Enough Time for Evolution?

[Shermana]

Before I read these assignments, & since you were the one making the claim, I'd like to see your calculations.

To give you a detailed answer I'll require a bit more time to get into different interpretations of the probability of the gene structure allowing such a change: Now with the following we see that the formation of a self-replicating peptide is not that unlikely according to what is allegedly seen in experiments. (Note: We're not even getting into the extreme chances that the solar system would set itself up in such a way as to support life as it does which would be factored into the math).

The Probability of Life | Evolution FAQ

For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10^40, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10^390 claim creationists often cite.

Though, to be fair, 10^40 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.

In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 10^24 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 10^31 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 10^40, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.

So I can give some credence that the simplest life form could arise.

But the next stage would be far more complex.

And getting into the higher stages, it can get far far more complex.

(Exact numbers on just how far more complex forthcoming upon further research, but it sure ain't any simpler).



Quite simply, the odds of a Royal Flush are 1/649,739 (or .00000153907)

Assuming I played 10 hands in Vegas,

.00000153907^10 is a heck of a lot higher, in my calculation.

 

[Shermana]

"Unlikely coincidences"? What is unlikely about theistic evolution? If God chooses to take a long time to develop various species, that is his choice. If he chooses to kill humans and innocent animals with hurricanes, that is also his choice.

What is unlikely about the probability that intelligent design, and irreducible complexity cannot adequately explain the evolution of the flagellum, at least in the opinions of most experts?

Do you understand Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun.

At this time, with no preparation, would you be able to get an A, or a B, on a first year of college biology final exam? What is your academic background in biology?

What convinced the majority of Christian biologists that common descent is true?

The judge at the Dover trial is a Christian, and was appointed by a Republican president. He said that while creationism might be true, science cannot reasonably prove that, and that such being the case, intelligent design is creationism in disguise, and thus violates the separation of church and state. It has been proven beyond any doubt that some creationists change their wording of "creationism" to "intelligent design" in order to try to introduce creationism in disguise into public schools.

A) I'm not talking about Theistic Evolution. It would be a 100% in that case regardless how long he chooses to do it. We're talking about evolution due to totally naturalistic processes. Whether Theistic Evolution is involved however is a different subject, in regards to what the evidence actually indicates.

B) I got a B in College Biology and Lab (104, not 101). Why you choose to make this about me I have no idea what it has to do with the actual issue. Does 2 + 2 not equal 4 if I only got a C in Calculus?

C) The Dover Trial Judge may have been a Theistic Evolutionist, and I'm not quite sure why this has anything to do with the Review or subject at hand.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I know people who can hear only what they want to hear. And it seems to me that you have that characteristic. I have said many times I understand natural selection. I believe variations are passed down to offspring. I am not an evolutionary scientists but you will be content only when I say OMG life doesn't need a creator/plan/design.

Not necessarily. I don't think we require one at all. Its when you cliam that evolution is impossible otherwise that I get the feeling you don't understand it.

I only hear what you guys say. And creationst evidence is just a bunch of nothing.

 

[Revoltingest]

First some from Creationists, and then from an anti-Creationist who still is religious.

A Look at Some Figures - Answers in Genesis

Refuting Evolution 2 -- chapter 9: Argument: Probability of evolution

There are many variables involved in calculating such a number, such as with this Theistic-Evolutionist who is against Creationist arguments, who says that probability may not be such a problem:

http://www.dhbailey.com/papers/dhb-probability.pdf

However, the following is correct that numerous mathematicians don't buy it as being anywhere close to realistically happening. And this would be an area where Biological speculation must meet Mathematical plausibility in order to be taken seriously, at least in my opinion.

[youtube]ai-DXFXZr8s[/youtube]
Statistical Probability of Evolution challenged - YouTube

Looking at the first article, I see no analysis at all...only a conclusion. A real probability analysis would need some assumptions I didn't see in the article. I can think of a few:
1) The number of possible chemical pathways to arrive at self-replicating structures. (The upper limit of this is not knowable...yet.)
2) The number (a function of frequency & time) of possible occurrences of initiation of each chemical pathway. (This is a function of #1.)

Are the other articles any better?

 

[outhouse]

I am not an evolutionary scientists but you will be content only when I say OMG life doesn't need a creator/plan/design.

We don't need to hear you say anything.


You cannot provide any evidence of any kind, that a supernatural entity had any hand in any part of nature at any time in any place. BUT does this leave you with nothing to say?

 

[savagewind]

Not necessarily. I don't think we require one at all. Its when you cliam that evolution is impossible otherwise that I get the feeling you don't understand it.

I only hear what you guys say. And creationst evidence is just a bunch of nothing.

Evolution is not impossible. The theory is right on! But I do not believe it is a working theory. Honestly my mind cannot imagine so many, various and wonderful things that are in harmony, if left to nature, just happened without a design. A blue print. A plan. Evolution has zero to do with design, blueprints and plans. Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong.

 

[savagewind]

We don't need to hear you say anything.


You cannot provide any evidence of any kind, that a supernatural entity had any hand in any part of nature at any time in any place. BUT does this leave you with nothing to say?

OFF TOPIC! haha :ignore:

 

[Agnostic75]

Nothing that anyone can say at this forum will change the facts that one study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept common descent, and that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes.

Regarding the relative handful of creationist experts, if we subtract from that number those who accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, those who would be left could barely fill a few buses.

Theistic evolutionists present creationists with big problems since creationists cannot accuse them of supporting naturalism.

Time and again, I have seen creationists come to these forums, most of whom would not be able to pass a first year of college final exam in biology, and ask skeptic laymen questions knowing that those laymen would not be able to adequately answer many of the questions, and knowing that they themselves would not be able to adequately answer many questions.

I have asked a number of creationists to critique Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun, but they have all refused to do so since they know that they do not understand the article well enough to adequately refute it.

It is incredibly presumptuous, and audacious, for creationists who do not have a degree in biology, or biochemistry, to come boldly to this forum, and try to defend intelligent design when even Michael Behe was not able to adequately defend it at the Dover trial. Of course, Behe was at least sensible enough to agree with Charles Darwin about common descent.

 

[McBell]

To give you a detailed answer I'll require a bit more time to get into different interpretations of the probability of the gene structure allowing such a change: Now with the following we see that the formation of a self-replicating peptide is not that unlikely according to what is allegedly seen in experiments. (Note: We're not even getting into the extreme chances that the solar system would set itself up in such a way as to support life as it does which would be factored into the math).

The Probability of Life | Evolution FAQ



So I can give some credence that the simplest life form could arise.

But the next stage would be far more complex.

And getting into the higher stages, it can get far far more complex.

(Exact numbers on just how far more complex forthcoming upon further research, but it sure ain't any simpler).



Quite simply, the odds of a Royal Flush are 1/649,739 (or .00000153907)

Assuming I played 10 hands in Vegas,

.00000153907^10 is a heck of a lot higher, in my calculation.

Wait, you are making a claim without doing any of the math to support your claim?

 

[Shermana]

Wait, you are making a claim without doing any of the math to support your claim?

So far, the math is already in my favor, and what part about that I need more time to research the rest to factor in it did you not get?

 

[McBell]

Evolution is not impossible. The theory is right on! But I do not believe it is a working theory. Honestly my mind cannot imagine so many, various and wonderful things that are in harmony, if left to nature, just happened without a design. A blue print. A plan. Evolution has zero to do with design, blueprints and plans. Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong.

Well that's the be all end of it then, isn't it?
I mean if you cannot imagine it, then it must not be possible.

 

[LuisDantas]

I do not understand anything can happen under unfavorable conditions. If a chemical reaction needs heat, if it it cold it will not work. Building blocks must be near each other to unite. If they are away from each other they cannot combine. If the union is weak the bond will separate. If all the conditions are right even then the organism must duplicate which is no simple thing imo.

I would rather talk about lack of necessary conditions instead of just having unfavorable ones, but otherwise I agree.

That however is in no way a reason to doubt the spontaneous arising of DNA molecules and of its precursors. Earth is fairly big, and there was a lot of time for adequate conditions to arise.

Of course, one can legitimaly claim that such a happening - and most of all, its momentous consequences - must have been meant to. For all I know and for all anyone can reasonably expect to prove, that may very well be the truth. It just turns out that there is little in the way of true evidence for that.

 

[McBell]

So far, the math is already in my favor, and what part about that I need more time to research the rest to factor in it did you not get?

Interesting that you make even MORE math claims without doing any actual math.
not even Rainman could do that!

More time for what?
to make even more math claims without doing any math?

Seeing as you already made the math claim then flat out admit you have not done the math, i seriously fail to see how your rebuttal about admiting to needing more time to actually do the math you have already made claims about can possibly help your position.

 

[LuisDantas]

So far, the math is already in my favor, and what part about that I need more time to research the rest to factor in it did you not get?

Show us that math.

 

[savagewind]

Well that's the be all end of it then, isn't it?
I mean if you cannot imagine it, then it must not be possible.

Why do you really care what I believe is possible or not possible? Are some people (but not you, of course) looking for strength in numbers?

 

[savagewind]

Does no one who believes life is design free never imagine how very lucky DNA is?

 

[Shermana]

Show us that math.

As I said twice, I will when I'm done researching how even more unlikely it will be for things that are higher up than mere peptides, and how to factor in the solar system coming into existence on its own, including the astronomical anomalies like Uranus having an Ammonia core and Mercury's Magnetic field and the Moon not crashing into the Earth or floating away farther than it has. As for now, the odds of 10 Royal Flushes aren't looking too bad.

 

[Revoltingest]

Show us that math.

The fundamental problem is making the assumptions & quantifying them.
It's like giving a numerical result to the Drake Equation....it requires extreme hubris.

 

[Agnostic75]

Evolution is not impossible. The theory is right on! But I do not believe it is a working theory. Honestly my mind cannot imagine so many, various and wonderful things that are in harmony, if left to nature, just happened without a design. A blue print. A plan. Evolution has zero to do with design, blueprints and plans. Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong.

But you are questioning naturalism, not evolution. Evolution only tries to explain "what" happens, not "why" things happen. Evolution takes no position on the origin of life. Micahel Behe, Ph.D. biochemistry, is a Christian. He said:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

Behe agrees with Charles Darwin about common descent. He only disagrees with Darwin about the mechanisms which explain evolution.

If you wish to question naturalism, you need to start a new thread since evolution does not have anything to do with the origin or life on earth.

What about the possibility that aliens transferred life to earth from another planet?

 

[Shermana]

Interesting that you make even MORE math claims without doing any actual math.
not even Rainman could do that!

More time for what?
to make even more math claims without doing any math?

Seeing as you already made the math claim then flat out admit you have not done the math, i seriously fail to see how your rebuttal about admiting to needing more time to actually do the math you have already made claims about can possibly help your position.

Well if you're in such a rush, feel free to help me out by providing what you feel is an adequate equation for forms beyond peptides and for the astronomical anomalies. Otherwise, learn some patience.