(February 18, 2016 at 12:57 am)AAA Wrote:

(February 18, 2016 at 12:39 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: "Mathematically impossible?" You obviously know little to nothing about evolution and not much more about biology. Yes, random mutations over time are part of how evolution works. Now, you got something relevant to back up that "mathematically impossible" claim with, or just what your pastor/priest/shaman/medicine man/witch doctor tells you every Sunday?

Seriously, educate yourself. Your mind will thank you.

Yes, the calculations are simple. Lets say we want one protein 100 amino acids long (most are much more, the highest I think is like 27,000 amino acids long).  You have 20 different amino acids to choose from. The correct one must be at its spot 100 times. It's like rolling a 20 sided die and getting the same number 100 times. So (1/20)^100 =7.89x 10^-131. This is like one in 10^130 tries. Just to give you an idea of how big this number is, there are thought to be like 10^65 atoms in the universe. This isn't even counting the fact that amino acids form peptide bonds with the help of enzymes in the body, and exist in one of two stereoisomers in nature, yet only one is used in proteins.

So, pulling shit out of your ass is evidence these days? Go read a book, junior.

(February 17, 2016 at 10:13 pm)AAA Wrote:

(February 17, 2016 at 10:04 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Only if you think argument from analogy and complexity are compelling.

Problem is, complexity is not a sign of design.

It's not just complex, though. There are so many purposeful interactions that need to take place in order for the cell to regulate itself. These interactions are dependent on intricate structures, which are dependent on sequence of characters in DNA. When you remove one enzyme, the whole system might no longer be able to function. So the problem is that in order for it to work well enough to evolve (reproduce), you need tens of thousands of nucleotides in a proper sequence. It couldn't get there gradually, at least not by mutation and natural selection.

argument from incredulity.

You are dismissing something based on your own inability to either believe or at least entertain the evidence as currently provided. Unfortunately this is not sufficient to form a counter hypothesis. You require some study or body of literature that explains an alternative proposal which has the verifiable and testable data behind it allowing it to be reproduced. If you could provide some that'd be swell, please.

(February 18, 2016 at 12:52 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(February 18, 2016 at 12:57 am)AAA Wrote: Yes, the calculations are simple. Lets say we want one protein 100 amino acids long (most are much more, the highest I think is like 27,000 amino acids long).  You have 20 different amino acids to choose from. The correct one must be at its spot 100 times. It's like rolling a 20 sided die and getting the same number 100 times. So (1/20)^100 =7.89x 10^-131. This is like one in 10^130 tries. Just to give you an idea of how big this number is, there are thought to be like 10^65 atoms in the universe. This isn't even counting the fact that amino acids form peptide bonds with the help of enzymes in the body, and exist in one of two stereoisomers in nature, yet only one is used in proteins.

So, pulling shit out of your ass is evidence these days? Go read a book, junior.

Everything in there is true. Don't argue with math. It is like the only thing about the world that is unarguable. If you're saying that it is wrong, then you might as well argue that 2+2= -12,113,534

(February 18, 2016 at 1:22 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote:

(February 17, 2016 at 10:13 pm)AAA Wrote: It's not just complex, though. There are so many purposeful interactions that need to take place in order for the cell to regulate itself. These interactions are dependent on intricate structures, which are dependent on sequence of characters in DNA. When you remove one enzyme, the whole system might no longer be able to function. So the problem is that in order for it to work well enough to evolve (reproduce), you need tens of thousands of nucleotides in a proper sequence. It couldn't get there gradually, at least not by mutation and natural selection.

argument from incredulity.

You are dismissing something based on your own inability to either believe or at least entertain the evidence as currently provided. Unfortunately this is not sufficient to form a counter hypothesis. You require some study or body of literature that explains an alternative proposal which has the verifiable and testable data behind it allowing it to be reproduced. If you could provide some that'd be swell, please.

No, actually I don't need to put forward an alternative in order to reject an explanation that doesn't hold up. I don't have to accept an inadequate cause just because it is the only choice. I can rather say I don't know. Better yet, I can use the cause that is adequate: designer. I don't have to prove the inability of gradual processes leading to thousands of specified nucleotides. That is the null hypothesis which we assume to be true. We must then try to support the alternative hypothesis (gradual processes are sufficient). That would be like me telling you to prove that God doesn't exist using repeatable and testable data, which we both agree isn't a fair request. Both theories about the past are impossible to investigate using the conventional scientific empiricism which you are talking about.

(February 18, 2016 at 11:15 am)AAA Wrote: No, we were talking about abiogenesis in the calculation portion. That is BEFORE it can reproduce and therefore evolve. So no it isn't a fallacy. Scientists think that there are about 250 -400 proteins needed by the simplest possible viable organism in order to enter the evolutionary pathway. We just calculated the unbelievable odds of one. So you do need a ton of sequential characters to line up in the correct sequence in order to start evolution. If it wasn't random, then what was it?

Scientists? What scientists, and why do you suddenly give a fuck what they think if they happen to be legit?

The bullshit here should be obvious: numerous and complex proteins are not required in order to "enter the evolutionary pathways", because evolution could not have begun with molecules so complex as proteins. The bare rocks are not, and probably never were composed of any proteins, but self replicating molecules may have arisen in water, when silicaceous deposits bonded with some of the simple compounds which were in existence, and also happened to be bases which continued to evolve and form proteins. Such scenarios would not have been just one, but many (global), and without the competituon and predation of existing life forms, there was nothing to stop a few of these chains from moving forward. Like all the evolution which can in fact be observed, it begins simple, and changes very slowly. A few generations from out of the rocks would be barely comparable to anything which you would call modern biology, but then the viruses which survive today aren't much different. As it is with all life forms, you either become good at surviving as something close to your current form, stop reproducing altogether and face outright extinction, or fade into extinction while a few of your offspring take advantage of your reproduction errors, keeping that change in the gene pool. When there have been many such surviving changes which began with you, and you were a now-extinct type of rodent, you may have a descendant who is a chimpanzee.

^^

The issue though is you haven't really given an explanation, except an argument from incredulity.

Saying you don't know is fine. But that's not what you said, is it?

(February 18, 2016 at 3:01 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(February 18, 2016 at 11:15 am)AAA Wrote: No, we were talking about abiogenesis in the calculation portion. That is BEFORE it can reproduce and therefore evolve. So no it isn't a fallacy. Scientists think that there are about 250 -400 proteins needed by the simplest possible viable organism in order to enter the evolutionary pathway. We just calculated the unbelievable odds of one. So you do need a ton of sequential characters to line up in the correct sequence in order to start evolution. If it wasn't random, then what was it?

Scientists? What scientists, and why do you suddenly give a fuck what they think if they happen to be legit?

The bullshit here should be obvious: numerous and complex proteins are not required in order to "enter the evolutionary pathways", because evolution could not have begun molecules so complex as proteins. The bare rocks are not, and probably never were composed of any proteins, but self replicating molecules may have arisen in water, when silicaceous deposits bonded with some of the simple compounds which were in existence, and also happened to be bases which continued to evolve and form proteins. Such scenarios would not have been just one, but many (global), and without the competituon and predation of existing life forms, there was nothing to stop a few of these chains from moving forward. Like all the evolution which can in fact be observed, it begins simple, and changes very slowly. A few generations from out of the rocks would be barely comparable to anything which you would call modern biology, but then the viruses which survive today aren't much different. As it is with all life forms, you either become good at surviving in your current form, stop reproducing altogether and face outright extinctiont, or fade into extinction while a few of your offspring take advantage of your reproduction errors, keeping that change in the gene pool. When there have been many such surviving changes which began with you, and you were a now-extinct type of rodent, you may have a descendant who is a chimpanzee.

When you start talking about how it may have happened this way or silicone molecules binding together, you have just left what the data shows, and entered into some wishful speculation. I don't know why you have this idea that molecules are constantly arranging themselves spontaneously to form more complex structures. Even the formation of a phosphodiester bond or an amide bond are not spontaneous reactions and are not thermodynamically favorable. Also once they form, there are enzymes that must constantly monitor and repair the DNA to make sure it doesn't spontaneously degrade. So you can't have this random molecules becoming more complex slowly, it just isn't what happens in chemistry. The more stable molecule is the most energetically favorable form, and DNA, proteins, or your mystery molecules are not the most stable form. You are getting WAY too speculative with your origin of life scenario, and deviating largely from the actual evidence. 

And yes natural selection does help the ones with the best genes survive. The question is are the best genes the ones that have been mutated or the ones that have avoided mutation? It can easily be viewed as a mechanism to remove the individuals with broken genes so that the broken genes don't pollute the population.

(February 18, 2016 at 3:02 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: ^^

The issue though is you haven't really given an explanation, except an argument from incredulity.

Saying you don't know is fine. But that's not what you said, is it?

I don't know how it happened, but I DO know that it wasn't just mutation and natural selection. I also think that intelligence is the only known cause capable of explaining cellular biology, so that is my default conclusion until something else can explain it better. Do you want me to explain how the designer did it or what? It manually linked amino acids together and DNA to form a functional system. How's that?

You're not really confronting the issue of your initial statements. You outright rejected the current evidence base and theories drawn as a result, you didn't say you 'don't know'. You've made a positive statement but haven't really substantiated why you don't believe aside some reference to (Im)possibilities.

I'm not really interested in what you thinkhappened, more in how you can infer what you infer and where this inference has its base.

The truth is, you don't know any more whether you reject the evidence based status quo or not. Saying you do, frankly, makes me think you're lying.

(February 17, 2016 at 1:02 pm)robvalue Wrote: One we've had recently is, "We'll see who is right when we're dead."

I would reply:

"OK, let's bet on it: You give me all your money now, then if you're right, I'll give you all your money back in the afterlife, plus all of mine."

(February 18, 2016 at 3:22 pm)AAA Wrote:

(February 18, 2016 at 3:02 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: ^^

The issue though is you haven't really given an explanation, except an argument from incredulity.

Saying you don't know is fine. But that's not what you said, is it?

I don't know how it happened, but I DO know that it wasn't just mutation and natural selection. I also think that intelligence is the only known cause capable of explaining cellular biology, so that is my default conclusion until something else can explain it better. Do you want me to explain how the designer did it or what? It manually linked amino acids together and DNA to form a functional system. How's that?

Umm, actually, DNA can replicate itself. That's kinda the whole thing about DNA.

Meselson and Stahl demonstrated very elegantly how it does this way back in 1958. Worth looking up. Google "Semi-conservative replication". Or try this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meselson%E...experiment

You see how great science is? I can find out how things were done just by typing stuff into a computer. I can find out not just what we know, but how we know it.

But more's the point, you don't need to just take my word for it. You can do it yourself just by following the description in the link above. You'll need a centrifuge etc, but you can do it. If it wasn't possible to do it yourself with a semi-decent laboratory, none of the scientific community would have accepted it at all. If you can't get your hands on a laboratory, then go to your nearest University and tell them:

"I don't believe in semi-conservative replication. I want you to prove it to me. "

You will find them falling over themselves to show you.

But if you think God set up the whole DNA thing, that is the end of your knowledge. You can only speculate on how, or why. And no one else can help either. Their guesses are no better than yours.