Posted on 03/05/2002 9:45:44 PM PST by Southack
What about the future? Does Evolution predict such speciation events, or is Intelligent Design more valid?
Those that create life.
If you are correct, then Physicist offered a non-falsifiable condition (because ID theory predicts non-natural speciation, not natural speciation) for Evolutionary Theory.
Non-falsifiable theories are unscientific and relegated to discussions of fantasies.
Either give me a falsifiable condition for Evolutionary Theory or declare said theory fantasy.
I did. Don't you remember? What was that point I made about you repeating the same things and ignoring what you've been told before?
Makes sense. Now, the correct sequence in the proof is one particular sequence of letters whereas the correct sequence of chemicals is ANY sequence that creates life. Do you think this distinction can be ignored?
Regards.
Take a look at 336 if you have a min.
Huh? Ever hear of chemical evolution?
then the math shows that it can not happen randomly in 17 Billion years of trying. The sequencing of any data over that size must be done by a non-natural process, per the math in said proof.
How do you justify getting from 'cannot happen randomly' to 'non-natural'? It seems to me a more logical conclusion would be 'the natural process wasn't random in the way Watson described'.
I doubt that upping the quantity of correct sequences by a few Billion (from 1) will appreciably alter the calculated probability, especially if the time limit is contained to the existence of Earth (say, 17 Billion years to be generous).
The math calculation is only trying to hit 41 specific letters in a row. After 96, there is no probability of success. The number of base (A, C, G, and T) combinations in a primitive life form such as an amoebae could easily exceed 600 Million. If we can't get to 96, then we certainly aren't getting to 600 Million sequentially correct datum (naturally, anyway).
This is not a linear equation. Upping our potential "correct answers" by a few Billion won't appreciably change the probability.
On the other hand, if Life can be formed with 96 or fewer base pairs in the proper sequence (or if substantially more than several Billion unique life forms have been observed), then the math would indicate some potential for Life to form naturally.
But 600 Million is a far cry from 96 when one looks at the exponential nature of this equation.
If you'll review the content of the posts in this thread, you might catch that I've already agreed that the math can be interpreted as saying that Life formed from a non-random process.
Right after having said: ...then the math would indicate some potential for Life to form naturally.
You can't have it both ways. This sort of basic logical problem has plagued all your arguments.
Evolution is a documented fact
Natural selection is the driver.
There is room to discuss the details just as there is still some discussion about the mechanics of gravity but evolution, like gravity, is a fact.
I'll wager ten klahtooe he responds with, "Evolution has been mathematically disproven."
As for your broader question above, a theory can be internally consistent, agree with all known observable phenomena, and still be incomplete.
...
It seems to me that if evolution is supposed to be the theory of genetic change over time, then the theory of evolution is incomplete if it cannot explain the origin of biologically meaningful b.p. sequences.
Agreed. I do not think that any honest student of evolution would describe the theory as "complete". For instance, although you object to the separate consideration of abiogenesis versus the evolutionary process, it is hardly a secret that the mechanisms and pathways of abiogenesis are not currently well-understood. While the separation of the two is admittedly inelegant from a theoretical standpoint - everyone wants a theory of "everything", after all - it allows one to do other things like examine and trace the development of the diversity of species we have arrayed before us. Yes, that requires a certain amount of bootstrapping away from the discussion of where and how those first self-replicating organisms came about, but as possible mechanisms for such a thing are investigated further, I have little doubt that more compelling theories will arise.
And already, many theories exist as to how biological structures could have arisen from non-biological sources. As a single example, simple amino acids have been discovered riding on comets, so perhaps abiogenesis got something of a head start from otherworldly sources. If this is a subject that interests you, a good place to start would probably be the talk.origins FAQ on the state of abiogenesis. It is fairly open about the current shortcomings of scientific knowledge about this subject, I think, although I am sure that someone who wishes to dispel evolution will be able to provide you with other counterarguments as well. Ultimately, you are, of course, free to evaluate for yourself where you think the bulk of evidence currently lies.
Your point is valid that we can debate how complex that organism must have been at its' simplest. That would, of course, drive the probability analysis.
Exactly - one of the most obvious responses to this type of statistical analysis. They tend to be predicated on the assumption that the first organisms were akin to what we see today, with membranes and cytoplasm and all sorts of complicated internal structures. But if we can imagine a simple naked molecule that is capable of self-replicating by grabbing bits of material from around it, then that will blow this analysis straight out of the water in short order. Membranes, et cetera, are not necessarily a requirement for self-replication in early biotic systems.
I've reviewed the mathematics the author is using and, formally speaking, his usage is valid. But what isn't clear is his application of it to physical systems.
And that is, as I am sure you are aware by now, the crux of objections to this article. I have no problem with the arithmetic on display. What I object to are some of the assumptions that the arithmetic is based on. So, if you're going to spend a weekend with this puppy anyway, you might consider evaluating it in light of this rather general critique of such statistical approaches.
In any case, the field is still wide open, with lots of room for thoughtful questions from interested amateurs like you and I ;)
Nonsense.
You are wrong. Here's what Dawkins said:
Although the monkey/Shakespeare model is useful for explaining the distinction between single-step seleciton and cumulative selection, it is misleading in important ways. One of these is that, in each generation of selective 'breading', the mutant 'progeny' phrases were judged according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target, the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WASEL. Life isn't like that. Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution. In real life, the criterion for selection is always short-term, either simple survival or, more generally, reproductive success. If, after the aeons, what looks like progress towards some distant goal seems, with hindsight, to have been achieved, this is always an incidental consequence of many generations of short-term selection. The 'watchmaker' that is cumulative natural selection is blind to the future and has n o long-term goal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.