Statistical Impossibilities of Evolution

[hoomer]

In contrast to the familiar Judaeo-Christian monotheistic view, according to which the whole universe just appears ready- made through Divine Fiat (or command), and the materialistic view which simply ignores first principles,

Hoomer, you make the same mistake the Op made.

Evolution says nothing of first cause because it isn`t supposed to .
Evolution speaks only of the changes of life AFTER first cause.

You speak of abiogenesis, not evolution/

Evolution is grounded in an immense amount of evidence.
So immense that it is highly unlikely it will ever be falsified.
Changes can and will be made but the basic tenents of evolution are practically unassailable.

Go read..learn..
talkorigins.org

uh I speak of nothing it was pasted from a website....it more reffered to creationism and the big bang.........than "evolution"...but ok

 

[Ceridwen018]

LISA,

I was not aware that mutation which "developed the genetic information" was required for it to be considered "evolution". Even mutation which degrades the ribosome of a bacteria in order to acheive antibiotic resistance is evolution, because evolution deals with change of any kind. It almost seems as if you would define evolution as "improvement" which is fundamentally incorrect.

Much like your example about bacteria, I would like to present an example with HIV. Mutations which endow HIV with resitance to antiviral drugs also slow the rate of reproduction of the virus. However, fitting in with the principle of natural selection, the HIV with the antiviral mutation survive while the faster reproducing viruses without the mutation do not.

Indeed, it almost seems ridiculous that you would need to mention something like this. It is completely illogical to expect that mutation could somehow "produce new genes." Such a claim has never been made. However, as we have both shown, mutation can certainly alter existing genes, and thats when change occurs.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Hmmm I seen this post in the I.D. premise thread originally posted by KBC1963 and I thought it may be wise for you to consider this before you use the Spetner maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. These two mechanisms are:

1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.
2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.

Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... The organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.
Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution":
The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution. The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species. So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic information is produced: genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria.
The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result of mutation, is not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes:
...A microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT[Neo Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule. This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that (Evolution) cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.
To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the "decomposition" of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new genetic information is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium "evolving" resitance argument.

Israeli biophysicist Professor Spetner in an article published in 2001
becomes "disabled". (Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is less functional than that of normal bacterium). Since this "disability" prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic resistance" develops. Finally, there is no example of mutation that "develops the genetic information".
The same situation holds true for the immunity that insects develop to DDT and similar insecticides. In most of these instances, immunity genes that already exist are used. The evolutionist biologist Francisco Ayala admits this fact, saying, "The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds." Some other examples explained by mutation, just as with the ribosome mutation mentioned above, are phenomena that cause "genetic information deficit" in insects. In this case, it cannot be claimed that the immunity mechanisms in bacteria and insects constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. That is because the theory of evolution is based on the assertion that living things develop through mutations. However, Spetner explains that neither antibiotic immunity nor any other biological phenomena indicate such an example of mutation: The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information.

Alright then bacteria was a bad example. Humans have evolved.
(Unrelated to that) I also have heard that as long as two animals are in the same genus, they can interbreed, but they form another species when they do so. That's the whole mule thing.

As someone else stated, we can all change an itty bitty bit by evolution at a time to gradually form a new species, or we can take a huge leap and form a new species very quickly. Large mutations usually increase the rate at which the second option happens.

 

[painted wolf]

Mules are not anothe species... they are a Hybrid. Hybrids are infertile and thus can not reproduce themselves. Same goes for Ligers, Tygrons, Zedonks and so on.
on a side note an intresting link on actual hybrid animals (the whale/dolphin is wierd )
http://www.greenapple.com/~jorp/amzanim/crossesa.htm

I don't have time or space to refute Mr. Spetners points... but some others have find them here:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/spetner_v2.cfm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html
http://www.fred.net/tds/anti/sharparguments.html
http://www.fred.net/tds/anti/
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

oh I also forgot most of the 'statistics' that get thrown around are bunk.
They are most often misapplications of "Borel's law" not an actual scientific 'law' mind you but an idea put forward by Emil Boral.

Crationist got hold of the idea and ran with it...

some helpful information:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

any such statistics are to be taken with incredable amounts of salt

wa:do

 

[Snowbear]

The whole controversey exists where we broke off from monkeys...

Well, not the whole controversy... there are those who believe we were never monkeys, or "split off" from monkeys, but were created as a completely seperate being from all the other animals

Well, you're right about that--horses and donkeys CAN produce mules, but mules themselves are infertile--they cannot breed with each other, nor can they back-breed with horses or donkeys.

Mostly true.... though most mules are sterile, some are not.

There are successful hybrids from interbreeding similar species, though... i.e wolves and domestic dogs; Bison and domestic cattle; It's done quite often with plant species as well....

Does this prove the theory of evolution? I don't think so, it just proves that closely related species can interbreed.

Does mutation prove the whole theory of evolution? As a scientist, I still think there are too many gaps in the theory for there not to have been a higher power that not only got the whole thing started, but created the diversity as well.



[font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica][/font]

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Ok, I don't know how to get multiple quote in my response so I'll just wing it.

Ceridwen018, I'll accept the abiogenis argument. My bad. Onward. Ok come up with a reasonably lower number of amino acis that are evident in sustainable life and run the number and I bet there are still astronomical odds against it. Don't leave out either the left handed/right handed amino acid case against abiogenisis. Or the argument where the forming of amino acids in an aqueous solution without a controling factor is impossible.

Onward. "The probability calculations deal with sequential trials, as opposed to simultaneous ones. If indeed the earth formed as a result of a primordial soup..." The spark in the primordal soup concept has been shown not to be a workable solution in that what was left out of those experiment is that the number one result of that experiment was tar. The number two byproduct of the experiment was carbolic acid-not very condusive to life.

Your statistical analysis of 1-4 is relevent in such a small number but not when using a ten to the 40,000 probabilty.

Finally for you, this is only for one aspect of the building blocks nescasary for life. Without looking it up the need to bring together all the parts for life to begin is something in the order of a billionth power. Start counting.

On to Pah. Prove evolution of unique species exists. Until then my staement stands.

Next, No, "The minute you concede evolution within a species, you concede it on evolution between species." Prove evolution of a new species and all consider this. Also mules aren't fertile.

Next.

 

[Pah]

On to Pah. Prove evolution of unique species exists. Until then my staement stands.

You made the statement " Evolution of unique species is not a fact, only intra species change is. Knowledge is power!" without proof without even evidence. I want you to give us those facts. It is your statement and will NOT stand until you do.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

How silly pah, there is no evidence of evolution of unque species. That is all the proof needed.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Ceridwen018, I'll accept the abiogenis argument. My bad. Onward. Ok come up with a reasonably lower number of amino acis that are evident in sustainable life and run the number and I bet there are still astronomical odds against it. Don't leave out either the left handed/right handed amino acid case against abiogenisis. Or the argument where the forming of amino acids in an aqueous solution without a controling factor is impossible.

Sandy, it doesn't matter how many amino acids need to form. The rest of the arguments concerning these baloney statistics still apply, and until you can debunk them, the ball is still in your court.

Finally for you, this is only for one aspect of the building blocks nescasary for life. Without looking it up the need to bring together all the parts for life to begin is something in the order of a billionth power. Start counting.

Allow to explain it again. The odds are irrelevent. You would do well to re-read my first post, but no matter. :banghead3

"Billionth powers" (if indeed that is the correct number, which as I stated before, is impossible to determine) might seem like a big number to you, but when compared to a scale of duodecillion, for example, it is relegated to complete insubstantiality.

Think of this: for someone who considers 1 x 10 to the -39th power a large number, the simple number 1 seems astronomical.

How silly pah, there is no evidence of evolution of unque species. That is all the proof needed.

The giraffe evolved from the okapi--this we know. The two animals can no longer interbreed, and therefore are considered different species.

 

[Valjean]

What is the mechanism by which an intraspecially changing species knows when to stop changing, to avoid transmogrifying into a different species? How does a gene recognize this species barrier so as to avoid trespassing beyond?

The reproductive test, by the way, is just a defining convenience; a relic from the days before genetic mechanics was understood or DNA similarities comparable. There is no set degree of genetic difference that precludes reproduction. A few changes in the right places could do it, while numerous changes in other places may not.

Furthermore, modern taxonomy is discarding the categorical "cubbyholes" of orders, families, genera, species &c ( except, again, as conveniences) in favor of phylogenetic tree models where different organisms "shade" into each other rather than form distinct categories.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Cerid, your going to have to do better. The formation of amino acids in a primordal soup is a farfetched thoery at best. Also odds are important due to the sheer number. For example the number of seconds from the beginning of time in only on the order of something like 10 to 18th. For something to occur by random chance on the order of just forming the simple DNA of the simplest organism is along the order of ten to 156th. It takes more faith to believe that life began from nothing than to believe in a God that created it.

Now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (for now) on the giraffe/okapi thing because I have never heard that one before but my initial inspection seems to indicate that a belief in evolution is fundamental to the argument. It is a type of circular reasoning that is all to common in explaining evolution.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Cerid, your going to have to do better. The formation of amino acids in a primordal soup is a farfetched thoery at best.

I assume that your alternative deals with bearded men who live in the sky and shoot lighting bolts out of their finger tips. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also odds are important due to the sheer number. For example the number of seconds from the beginning of time in only on the order of something like 10 to 18th. For something to occur by random chance on the order of just forming the simple DNA of the simplest organism is along the order of ten to 156th.

If your intention is to build a strawman army, you just have to tell me. Otherwise, please go back and read my posts. I'm not going to repeat myself again. You could try refuting my specific arguments, rather than just repeating yourself.

It takes more faith to believe that life began from nothing than to believe in a God that created it.

I'd love to hear you try and explain that whopper.

Now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (for now) on the giraffe/okapi thing because I have never heard that one before but my initial inspection seems to indicate that a belief in evolution is fundamental to the argument. It is a type of circular reasoning that is all to common in explaining evolution.

Than allow me to clarify things for you. There is no "belief" necessary for evolution. It is merely an understanding of objective evidence that is available for anyone to observe. A rejection of evolution is a blatant rejection of observable and testable facts.

 

[Valjean]

With all due respect, SW, why do you find magic a more plausible explanation than observable, physical mechanisms?

 

[Pah]

How silly pah, there is no evidence of evolution of unque species. That is all the proof needed.

The evidence in the change within species. You argument fails until you present evidence that prohibits the extrapolation of "micro" to "macro".

 

[painted wolf]

I would like to once again point out that the rediculous numbers that 'prove' that Evolution and Abiogenisis are 'statistically impossible' are NOT scientific or eaven credible.

They are not scientific numbers and have no objective basis for factuality.

wa:do

 

[Pah]

Evolution of unique species is not a fact, only intra species change is. Knowledge is power!

.

Macroevolution has biblical authority.​

Some Christians would like me to believe both the literal stories of creation and the flood. Creation, that God produced each and every species and the flood, that saved all the animals (and supposedly plants too!) by putting them on an ark. Some Christian apologeticists argue that the size of the ark was large enough to hold 2 or 7 animals of every kind when it was pointed out that that the numbers in regard to species would not fit on the ark.

• God creates every species of animal and plant
• God does not like the species that was created by heavenly hosts matting with humans
• God decides to "start over" and tells Noah to build an ark
• Noah places places 7 of the clean kinds and 2 of the impure kinds on the ark
• Everything else is destroyed in the flood

In order to go from kinds to species, there must have been marcoevolution​

 

[anders]

What we see happening in nature can be explained by evolution. That's good enough for me. Referring to invisible, unproven entities does not persuade me, especially as no mechanism for the workings of the invisibles is ever proposed.

Ceriwen and Seyorni, for example, have explained how science looks at these questions. Apologies for returning to abiogenesis, but one aspect which I haven't found is the chemistry side. The numerous silly "odds against this or that happening" arguments seem to presuppose that chemical reactions are just a matter of statistics. That is not the case. If two atoms or molecules meet in a way that can lower their total energy by the formation of a compound, that compound will form. No statistics needed; the probability is 1. The reason chemical compounds look the way the do is that there was no other way but forming them.

Or argue the other way round: In my body, there are some 10 to the 28th atoms. (Now calculate my weight.) What are the chances that all those atoms would combine into what's me? Regardless of the absurdity involved, I think that the odds would be 1 to the largest number yet mentioned in this thread, that is, totally improbable. And yet here I am. Probability 1.

The spark in the primordal soup concept has been shown not to be a workable solution in that what was left out of those experiment is that the number one result of that experiment was tar. The number two byproduct of the experiment was carbolic acid-not very condusive to life.

Life needs cyclical compounds. Showing that they can be created artificially is a heavy argument for abiogenesis. Nobody has maintained that phenol ("carbolic acid" should be regarded as an obsolete name) coexisted with life in the soup, but phenol sure is among the precursors of living matter.

 

[painted wolf]

The number two byproduct of the experiment was carbolic acid-not very condusive to life.

I'd like to add that several bacterial strains are resistant to Phenol, including Staphalococcus, Bacillus and Proteus have been proven resistant in lab tests.

Extremeophiles live under all sorts of conditions that are 'not very condusive to life' including high acidic, high alkaline, high temperature, high pressure, and oxygenless environments.
The presence of Phenol does not preclude the presance of life.

http://www.pjbot.org/pjbot/abstracts/36(2)/415.htm
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=201419
http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/ideas/antibiotic_resistance/mrsa/school_athletic_athletes.asp

wa:do

 

[Snowbear]

In all this "statistical probability" of life forming from a random chemical reaction in the primordial soup, I've just gotta ask.... where did the soup come from?