nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Darwin's theory

lanomist

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

Find more posts tagged with

puffins

in limbo

Quick Links

Comments

floggg

J C wrote: »

Yes the Miller Urey experiment did this ... and came up with a few biomolecules ... and plenty of tar and other biotoxins.
It also relied on an intelligently designed system to 'harvest' the molecules as soon as they were formed because otherwise they would be destroyed again by the other chemicals in the poisonous mix that was created.
Anyway, the issue in my posting 1660 is what happens when we have DNA ... and random changes are being made to it to produce different amino acid combinations in biomolecules.
There are 20 common amino acids that can be placed at each point in a protein chain. A protein chain of just 116 amino acids has a combinatorial space of 20^115 or 10^150 which is equivalent to the Universal Probability Bound (UPB).

... so the odds against the non-intelligently directed production of a specific functional protein is greater than the UPB ... in addition this is required in a specific biological process in a specific organ in a specific organism as well, thereby exponentially increasing the odds again.

Per Wikipedia, Dembski is the only person who has put forward this UPB thing.

By your own rules of debate, surely you aren't allowed cite this here. Its somebody else's work - the same reason you used to refuse to answer other people's posts.

J C

floggg wrote: »

Per Wikipedia, Dembski is the only person who has put forward this UPB thing.

By your own rules of debate, surely you aren't allowed cite this here. Its somebody else's work - the same reason you used to refuse to answer other people's posts.

There is nothing wrong with citing somebody else's work, provided you understand it and can explain it and defend it with reasoned argument.
We all stand on the shoulders of giants.

J C

kingchess wrote: »

And yet here we are:;)

... and it looks like we are where we are ... because we were intelligently designed.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Creationism really is a prime example of confirmation bias.

Evolutionism is also subject to the charge of confirmation bias,

Anyway, can we please get back to critiquing the basis for ID ... which is the prime scientific challenger to Darwins Theory.

... so please tell me where this is wrong?
Quote:-
"(Dr.) Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang."

These numbers place an upper limit of about 10^150 possible total reactions involving the entire matter and using all of the time in the Big Bang universe (which is termed the universal probability bound).
This is then compared with the combinatorial space of simple proteins and other biochemical molecules ... each of which are often in excess of the universal probability bound.
For example, there are 20 common amino acids that can be placed at each point in a protein chain. A protein chain of just 116 amino acids has a combinatorial space of 20^115 or 10^150 which is equivalent to the Universal Probability Bound (UPB).
... so the odds against the non-intelligently directed production of a specific functional protein is greater than the UPB.

The implications of this is that if you had all of the matter in the Universe generating random sequences for the billions of years that the Big Ban Universe supposedly exists, you couldn't reasonably expect even one specific functional protein to be produced.
... and we need many hundreds of specific proteins and other specific biomolecules working in highly integrated systems in even 'simple' uni-cellular life, to say nothing about the multi-celled stuff.

Chunners

J C wrote: »

Yes the Miller Urey experiment did this ... and came up with a few biomolecules ... and plenty of tar and other biotoxins.
It also relied on an intelligently designed system to 'harvest' the molecules as soon as they were formed because otherwise they would be destroyed again by the other chemicals in the poisonous mix that was created.
Anyway, the issue in my posting 1660 is what happens when we have DNA ... and random changes are being made to it to produce different amino acid combinations in biomolecules.
There are 20 common amino acids that can be placed at each point in a protein chain. A protein chain of just 116 amino acids has a combinatorial space of 20^115 or 10^150 which is equivalent to the Universal Probability Bound (UPB).

... so the odds against the non-intelligently directed production of a specific functional protein is greater than the UPB ... in addition this is required in a specific biological process in a specific organ in a specific organism as well, thereby exponentially increasing the odds again.

But the UPB is nothing more than a theory created by a human to prove his own beliefs in Intelligent Design, its not a law like gravity is a law. It's not some inarguable piece of math that is written in stone, it's merely a suggestion with a God complex.

As for life being impossibly random to not have had intelligent design there's a bacteria in Mono Lake in California that feeds on arsenic, the arsenic just takes the place of phosphorus, there's another that feeds at the edge of volcanic vents in the artic ocean, instead of photosynthesis it feeds off mineral spit out from the vents and has become the main food source for much larger animals (giant clams, tubeworms) that are able to survive in water up to 400°C. I don't believe that life is random chance at all, I believe that as long as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen are present life is inevitable no matter what the conditions because they are not random processes at play, they are obviously very specific processes that thrive in the presence of those 4 elements.

irish coldplayer

@JC
simple experiment:
Toss a coin a thousand times: The exact sequence you observe will be way over your beloved UPB.
Yet it happened, Why? How?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Evolutionism is also subject to the charge of confirmation bias,

Anyway, can we please get back to critiquing the basis for ID ... which is the prime scientific challenger to Darwins Theory.

... so please tell me where this is wrong?
Quote:-
"(Dr.) Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang."

These numbers place an upper limit of about 10^150 possible total reactions involving the entire matter and using all of the time in the Big Bang universe (which is termed the universal probability bound).
This is then compared with the combinatorial space of simple proteins and other biochemical molecules ... each of which are often in excess of the universal probability bound.
For example, there are 20 common amino acids that can be placed at each point in a protein chain. A protein chain of just 116 amino acids has a combinatorial space of 20^115 or 10^150 which is equivalent to the Universal Probability Bound (UPB).
... so the odds against the non-intelligently directed production of a specific functional protein is greater than the UPB.

The implications of this is that if you had all of the matter in the Universe generating random sequences for the billions of years that the Big Ban Universe supposedly exists, you couldn't reasonably expect even one specific functional protein to be produced.
... and we need many hundreds of specific proteins and other specific biomolecules working in highly integrated systems in even 'simple' uni-cellular life, to say nothing about the multi-celled stuff.

It's nonsense because it's equivalent of shuffling the 2-decks of card (mentioned in the post you continue to ignore) and then drawing each one-by-one to get a resulting 104 card sequence.

You're suggesting that I couldn't arrive at that 104 card sequence because it exceeds the UPB. The mistake is thinking I was drawing the cards to arrive at a specific combination. It's the same with your deeply flawed misunderstanding of evolution.

Evolution wasn't working to create humankind, humankind is a result of evolution. There two very different things. You're working from the premise that the universe/God etc. is working to create our species. This is an assumption based on your religious beliefs. You're adding something in that currently has no place in the scientific explanation.

Brian Shanahan

JC01 wrote: »

What the hell are people arguing about? Iv clicked into it a few times and can't make heads or tails of it. Is there still normal people who don't beleive in evolution?

No. JC and Paddy are sub-normal.

Edit: Though "believe" is the wrong word when talking about scientific theory. "Accept" is much better, it has the virtue of being accurate.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No. JC and Paddy are sub-normal.

Edit: Though "believe" is the wrong word when talking about scientific theory. "Accept" is much better, it has the virtue of being accurate.

... your unfounded name-calling doesn't become you ... and says much more about you than it does about the targets of your 'vitrol'.

laurinjames

We all evolved from carbon, and the big bang, the question to me is why, not how

Osgoodisgood

SW wrote: »

It's nonsense because it's equivalent of shuffling the 2-decks of card (mentioned in the post you continue to ignore) and then drawing each one-by-one to get a resulting 104 card sequence.

You're suggesting that I couldn't arrive at that 104 card sequence because it exceeds the UPB. The mistake is thinking I was drawing the cards to arrive at a specific combination. It's the same with your deeply flawed misunderstanding of evolution.

Evolution wasn't working to create humankind, humankind is a result of evolution. There two very different things. You're working from the premise that the universe/God etc. is working to create our species. This is an assumption based on your religious beliefs. You're adding something in that currently has no place in the scientific explanation.

This is the answer that should end this discussion. It won't but it should.
The same logic that the creationists apply to their flawed fine tuning argument leads them to believe that the natural laws are prescriptive instead of descriptive. It's frustrating but not worth worrying about. There are fewer and fewer of these bible thumping blowhards around.

Chunners

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Would it not suit your argument better to respond to the posts refuting it, than responding to posts that insult you? Unless of course you don't have much faith in your argument.

The insult post was a convenience for him, it gave him an opening where he could draw attention to that instead of all the questions he won't/can't answer

irish coldplayer

While you're at it JC could you possibly explain to me why would any "Intelligent Designer" design a universe in a way that it is essentially programmed to self destruct at a point in the future.
I am talking about entropy and inevitable heat death of the universe.

I mean this is the designer who went through all those billions of amino acid and protein combinations you love to keep re-posting about, yet the designer says at the end ah feck it sure I'll just make it so the whole thing self destructs eventually anyway?
This god/designer of yours is a bit of a prankster aren't they, goes around leaving clues all over the universe about evolution just to mess with our heads, knowing the whole thing is going to blow up anyway...
Its a load of old nonsense Ted

J C

SW wrote: »

It's nonsense because it's equivalent of shuffling the 2-decks of card (mentioned in the post you continue to ignore) and then drawing each one-by-one to get a resulting 104 card sequence.

It is similar to needing a specific sequence of 104 cards for a specific 'result' ... to get this specific sequence would be an impossibilty for non-intelligently directed processes as the combinatorial space at 10^135 is approaching the Universal Probability Bound of 10^150.
However, somebody with two packs of cards can lay them out in a specific sequence in less than 10 minutes, using their intelligence.
So something that is a statistical impossibility for non-intelligently directed processes using all of the matter and time in the Big Bang Universe ... can be done by a person of average intelligence in less than 10 minutes.

SW wrote: »

You're suggesting that I couldn't arrive at that 104 card sequence because it exceeds the UPB. The mistake is thinking I was drawing the cards to arrive at a specific combination. It's the same with your deeply flawed misunderstanding of evolution.

It is observed that biomolecules with specific functionalities have specific amino acid sequences in a specific combination and any changes in these sequences produces non-functionality.

SW wrote: »

Evolution wasn't working to create humankind, humankind is a result of evolution. There two very different things. You're working from the premise that the universe/God etc. is working to create our species. This is an assumption based on your religious beliefs. You're adding something in that currently has no place in the scientific explanation.

... I accept your contentions, if evolution is true, it wouldn't be working to create any particular result like Humans ... but then any process that doesn't work towards a particular result is unable to deliver any result and will result in destruction rather than construction.
... and all living organisms possess very purposeful biological systems.

... and any system producing and developing life (including spontaneous evolution) needs to produce specific functional biomolecules at specific times and places and in precise co-ordinated sequences for the viability of the organisms concerned ... and the combinatorial spaces of these specific sequences are so great that they are impossibilities for non-intelligently directed processes.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Would it not suit your argument better to respond to the posts refuting it, than responding to posts that insult you? Unless of course you don't have much faith in your argument.

I have responded to both.

laurinjames

The level of debate on both sides here is at best moranic.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It is similar to needing a specific sequence of 104 cards for a specific 'result' ... to get this specific sequence would be an impossibilty for non-intelligently directed processes as the combinatorial space at 10^135 is approaching the Universal Probability Bound of 10^150.
However, somebody with two packs of cards can lay them out in a specific sequence in less than 10 minutes, using their intelligence.
So something that is a statistical impossibility for non-intelligently directed processes using all of the matter and time in the Big Bang Universe ... can be done by a person of average intelligence in less than 10 minutes.

It is observed that biomolecules with specific functionalities have specific amino acid sequences in a specific combination and any changes in these sequences produces non-functionality.

... I accept your contentions, if evolution is true.
... but either way ... any system producing and developing life (including spontaneous evolution) needs to produce specific functional biomolecules at specific times and places and in precise co-ordinated sequences for the viability of the organisms concerned ... and the combinatorial spaces of these specific sequences are so great that they are impossibilities for non-intelligently directed processes.

You're not understanding my post. You're still working on the mistaken premise that the 104 card sequence was selected specifically. It wasn't it was just a random 104 sequence. By Dembskis UBP claim, this sequence is impossible. This clearly shows that the maths is just wrong.

Once again, you're working on the assumption there is a requirement for reality to ultimately create humans. There is evidence to support this assumption.

Chunners

J C wrote: »

It is similar to needing a specific sequence of 104 cards for a specific 'result' ... to get this specific sequence would be an impossibilty for non-intelligently directed processes as the combinatorial space at 10^135 is approaching the Universal Probability Bound of 10^150.
However, somebody with two packs of cards can lay them out in a specific sequence in less than 10 minutes, using their intelligence.
So something that is a statistical impossibility for non-intelligently directed processes using all of the matter and time in the Big Bang Universe ... can be done by a person of average intelligence in less than 10 minutes.

It is observed that biomolecules with specific functionalities have specific amino acid sequences in a specific combination and any changes in these sequences produces non-functionality.

... I accept your contentions, if evolution is true.
... but either way ... any system producing and developing life (including spontaneous evolution) needs to produce specific functional biomolecules at specific times and places and in precise co-ordinated sequences for the viability of the organisms concerned ... and the combinatorial spaces of these specific sequences are so great that they are impossibilities for non-intelligently directed processes.

Your thought process is so small minded. See you assume that just because the odds of something happening are really really high it means that there is no possibility that it could happen but how do you know that all the correct sequences didn't happen first time round? the odds of the correct sequences happening first time round are the exact same as the odds of other sequence happening first time round but you chose to ignore that one fact. See it's like that lotto analogy from earlier, the odds of picking the lotto numbers are pretty high but yet most weeks people somehow manage it without any outside intervention. I bet you are one of those people who think that the odds of the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 coming out are higher than the odds of the numbers 1,7, 25, 31, 38, 42 coming out because it stands to reason doesn't it?

Chunners

laurinjames wrote: »

The level of debate on both sides here is at best moronic.

Just saying like.

Pherekydes

laurinjames wrote: »

The level of debate on both sides here is at best moranic.

Irony alert!

J C

SW wrote: »

You're not understanding my post. You're still working on the mistaken premise that the 104 card sequence was selected specifically. It wasn't it was just a random 104 sequence. By Dembskis UBP claim, this sequence is impossible. This clearly shows that the maths is just wrong.

To produce a novel functionality would require a specific sequence ... and the combinatorial non-functional combinations is so massive (in excess of the UPB) ... and the specific functional combination is so small for a specific functional biomolecule that it will be statistically 'swamped' by the non-functional permutations.

SW wrote: »

Once again, you're working on the assumption there is a requirement for reality to ultimately create humans. There is evidence to support this assumption.

There is no requirement to produce Humans ... but any system producing and developing life (of whatever type, including Humans) needs to produce specific functional biomolecules at specific times and places and in precise co-ordinated sequences for the viability of the organisms concerned ... and the combinatorial spaces of these specific sequences are so great that they are impossibilities for non-intelligently directed processes.

laurinjames

Chunners wrote: »

Just saying like.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Irony alert!

case in point

Pherekydes

laurinjames wrote: »

case in point

Now that you're here, what's moronic about the arguments for evolution?

J C

Chunners wrote: »

Your thought process is so small minded. See you assume that just because the odds of something happening are really really high it means that there is no possibility that it could happen but how do you know that all the correct sequences didn't happen first time round? the odds of the correct sequences happening first time round are the exact same as the odds of other sequence happening first time round but you chose to ignore that one fact.

The odds aren't simply 'high' ... they are beyond the Universal Probability Bound and they are therefore impossibilities.

Chunners wrote: »

See it's like that lotto analogy from earlier, the odds of picking the lotto numbers are pretty high but yet most weeks people somehow manage it without any outside intervention. I bet you are one of those people who think that the odds of the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 coming out are higher than the odds of the numbers 1,7, 25, 31, 38, 42 coming out because it stands to reason doesn't it?

The lottery is only won every week or so because on average the number of tickets sold every week or so are equivalent to the odds of winning.
... and if any lottery had odds against winning of 10^150 it would never ever be won ... irrespective of the number of tickets sold or draws made.

Chunners

J C wrote: »

To produce a novel functionality would require a specific sequence ... and the combinatorial non-functional combinations is so massive (in excess of the UPB) ... and the specific functional combination is so small for a specific functional biomolecule that it will be statistically 'swamped' by the non-functional permutations.

There is no requirement to produce Humans ... but any system producing and developing life (of whatever type, including Humans) needs to produce specific functional biomolecules at specific times and places and in precise co-ordinated sequences for the viability of the organisms concerned ... and the combinatorial spaces of these specific sequences are so great that they are impossibilities for non-intelligently directed processes.

Yet again small minded approach, they are not so great that it is impossible, the odds for every sequence is equal, you just think (incorrectly) that the odds for a viable sequence to lead to life is somehow higher than the odds for any sequence that couldn't lead to life because, again, in your head it stands to reason. The odds for every sequence is equal, there is no law at play that dictates that the life sequence couldn't have happened first, it had just as much chance as any other sequence

kingchess

J C wrote: »

The number of elementary particles in the Universe are accepted across science ... at somewhere between 10^80 and 10^90 ... see the second last number in the table in the following link.
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/numbers.html

Planks time is also confirmed (at c. 10^-45) in the first section of the table

That link that you so kindly provided has the answer-look up "the early Earth and the building blocks of life". life started off simple and over time became complex. Thank you for the link,:D

looksee

I've kind of lost interest in this discussion since it went all boggly-maths. Much more interesting to discuss whether Noah managed to get dinosaurs onto the ark and if Adam had a belly button and how fossils happened.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

To produce a novel functionality would require a specific sequence ... and the combinatorial non-functional combinations is so massive (in excess of the UPB) ... and the specific functional combination is so small for a specific functional biomolecule that it will be statistically 'swamped' by the non-functional permutations.

No, it just requires a new sequence not a specific sequence. That's how we get various species from common ancestors.

There is no requirement to produce Humans ... but any system producing and developing life (of whatever type, including Humans) needs to produce specific functional biomolecules at specific times and places and in precise co-ordinated sequences for the viability of the organisms concerned ... and the combinatorial spaces of these specific sequences are so great that they are impossibilities for non-intelligently directed processes.

No. Life can happen in any number of places but may not survive for long due to conditions on the planet. The universe isn't slowly managing things so that humans/animals/planets. Those life-forms thrive because they adapt to the environment.

J C

Chunners wrote: »

Yet again small minded approach, they are not so great that it is impossible, the odds for every sequence is equal, you just think (incorrectly) that the odds for a viable sequence to lead to life is somehow higher than the odds for any sequence that couldn't lead to life because, again, in your head it stands to reason. The odds for every sequence is equal, there is no law at play that dictates that the life sequence couldn't have happened first, it had just as much chance as any other sequence

You're correct that the odds for every sequence are equal ... and that's the problem ... the chance of getting a specific functional sequence is statistically 'swamped' by the overwhelming odds of getting a non-functional sequence.

J C

kingchess wrote: »

That link that you so kindly provided has the answer-look up "the early Earth and the building blocks of life". life started off simple and over time became complex. Thank you for the link,:D

That's one way that it is proposed for how life overcame the Universal Probability Bound ... by starting simple and becoming more complex ... but even just one simple specific biomolecule (and many hundreds are required for even the simplest cell) have combinatorial spaces in excess of the UPB.