Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

IntroductionSome were unsatisfied with the presentation of the evolutionary tree of the previous artist
This is an Aboriginal Australian artists impression of evolutionDNA molecule. Coded informationThe human body has about 37.2 trillion cells each of which contains a DNA molecule. DNA has a series of 4 chemicals (amino acids) which are precisely arranged to spell out a code or instructions for building the crucial parts of cells (proteins) that allow all life to exist.ToE says that evolution occurs through natural selection acting on random genetic mutation of DNA. This calls for several failed mutations to occur before one is advantageous enough to persist.The question is how common or rare are advantageous functional sequences among the possible combinations of the DNA code? The answer is 1x10^77. That’s a 10 with 77 zeros. Those odds are so big that even billions of years could not produce that many outcomes.But those are the odds to build just one new advantageous protein. Many more need to be created, trillions more. To create a new animal the proteins basically have to be arranged into structures within cells, different types of cells need to be arranged to form tissues, different tissues need to be arranged to form organs, then orangs and tissues need to be arranged to form systems and those systems need to be arranged to form a living creature. In other words DNA mutation alone cannot account for the evolution of new forms of life. This only adds to the huge improbability of ToE.I listened to another scientist who claimed this calculation was incorrect. His calculations were that the odds were 1x10^33. Its still a probability so huge you have a better chance of winning lotto I think. An illustration showing the complexity of building new life beyond the molecular level.An analogy given by scientist Stephen Meyer
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1Say for example I designed a new type of bridge, never been done before. The breakthrough is a new material I have invented. This will make the bridge stronger and cheaper to build. I go and propose this new design to my boss. He asks me how certain I am it will work. And I respond by telling him the chances of it working are 1x10^77. Should we still build it on the off chance it will work? Off course not. We go and do countless tests on this new material under various conditions and circumstances. We try to falsify the materials claims by testing it to breaking point, analyzing the data and making improved changes to this material until we are 100% certain that its properties are consistent with the requirements.That's an example of applied science and the high standards of evidence involved, for those who were confusedReference to this study by scientist Doug Axe who calculated the probability of 1x10^77
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds - PubMed

Thread copied here from the Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2 thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
***************************************************************
Hello, P&C. Yes, its me again...the nosy administrator. I reviewed your topic proposal in light of a couple of complaints regarding your refusal to respond to your first topic adequately. Googling your scientists and links brought me to the conclusion that Doug Axe and Stephen Meyer were connected with The Discovery Institute. So now the mystery is beginning to clear up. You are reading and considering the information from the Intelligent Design proponents. Which in my mind is neither good nor bad. I have no axe to grind with these people, though I'm sure our scientific community within the peanut gallery here at the Forum do. Nosy as I am, I have a bit of information on them as well.
The main complaint seems to be that you never answered the questions in your first topic.Upon review, I found that you actually were rather vague---as if you wanted to argue but did not have the ammunition to engage the mainstream science guys, as well as your Intelligent Design proponents, have attempted to do.Personally, I have no problem with these arguments but was a bit miffed that you didn't fess up and tell us all that you were considering the arguments of the Intelligent Design community from the beginning. So here is what I am going to do. I am closing your first topic for now....you have shown no desire to do anything but try and defeat the wisdom of RAZD, dWise1, Tangle, and our usual lineup of suspects here. The problem is that you are reading the information that Doug Axe and Stephen Meyer use and making their conclusions your conclusions even though you don't yet understand both sides of the arguments thoroughly. (neither do I, but I never claim to be scientific! )All that I ask is that everyone treats each other with respect, and I also ask that everyone not gang up on Pork n Cheese but allow him to learn your arguments against Intelligent Design while respecting his desire to learn more about it. Forum Guidelines
Lets present the arguments from The Discovery Institute and Douglas Axe and Stephen Meyer and deal with them first.
Also, as I said earlier in response to Tangle, RAZD, dWise1 and others---is that you show respect for the Discovery Institute and the scientific arguments there....refuting them if you must but doing it slowly and allowing us to understand your objections to the specific arguments.If you all don't play nice I'm closing this thread also. Edited by AdminPhat, : explanationEdited by AdminPhat, : spelling

Good thing nobody thinks that's how the panoply of life aroseu.Or perhaps you have a mainstream source that thinks that random arrangements of atoms is how it happened?Didn't think so.Big numbers of based on faulty premises are meaningless. See Big Numbers Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Which is just as meaningless a representation of the ToE as the last one. You appear to excel at picking bad examples at this point, and learned nothing about this in the previous thread.If you think this represents the ToE, then we have a problem: you are not attacking the ToE but a pale empty false straw-man that is wrong. Beating that up is meaningless ... because it is NOT the ToE. Goody, now we get Intelligent Design misinformation ... Curiously Dr Axe is talking about folds in the proteins not sequences.More of interest is that calculations like this require assumptions and premises that have to be validated for valid conclusions.Let me ask you a question: I have two dice in my hand: what is the probability that I will throw a 7? Before you can calculate the probabilities you have to know all the possibilities.Big number probabilities from IDologists are notorious for faulty incomplete assumptions, be careful if you can’t replicate the calculations and validate the assumptions. Try looking up PRATTs before using them.The biggest mistake is usually assuming that the current arrangement is the only goal, and not one of many similar arrangements that accomplish the same function. Evolution is not goal driven, it is response feed-back driven, and if it works it is used, and when it is used then the result is what it is. It could be any one of a number of possible solutions that accomplish the survive and reproduce function of life.You can walk from Maine to California, and the probability of using one specific path with one specific sets of footprints to get there would be astronomical ... but so are the number of paths that get there.Look up sharpshooter fallacy.EnjoyReferences1. the old improbable probability problem
2. Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy
3. The Probability of Life

---

Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : refsEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.

So, here's an explanation of how Axe fucked up.And of course he fucked up. Because we have overwhelming evidence, fossil, genetic, morphological, etc, that evolution did occur. So an explanation of why in theory it shouldn't have occurred is always going to be false, and all we need to do is find out how.There's an old canard about scientists studying the aerodynamics of bees and concluding that they can't fly. This is of course not what they did; but creationists do that sort of thing all the time, and "prove" impossible in theory what is obviously true in practice.---Interestingly, the particular protein that Axe puts forward as "evidence" for divine providence in the design of life is a protein that makes bacteria immune to penicillin. Gee, thanks, God.

That's a good link. I personally don't know much about this stuff nor the arguments, but I appreciate it when they can be explained in ways that I can at least comprehend. Our overall goal is to have a quality topic for our archives that people actually enjoy reading. Limited snark should only be allowed once participants are familiar with each other and have shown mutual respect for each other's arguments.I appreciate your professionalism.

Out of curiosity, what science courses are you studying?
Also, I applaud you on the professional look of your first post. Don't be afraid to argue with these guys, but keep it professional and not flippant. A lot of what we choose to believe is due to the level of comfort and familiarity involved, as well as the facts and evidence. creation, for example, has no real argument apart from the one he is comfortable using....yet he keeps using it because it makes him feel better to diss the science peanut gallery here at the form. Call it boredom, I dunno. We all use the forum to relieve stress...when we can holler at our opponents.Also...I know that you are agnostic, came from a religious family, and have recently entertained some of the Intelligent Design arguments...what is your tentative conclusion so far on which discipline best explains human origins here on the third rock? Don't be afraid to be humble...its a quality that will endear you to your readers.

Mechanical Engineering.Enjoy

Is that you or pork n cheese? I missed that... Add by Edit: Oh okay... I get the joke. Humor reference. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

No Phat, he is a mechanical engineering student.Enjoy

Oh okay, thanks for letting me know. It helps me to get to know a bit about people before I engage in discussions with them.Anyway...back to the topic. Here I am engaging in the light-hearted banter that I scolded you guys for doing! Also...pork n cheese? If you are reading this, please take your time before making any replies...I want you to get good grades first.

No it doesn't. Why do you keep telling untruths, Porkncheese?

Mechanical engineering isn't a science though.

Do you consider it stamp collecting?Via Wiki:

quote:

---

Mechanical engineering is the discipline that applies engineering, physics, engineering mathematics, and materials science principles to design, analyze, manufacture, and maintain mechanical systems. It is one of the oldest and broadest of the engineering disciplines.

​

The mechanical engineering field requires an understanding of core areas including mechanics, dynamics, thermodynamics, materials science, structural analysis, and electricity.

---

It's been about 100+ years or so but when I took my first physics classes the first things discussed were mechanical systems (incline planes, forces, Newton, basic mechanical engineering stuff), and all the math that goes with them.That seems quite "science" to me as far as specific disciplines go.But, isn't the kind of "science" we're debating here an issue of philosophy not some specific discipline? Something a person adopts as a guiding principle of knowledge acquisition regardless of discipline?One can study the science of mechanical engineering or genetics or geology without having their head wrapped around the philosophy of science. To their deficit, for sure, but still ...To me, being a student of mechanical engineering is to study quite a few of the "sciences". It's just, in this case, the philosophy behind the power of these disciplines is lost on the poor dupe.

I assume you meant to write 1/10^77, in order that we're actually talking about a probability or a frequency.It's important to consider what this number actually represents. If this is the proportion of combinations of DNA that give rise to functional proteins; then it's not a probability. It would be a probability if we were taking random stretches of DNA and seeing if they coded for functional proteins, but where does that happen?That's not what it's supposed to be, of course. What Axe was trying to estimate was the likelihood of a protein sequence (not DNA) performing a specific function. This is an important difference, because you seem to be trying to use it to imply evolution could never happen because useful proteins are too unlikely to form. But even if Axe's calculation is correct (and 1/10^77 is his lower estimate) it only applies to one specific function - is that specific function necessary for life? If not, then why does this matter?You mentioned another study that claimed 1/10^33 proteins had a useful function. No idea what study that was, but note that this is a difference of 43 orders of magnitude. It's still a very small number, yes, but does it not make you think there might be different things being measured here? If the same thing is being measured, then I'd question whether we know how to measure it.Here's another study for you. They created 6,000 million random proteins of 80 amino acids in length. 4 of these proteins bound to ATP. That's 1/10^9 - 68 orders or magnitude different from Axe's estimate. Binding to ATP is, of course, not an essential requirement of a functional protein in any abstract sense - it's just a criterion that makes sense to look for in real organisms.None of these numbers are much use unless you know what they mean.