round' of mutation it is not necessarily "more advanced" than previously, just more successful than the original population. Dinosaurs are not less evolved than birds, they are just different. Dinosaurs with feathers are not more advanced than dinosaur's without feathers, they are just able to reproduce better under some conditions, to fill more difficult niches in the environment.

reply to post by rnaa

Evolution is not completely random: half right. (it isn't random at all).

Random mutations are integral part of evolution. Therefore evolution is at least from this contribution partially random.Non-random NS can select only from this pool of random changes. And even NS is stochastic a little, if we take very small populations. Saying that evolution is not random at all (does not include any random contribution) is not true.

Evolution is directed by natural selection: wrong. Natural selection 'drives' evolution and evolution is not directed. Natural selection does not plan ahead, it just picks winners from the pool of random mutations that occur. If evolution were being 'directed' by natural selection, then the mutation would have to be NOT random, it would have to be planned.

That is just semantics. "Natural selection "drives" evolution" and "evolution is directed by NS" have the same meaning. I never said that natural selection somehow "plans ahead" or that mutations are not random, but natural selection is the process which adds a preffered "direction" to otherwise random changes (directs which mutations will reproduce more than others), so it in effect directs evolution.

reply to post by Maslo

That is just semantics. "Natural selection "drives" evolution" and "evolution is directed by NS" have the same meaning. I never said that natural selection somehow "plans ahead" or that mutations are not random, but natural selection is the process which adds a preffered "direction" to otherwise random changes (directs which mutations will reproduce more than others), so it in effect directs evolution.

This is completely wrong. It is NOT semantics, it is science. Direction implies a plan, and there is no plan.

Natural selection does not add a "preferred direction" in any way shape or form. Natural selection does not "direct with mutation will reproduce more than others". The fact that some mutations help an organism reproduce more than others means that they are being naturally selected.

I repeat: there is no direction, no plan to achieve, no end game to be reached, just reproductive advantage to be gained.

reply to post by rnaa


Direction does not imply a plan or end game, it just word to say something is not going (or pointing) everywhere equally. If we speak about directions of natural electric and magnetic fields in astronomy or directions of motion of bodies, we do not imply it is caused or influenced by some plan or intelligent entity.
For example in Darwin's_finches , we can see that natural selection in one subspecies favors finches having longer and bigger beaks (disfavors the opposite), and in other subspecies in different area with different food sources having smaller beaks. Thus we can say that natural selection promotes one direction of evolution (directs evolution that way) and supresses another. In the absence of this directing, both mutations (as neutral mutations) would have equal likehood of spreading and influencing the future development and habitus of populations, and the beaks would over time change slower and more randomly (without direction).

The only part of evolution theory that doesn't make sense is that it takes millions of years to happen, but then they claim in the same breath that modern Homo Sapiens evolved from Neanderthals in about 100,000 years, and went from smashing rocks together to complex machines in the same timeframe.

Originally posted by babybunnies
The only part of evolution theory that doesn't make sense is that it takes millions of years to happen, but then they claim in the same breath that modern Homo Sapiens evolved from Neanderthals in about 100,000 years, and went from smashing rocks together to complex machines in the same timeframe.

You seem to be misinformed here. It's not uncommon for people to believe that evolution takes millions of years to happen. It actually happens overnight. Seriously. Every baby that's born contains over 100 brand new mutations, unique from their parents. I think the number is around 180, but I'm not 100% sure and I don't feel like researching.

What takes millions of years is the progression from something like a velociraptor to something like a chicken. Those are the big changes.

As for neanderthals, current theory holds that we aren't descended from them but that they were a parallel species of humans that developed alongside us. We may have shared a very close common ancestor, but we weren't the exact same species. We know we were interfertile, being two very closely related species. Metal singer Ozzy Osbourne was recently found to have quite a bit of neanderthal DNA.

We didn't so much evolve from them as simply take over and breed with them...
But the changes in hominids actually have to do with something that isn't typically found in most species...we developed some level of technology. We know that pre-humans cooked their food, which was a massive improvement for our survival, allowing certain traits to be fostered rather than others.

As for technological change...technology improves exponentially. It doesn't develop at the same rate that species do. There has actually been some study into the rate at which new inventions are developed, and we've found that there's actually a predictable growth pattern.

Where am I getting the number for the improbability of origin of life by chance via amino acids? There has been work by Rober Sauer, and followed by others.

I am referring to Cambrian explosion, among others, that has never been fully explained.

Do I accept the velociraptor? I can either accept the velociraptor or conclude that the dinosaur and bird developed along parallel lines, due to different lung and femur structures. Evolutionists never seem to understand that because something is similar, it does not prove that one transitioned from the other.

There are geological formations in the Grand Canyon missing evolutionary stages, that could be accounted for by erosion, but unfortunately are not. Deloria outlined this in 'Red Earth, White Lies.'

These are all gaps in evolutionary theory. There are more of course, this is just a sampling.

reply to post by Maslo

If we speak about directions of natural electric and magnetic fields in astronomy or directions of motion of bodies, we do not imply it is caused or influenced by some plan or intelligent entity.

Correct. But evolution does not have a direction like a magnetic field. I repeat, this is not semantics, direction does not exist in evolution, period.

There is no end game that it is 'trying' to reach. The only thing that distinguishes two evolutionary states is how well the organism is adapted to its immediate environment and can reproduce. There is no pushing an organism in one direction or another, there is just reproduction or not. If a population of sighted fish finds its way into cave pool and never leaves it is likely to lose quite a few 'higher' evolutionary functions, like sight, because there is no reason for the fish to spend resources maintaining a useless function. It has more energy to spend on mating.

It is a fundamental school-kid error when observing evolution, to think of some evolutionary direction from lower to higher, that an organism 'decides' to evolve, or that one organism is more evolved than another. All organisms are fully evolved. The only end game is the next generation. And the next. And the next.

When someone speaks of "directed evolution" they are specifically referring to the idea that evolution is pushing life from 'lower' forms to 'higher' forms, and obviously humans and their possession of intelligence are the ultimate higher form. Furthermore, the concept of "directed evolution" most definitely includes the idea of a "director" doing the planning that gets that organism from low to high. The director they have in mind may or may not be God. James Lovelock once proposed an analogy of Gaia as such a director, but regretted it almost immediately when in got him branded as a new age crank and it took years for anyone to take him seriously after that.

reply to post by Maslo

For example in Darwin's_finches , we can see that natural selection in one subspecies favors finches having longer and bigger beaks (disfavors the opposite), and in other subspecies in different area with different food sources having smaller beaks. Thus we can say that natural selection promotes one direction of evolution (directs evolution that way) and supresses another.

No we cannot say that.

We can say that natural selection allowed the filling of two different environmental niches, one that required big beaks, and one that required small beaks. There is no direction here, there is only birds being able to eat one type of food better than its neighbor and vice versa.

One finch is not better than the other, they are equally evolved but for different environmental conditions. Whichever bird could eat the food survived to reproduce. Period.

Originally posted by babybunnies
The only part of evolution theory that doesn't make sense is that it takes millions of years to happen, but then they claim in the same breath that modern Homo Sapiens evolved from Neanderthals in about 100,000 years, and went from smashing rocks together to complex machines in the same timeframe.

Thank you for this observation. It has never been fully explained. There are theories about jumps in evolution (like the not so wildly acclaimed punk eek) and they are often 'fill in the gaps' theories that non-scientists are always accused of. When errors were found in gradual change over millions years, the theory was changed to sudden and gradual.

A favourite quote of mine:

" I may disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Originally posted by Raiment
Where am I getting the number for the improbability of origin of life by chance via amino acids? There has been work by Rober Sauer, and followed by others.

A pathetically misleading effort to avoid providing a source for a creationist argument.

The statistics you gave:

Just getting one functional protein is 10 to the 164th power.
A minimally complex cell needs 250 proteins of 150 amino acids, or 1 to the 41,000th power

are not directly from Robert Sauer.

The first of these claims is made by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, in "Signature of the Cell", and he claims to base this figure on the works of Robert Sauer at MIT, Douglas Axe at Cambridge University, and British cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle. Meyer is a philosopher who is behind the movement to push "Intelligent design" teaching into schools. The second claim is also in Meyer's book.

Biologist Darrel Falk used the book as an example of why he does not support the intelligent design movement, citing numerous erroneous claims within the book as well as Meyer's criticisms of experiments in abiogenesis without having conducted any actual research on the topic. Falk concluded that the book demonstrated that the intelligent design movement is a popular movement rooted in religion and philosophy rather than the scientific movement it portrays itself as. Computer scientist and mathematician Jeffrey Shallit criticized Meyer's "significant misunderstandings of information theory" for being incoherent and wildly wrong and criticized individuals who have endorsed the book for uncritically accepting Meyer's claims without considering he may be wrong.
en.wikipedia.org...

Evolutionists never seem to understand that because something is similar, it does not prove that one transitioned from the other.

Evolutionists don't assume one form transitioned from another. They look for evidence.
Creationists disregard any evidence and assume one form cannot transform into another.

There are geological formations in the Grand Canyon missing evolutionary stages, that could be accounted for by erosion, but unfortunately are not.

Geological formations don't evolve.

These are all gaps in evolutionary theory. There are more of course, this is just a sampling.

In other words we don't know everthing about what happened millions of years ago, so God did it . . .

reply to post by Kailassa


Yes, I said that more than one scientist was in the studies, did I not? (Yes I see I did). Who is Meyer?
Of course geological formations do not evolve, but should they not show stages of evolution, unless this can be accounted for by erosion. Is this not true?
I do not know about your creationist idea, as I am of a different religion; sorry I cannot be of help, as I know you believe in conspiracy of creationists.

reply to post by Raiment


I think the point was that the numbers are...baseless. There is no base for them. And I already made a thread that has to deal with probabilities.

Probabilities are a pointless argument.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Raiment

 

I think the point was that the numbers are...baseless. There is no base for them. And I already made a thread that has to deal with probabilities.

Probabilities are a pointless argument.

I am just starting to study this but the physics professor does not seem to agree that probabilities are pointless. On a job interview probabilities took up most of my time.

Originally posted by Raiment
Yes, I said that more than one scientist was in the studies, did I not? (Yes I see I did). Who is Meyer?

So you just copied these figures from some creationist web site without bothering to check for yourself where they came from?

The figures you gave came from Meyer, who suffers from a misunderstanding of the work of other scientists whose work he claims to be referring to.
They do not come directly from Sauer.

Of course geological formations do not evolve, but should they not show stages of evolution, unless this can be accounted for by erosion. Is this not true?

You stated, "There are geological formations in the Grand Canyon missing evolutionary stages, that could be accounted for by erosion, but unfortunately are not."
I'm still waiting for you to twist this into something which makes sense.

I do not know about your creationist idea, as I am of a different religion; sorry I cannot be of help,

I have not brought any creationist idea into this, and I'm certainly not asking for your "help".

as I know you believe in conspiracy of creationists.

How mendacious can you get?
Please show any quote of mine discussing a conspiracy of creationists.

Originally posted by Raiment

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Raiment

 

I think the point was that the numbers are...baseless. There is no base for them. And I already made a thread that has to deal with probabilities.
Probabilities are a pointless argument.

I am just starting to study this but the physics professor does not seem to agree that probabilities are pointless.

There is a big difference between correct use of probability and pulling a bunch of numbers out of your, (or Meyer's,) imagination.
Btw, physics professors don't teach probability. Probability is a branch of mathematics.

On a job interview probabilities took up most of my time.

You were working out the probability of the interviewer being single and interested?