Darwin "debunked" - does anyone happen to know how they're coming up with such numbers and calculations?

[anotherneil]

These guys are trying to promote the "intelligent design" idea & claiming that evolution is disproven on the grounds that the odds for random mutations to produce functioning proteins are prohibitively low, something like: 10^-77 (that's "1 in 10 to the power 77", meaning a 1 followed by 77 0's).

I don't see it, because I don't know what premises, assumptions, or arguments they're using to come up with such a conclusion.

Does anyone happen to know how they came up with this 10^-77 value, what calculations they're using, what premises, assumptions, arguments they're using?

If we assume a universe that has existed for an infinite amount of time with an infinite amount of matter and energy, then there's no problem on the grounds of the odds being prohibitively low. Apparently they're assuming something along the lines finite amount of time, matter, and energy for the universe.

For a universe with a finite amount of time, matter, and energy, we have to also take into account "game" round frequency parameters (e.g., how many times a coin is flipped or dice are thrown in a minute, what the odds are for a result for each round, etc.).

Are they assuming that matter jumps straight from inorganic chemical elements to complex organic chemicals that can easily form into proteins, in order to justify their 10^-77 odds?

They also seem to be assuming that data and information somehow have meaning to the natural world (as if it's a thinking machine) in the same way it does to us, which seems like personification of the universe, which - in turn - suggests circular reasoning for supporting the concept of intelligent design.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I can throw infinitum odds every time with a handful of rice.

The argument is hopelessly flawed without having it happen again to properly calculate odds. So they are just flouting numbers from their neither regions to sound impressive.

In the meantime, I'll just keep throwing new impossible odds and winning every time. ;0)

 

[Revoltingest]

They always have convenient numerical results.
But it's telling that they usually don't show their
work. And what they do ever show, is woefully
lacking in cromulent assumptions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Aliens made this rock ...

 

[Pogo]

These guys are trying to promote the "intelligent design" idea & claiming that evolution is disproven on the grounds that the odds for random mutations to produce functioning proteins are prohibitively low, something like: 10^-77 (that's "1 in 10 to the power 77", meaning a 1 followed by 77 0's).

I don't see it, because I don't know what premises, assumptions, or arguments they're using to come up with such a conclusion.

Does anyone happen to know how they came up with this 10^-77 value, what calculations they're using, what premises, assumptions, arguments they're using?

If we assume a universe that has existed for an infinite amount of time with an infinite amount of matter and energy, then there's no problem on the grounds of the odds being prohibitively low. Apparently they're assuming something along the lines finite amount of time, matter, and energy for the universe.

For a universe with a finite amount of time, matter, and energy, we have to also take into account "game" round frequency parameters (e.g., how many times a coin is flipped or dice are thrown in a minute, what the odds are for a result for each round, etc.).

Are they assuming that matter jumps straight from inorganic chemical elements to complex organic chemicals that can easily form into proteins, in order to justify their 10^-77 odds?

They also seem to be assuming that data and information somehow have meaning to the natural world (as if it's a thinking machine) in the same way it does to us, which seems like personification of the universe, which - in turn - suggests circular reasoning for supporting the concept of intelligent design.

This is simply the silly argument that Darwin's Random Variation with Natural Selection, doesn't work if you only had the Random part.
It is trivially true but irrelevant to the actual question.
@Jayhawker Soule presents a more complete destruction of the whole fallacy and I recommend reading it as an antidote to the 15 minutes wasted on the video.

 

[wordy80]

You have to firstly work out how many integrated and functioning parts any organism is made up of. Then you have the idea that there are many many intermediate stages in the evolution of any new organism and each stage must complement the previous stage so you have a fully functioning new advantages organism. When you take an organism as complex as the eye the numbers of parts is large. Hence you need many successful mutations that work perfect with previous mutations and the probability of this becomes very very low.

I mean evolution is a bit like brute forcing a password, you try every combination of letters and eventually you get a match.

The whole of evolution relies on the idea of randomness of which our understanding of is not complete.

 

[Pogo]

You have to firstly work out how many integrated and functioning parts any organism is made up of. Then you have the idea that there are many many intermediate stages in the evolution of any new organism and each stage must complement the previous stage so you have a fully functioning new advantages organism. When you take an organism as complex as the eye the numbers of parts is large. Hence you need many successful mutations that work perfect with previous mutations and the probability of this becomes very very low.

I mean evolution is a bit like brute forcing a password, you try every combination of letters and eventually you get a match.

The whole of evolution relies on the idea of randomness of which our understanding of is not complete.

Some reading for you:

Evolution 101

evolution.berkeley.edu

Aliens made this rock ...

 

[McBell]

These guys are trying to promote the "intelligent design" idea & claiming that evolution is disproven on the grounds that the odds for random mutations to produce functioning proteins are prohibitively low, something like: 10^-77 (that's "1 in 10 to the power 77", meaning a 1 followed by 77 0's).

I don't see it, because I don't know what premises, assumptions, or arguments they're using to come up with such a conclusion.

Does anyone happen to know how they came up with this 10^-77 value, what calculations they're using, what premises, assumptions, arguments they're using?

If we assume a universe that has existed for an infinite amount of time with an infinite amount of matter and energy, then there's no problem on the grounds of the odds being prohibitively low. Apparently they're assuming something along the lines finite amount of time, matter, and energy for the universe.

For a universe with a finite amount of time, matter, and energy, we have to also take into account "game" round frequency parameters (e.g., how many times a coin is flipped or dice are thrown in a minute, what the odds are for a result for each round, etc.).

Are they assuming that matter jumps straight from inorganic chemical elements to complex organic chemicals that can easily form into proteins, in order to justify their 10^-77 odds?

They also seem to be assuming that data and information somehow have meaning to the natural world (as if it's a thinking machine) in the same way it does to us, which seems like personification of the universe, which - in turn - suggests circular reasoning for supporting the concept of intelligent design.

I have yet to see anyone here on RF present the math.
I mean, I know the ones making the claims here on RF did not do any of the math, but they also fail to link to any of the math.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have yet to see anyone here on RF present the math.

They think that just posting numbers is doing math.

 

[Dimi95]

These guys are trying to promote the "intelligent design" idea & claiming that evolution is disproven on the grounds that the odds for random mutations to produce functioning proteins are prohibitively low, something like: 10^-77 (that's "1 in 10 to the power 77", meaning a 1 followed by 77 0's).

Sometimes people forget in which sense they put numbers...

Matthew 17
"He said to them: Because of your little faith; for verily I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard, you shall say to this mountain: Be removed hence to that place, and it shall remove, and nothing shall be impossible for you."

Evolution is more then just numbers.We who understand evolution are way ahead of them.

They have consistenly ignored knowledge in evolutionary biology,so the burden of proof is on them to prove otherwise.

They say that natural selection is impossible , but they forget that

"What is impossible with man is possible with God." - Luke 18:27

So it seems that their belief is what comes back to them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then you have the idea that there are many many intermediate stages in the evolution of any new organism and each stage must complement the previous stage so you have a fully functioning new advantages organism

Your mistake is in thinking that none of those "stages" are "fully functional" by themselves.

When you take an organism as complex as the eye the numbers of parts is large. Hence you need many successful mutations that work perfect with previous mutations

First, it doesn't have to be "perfect". It just has to be "good enough".
Secondly, as above, every stage is "fully functional" by itself for the lifeform that has it.

I mean evolution is a bit like brute forcing a password, you try every combination of letters and eventually you get a match.

2 mistakes here.
1. you ignore the role of natural selection
2. you assume that there is a predetermined goal (a specific password to crack)

The whole of evolution relies on the idea of randomness of which our understanding of is not complete.

Natural selection isn't random by any means.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

These guys are trying to promote the "intelligent design" idea & claiming that evolution is disproven on the grounds that the odds for random mutations to produce functioning proteins are prohibitively low, something like: 10^-77 (that's "1 in 10 to the power 77", meaning a 1 followed by 77 0's).

I realize that "intelligent design" and "creationism" are used interchangeably. This is because it was discovered that the whole intelligent design movement was concocted by creationists as a way to slip into science classes.

But if you think about the words "intelligent design" and take them literally, it is not necessarily creationism. There are plenty of people who believe there is a God or Source behind the universe, but who do not hold to creationism. The look at nature, and it seems self-evident to them that there is a designer behind the design. That's really not the same thing as creationism.

 

[anotherneil]

I realize that "intelligent design" and "creationism" are used interchangeably. This is because it was discovered that the whole intelligent design movement was concocted by creationists as a way to slip into science classes.

But if you think about the words "intelligent design" and take them literally, it is not necessarily creationism. There are plenty of people who believe there is a God or Source behind the universe, but who do not hold to creationism. The look at nature, and it seems self-evident to them that there is a designer behind the design. That's really not the same thing as creationism.

Why am I supposed to care about any of this quibbling or semantics type of stuff?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why am I supposed to care about any of this quibbling or semantics type of stuff?

Because you are posting in the Evolution vs Creationism forum, where the definitions of these words are critical.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Does anyone happen to know how they came up with this 10^-77 value, what calculations they're using, what premises, assumptions, arguments they're using?

This post seems to refer to something by a Computer Science professor who said he was abandoning evolution, but I don't know if he actually did. The first reply mentions 10^77.

How hard would it be to create a protein "by chance"?

I just read an article about David Gelernter, who was arguing against Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. He said one particular thing which stood out to me: "...how hard it would be to create j...

biology.stackexchange.com

 

[anotherneil]

Because you are posting in the Evolution vs Creationism forum, where the definitions of these words are critical.

Ok, have you asked the forum admins to have this thread transferred over to the appropriate forum?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ok, have you asked the forum admins to have this thread transferred over to the appropriate forum?

What are you talking about? The thread title is about Darwin being debunked, meaning that the OP is a creationist. While I may or may not agree with the author, it is quite clear that this forum is exactly where that post needs to be.

If posting about the creationism/evolution debate isn't your bag of tricks, no harm done. It's not for everyone. There are any number of other forums on Religious Forums. I'm sure you can find one that suits you better.

 

[anotherneil]

What are you talking about? The thread title is about Darwin being debunked, meaning that the OP is a creationist. While I may or may not agree with the author, it is quite clear that this forum is exactly where that post needs to be.

If posting about the creationism/evolution debate isn't your bag of tricks, no harm done. It's not for everyone. There are any number of other forums on Religious Forums. I'm sure you can find one that suits you better.

Then I don't know why you were complaining. I'm the OP, and I'm not religious. Don't be dishonest about the title; it's actually Darwin "debunked" - does anyone happen to know how they're coming up with such numbers and calculations? with "debunked" in quote marks.

 

[Pogo]

These guys are trying to promote the "intelligent design" idea & claiming that evolution is disproven on the grounds that the odds for random mutations to produce functioning proteins are prohibitively low, something like: 10^-77 (that's "1 in 10 to the power 77", meaning a 1 followed by 77 0's).

I don't see it, because I don't know what premises, assumptions, or arguments they're using to come up with such a conclusion.

Does anyone happen to know how they came up with this 10^-77 value, what calculations they're using, what premises, assumptions, arguments they're using?

If we assume a universe that has existed for an infinite amount of time with an infinite amount of matter and energy, then there's no problem on the grounds of the odds being prohibitively low. Apparently they're assuming something along the lines finite amount of time, matter, and energy for the universe.

For a universe with a finite amount of time, matter, and energy, we have to also take into account "game" round frequency parameters (e.g., how many times a coin is flipped or dice are thrown in a minute, what the odds are for a result for each round, etc.).

Are they assuming that matter jumps straight from inorganic chemical elements to complex organic chemicals that can easily form into proteins, in order to justify their 10^-77 odds?

They also seem to be assuming that data and information somehow have meaning to the natural world (as if it's a thinking machine) in the same way it does to us, which seems like personification of the universe, which - in turn - suggests circular reasoning for supporting the concept of intelligent design.

Ok, we have addressed the video, it is the argument from incredulity and the divine fallacy, But you wanted to know where the 10^-77 number came from, it's from here,

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds​

it is a real science paper, and does have the number in it, but reality is a little more than it implying design, Panda's Thumb has a good explanation of it, though it is a slog to read but since you asked.

Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function​

By Arthur Hunt
"Douglas Axe recently (well, sort of) published an article in the Journal of Molecular Biology entitled “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” (Axe, J Mol Biol 341, 1295-1315, 2004). In his discussion of the experimental observations, Dr. Axe mentions some numbers that are likely to generate much discussion amongst Intelligent Design advocates and critics. For example, Stephen Meyer (2004) cites Axe at a key point in the argument in his recent article advocating Intelligent Design, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” much discussed in previous Panda’s Thumb threads (here)."


It is not too long but you will probably need to read it a few times to get the gist.

 

[metis]

These guys are trying to promote the "intelligent design" idea & claiming that evolution is disproven on the grounds that the odds for random mutations to produce functioning proteins are prohibitively low, something like: 10^-77 (that's "1 in 10 to the power 77", meaning a 1 followed by 77 0's).

What are the odds that I would be responding to your post today at exactly this time?

1:1 [it just happened]

IOW, when something has happened, it makes little sense to try and figure the odds.