It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Why Abiogenesis separated from Evolution is a false Dichotomy.

page: 12
4
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:24 PM

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by edmc^2

10^3489 more probable, not 10^3489 chance

having more than one LUCA, all with the same genetic code, would obviously be a virtual improbability relative to just one source, which is not that unlikely if given 6 billion years to form

Interesting. Thanks.

So the key is“if given 6 billion years to form”. But the earth itself is around 4 byo – so it’s not going happen, unless the age of the earth is adjusted (again).

BTW – may I ask how did you come up with 6b years if the probability is 10^3489 (or is it based a different calculation)?

And my question was in regards to the FLO or UCA – what is the rate of allele change for “it/them” to form successfully with the given probability?

If the human genome has an average rate of 1.2 nucleotides additions per year, then at 10^3489 probability the UCA/FLO must at have a very fast rate of change. Correct? How fast do you think is the change?

Any idea?

Also, will environmental/biological laws allow for such a fast rate if that was the case?

These are few of the intriguing questions that I need an answer to.

If you can answer them – it might resolve the next qs that I need to ask (if you don’t mind).

Ciao,
edmc2

edit on 31-1-2011 by edmc^2 because: LUCA --> UCA

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:48 PM
reply to post by edmc^2

again, its not 10^3489 chance its 10^3489 more likely

the mutation rate of genes follow more or less a poisson distribution, its a random event that happens to occur at a measured average rate, but earlier life forms had not optimized the trade-off between genetic repair mechanisms and energy expended to other metabolic capacities, therefore random "insertions" or what have you, happened at a considerably higher frequency

still unclear on what you are trying to say

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:44 AM
reply to post by edmc^2

I'll just repeat UVA's answer for emphasis:

10^3489 more probable, not 10^3489 chance

The number, as I understand it, is describing the probability of all life on Earth today having evolved from a single Universal Common Ancestor, as opposed to independent evolution along multiple independent trees,

In other words, given that life exists on Earth today, in all its diversity, there are two ways we could have gotten here:

1. Everything started from one particular agbiogenesis event that 'took' (there may have been others that didn't 'take'). Every living organism on the planet today evolved from that particular abiogenesis event so all life is on one single tree.
2. There could have been multiple abiogenesis events that 'took', perhaps some at deep sea vents, perhaps some at other suitable locations. All organisms alive today are evolved from one or another of these events, so there are many possible trees.

My understanding is the quoted numbers are the analysis of the probability that item number 1 is in fact the case, reducing the probability of item number 2 to as next to impossible as it gets in science.

It has nothing to do with the likely hood of abiogenesis occurring in the first place, or the number of atoms in the universe, or the number of years the planet or the universe has been in existence. It has to do with the fact that all life shares that small set of features I pointed to earlier, and the likelihood therefore of a Universal Common Ancestor.

It is especially not a statistical analysis of the probability of life occuring at all, or of insulin evolving, or of eyes glazing over, or anything else of that nature.

It is a statistical confirmation of common descent. Nothing else.

edit on 1/2/2011 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:21 AM

Originally posted by edmc^2
If not – what numbers can be used to validate “abiogenesis theory”?

I don't know. Maybe number of observations confirming the existence of a life creating deity = 0 vs. number of observations showing abiogenesis to be a plausible scenario = 1000s

Consider abiogenesis validated.
edit on 1-2-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:36 PM
reply to post by rnaa

Got it, thanks rnaa – so bottom line, to sum it all up, that is:

No matter how it seem to be probable/improbable an event is/was, whether abiogenesis occurred or not or whatever means life got its start, it doesn’t really matter because organic evolution is observable and that we are here – thus it is a fact.

Who can really argue with that reasoning?

Ciao,
edmc2

end tx

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:05 PM
reply to post by edmc^2

Got it, thanks rnaa – so bottom line, to sum it all up, that is:

No matter how it seem to be probable/improbable an event is/was, whether abiogenesis occurred or not or whatever means life got its start, it doesn’t really matter because organic evolution is observable and that we are here – thus it is a fact.

No. You aren't reading the words I am writing. Those numbers have nothing to do with 'whether abiogenesis occurred or not or whatever means life got its start'.

They have to do with which path life took to get from the 'first set of live things' to 'modern organisms'. It seeks to answer whether modern organisms are all related through one common ancestor (a virtual statistical certainty) or if there are multiple unrelated ancestors at the bottom of the tree (a virtual statistical impossibility). In other words it supports Common Descent.

Its only relation to abiogenesis is that it tends to support the idea of one abiogenesis event rather than multiple abiogenesis events, but does not rule them out altogether. It has nothing whatever to say about the probability of any abiogenesis event occurring. Abiogenesis did occur, whether supernatural or natural doesn't matter to this statistic. The statistic only attempts to answer whether there is ONE Universal Common Ancestors, or MANY Unrelated Common Ancestors.

There is no reason that separate abiogenesis events couldn't have taken place at deep sea vents on opposite side of the planet (indeed there is no reason to suppose that abiogenesis events aren't still taking place today for that matter). But this calculation shows that it is extremely probable that no matter how may events occurred, only one of them led to life as we know it.

Who can really argue with that reasoning?

Well aside from the fact that you continue to misinterpret the point of the statistic, you can't. That is exactly the point that separates abiogenesis from evolution.

It was once the case that we just didn't have the tools to study abiogenesis, but we did have the tools to study evolution, or at least make a start at it. So should we have buried our heads in the sand and not further our knowledge about life on Earth because we couldn't start at before the beginning? That is, of course, the Creationist argument, but it doesn't get us anywhere.
edit on 1/2/2011 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by rnaa

Nice post!

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by rnaa

It has nothing whatever to say about the probability of any abiogenesis event occurring. Abiogenesis did occur, whether supernatural or natural doesn't matter to this statistic. The statistic only attempts to answer whether there is ONE Universal Common Ancestors, or MANY Unrelated Common Ancestors.

exactly what I said:

No matter how improbable an event is/was, whether abiogenesis occurred or not or whatever means life got its start, it doesn’t really matter because organic evolution is observable and that we are here – thus it is a fact.

agrees with rhinoceros too.

I don't know. Maybe number of observations confirming the existence of a life creating deity = 0 vs. number of observations showing abiogenesis to be a plausible scenario = 1000s

no matter what????) - evolution is a fact. That's what all of you are saying, correct?

but if you say:

So should we have buried our heads in the sand and not further our knowledge about life on Earth because we couldn't start at before the beginning?

To the contrary - we have discovered wonderful things in creation that enhance knowledge of my Creator.

I'm of the same thought with the Psalmist when he said:

“The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.”—PSALM 19:1.

Or with astronomer Allan Sandage who said:

“I find it quite improbable that such order [in the universe] came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

I'm of the same thought with the Paul when he said:

“For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;” (Romans 1:20)

ciao,
edmc2

edit on 1-2-2011 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:31 PM
reply to post by edmc^2

why would there be selection pressure against an ordered and pleasant view of the world?

in fact, if we were to stumble onto a small isolated group of people who saw the oceans as a fiery pit and the mountains as waking monsters, i would think evolution would be proven false, because such simulations by the brain certainly wouldn't contribute to one's reproductive fitness, and would be the workings of selection by divine intervention

unless the "mountains as waking monsters" gene kept sleeping sickness at bay (which is something scientists would have to explore)

so I would say because the world appears so orderly and patterned, evolution must be true, thus any arguments for a god that concerns order and beauty are banal and miscalculated

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:37 PM
reply to post by uva3021

You know I was accused a while back by evolutionists that I was "ignorant of the science of probability and the facts of evolution/abiogenesis". The argument if I remember correctly went something like this:

“If enough monkeys pecked away at a keyboard long enough, they could eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare.”
Bold claim indeed! Quite similar to the probability statistics presented here.

(any idea where this argument originally came from?)

But when asked how is it possible – the answer came back (as expected) with more antagonism and more ridicule.

Anyway, what do you think though – given an amount of monkeys and time, will it be possible to “write the complete works of Shakespeare”?

For example: let’s say if a trillion monkeys were to type 10 randomly chosen characters a second, how long will it take to produce the sentence “‘To be or not to be, that is the question.’”?

What say you? Is it gonna be “to be or not to be” possible?

BTW, this monkey business can be compared to the production of the first living organism (FLO) or for that matter the production of the first RNA or DNA.

That is, what is the probability of spontaneous formation (abiogenesis) of a basic DNA molecule essential for the appearance of life?

I know you all believe and completely convinced that no matter what – it happened “abiogenesis is valid” and “organic evolution is fact”, end of sentence. But I’m curious if you really know what you believe – or is it just blind faith?

For according to you and rnaa if the 10^3489 probability (not chance) “have to do with which path life took to get from the 'first set of live things' to 'modern organisms'.

Then as I see it, you just added another hurdle to hurdles that already existed (to overcome) before you get to your LUCA.

*First is the possibility/probability of forming the basic DNA molecule essential for the appearance of life.

Second the RNA, the probability of it forming by itself (which opens another question – which came first anyway – RNA or DNA? I say both.)

Then third, the “path life took to get from the 'first set of live things' to 'modern organisms' with a statistical probability of 10^3489 (which I assume will take more time than the formation of the universe itself let alone the earth!)

Fourth, the statistical probability of evolving from UCA to LUCA (or FLO) to 'modern organisms'.

Etc….

*Add to these is the importance of the earth’s early atmosphere. You need them to be ala Miller-Urey’s experiments in order for "life to exist/form". You need to have the right combination of elements – that is, oxygen (if present/reducing) nitrogen, hydrogen, and carbon formed ammonia and methane. Then lightning and an ultraviolet light to struck these elements.

What’s the probability of it happening by mere chance/unguided process?

Note Dr. Miller’s own admission two years after his famous experiment:

“These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed. . . . No direct evidence has yet been found.”—Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955.

Then some 25 years later, science writer Robert C. Cowen reported the following:

“Scientists are having to rethink some of their assumptions. . . . Little evidence has emerged to support the notion of a hydrogen-rich, highly reducing atmosphere, but some evidence speaks against it.”—Technology Review, April 1981.

And since then? In 1991, John Horgan wrote in Scientific American:

“Over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller’s assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere . . . suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere. . . . Such an atmosphere [carbon dioxide and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life.”

Forward to the 21st century,

“As of 2010, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. ..... –
-- wiki

So any chance Prof. Szostak’s experiments will succeed? That is, create LIFE from nothing/non-living stuff, that is, from “basic components which would have the necessary properties of life”? Unfortunately – the odds are stacked against him. Time is “a ticking” and the world of mankind is in turmoil. Biblical prophecies are now being fulfilled; just a couple more to be fulfilled then this “system of things” will finally end.

I know, – you will say it happened so it doesn’t matter because evolution is a fact. But just wondering if you know the answers to Qs above?

IF you do you will have prolly proven (Professor of Biology) Dr. Dean H. Kenyon wrong when said years ago the fundamental truth that:

“fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems.”

Or for that matter the Biblical poet’s statement of long ago when he said of God:

“For with you is the source of life.”—Psalm 36:9.

Of course to evolutionists, the answer is obvious – it happened so it doesn’t matter whatever the facts are, because abiogenesis has been “validated” and organic evolution is a “fact” or as you stated “evolution must be true, thus any arguments for a god that concerns order and beauty are banal and miscalculated”

But is it (just because someone says so even against all odds)?

Lastly, in the experiments, if the “basic components which would have the necessary properties of life” is what made life to be as we know it, then who are these brilliant men correspond to in the “abiogenesis theory” equation?

Chance? Unguided Process? Time?

Interesting discussions about abiogenesis here too by Sparky63: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ciao,
edmc2

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:17 PM
the statement about monkeys was a misquote (it was "Hamlet" not the "complete works of Shakespeare"), and was merely a thought experiment on probability that was elucidated in the book "Fooled by Randomness"

and as I understand it you struggle with the english language, but irregardless the phrase "more probable" does not in any way mean the same thing as "probable" or "chance"

order and beauty do not disprove evolution, neither does any argument on probability of molecular bonds

out of the cohort of possible bonds that could have occurred, DNA (more than likely RNA) is the one that we share with our common ancestor, which might not be the only possible fundamental component of life, though it is for us because we are here and we have DNA

that's not to say some other combination of CHON could be the basic structure of a self-replicating entity, because we do not know

though again, such questions are left to the field of science, not religion (plants before sun, seriously?)

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:36 AM
reply to post by edmc^2

For example: let’s say if a trillion monkeys were to type 10 randomly chosen characters a second, how long will it take to produce the sentence “‘To be or not to be, that is the question.’”?

If the process were truly random, it would take a very long time, agreed.

But evolution is not a random process. It involves selection, and that changes everything.

I don't know about a trillion monkeys, but if only 1,024 of them were typing away, and a selection routine were to pick the best attempts every 10 tries and limit subsequent tries to variations on those best attempts, it would take just 105,984 tries to come up with 'To be or not to be, that is the question', starting from scratch.

You can try it for yourself, if you like. Go here

What say you? Is it gonna be “to be or not to be” possible?

Not only possible, but – as you have been repeatedly told and shown – inevitable.

Thanks to Maslo for introducing me to the Weasel in this post.

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:27 PM
reply to post by Astyanax

"Ford!" he said, "there's an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they've worked out."
-- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Points to ponder – the fact that you’re using an intelligent programming code makes me wonder if you’re assuming that “chance or unguided process” is the main causal force that created life itself. If so then you’re equating it to intelligence.

In addition, who is to the programmer (code creator) corresponds to in the “abiogenesis/evolution theory”?

Is it “blind chance or unguided process”?

If yes, can “blind chance or unguided process” have the ability to think as though it is an intelligent entity – as if a god?

IF so, what makes it hard then to accept that an Intelligent Entity (God) was responsible for all of these? Why is it difficult to accept it if you are able accept “blind chance or unguided process” as the causal force?

Might the statements below have something to do with it?

That many atheists/evolutionists simply cannot reconcile belief in God with the suffering in the world.

Might it be that:

“It was easier for me to think of a world without a creator than of a creator loaded with all the contradictions of the world." -- Simone de Beauvoir

What about the world’s injustices—including those instigated by hypocritical religionists— does this prove that there is no God?

Majority of non-believers will probably say yes.

But consider: If a knife is used to threaten, injure, or even murder an innocent person, does this prove that the knife had no designer?

Or does it not rather show that the object was put to a wrong use? In the same context, much of human grief gives evidence that humans are misusing their God-given abilities as well as the earth itself.

Some use diseases, old age and death, while some use false doctrines, traditions and teachings.

Yet some, however, feel that it is illogical to believe in God, since we cannot see him.

But that also has no basis:

Again consider: what about air, sound waves, and odors? We cannot see any of these things, yet we know they exist. Our lungs, ears, and noses tell us so.

So we believe in what we cannot see if we have evidence.

Consider too - United States president Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“To the corruptions of Christianity, I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.”

Yes, there is a difference between Christendom and Christianity. Many of Christendom’s tenets are founded upon the traditions of men. In contrast, true Christianity bases its beliefs solely upon the Bible.

Another, very popular statement here at ATS: Belief in God is not scientific for there’s no way to prove he exists or test him (on a petri dish). Creation cannot be falsified therefore it’s not scientific or “evolution must be true, thus any arguments for a god that concerns order and beauty are banal and miscalculated”.
Etc…

Back to the monkey business:

Playing with your Darwin calculator, I can see that it is flawed.

Here’s what I mean:

Logic tells me that more (fast) workers means that the work gets done sooner. Opposite of that, less worker means that it will take longer to finish the job.

In your Darwin calculator – the higher the population (of monkeys) the longer it takes to do the work (calculation). Less population (of monkeys) the faster the work (calculation) gets done. You can try it – increase the population to billion then see what happens.

Why?

Because less “monkeys tinkering with the keys” means less variable to deal with, thus lower probability – higher chance of success. The greater the variable to deal with the longer it takes to calculate the chances (guesses) – less chance of success. Which begs the question – does abiogenesis work that way?

Taken into consideration, just the “path life took to get from the 'first set of live things' to 'modern organisms' alone. It has an astronomical statistical probability of 10^3489 (which I assume will take more time than the formation of the universe itself let alone the earth!). How could life come into existence with such probability?

What a conundrum: you have to work with fewer variables in order for the equation to work successfully. But fewer variables mean less success in the real world. On the other hand the greater the variable the less the equation will work successfully.

So which one do you think was equation was modeled from?

I hope you won’t fall back to the same old tired “it happened so it must be true – evolution is a fact” phrase.

Add to these my last two posts.

As I see it, you have several hurdles that you need to overcome before you get to your LUCA.

*First is the probability of forming the basic DNA molecule essential for the appearance of life - by itself, by chance or by unguided process.

Second the RNA, the probability of it forming by itself - which opens another question: that is which came first anyway – RNA or DNA or BOTH?

Then the statistical probability of evolving from UCA to LUCA (or FLO) to 'modern organisms'.

Note (again): Are the following statements below not serve as evidence enough of the mounting problems confronting abiogenesis theory?

In 1996 The New York Times reported that scientists around the world:

“armed with their best computer programs, competed to solve one of the most complex problems in biology: how a single protein, made from a long string of amino acids, folds itself into the intricate shape that determines the role it plays in life. . . . The result, succinctly put, was this: the computers lost and the proteins won. . . . Scientists have estimated that for an average-sized protein, made from 100 amino acids, solving the folding problem by trying every possibility would take 1027 (a billion billion billion) years.”—The New York Times.

Forward to the 21st century (again):

“As of 2010, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. ..... –
-- wiki

Also, how confident are you that these brilliant scientists/biologist will be able to create life from “ using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life”? Like what I said – odds are against them and time is running out as world conditions deteriorate.

*Also there's the importance of the earth’s early atmosphere. You need them to be ala Miller-Urey’s experiments. Need to have the right combinations of elements – that is, oxygen (if present/reducing) nitrogen, hydrogen, and carbon formed ammonia and methane. Then lightning and an ultraviolet light to struck these elements.

Note (again): Are the following statements below not serve as evidence of the enormous problems confronting abiogenesis theory?

Dr. Miller’s own admission two years after his famous experiment:

“These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed. . . . No direct evidence has yet been found.”—Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955.

Then some 25 years later, science writer Robert C. Cowen reported the following:

“Scientists are having to rethink some of their assumptions. . . . Little evidence has emerged to support the notion of a hydrogen-rich, highly reducing atmosphere, but some evidence speaks against it.”—Technology Review, April 1981.

And since then? In 1991, John Horgan wrote in Scientific American:

“Over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller’s assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere . . . suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere. . . . Such an atmosphere [carbon dioxide and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life.”

What about now – are now closer to proving the theory? Sadly, all indications shows the same conclusion as that of:

Dr. Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology), that is:

“fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems.”

Or in a 1996 International Conference on the Origin of Life, notice what journal Science reported where around 300 scientists gathered. It reported that they (scientist):

“grappled with the riddle of how [DNA and RNA] molecules first appeared and how they evolved into self-reproducing cells.”

If these 300 brilliant scientists were still trying to figure out how the DNA and RNA “evolved into self-reproducing cells” in 1996, are they that closer today?

What's your confidence level?
Again:

“As of 2010, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life.”

Now for a more accurate calculation on the monkey business:
Here’s someone who did an actual calculation.

Conclusion
In light of this, I find it impossible to believe that "chance" had anything to do with the process that created life. How can I suppose that Shakespeare himself was the result of a random process when it is quite clearly impossible for even a trivial fragment of his work to have arisen by chance? No sir, I see information all around me, and I conclude that it is the product of a far, far greater intelligence.

www.nutters.org...

Another example:

"Watson, come quickly!"
For the sake of demonstration, let us assume that our target document is the phrase "WATSON, COME QUICKLY!" -- a mere 21 keystrokes -- and that a trial only takes one second. Using our new-found knowledge, how many monkeys will we need to have a 50% chance of getting this within twenty-four hours? Well, there are 40,564,819,207,303,340,847,894,502,572,032 (4e31) possible documents that our monkeys could type of length 21 (computed by 32^21), which we multiply by 0.69 to compute the number of trials we need for a 50% chance of success, giving us a mere 28,117,390,063,466,213,804,330,352,586,381 (3e31) trials. At one trial per second, one monkey can perform 86,400 (9e4) trials in a day, so we will need 325,432,755,364,192,289,401,971,673 (3e26) monkeys.
Hiring this many monkeys will pose logistical problems, as the surface area of the earth is only about 510,000,000,000,000 (5e14) square metres, meaning we will have to fit approximately 638,103,441,890 (6e11) monkeys per square metre (never mind the fact that most of the Earth's surface is ocean). And it doesn't really matter how much you skimp on the banana budget: the total cost is sure to make the US national debt (\$6e12 at time of writing) look like peanuts. One gram of banana mash per monkey would translate to a bowl of banana mash several times bigger than the moon.

www.nutters.org...

Bottom line is whether thru fossil record, gene record, logic or even mathematical probability – they fail to demonstrate life coming into existence by chance or unguided processes. Processes like abiogenesis theory or even organic evolution theory.

But of course to evolutionists, this is nonsense since – it happened – thus evolution is a fact no matter what contrary evidence is presented.

As for this statement of yours:

But evolution is not a random process. It involves selection, and that changes everything.

Q: How can a random process be considered non-random if it's an "unguided process"? Obviously - it's a RANDOM process. Thus evolution is a random process.

The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation.

--evolution.berkeley.edu...

Two processes are generally distinguished as common causes of evolution. One is natural selection, a process in which there is differential survival and/or reproduction of organisms that differ in one or more inherited traits.[1] Another cause is genetic drift, a process in which there are random changes to the proportions of two or more inherited traits within a population.[6][7]

--en.wikipedia.org...

Evolution by natural selection is a two-step process, and only the first step is random: mutations are chance events, but their survival is often anything but. Natural selection favours mutations that provide some advantage (see Evolution promotes the survival of species), and the physical world imposes very strict limits on what works and what doesn't. The result is that organisms evolve in particular directions.

Consider any kind of creature that lives underwater and has to chase its prey, for instance. Random mutations will result in some offspring having variety of shapes. Those with shapes that allow them to move faster with less energy are much more like to survive and reproduce than those whose shapes slow them down.

-- www.newscientist.com...

Ciao,
edmc2

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:14 PM
reply to post by edmc^2

I commend your efforts in researching a topic that you don't fully understand, shows an admirable quality in a man/woman, and yes I did read every word of your sensational dirge, as I call it

But, notwithstanding the final portion where you contradicted your "Thus evolution is a random process" statement with the excerpts following your quote, you yet have trouble wrapping your head around gradual and cumulative probability distributions

Let me give you a thought experiment on probability, and nothing else but probability. Please deliberate and reflect, absorb the information, before you respond (and if you reply "but now there must have been a coin flipper, thus a creator exist", I swear to the Flying Spaghetti Monster I'm going to go jump into a lake)

If i flip 10 coins, the mass probability that I get 10 consecutive heads is 1/2^10, or 1/1024

In fact the probability of any sequence of 10 is the same, 1/1024

However the cumulative probability that I get 9 heads and 1 tails, in any order, is 1/1024 * 10 (HTHH..., THHH..., HHHT...)

Now lets try to get 10 in a row on a table, with 10 different coins, only selecting the heads after every turn, until I see 10 heads on the table, and with enough time the probability is 100%

With that in mind, probability is not static, and becomes a function of time, or in the case of evolution, generation turnover

The coin flip now becomes a selection process, and with me to guide it, its chances are 100%

But evolution doesn't have a creator to guide it, so lets imagine a random program is guiding the process, a program that doesn't exist and required no creator to make, that chooses 10 heads, selecting after each coin toss until 10 heads is reached, and occasionally, just by random error, after however many flips or a certain amount of time, and before tossing 10 heads is accomplished, the procedure changes ('mutates") to choosing tails

Now we have a fluctuating sequence of coins, that are merely taking up time and space, and because of the unpredictable nature of randomness, all 10 coins never show 10 heads, or 10 tails, but a flowing and random combination of both. This is a nice analogue to how evolution works, as we are merely taking up anatomical space, and the only thing that is certain is that there will be variation.

And selection is simply a word to designate each individuals drive to reproduce, because the ones who reproduce spread their genes, thus are "selected" through self-preservation and a more or less random mating system.

edit on 3-2-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:14 AM
reply to post by edmc^2

Points to ponder – the fact that you’re using an intelligent programming code makes me wonder if you’re assuming that “chance or unguided process” is the main causal force that created life itself. If so then you’re equating it to intelligence.

The Weasel applet mimics evolution, not abiogenesis.

In addition, what corresponds to the programmer (code creator) in the “abiogenesis/evolution theory”?

Science recognizes no 'abiogenesis/evolution theory'. How many times do we need to repeat this?

A more intelligent question you might have asked is, 'what corresponds to the selective process in the Weasel applet?' The answer is: the principle of natural selection.

Pardon me for correcting your English, by the way; I do so in the interests of comprehensibility.

What about the world’s injustices—including those instigated by hypocritical religionists—proves that there is no God?

Nothing. What they prove is that either God is evil – because He has the power to end suffering but refrains from doing so – or He does not exist. A subtle but important difference.

If a knife is used to threaten, injure, or even murder an innocent person, does this prove that the knife had no designer?

No – only that the designer recognized no moral responsibilty for the use of his invention. How about the rack, the thumbscrew and the high-tension electrode applied to the genitals? What does their existence prove?

Some... feel that it is illogical to believe in God, since we cannot see him.

But that also has no basis; what about air, sound waves, and odors? We cannot see any of these things, yet we know they exist. Our lungs, ears, and noses tell us so.

Precisely. It is not a matter of God being simply invisible, but that there is no unambiguous evidence whatsoever of His existence. It's not just that we don't see God; we don't hear, smell, taste or touch Him either, and the material world contains nothing that cannot be explained without evoking the concept of a Creator.

*

Playing with your Darwin calculator, I can see that it is flawed. Logic tells me that more (fast) workers means that the work gets done sooner. Opposite of that, less worker means that it will take longer to finish the job. In your Darwin calculator – the higher the population (of monkeys) the longer it takes to do the work (calculation). Less population (of monkeys) the faster the work (calculation) gets done. You can try it – increase the population to billion then see what happens.

Well done for having taken the trouble. Yes, you are quite right; above a certain threshold value, it does take longer. That's why evolution proceeds more quickly in isolated populations. That is why it has taken some four billion years for evolution to produce the massive diversity we see in nature. Your error is to assume that evolution is teleological, that it is aiming towards some final goal. It isn't; if it were, progressive evolution would result in fewer species, not more of them. See, when you say

less “monkeys tinkering with the keys” means less variable to deal with, thus lower probability – higher chance of success.

you are assuming that there is some final 'successful' outcome at which the process is aiming. There is none.

Does abiogenesis work that way?

We don't know how abiogenesis happened. But if you extend the principle of natural selection to organic molecules competing for resources in an organic soup, then a replicator only has to evolve once in order to convert all the usable material in that soup into replicators. Not so hard. As for a source of diversity, copying errors will do. And natural selection then works among the replicators, giving rise to life. Again, not so hard.

The point you still haven't grasped is that evolution by natural selection is not random.

Just the “path life took to get from the 'first set of live things' to 'modern organisms' alone has an astronomical statistical probability of 10^3489 (which I assume will take more time than the formation of the universe itself let alone the earth!). How could life come into existence with such probability?

It didn't. That astronomical figure is a fallacy. I'm not going over the reasons why again, because they have already been fully discussed and explained in a recent thread on which you posted. For you to make the same spurious, debunked claim in this thread smacks of dishonesty as well as obstinacy.

The assiduous quote-mining that comprises the rest of your post does not impress me as much as it does the poster above me.

edit on 4/2/11 by Astyanax because: a couple of typos.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:44 AM
reply to post by edmc^2

Taken into consideration, just the “path life took to get from the 'first set of live things' to 'modern organisms' alone. It has an astronomical statistical probability of 10^3489 (which I assume will take more time than the formation of the universe itself let alone the earth!). How could life come into existence with such probability?

NO!

I have explained this to you in great detail in this very thread. That number IS NOT the statistical probability of life coming into existence or anything related to the likelihood of the existence of life.

It is the statistic describing the difference in probability between a UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTOR for all modern life versus MULTIPLE UNIQUE ANCESTORS for all modern life.

It is an argument for Common Descent, it has nothing to do with Abiogenesis whatsoever, positive or negative.

What is difficult about that concept?
edit on 4/2/2011 by rnaa because: emphasis

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Over and over and over people who believe in evolution keep saying they are completely separate topics of biology, this has developed in more recent years simply because it is an easier position to defend. However the two are intricately bound, without that first single cell prokaryotes, evolution is not possible, and evolutionists, sidestep that entire discussion by saying well it's a different field of biology, this is weak, very weak, and intellectual honesty must acknowledge that. To disregard the Abiogenesis as part of the foundation of evolution sidesteps and conveniently avoids a major issue that confronts a person that life came from nothing. It's just too easy. It's really intellectually dishonest.

en.wikipedia.org...
In natural science, abiogenesis is the study of how life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis. In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach. In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure)

The basic challenges to what is quoted above are so numerous that you could write full books on every one of them and you would have an encyclopedia of them. However I will not bore you with all that.
Here is the point, even if you do get past all that which is said to be a different issue of discussion and topic it's like you have moved only a millimeter forward in the advancement of the entire discussion because you are only at a single cell prokaryote.

en.wikipedia.org...
The prokaryotes are a group of organisms that lack a cell nucleus, or any other membrane-bound organelles. They differ from the eukaryotes, which have a cell nucleus. Most are unicellular, but a few prokaryotes such as myxobacteria have multicellular stages in their life cycles.

Now it needs to evolve into eukaryotes

en.wikipedia.org...
A eukaryote is an organism whose cells contain complex structures enclosed within membranes. The defining membrane-bound structure that sets eukaryotic cells apart from prokaryotic cells is the nucleus, or nuclear envelope, within which the genetic material is carried. Most eukaryotic cells also contain other membrane-bound organelles such as mitochondria, chloroplasts and the Golgi apparatus.

en.wikipedia.org...
A distinction between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is that eukaryotes do have "true" nuclei containing their DNA, whereas the genetic material in prokaryotes is not membrane-bound. Eukaryotic organisms may be unicellular, as in amoebae, or multicellular, as in plants and animals. The difference between the structure of prokaryotes and eukaryotes is so great that it is sometimes considered to be the most important distinction among groups of organisms.

This Thread has explained in great detail that even if you do pass the enormous gap of unknown abiogenesis you are still only at prokaryotes, as we still have today, and the gigantic challenges that presents. Again to the uneducated the discussion has moved forward significantly, to those of us that have studied this we know it's moved only a tiny
fraction. That is why it is a false Dichotomy.

So even those that will dispute and argue that Abiogenesis is not part of evolution, are still by their own definition of evolution, left with the nearly infinite gap between prokaryotes and humans.

edit on 26-1-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/26/2011 by 12m8keall2c because: added REQUIRED source link(s)

Evolution explains the diversityof life and has nothing to do with origins. Freakin' space aliens could have placed the first single cell on earth and evolution would still be valid. Now what part of that do you not understand?

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:07 PM
reply to post by Firepac

Evolution explains the diversity of life and has nothing to do with origins. Freakin' space aliens could have placed the first single cell on earth and evolution would still be valid. Now what part of that do you not understand?

Oh I understand it quite well, "Madness" has repeated this tired mantra dozens of times. The point is that the whole concept is disingenuous, in that it is a calculated move by evolutionists in more recent years to redefine the whole concept of evolution based on scientific jargon and grammatical semantics, with the intended goal of making evolution easy to defend.
Sort of like losing a game, so you just change the rules, to make it easier to win.
It is so clear to those that are following this.

edit on 5-2-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:53 PM
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Oh I understand it quite well, "Madness" has repeated this tired mantra dozens of times. The point is that the whole concept is disingenuous, in that it is a calculated move by evolutionists in more recent years to redefine the whole concept of evolution based on scientific jargon and grammatical semantics, with the intended goal of making evolution easy to defend.
Sort of like losing a game, so you just change the rules, to make it easier to win.
It is so clear to those that are following this.

I am afraid you are just getting boring.

How else should a scientific field be described other than with scientific jargon?

You are the one making disingenuous arguments for the sole purpose of seeing your self in pixels.

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:42 AM

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Firepac

Evolution explains the diversity of life and has nothing to do with origins. Freakin' space aliens could have placed the first single cell on earth and evolution would still be valid. Now what part of that do you not understand?

Oh I understand it quite well, "Madness" has repeated this tired mantra dozens of times. The point is that the whole concept is disingenuous, in that it is a calculated move by evolutionists in more recent years to redefine the whole concept of evolution based on scientific jargon and grammatical semantics, with the intended goal of making evolution easy to defend.
Sort of like losing a game, so you just change the rules, to make it easier to win.
It is so clear to those that are following this.

edit on 5-2-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

Alright so can you point out a time when abiogenesis was a part of evolution?

Saying that the Theory of Evolution is wrong because it can't explain the origins of life is like saying the Theory of Gravity is wrong because it can't explain the origins of gravity. Damn those evil gravatationists!!!
edit on 6-2-2011 by Firepac because: (no reason given)

top topics

4