Re: and yet, curiously, it is still explained by evolution ...
There are two problems: 1) This point of view is not supported by reputable biologist.
It's supported by more than 99% of biologists, the very ones doing primary research in biology. But that is beside the point. The accuracy of a theory is not determined by a poll. It is determined by the evidence.
2) Life is too complex to be explained by such a process.
I need something other than your incredulity as evidence.
Question: How long would it take a computer to generate "to be or not to be" by producing 18 letters and spaces randomly?
Evolution isn't random, nor is there a set goal. Your example doesn't come close to being an analogy for biological evolution.
Re: and yet, curiously, it is still explained by evolution ...
The primary structure of a protein is complex because the location of each amino acid is known. Biological mechanism are complex for the same reason a TV set is complex. There is an addition amount of complexity arising from the development of a fully grown adult from a single fertilized egg.
Re: and yet, curiously, it is still explained by evolution ...
1) This point of view is not supported by reputable biologist. Only popular writers and non-biologist say such a thing.
Appeal to anunspecified authority. THis is a logical fallcay, and your reasoning is invalid.
2) Life is too complex to be explained by such a process.
Says you. This is an assertion. Thus far, you have provided no evidence to support it. You haven't even defined what "complexity" means as it pertains to this discussion.
Question: How long would it take a computer to generate "to be or not to be" by producing 18 letters and spaces randomly? Answer: Millions of years.
False analogy. Mutations are not completely random. They function within the rules of chemistry, for one thing. There are far more letters in the alphabet than there are base pairs, for another. Finally, evolution is controlled by the undirected force of natural selection.
I can write a computer algorithm that will randomly generate the phrase "to be or not to be" by starting with a randomly generated set of characters, iterating one or two more random characters at a time to create a set of offspring, and then selecting those that most closely match the desired result. It will finish within moments given current processing speeds.
Here's a video of a compuer algorithm that uses purely random mutation guided by selection to assemble working clocks:
Once again, your assertions are simply wrong. You are contradicted by reality. What you say cannot be done, is done.
Re: and yet, curiously, it is still explained by evolution ...
The primary structure of a protein is complex because the location of each amino acid is known.
So if I know the location of all of my socks in a drawer does that make my sock drawer complex?
Biological mechanism are complex for the same reason a TV set is complex.
I don't think anyone is arguing that life is not complex on a qualitative level. The hard part is quantifying that complexity. Is complexity measured by the number of parts? Is complexity measured by the number of DNA pairs? Is complexity measured by the number of cells in an organism? What is the actual measure of complexity in life?
There is an addition amount of complexity arising from the development of a fully grown adult from a single fertilized egg.
And strangely enough, that addition is completely natural.
Re: and yet, curiously, it is still explained by evolution ...
The primary structure of a protein is complex because the location of each amino acid is known. Biological mechanism are complex for the same reason a TV set is complex. There is an addition amount of complexity arising from the development of a fully grown adult from a single fertilized egg.
That's not a definition. You haven't explained what "complexity" refers to. Watch:
"The primary structure of a protein is magic because the location of each amino acid is known. Biological mechanism are magic for the same reason a TV set is magic. There is an addition amount of magic arising from the development of a fully grown adult from a single fertilized egg. "
I find that substituting the word "magic" sometimes helps me see whether the subject I'm talking about is made less mysterious by my statements.
What does knowing the location of each amino acid have to do with "complexity?" If I don't look at the protein, and thus don;t "know" where each amino acid is, is it less complex?
Do you mean that the occurrence of structure defines complexity? That objects that are more structured and adhere to rigid rules of standardization are more complex than those that are not structured? So that an ice crystal is more "complex" than liquid water because the placement of each particle is structured in the crystal?
Again I'll ask, is rice more or less complex than a human being, given that rice has orders of magnitude more genes than a human being?
Re: and yet, curiously, it is still explained by evolution ...
Question: How long would it take a computer to generate "to be or not to be" by producing 18 letters and spaces randomly? Answer: Millions of years.
If you take the creation-ex-nihilo single-step-selection approach, yes. But not if you take life's cumulative-selection approach. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Why are you willfully ignoring that simple fact?
How does life create proteins? Are you going to try to claim that each of millions of proteins your body produces on a regular basis each have to fall together randomly? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. Are you going to try to claim that for life to produce a new protein, that entire protein must all fall together randomly? I would hope not, because that would also be ridiculous; rather, a previously existing protein is modified. Cumulative selection, not single-step creation-ex-nihilo selection.
Since life obviously does not use your single-step selection approach, why do you keep insisting that life must? That's ridiculous.
Re: and yet, curiously, it is still explained by evolution ...
Complexity is another word for order. The greater the knowledge we have of the location and properties of particles, the greater the amount of order or complexity. In the free expansion of a gas, there is a decrease in order because there is a decrease in the knowledge of the location of the gas molecules. There is a high degree of order in a protein because the location of each amino acid is known.
In other words no matter how much evidence is against you, no matter what experts tell you, you have no desire to learn.
The video you were asked to watch was a produced by the University of Washington. The lecturers are professors in the field of the subject they are talking about. They are presenting scientific evidence. As far as I can tell you do not have an education in this subject. You are a person that is seemingly incapable of understanding the evidence presented to you. There is a big difference between a lecture given by professors and a youtube posting a(be nice now) nobody.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
Re: and yet, curiously, it is still explained by evolution ...
Complexity is another word for order. The greater the knowledge we have of the location and properties of particles, the greater the amount of order or complexity. In the free expansion of a gas, there is a decrease in order because there is a decrease in the knowledge of the location of the gas molecules. There is a high degree of order in a protein because the location of each amino acid is known.
That would mean that, according to you, growing salt crystals from a solution, or freezing water into ice crystals, would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Re: and yet, curiously, it is still explained by evolution ...
OK, I just wasted 10 minutes watching your film that I could have put to far better use working on a Navy course. At least you've also presented almost all of it in this thread, so your errors and misconceptions have been pointed out to you, even though you choose to ignore those responses.
Now it's your turn to watch that 1 hr video.
BTW, what is your doctorate in? Obviously not in science and likely not in philosophy.
Re: and yet, curiously, it is still explained by evolution ...
The primary structure of a protein is complex because the location of each amino acid is known.
How complex? There are a huge number of low complexity highly repetitive proteins in the genome. I think that perhaps rather than 'known' what you meant was specified, in other words the amino acids have to be in one specific exact sequence in order to perform their biological function. The problem with this argument is that it is patently not true in many cases.
This is the same mistake Salisbury made in claiming that genes needed to have unique sequences. He had the excuse of commenting before many basic principles of molecular genetics were firmly established, you have no such excuse.
™ Version 4.2