tbwp10 wrote:
Not sure how that relates to my comments or the video. The video does not present a mathematical challenge to Darwin's theory of evolution.
This directed to me?
Mathematical challenges to Darwin's Theory of evolution
Sort:
May 7, 2020
0
#23
tbwp10 wrote:
1. For sake of argument, even if this "mathematical challenge" to Darwin's theory of evolution is sound, it still does nothing to negate the evidence for biological relatedness (common ancestry). "Is there evidence that living things are related?" and "What are the mechanisms of biological change?" are two different questions.
2. There was only one "mathematical challenge," singular, offered (i.e., "combinatorial inflation"--improbability of randomly generating a functional protein). But this is not an argument against Darwin's theory of evolution; it's a recognized problem with the origin of life. So, the title, "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution," is a bit of a misnomer. Also, evolutionarily biologists do not believe that functional proteins are randomly propagated, so this is also a bit of a strawman.
If you cannot get a protein to alter itself through randomness to do new specific tasks, how does anything new arise either in established lifeforms or abiogenesis?
May 7, 2020
0
#24
TruthMuse wrote:
If you cannot get a protein to alter itself through randomness to do new specific tasks, how does anything new arise either in established lifeforms or abiogenesis?
You don't have the first idea of how evolution by natural selection is believed to work do you?
It isn't proteins that undergo random mutation, it's genes! And it's the genes of an organism that are responsible for creating proteins.
This is why I'm constantly trying to encourage you to make yourself better informed. I gave you a link to the Wiki page on evolution & you claimed you'd read it already but clearly you don't understand the most basic principles of the science.
May 7, 2020
0
#25
tbwp10 wrote:
1. For sake of argument, even if this "mathematical challenge" to Darwin's theory of evolution is sound, it still does nothing to negate the evidence for biological relatedness (common ancestry). "Is there evidence that living things are related?" and "What are the mechanisms of biological change?" are two different questions.
2. There was only one "mathematical challenge," singular, offered (i.e., "combinatorial inflation"--improbability of randomly generating a functional protein). But this is not an argument against Darwin's theory of evolution; it's a recognized problem with the origin of life. So, the title, "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution," is a bit of a misnomer. Also, evolutionarily biologists do not believe that functional proteins are randomly propagated, so this is also a bit of a strawman.
I recall them speaking about several mathematical challenges concerning the amount of change required from one age of time to another, where we had a few lifeforms at one period of time than a considerable number of newly discovered species in the next. The explosion of life in the Cambrian explosion was a big deal in the discussion as it related to the variety of species, their body forms. This point I've brought up here over and over ad nausea that all of these new lifeforms would require a massive batch of additional instructions to build a new lifeform in DNA.
The math for a single protein that would fold properly was enormous, and you think this is a big deal only for abiogenesis? Why would the same math be more straightforward for evolutionary changes if the odds remain the same to develop a single protein? The odds toward success verse failure was so small it is just nonsensical to accept as probable.
You did watch this correct?
JayHunterBrickwood wrote:
Animals and plants adapt. We know this. It is evident in all of the world.
But we don't have evidence for one animal turning into another animal.
The origin of life has had no scientific answer from the other side.
Unclear what you mean by "one animal turning into another." Individual organisms don't evolve; populations do. If you're referring to the process of speciation, and origin of new species; then yes, we have an enormous amount of evidence for speciation (aka macroevolution)
TruthMuse wrote:
tbwp10 wrote:
1. For sake of argument, even if this "mathematical challenge" to Darwin's theory of evolution is sound, it still does nothing to negate the evidence for biological relatedness (common ancestry). "Is there evidence that living things are related?" and "What are the mechanisms of biological change?" are two different questions.
2. There was only one "mathematical challenge," singular, offered (i.e., "combinatorial inflation"--improbability of randomly generating a functional protein). But this is not an argument against Darwin's theory of evolution; it's a recognized problem with the origin of life. So, the title, "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution," is a bit of a misnomer. Also, evolutionarily biologists do not believe that functional proteins are randomly propagated, so this is also a bit of a strawman.
I recall them speaking about several mathematical challenges concerning the amount of change required from one age of time to another, where we had a few lifeforms at one period of time than a considerable number of newly discovered species in the next. The explosion of life in the Cambrian explosion was a big deal in the discussion as it related to the variety of species, their body forms. This point I've brought up here over and over ad nausea that all of these new lifeforms would require a massive batch of additional instructions to build a new lifeform in DNA. How much? You need to be more specific and more careful (for example, some very important biologic events associated with the Cambrian explosion involved a loss of information (gene loss), so we can't paint with a broad brush here)
The math for a single protein that would fold properly was enormous, and you think this is a big deal only for abiogenesis? Why would the same math be more straightforward for evolutionary changes if the odds remain the same to develop a single protein? Because "the odds" don't "remain the same" The odds toward success verse failure was so small it is just nonsensical to accept as probable. Yes, the single mathematical argument they gave based on "combinatorial inflation," was simply an argument that the number of different sequences of amino acids increases with sequence length (increasing number of amino acids) and this in turn only relates to the origin of life (and proteins initially). If you recall, living organisms can to varying degrees modify their own genomes and protein expression along with that. Most mutations are under biologic control and therefore not random "accidents" in the way traditionally thought, so it is entirely inappropriate to apply such an argument to biologic evolution where the "odds of success" are rigged by organisms themselves to favorable outcomes.
You did watch this correct? Yes
May 11, 2020
0
#28
tbwp10 wrote:
TruthMuse wrote:
tbwp10 wrote:
1. For sake of argument, even if this "mathematical challenge" to Darwin's theory of evolution is sound, it still does nothing to negate the evidence for biological relatedness (common ancestry). "Is there evidence that living things are related?" and "What are the mechanisms of biological change?" are two different questions.
2. There was only one "mathematical challenge," singular, offered (i.e., "combinatorial inflation"--improbability of randomly generating a functional protein). But this is not an argument against Darwin's theory of evolution; it's a recognized problem with the origin of life. So, the title, "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution," is a bit of a misnomer. Also, evolutionarily biologists do not believe that functional proteins are randomly propagated, so this is also a bit of a strawman.
I recall them speaking about several mathematical challenges concerning the amount of change required from one age of time to another, where we had a few lifeforms at one period of time than a considerable number of newly discovered species in the next. The explosion of life in the Cambrian explosion was a big deal in the discussion as it related to the variety of species, their body forms. This point I've brought up here over and over ad nausea that all of these new lifeforms would require a massive batch of additional instructions to build a new lifeform in DNA. How much? You need to be more specific and more careful (for example, some very important biologic events associated with the Cambrian explosion involved a loss of information (gene loss), so we can't paint with a broad brush here)
The math for a single protein that would fold properly was enormous, and you think this is a big deal only for abiogenesis? Why would the same math be more straightforward for evolutionary changes if the odds remain the same to develop a single protein? Because "the odds" don't "remain the same" The odds toward success verse failure was so small it is just nonsensical to accept as probable. Yes, the single mathematical argument they gave based on "combinatorial inflation," was simply an argument that the number of different sequences of amino acids increases with sequence length (increasing number of amino acids) and this in turn only relates to the origin of life (and proteins initially). If you recall, living organisms can to varying degrees modify their own genomes and protein expression along with that. Most mutations are under biologic control and therefore not random "accidents" in the way traditionally thought, so it is entirely inappropriate to apply such an argument to biologic evolution where the "odds of success" are rigged by organisms themselves to favorable outcomes.
You did watch this correct? Yes
I will respond with more details later on painting with a broad brush. The point I am going to hit is changing an established lifeform’s DNA to produce new form of life. The number of known life before the Cambrian and afterward. From a programmer perspective, this huge.
Sure, we can get into all that if you want, but I don't see how any of that would change my two main points (as stated above)
Bottom line, the title "Mathematical challenges to Darwin's theory of evolution" makes a claim that the corresponding video does not deliver. They should have given it a different title.
May 11, 2020
0
#30
tbwp10 wrote:
How much? You need to be more specific and more careful (for example, some very important biologic events associated with the Cambrian explosion involved a loss of information (gene loss), so we can't paint with a broad brush here)
Okay, expressing ignorance here, a large number of new lifeforms with totally new body types arise for the first time. You suggest a loss of information occurs as if this explains it. How does this work? To take away code from an established functional program or add new code is, in essence, the same type of issue, one does not equalize the issue of the other. If I lose 10 lines of required code and at the same time gain 10 new lines of code in human software, they present double the problems, they by no means cancel each other out. I have to ask, what do you mean by that?
Back to the link, around ~ 22:30 into it for about 4 minutes, it hits the probability somewhat hard. To make a new creature by altering the code to do significant body changes when can it be done early in the process or late?
No, gene loss does not explain all of it but definitely a part of it. The truth is, though, we have extensive evidence of new genes, new proteins and new genetic information arising via evolution. Stephen Meyer's arguments have been thoroughly discredited. It is also well known that small changes in genetics, epigenetics and in the way genes are regulated can result in major changes to morphology and body plans. But one of the major problems with Meyer's arguments (in addition to their ignoring evidence to the contrary) is that they are too general and amount to hand-waving. The only attempt by Meyer (of which I am aware) to quantify the amount of information increase we are talking about was with his discussion (in his book) about increased cell types associated with the Cambrian explosion. But he still fails to tie this to any formal, quantitative information-based argument.
*Thus, ironically, Meyer's "information"-based argument is short on details and does not provide enough information to permit evaluation much less any formal defense of his own, general, generic argument. So I must ask again, how much information, specifically, are we talking about? (Which specific body plans are in question, what is the time frame, and what specific genetic changes are needed to accomplish?). Meyer does not provide answers to these questions so his arguments with respect to the Cambrian explosion amount not to arguments from an informed position but from a position of ignorance.
*Without specific genetic details presented in terms of quantifiable information (which Meyer does not present), his arguments are presuppositional, conjectural, and without basis from the start.
*So again, it's not enough to simply say the Cambrian explosion surely must have involved a lot of new information in a short amount of time. Such claims must first be demonstrated before they can serve as the basis for any argument, but again, Meyer has not done this.
May 12, 2020
0
#32
tbwp10 wrote:
No, gene loss does not explain all of it but definitely a part of it. The truth is, though, we have extensive evidence of new genes, new proteins and new genetic information arising via evolution. Stephen Meyer's arguments have been thoroughly discredited. It is also well known that small changes in genetics, epigenetics and in the way genes are regulated can result in major changes to morphology and body plans. But one of the major problems with Meyer's arguments (in addition to their ignoring evidence to the contrary) is that they are too general and amount to hand-waving. The only attempt by Meyer (of which I am aware) to quantify the amount of information increase we are talking about was with his discussion (in his book) about increased cell types associated with the Cambrian explosion. But he still fails to tie this to any formal, quantitative information-based argument.
*Thus, ironically, Meyer's "information"-based argument is short on details and does not provide enough information to permit evaluation much less any formal defense of his own, general, generic argument. So I must ask again, how much information, specifically, are we talking about? (Which specific body plans are in question, what is the time frame, and what specific genetic changes are needed to accomplish?). Meyer does not provide answers to these questions so his arguments with respect to the Cambrian explosion amount not to arguments from an informed position but from a position of ignorance.
*Without specific genetic details presented in terms of quantifiable information (which Meyer does not present), his arguments are presuppositional, conjectural, and without basis from the start.
*So again, it's not enough to simply say the Cambrian explosion surely must have involved a lot of new information in a short amount of time. Such claims must first be demonstrated before they can serve as the basis for any argument, but again, Meyer has not done this.
Okay, you are not making sense to me. You are saying that additional information is not required for the formation of new structures within a life or even alterations in form and function? How has that been argument been discredited? I can give an example after example of how additional information is required to add a new device to a computer, all of the hardware and software within a computer to have function together. The new equipment would require the placement of proper hardware, and the software involved has to all be compatible, and the CPU would have to know what to do with the new signals it is receiving from the new hardware to produce the proper output. Gibberish would not due for software; square holes and round connections wouldn’t work for hardware; this requires precision nothing short would allow new functions and new hardware to work.
OK, you're hung up on the gene loss comment. Just forget that for the time being and give me the numbers I requested. How much information are we talking about, what specific genetic changes are you arguing are required to produce which specific body plans and in how much time? Until you can answer such questions you have no formal argument. "A lot" of info for "a lot" of body plans in a "short" time tells us nothing and does not suffice
May 12, 2020
0
#34
tbwp10 wrote:
No, gene loss does not explain all of it but definitely a part of it. The truth is, though, we have extensive evidence of new genes, new proteins and new genetic information arising via evolution. Stephen Meyer's arguments have been thoroughly discredited. It is also well known that small changes in genetics, epigenetics and in the way genes are regulated can result in major changes to morphology and body plans. But one of the major problems with Meyer's arguments (in addition to their ignoring evidence to the contrary) is that they are too general and amount to hand-waving. The only attempt by Meyer (of which I am aware) to quantify the amount of information increase we are talking about was with his discussion (in his book) about increased cell types associated with the Cambrian explosion. But he still fails to tie this to any formal, quantitative information-based argument.
*Thus, ironically, Meyer's "information"-based argument is short on details and does not provide enough information to permit evaluation much less any formal defense of his own, general, generic argument. So I must ask again, how much information, specifically, are we talking about? (Which specific body plans are in question, what is the time frame, and what specific genetic changes are needed to accomplish?). Meyer does not provide answers to these questions so his arguments with respect to the Cambrian explosion amount not to arguments from an informed position but from a position of ignorance.
*Without specific genetic details presented in terms of quantifiable information (which Meyer does not present), his arguments are presuppositional, conjectural, and without basis from the start.
*So again, it's not enough to simply say the Cambrian explosion surely must have involved a lot of new information in a short amount of time. Such claims must first be demonstrated before they can serve as the basis for any argument, but again, Meyer has not done this.
Has anyone provided enough to answer what you are asking of Dr. Meyer on this topic to answer the questions?
To my knowledge, no (which, again, is one of the major problems with Meyer's argument since he does not back up his initial claims to begin with)
May 12, 2020
0
#36
tbwp10 wrote:
To my knowledge, no (which, again, is one of the major problems with Meyer's argument since he does not back up his initial claims to begin with)
Exactly what is he saying that you have an issue with? Either there are genetically generated informational instructions or magic. Unless you can give me anything that directs how life is formed outside of instructions you are left with nothing.
It is looking like Dawkins got it backwards, evolution appears illusionary not design.
May 12, 2020
0
#37
tbwp10 wrote:
OK, you're hung up on the gene loss comment. Just forget that for the time being and give me the numbers I requested. How much information are we talking about, what specific genetic changes are you arguing are required to produce which specific body plans and in how much time? Until you can answer such questions you have no formal argument. "A lot" of info for "a lot" of body plans in a "short" time tells us nothing and does not suffice
Do you require the same specificity of Darwinism?
May 12, 2020
0
#38
TruthMuse wrote:
tbwp10 wrote:
To my knowledge, no (which, again, is one of the major problems with Meyer's argument since he does not back up his initial claims to begin with)
Exactly what is he saying that you have an issue with? Either there are genetically generated informational instructions or magic. Unless you can give me anything that directs how life is formed outside of instructions you are left with nothing.
It is looking like Dawkins got it backwards, evolution appears illusionary not design.
Claims the person who's so well versed in the finer details of evolutionary theory that he believed the process depends on the random mutation of proteins!
May 12, 2020
0
#39
stephen_33 wrote:
TruthMuse wrote:
tbwp10 wrote:
To my knowledge, no (which, again, is one of the major problems with Meyer's argument since he does not back up his initial claims to begin with)
Exactly what is he saying that you have an issue with? Either there are genetically generated informational instructions or magic. Unless you can give me anything that directs how life is formed outside of instructions you are left with nothing.
It is looking like Dawkins got it backwards, evolution appears illusionary not design.
Claims the person who's so well versed in the finer details of evolutionary theory that he believed the process depends on the random mutation of proteins!
We are talking about what was said in the discussion. Either watch it or don't, I can tell you that unless you do all context will be hidden from you.
TruthMuse wrote:
tbwp10 wrote:
OK, you're hung up on the gene loss comment. Just forget that for the time being and give me the numbers I requested. How much information are we talking about, what specific genetic changes are you arguing are required to produce which specific body plans and in how much time? Until you can answer such questions you have no formal argument. "A lot" of info for "a lot" of body plans in a "short" time tells us nothing and does not suffice
Do you require the same specificity of Darwinism?
@TruthMuse
YOU are the one who has made the claim (based on Stephen Meyer's work). Specifically, YOU wrote:
"The explosion of life in the Cambrian explosion was a big deal in the discussion as it related to the variety of species, their body forms. This point I've brought up here over and over ad nausea that all of these new lifeforms would require a massive batch of additional instructions to build a new lifeform in DNA."
YOU made the claim, so I am waiting for YOU to expound on the specific "body forms" and "new life forms" that YOU are speaking of, the time frame we are talking about and in terms of numbers and genetics how much "massive batch of additional instructions" YOU are claiming would be needed.
Can you or can you not explain the specifics of YOUR OWN argument/claim?
A host of challenges have been made to evolutionary theory over the past 160 years & all have crumbled. That's why the theory is regarded as being a reliable description of how living things change & adapt.
The origin of life is a huge plothole and hasn't been answered scientifically.
Just speculation.
But the conundrum surrounding the emergence of life is quite separate from the process of evolution.
You do understand that I hope?