Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 220 of 293 (805261)
04-17-2017 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by bluegenes
04-15-2017 12:56 PM


Re: The Texas sharpshooter rides again
bluegenes writes:
Functional Proteins from a random sequence library
Fortunately, Szostak and Co. have done it for us. It's ~1 in 10^11.
Isn't it interesting how your entire response is focusing on issues that we both agree with. I agree that the Szostak sample wasn't tested for other functions and that it hit its target. I agree that as the polypeptide chain grows in size, the number of functional combinatorial possibilities increases exponentially. I agree that there are many functional amino acid sequences with respect to the vast combinatorial space of possibilities - I stated this explicitly few times already - this is from my last post: "Given the study referenced in the O.P., there are 10^56 "favorable outcomes" and 10^119 possible outcomes".
So, you spent your entire post to repeat something that has already been said and that nobody disagrees with. But, you din't even consider to critically examine the logical consequences of the paper you talked about - if 10^11, out of 10^43 evolutionary resources must be spent just to extract one simple binding function, then how much resources must be spent to extract complex and structurally independent functionas like: conformational complementarity of enzyme and substrate, fertilisation, editing of the nascent precursor messenger RNA transcript, synchronization of the kicks of the hopping insect's legs via gear mechanism, blood pumping, visual perception,.... According to Wikipedia, whose editors savage anyone who criticizes the theory of evolution, "... Complex, image-forming eyes have evolved independently some 50 to 100 times." On the other hand, you need 10^11 evolutionary resources to evolve something so simple as ATP binding protein. But even that simple function is not useful biologically. In the real world, proteins that bind to ATP must also be able to release it to complete their function. That may substantially reduce functional sequences. Szostak and Co didn't test to see if their protein was able to perform that feat in vivo. Their experiment was done in vitro. That is a very large difference. Adding that extra requirement will substantially worsened their 1 in 10^11 ratio.
But this, of course, isn't something to critically think about. Instead, let us repeat something that nobody disagrees with to prove that those who think critically about the above issues are just stupid creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by bluegenes, posted 04-15-2017 12:56 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by bluegenes, posted 04-18-2017 3:08 PM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 221 of 293 (805263)
04-17-2017 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by bluegenes
04-16-2017 8:21 AM


Re: Lambda hits Target with spectacular speed.
bluegenes writes:
Amazing how quickly the impossible can be achieved. The bacterial phage of the O.P. paper, Lambda, hits a target for forexhr.
Lambda achieves the impossible in about 8 days!
The new function often arrives between 8 and 20 days, The whole paper's well worth a read, but here's an extract for the lazy.
I don't know what the fuss is all about.
This paper has nothing to do with the issue at hand since it talks neither about evolution of new functional protein folds nor about the ratio of functional amino acid sequences versus the vast combinatorial space.
It just talks about the pre-existing viral J protein that acquired the ability to bind a different protein on E. coli, called OmpF, once the LamB protein, to which it normally binds, was turned off. Since both, LamB and OmpF have similar three-dimensional structures, a few mutations in the viral gene fortuitously led to ability of J protein to bind to OmpF. Hence, one out of three functional pre-existing proteins gained the ability to bind a protein similar to one it normally binds, without any change in its native 3-dimensional structure.
And this binding ability proves what exactly? That you can produce circulatory system, all joints and bones in your body, or complex, image-forming eyes 100 times independently with 10^43 changes in the spatial positions of molecules?
It is really amazing how you evolution believers explain how everything could have happened: due to few mutations, the pre-existing protein can now stick to something it coud not before - therefore it is a fact that mutations produced all bio-structures that that we observe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by bluegenes, posted 04-16-2017 8:21 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-17-2017 8:47 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 246 by bluegenes, posted 04-18-2017 4:36 PM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 222 of 293 (805264)
04-17-2017 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by dwise1
04-15-2017 10:25 PM


dwise1 writes:
BTW, my third bachelor's degree was in math. So if you think that I am so ignorant of basic mathematics, then do please explain what I got so wrong in my "MONKEY Probabilities" (MPROBS) document.
I don't care about your bachelor's degree in math. You demonstrated ignorance of basic math when you stated that we cannot calculate the probability in biology. In that regard, you've had two options in responding to my post. You could have said A) "I was wrong", or B) BS-ing. I see you chose the latter. Why? Because you are dogmatic believer in evolution who would rather destroy its academic reputation than accept some argument against evolution.
P.S. In your previous posts, you opposed my claim that in the real world the path toward the right solution is carried by random means. So, I am waiting. You have one practical problem to solve. I am not interested in your bachelor's degree and philosophy about MONKEY probabilities, but in your ability to sove biologically derived problem via evolutionary programming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by dwise1, posted 04-15-2017 10:25 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 224 of 293 (805352)
04-18-2017 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by New Cat's Eye
04-17-2017 8:47 AM


Re: Lambda hits Target with spectacular speed.
The ability to stick to something has nothing to do with biology. This is the general property of matter that even a pile of wet dirt has. Biology is characterised by the ability to have a proper 3D shape. Conformational complementarity of enzyme and substrate, fertilisation, editing of the nascent precursor messenger RNA transcript, synchronization of the kicks of the hopping insect's legs via gear mechanism, blood pumping, visual perception,.... all these functions in biology arise from the interactions of the proper 3D shapes. Non of the 3D shapes where changed in the experiment that produced those 4 mutations. "My math" is not wrong because it talks about the extraction of specific 3D shapes from particles, while most of your arguments and practical examples boils down to either - the ability to stick to something, or - circular reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-17-2017 8:47 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by vimesey, posted 04-18-2017 3:09 AM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 226 of 293 (805357)
04-18-2017 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by vimesey
04-18-2017 3:09 AM


Re: Lambda hits Target with spectacular speed.
No, I am seriously expecting that anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of reality is capable to see that the theory of evolution is just a complex rationalization for denial of reality, and as such - a hoax. In reality, biology is based on interactions between the specific 3D shapes. The more particles a particular shape has the more non-specific 3D shapes can be produced. Bio-structures have millions and millions of particles and as such, infinite potential for non-specific 3D shapes. Specificity of a particular 3D shape is defined by other specific 3D shapes. To find specificity you need resources. Resources in evolution are not only highly insufficient but also constrained by time and space - an organism that lives in a certain environment cannot use resources from other times and places for its adaptation(production of a specific 3D shape). Lab experiments can produce a lot of resources, like the Szostak experiment did(10^11) but they are useles with regards to specificity of a particular 3D shape in a particular time and space. In short, the ToE is a hoax.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by vimesey, posted 04-18-2017 3:09 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Pressie, posted 04-18-2017 6:22 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 228 by vimesey, posted 04-18-2017 7:42 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 233 by Coyote, posted 04-18-2017 10:30 AM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 229 of 293 (805370)
04-18-2017 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by vimesey
04-18-2017 7:42 AM


No. You don't understand evolution. Tendency to mutate is just the tendency to change a particular 3D shape. Every natural process has this ability. Hence, this is not evolution in a true sense. Evolution in a true sense requires the tendency to adapt to a particular environment. Given the fact that everything in the universe is just a specific arrangement of particles, a particular environment is also a specific arangement of particles. Further, an environment has a definite organized arrangement of particles, which means that an environment is essentially a 3D shape and therefore, evolution requires the tendency to adapt to a specific 3D shape. This is impossible because the particles have the potential to form nearly infinite number of different 3D shapes (10^3271 for only a 1000 particles) while there have been only a 10^43 resources in the history of life to scan through these shapes, or in other words, the organisms have not been able to find a specific 3D shape that is needed in order to adapt to another specific 3D shape(environment).
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by vimesey, posted 04-18-2017 7:42 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Tangle, posted 04-18-2017 9:03 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 231 by Percy, posted 04-18-2017 9:05 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 239 by vimesey, posted 04-18-2017 11:44 AM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 232 of 293 (805378)
04-18-2017 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Tangle
04-18-2017 9:03 AM


Tangle writes:
What a pile of illogical, unreasonable and unreasoned nonsense.
Ignoring all the rest of that garbage, The evironment is a 3D shape has to be one of the most bizarrely bonkers statements posted on these boards.
Why don't you waste you time trying to show that the mutation of the peppered moth isn't a 3D shape that can happen instead of all this pseudo-mathematical bullshit with no empirical or even theoretical grounding?
You know, look at a real example of a real mutation causing a real beneficial change in a real organism which made it a better fit to its environment.
We're all looking at a flying bee here, it's hard to tell us that it can't fly.
Besides being uneducated about evolution, biology, mathematics and logic you've shown yourself to be just as inept with linguistic.
The word "shape" has many meanings one of which is "a mode of existence or form of being having identifying features". Hence, an environment is a 3D shape.
Further, the color variation in the peppered moth has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution since this idea tries to explain the origin of 3D shapes that we observe in biology(enzymes, molecular machines, organs, organ systems...). The color variation in the peppered moth is an instance of phenotypic plasticity - a pre-programmed feature of an organism.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Tangle, posted 04-18-2017 9:03 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Percy, posted 04-18-2017 10:45 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 236 by Tangle, posted 04-18-2017 10:46 AM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 237 of 293 (805386)
04-18-2017 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Tangle
04-18-2017 10:46 AM


How do you know that the mutation was not non-random(pre-programmed)?
Predictable evolution trumps randomness of mutations | Nature
"Predictable evolution trumps randomness of mutations"
"In the new study, published online today in Public Library of Science Biology5, Doebeli and colleague Matthew Herron, also at UBC, went back to the frozen samples from three of their test tubes and sequenced 17 gene samples from various stages of the experiment. The DNA showed that in some cases identical mutations appeared independently in all three test tubes: despite the random nature of mutations, the same changes in the environment favoured the same genetic solutions"
And... what does randomness or non-randomness of shape modification have to do with my argument about the lack of resources?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Tangle, posted 04-18-2017 10:46 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by JonF, posted 04-18-2017 11:16 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 240 by Tangle, posted 04-18-2017 11:53 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 261 by Taq, posted 04-19-2017 11:14 AM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 241 of 293 (805419)
04-18-2017 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Tangle
04-18-2017 11:53 AM


Tangle writes:
Now you're really grasping at straws - that paper deals with e.coli bacteria not a sexually reproducing macro-organism.
That paper deals with non-random nature of mutations and not with differences between various life forms. You are the one grasping at straws.
Tangle writes:
You will also note that the moth's mutation placed a transposon in a place not associated with pigmentation - a properly random event.
Transposon was placed in an intron of the cortex gene. And guess what?
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/...oth-went-dark-side
quote:
The teams have evidence that the cortex gene helps determine when certain wing scales grow. And in butterflies and moths, the timing of wing-scale development affects their colors, says Reed. You see colors popping up almost like a paint-by-numbers.
As we can see, besides being uneducated about evolution, biology, mathematics, logic and linguistic you've also shown yourself to be a lier.
Tangle writes:
It was an attempt to get you to deal with real world evolution and away from your fantasy numbers.
Transposons have nothing to do with neither randomness nor evolution. Barbara McClintock who was awarded with the Nobel Prize for her discovery of transposable elements said that transposable elements are controlling elements. Control and randomness are opposite concepts.
Gifts of Speech - Barbara McClintock
"... These proved to be transposable elements that could regulate gene expressions in precise ways. Because of this I called them " controlling elements ". Their origins and their actions were a focus of my research for many years thereafter. It is their origin that is important for this discussion, and it is extraordinary."
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Tangle, posted 04-18-2017 11:53 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Tangle, posted 04-18-2017 1:06 PM forexhr has not replied
 Message 243 by Genomicus, posted 04-18-2017 1:30 PM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 245 of 293 (805451)
04-18-2017 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Genomicus
04-18-2017 1:30 PM


Genomicus writes:
Read up on your molecular biology. Transposable elements can regulate nearby genes by virtue of methylation properties, etc., but transposons that "jump" into gene sequences are a form of mutation and are not regulating elements.
Yes, landing inside a gene can affect its potential protein-coding capacity, but from that it does not follow that the "jump" in the genome of the peppered moth was not pre-programmed, especially if we take into account that it resulted in a phenotypic effect and is located in intronic region of the cortex gene.
Genomicus writes:
There's often a happy medium between control and randomness in genomics, and they are both exploited by selection to "drive" the evolution of species.
Control and randomness have nothing to do with evolution. Control is an instance of functional living systems, while randomness is the lack of predictability in events, which is the general characteristic of natural processes. Evolution on the other hand is concerned with the origin of higher life forms. Higher life forms are characterized by organs, organ systems, de novo molecular machines, metabolic pathways,... none of which can be produced by evolution due to lack of resources, as I already explained.
Genomicus writes:
Why do you feel the need to insult people here?
Not people, but only one intellectually dishonest individual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Genomicus, posted 04-18-2017 1:30 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Genomicus, posted 04-19-2017 6:11 AM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 247 of 293 (805526)
04-19-2017 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by bluegenes
04-18-2017 3:08 PM


Re: The Texas sharpshooter rides again
bluegenes writes:
If you "critically examine the logical consequences" of the paper, the implications are that ~18*10^14 protein search resources would be required for our 18,000 proteins. I'm sure you won't make the mistake of multiplying that for all complex species, as they share many proteins. If our life system currently uses 1 billion proteins, then that would require 10^20 search resources.
I think I already addressed this nonsensical point of yours. Resources that are already spent on search for protein A, which is located in a specific location in the genome of a particular species, cannot be spent on search for protein B which is located in other location of the genome or in other species. Let me use an example for illustration.
Suppose that each of these two words: "CAT" and "DOG", represents a functional protein fold that needs to be found for adaptation purposes, while the text below represents the genomes of three individual organisms(A, B, C), that all have two duplicated gens, "wdc" and "aii", that are free to explore the above mentioned folds:
A) ..............wdc..................................aii
B) ..............wdc..................................aii
C) ..............wdc..................................aii
After the reproduction, we have these changes(mutations):
A) .....A........wdc...........P........U............Dii
B) .......H......wdc........T.......E................aFi
C) .....T........wdc..........P........Z..............aKi
As we can see, although we have spent 12 mutational resources, we have produced just 3 changes in the "aii" gene, while the "wdc" gene didn't get any change. Since the sequence space of "aii" gene is 17,576(26^3) we need on average 17,576 changes on its locus to produce the "DOG" fold. Once these resources are spent they cannot be spent on search for "CAT" fold on "wdc" loci, or search for any other functional fold. To find the "CAT" fold we need another 17,576 resources.
What you did in your nonsensical statement, is put together all the mutations in the history of life that occured in all species of organisms and in all genes, and than you used this number as a separate instance for every new search. This is like writing down every dollar you spent this year and then saying that these, already spent dollars, can now be used for new purchases. All other points in your response are based on misunderstanding of this concept.
Given the fact that you cannot comprehend something so simple(that you cannot spend something that has already been spent), it's no wonder that you bought the theory of evolution from the Darwinian evangelists.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by bluegenes, posted 04-18-2017 3:08 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by bluegenes, posted 04-19-2017 10:15 AM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 249 of 293 (805532)
04-19-2017 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Genomicus
04-19-2017 6:11 AM


I presented my evidences already. Given the fact that most mutations are neutral or harmful, while mutation in British peppered moths resulted in a phenotypic effect(non-neutreal) and it didn't negatively affect the protein-coding capacity of the cortex gene(non-harmful) that indicates that this mutation was pre-programmed in the genome. But nevertheless, whatever the cause is, this doesn't change the physical impossibility of evolution.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Genomicus, posted 04-19-2017 6:11 AM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Genomicus, posted 04-19-2017 7:27 AM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 251 of 293 (805537)
04-19-2017 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Genomicus
04-19-2017 7:27 AM


I am not an expert in this area, but Barbara McClintock, who was, said that the occurrence of the movement and placement of transposable elements is non-random. I believe that these elements are used by cells to regulate specific coding regions of the genome in response to a certain environmental factor. How this happens, exactly, I don’t know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Genomicus, posted 04-19-2017 7:27 AM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Pressie, posted 04-19-2017 8:13 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 253 by Genomicus, posted 04-19-2017 8:15 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 258 by Taq, posted 04-19-2017 10:58 AM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 254 of 293 (805558)
04-19-2017 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Pressie
04-19-2017 8:13 AM


Re: Ahm great, you came around here pretending to know everything.
Pressie writes:
Ah, great, you came around here pretending to know everything. Now you're backing off.
Providing arguments for statements is not "pretending to know everything" but appropriate form of discussing or debating. Is this statement of yours some kind of projection, or some kind of reflection of your personality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Pressie, posted 04-19-2017 8:13 AM Pressie has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 255 of 293 (805562)
04-19-2017 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Genomicus
04-19-2017 8:15 AM


Genomicus writes:
It shows.
So, you are an expert at every single level of biology?
Genomicus writes:
So what's her exact quote?
There is no quote, you need to read her papers.
Genomicus writes:
It's only non-random insofar as the inverted repeats in the transposon sequence restricts the reposition of that transposon to genomic locations with complementary sequences; but given that the inverted repeat regions of transposons consist of only a small number of nucleotides, there are many, many regions in the genome which would have complementary sequences.
This is non sequitur. We're talking about the causes of the jumps, and not about the characteristics of transposable elements.
Genomicus writes:
Blargh. It gets frustrating when the people who claim to be refuting a theory held by the vast majority of molecular biologists don't take the time to, like, actually study molecular biology.
WOW. What an ignorance. Using an authority as evidence against an argument belongs to the category of logical fallacies. Also, the ToE has nothing to do with biology, but it is a concept, a human mental construct about unseen past events that is contradicted by every instance of observation in biology.
Genomicus writes:
We're not talking about how transposable elements regulate genes; we're talking about why you think that the act of a transposon jumping into another genomic region is a pre-programmed act. So describe to me the pre-programming mechanism that makes you think that the insertion in this moth's genome doesn't count as a beneficial mutation.
I already said why I think so: "given the fact that most mutations are neutral or harmful, while mutation in British peppered moths resulted in a phenotypic effect(non-neutreal) and it didn't negatively affect the protein-coding capacity of the cortex gene(non-harmful) that indicates that this mutation was pre-programmed in the genome." Hence, simple probability.
There is no need for me to describe the exact pre-programming mechanism. Even the most important molecular mechanisms, like those responsible for sperm-egg binding and fusion are largely unknown to science, and yet you are expecting from me to describe the exact mechanisms for something that was largely ignored by geneticists for several decades after Barbara McClintock discovered transposons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Genomicus, posted 04-19-2017 8:15 AM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Taq, posted 04-19-2017 11:06 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 274 by Genomicus, posted 04-20-2017 8:02 AM forexhr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024