By chance?

[Abaddon_ire]

There is also a problem with YJ's use of the term perfect. None of it is "perfect" symmetry. That is a strawman.

I come up against the concept of perfect symmetry every time I get new glasses.  My eyes are pretty well lined up but apparently my ears aren't quite level.  Drives opticians crazy.  

LOL. Exactly my point. My hex-wife had the very same. Whenever she got new goggles, I had to apply some judicious, enginneering brute force to get them to sit straight on the face. As an engineer, I knew how much force, with how much precision, on which particular point without breaking them. Not complaining, mind you. Happy to do it and she had tiny cute ears. And not a little gratitude, nudge, nudge.

[Objectivist]

Here's an expose I read that should give anyone on the fence about life arising by chance, serious pause. Sure it's an argument from incredulity which is still valid because incredulity can come in quite handy when making assumptions. In fact, when someone told me the moon was made of cheese, I said "no way, that would be way too incredible" and I was right.


Single proteins do not have any function on their own unless interconnected correctly in a living cell. In order for life to begin naturally, all essential proteins required for life to start would have had to emerge randomly on a prebiotic earth, protein super-complexes like ribosomes would have had to join the subparts together to get the right protein-protein interactions, like lock and key. A miracle would have had to prevent them to be burned by UV radiation. Then start to interconnect in the correct order to create a functional metabolic network and multi-protein production lines , where the joint venture of several enzymes began to produce functional products, hand them over to carrier mechanisms, tag them in order to be transported to the right locations. Somehow, all this would have had to begin in a protected environment, so a protective envelope would have had to exist. That envelope had to emerge fully functional with ” gates ” that permit the right materials in, and the waste product out.

Once the data storage system (DNA) emerged, a language based on a code system had to be established, and the blueprint to store the information to make all parts of the cell had to be stored within it, and DNA replication errors had to be reduced 10.000.000.000 times.

Let’s suppose that a self-replicating RNA molecule would appear miraculously on early earth. that does not explain the origin of the information to make all life essential parts in the cell.
It is as to go just from a hard drive storage device to a self replicating factory with the ability of self replication of the entire factory once ready, to respond to changing environmental demands and regulate its metabolic pathways, regulate and coordinate all cellular processes, such as molecule and building block biosynthesis according to the cells demands, depending on growth, and other factors.

The ability of uptake of nutrients, to be structured, internally compartmentalized and organized, being able to check replication errors and minimize them, and react to stimuli, and changing environments. That’s is, the ability to adapt to the environment is a must right from the beginning.

If just ONE single protein or enzyme – of many – is missing, no life. If topoisomerase II or helicase are missing – no replication – no perpetuation of life.

Somehow, that envelope had to create a homeostatic environment, diminishing the calcium concentration in the cell 10000 times below the external environment, to permit signaling. At the same time, a signaling code would have had to be established, and immediately begin to function, with a common agreement between sender and receiver…………….energy supply would have been a major problem, since almost all life forms depend on the supply of glucose, which is a product of complex metabolic pathways, and not readily available on a prebiotic earth. Most proteins require active metal clusters in their reaction centers.

These clusters are in most cases ultracomplex, each cluster had to have the right atoms interconnected in the right way, and get the correct 3-dimensional form. They require the complex uptake of the basic materials, like iron and sulfur, molybdenum, and complex biosynthesis processes, and after the correct assembling, the insertion in the right way and form inside the proteins. All these processes require energy, in form of ATP, not readily available – since ATP is the product of complex nano-factories, like ATP synthase – which by themselves depend on a proton gradient. Sorry——- not by chance !!

This is a false alternative with two equally irrational choices. Life came not from a god and not by "chance" but by causality.  I'm assuming by "chance" you mean an uncaused action.  The notion of a god causing everything violates the Primacy of Existence Principle and the notion of things happening by chance violates the Law of Causality. The process by which proteins came to exist is the same as for stars, trees, and Bumble Bees: entities acting and interacting with each other according to their natures.   And since when does the fallacy of argument from incredulity not render an argument invalid?  What logic text did you read this in?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Like the moths in England that turned darker when their trees had heavy  layers of soot and light again when the air cleared after the mills(?) were shut down.

Also eyes whilst beneficial in most environments are detrimental in permanently dark conditions with low nutrition due to the energy expended in growing them. Thus animals living in caves are under significant selection pressure to lose their eyes.

The blind cave fish of Yemin come to mind immediately. And there's the various varieties of manager slugs, a species that absorbs its legs in order to grow a butt that completely fills its swivel chair..

[The Architect Of Fate]

Here's an expose I read that should give anyone on the fence about life arising by chance, serious pause. Sure it's an argument from incredulity which is still valid because incredulity can come in quite handy when making assumptions. In fact, when someone told me the moon was made of cheese, I said "no way, that would be way too incredible" and I was right.


Single proteins do not have any function on their own unless interconnected correctly in a living cell. In order for life to begin naturally, all essential proteins required for life to start would have had to emerge randomly on a prebiotic earth, protein super-complexes like ribosomes would have had to join the subparts together to get the right protein-protein interactions, like lock and key. A miracle would have had to prevent them to be burned by UV radiation. Then start to interconnect in the correct order to create a functional metabolic network and multi-protein production lines , where the joint venture of several enzymes began to produce functional products, hand them over to carrier mechanisms, tag them in order to be transported to the right locations. Somehow, all this would have had to begin in a protected environment, so a protective envelope would have had to exist. That envelope had to emerge fully functional with ” gates ” that permit the right materials in, and the waste product out.

Once the data storage system (DNA) emerged, a language based on a code system had to be established, and the blueprint to store the information to make all parts of the cell had to be stored within it, and DNA replication errors had to be reduced 10.000.000.000 times.

Let’s suppose that a self-replicating RNA molecule would appear miraculously on early earth. that does not explain the origin of the information to make all life essential parts in the cell.
It is as to go just from a hard drive storage device to a self replicating factory with the ability of self replication of the entire factory once ready, to respond to changing environmental demands and regulate its metabolic pathways, regulate and coordinate all cellular processes, such as molecule and building block biosynthesis according to the cells demands, depending on growth, and other factors.

The ability of uptake of nutrients, to be structured, internally compartmentalized and organized, being able to check replication errors and minimize them, and react to stimuli, and changing environments. That’s is, the ability to adapt to the environment is a must right from the beginning.

If just ONE single protein or enzyme – of many – is missing, no life. If topoisomerase II or helicase are missing – no replication – no perpetuation of life.

Somehow, that envelope had to create a homeostatic environment, diminishing the calcium concentration in the cell 10000 times below the external environment, to permit signaling. At the same time, a signaling code would have had to be established, and immediately begin to function, with a common agreement between sender and receiver…………….energy supply would have been a major problem, since almost all life forms depend on the supply of glucose, which is a product of complex metabolic pathways, and not readily available on a prebiotic earth. Most proteins require active metal clusters in their reaction centers.

These clusters are in most cases ultracomplex, each cluster had to have the right atoms interconnected in the right way, and get the correct 3-dimensional form. They require the complex uptake of the basic materials, like iron and sulfur, molybdenum, and complex biosynthesis processes, and after the correct assembling, the insertion in the right way and form inside the proteins. All these processes require energy, in form of ATP, not readily available – since ATP is the product of complex nano-factories, like ATP synthase – which by themselves depend on a proton gradient. Sorry——- not by chance !!

This is a false alternative with two equally irrational choices. Life came not from a god and not by "chance" but by causality.  I'm assuming by "chance" you mean an uncaused action.  The notion of a god causing everything violates the Primacy of Existence Principle and the notion of things happening by chance violates the Law of Causality. The process by which proteins came to exist is the same as for stars, trees, and Bumble Bees: entities acting and interacting with each other according to their natures.   And since when does the fallacy of argument from incredulity not render an argument invalid?  What logic text did you read this in?

"And since when does the fallacy of argument from incredulity not render an argument invalid?"

When it's convenient

[Objectivist]

This is a false alternative with two equally irrational choices. Life came not from a god and not by "chance" but by causality.  I'm assuming by "chance" you mean an uncaused action.  The notion of a god causing everything violates the Primacy of Existence Principle and the notion of things happening by chance violates the Law of Causality. The process by which proteins came to exist is the same as for stars, trees, and Bumble Bees: entities acting and interacting with each other according to their natures.   And since when does the fallacy of argument from incredulity not render an argument invalid?  What logic text did you read this in?

"And since when does the fallacy of argument from incredulity not render an argument invalid?"

When it's convenient

LOL.  Yes, it's like when Sye Ten Bruggencate says that his arguments are circular but they are virtuously circular as if there is such a thing.

[Yukon_Jack]

So Bilateral symmetry ensures the eyes are spaced apart just perfectly, my!

“said mutations are 100% random”
False ”

Nope, you are false, mutations are 100% random. This is your crutch to lie about this.
NS can do absolutely nothing in the way of developing new traits because mutations are what causes new traits to emerge.
Your repeated lies to this not helping your cause

Bilateral symmetry doesn't ensure equal spacing, but it makes it much more likely because a mutation in one gene can affect both sides of an organism with bilateral symmetry (which is most animals visible to the naked eye).

Mutations aren't magic. They are constrained by the laws of biochemistry, and therefore CANNOT be 100% random. Like most random events, they are constrained by their 'possibility space'. Like a die with 100 sides could only give '100% random results' as long as those results aren't lower than 1 or higher than 100. It's not going to give a random result of 'sky' unless 'sky' is printed on one of the sides.

Natural selection is primarily a conservative 'force', it eliminates what is detrimental to an organism reproducing, so most of the time it's acting to keep a species the way it already is. Without natural selection species would become unrecognizable as variations with adverse survival value would be retained in the species instead of eliminated. Mutations happen on the individual level, a novel trait cannot emerge at the species level unless it is not selected against by natural selection. Mutations supply individual variations, natural selection (or possibly a population bottleneck like the founder effect) determines whether a new genetic variation spreads to the species level.

Well what I’m saying is that mutations ARE like magic. As Luck and magic would have it , look what they accomplished, among everything from owls, eyes. to blood clotting to the insect doppelgänger of a leaf and many other examples of traits that seem too good to be true.
And. What did your parents say about things that are usually too good to be true?
If I was stuck in the middle of the desert dying of thirst what would the chances be that a case of spring water would be behind the next rock ?


“No, mutations do not cause new traits to emerge. Mutations provide the raw material for selection to act upon, either preserving or elimination the mutations.
If Gregor Mendel was alive, he'd slap your face.
Boru

If the society for normal logic heard this, you would be the one slapped. Hard.
Mutations provide ALL THE MATERIAL FOR NEW TRAITS!!!! No way you are going to weasel out of this, the driver of all your atheist luck

[LadyForCamus]

I see potato head is still here, working hard at not understanding evolution.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Mutations provide ALL THE MATERIAL FOR NEW TRAITS!!!! 

Yes, this is what we've been trying to tell you all along.  But selection is the mechanism whereby random mutations become new traits.  

Boru

[Ranjr]

If I was stuck in the middle of the desert dying of thirst what would the chances be that a case of spring water would be behind the next rock ?

Much higher than striking the rock with a stick and having water pour out of it.

[downbeatplumb]

Well what I’m saying is that mutations ARE like magic. As Luck and magic would have it , look what they accomplished, among everything from owls, eyes. to blood clotting to the insect doppelgänger of a leaf and many other examples of traits that seem too good to be true.
And.  What did your parents say about things that are usually too good to be true?
If I was stuck in the middle of the desert dying of thirst what would the chances be that a case of spring water would be behind the next rock ?


“No, mutations do not cause new traits to emerge. Mutations provide the raw material for selection to act upon, either preserving or elimination the mutations.
If Gregor Mendel was alive, he'd slap your face.
Boru

If the society for normal logic heard this, you would be the one slapped. Hard.
Mutations provide ALL THE MATERIAL FOR NEW TRAITS!!!!  No way you are going to weasel out of this, the driver of all your atheist luck

What you are saying is that you personally don't understand how things work therefore god. When people explain why you are wrong, in ways a child can understand you still don't get it.

At this point I can only assume you are either willfully ignorant or a troll. I think you are an American so Im going to go for a bit of both.