The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm »

PauloL wrote: Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:19 pm
davidm wrote: Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:16 pm
I suspected you couldn't refute, but now I'm sure.

Anyone reading this will witness that.
:lol:

You must have a really low opinion of people reading here.

Dawkins just refuted you. Go take it up with him. I understand he he has a website and an email address. Why don't you go take your complaints about evolution directly to him and let us know how that works out for you? :lol:

Dishonest creationist trolls like this sleazy character will do anything they can to fool people not sufficiently versed in this subject matter -- even trying to hijack Asimov as being against evolution. As noted above, and greatly elucidated by Dawkins, Asimov was in no way intending to refute evolution -- his "number" had to do with purely random processes. Evolution is not a random process and so the hemoglobin number does not apply.

Creationist trolls would prefer you not know that.
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL »

Let me just ask you a question, Davidm:

I asked it once a 15-year-old boy and he answered right and didn't like mathematics.

What's the probability that this week's Powerball match will win next week?

Whatever way you add one amino-acid to an incomplete hemoglobin chain molecule your chance is 1 in 20 that's the right amino-acid.

So, in the end you have a probability of 1 in 10E190. This is why Dawkins doesn't give you a probability for his single-step and cumulative selection. It would be 1 in 10E190 again.

A better argument in little words would be "Theorem of natural selection explains it all". It's the same, it doesn't change probability of 1 in 10E190.

Counting losers in your second-by-second 7-billion ticket lottery since Big Bang yields less than 10E28 losers, to show you how huge is 10E190. All atoms in all Universe sum up 10E80 "only"...

For all practical purposes, a probability of 1 in 10E190 means impossible. I am talking about a hemoglobin chain. As poor Dawkins puts it, "[...] a haemoglobin molecule has only a minute fraction of the complexity of a living body". The probability for the 4-chain molecule is 4x10E619. Hemoglobin is Evolutionauts pride ahead of Cambrian explosion.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm »

PauloL wrote: Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:25 pm There is no way to contour probabilities.

Your chance to win Powerball is 1 in 292.201.338 whatever way you choose the numbers.

The only way to contour that is by knowing in advance one or more numbers.

Otherwise your probability is 292.201.338 forever.

Single-step selection and cumulative selection. Amino-acid by amino-acid until the 141th...

Probability: 1 in 10E190!

Calculations done by Asimov and accepted by Dawkins as you can read.
:lol:

He accepted the calculation in the absence of selection, you big dummy! (Sorry I missed this stupidity of yours earlier).

Can YOU read?
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Greta »

thedoc wrote: Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:15 pmFair point, sorry Doc. I was fired up from another thread.
Which thread was that? I only look at a few threads. I can't always tell from the title what the thread is about till I read it.[/quote]
Sometimes ignorance is bliss, Doc.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm »

Hello, PauloL, my dear Aunt Flo has now put you under the scrutiny of an actual evolutionary biologist.

This should be a hoot! :)
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm »

The Lone Ranger (biologist) is currently eviscerating you, PauloL. :twisted: And he has not even read all your rubbish yet.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm »

PauloL, we are still waiting for you to trot out the second law of thermodynamics. Can you give us a head's up when that will be coming?
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL »

davidm wrote: Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:48 pm
:lol:

He accepted the calculation in the absence of selection, you big dummy! (Sorry I missed this stupidity of yours earlier).

Can YOU read?
Yes, but selection doesn't modify the probabilities unless you're talking about supernatural selection. Ask someone expert in probabilities. 1 in 10E190 is impossible, as I told you. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL »

davidm wrote: Tue Sep 26, 2017 12:29 am Hello, PauloL, my dear Aunt Flo has now put you under the scrutiny of an actual evolutionary biologist.

This should be a hoot! :)
I won't lose much time with that forum, they don't explain hemoglobin puzzle anyway, but it's worthwhile commenting a post there that reads exactly:

There is no longer any basic mystery as to how the body manufactures hemoglobin molecules, with all the amino acids correctly in place. In 1953, the year before this article was first written, James Watson and Francis Crick worked out the way in which the nucleic acid molecules of the chromosomes duplicated themselves. Other chemists went on to discover how the structure of the nucleic acids was used to guide the formation of chains of amino acids in a particular order. The basic details of all this you can find in my book The Genetic Code.


Great. DNA directs formation of hemoglobin chains. Nothing new in 2017, indeed. The problem is that Asimov is right again for a very simple reason:

The probability that you have a sequence of 423 nucleotide bases arranged in exactly the way needed to generate a 141-amino-acid hemoglobin chain molecule is again 10E190!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

I had told you before, but you missed that, check it:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=14226&start=645#p331021

Perhaps you'd like to choose an evolutionist forum where people understand probabilities and not mere semantics.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm »

:lol:

Just keep publicly making a fool of yourself. It's amusing.
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL »

I understand you can't refute my arguments, Davidm.

Keep that puerile attitude when you're losing.

You keep betting in theories that ignore probabilities and rely on supernatural selection to overcome a probability of 1 in 10E190.

Given that all atoms in Universe sum up 10E80, you can call 10E190 supra-astronomical in size.

I think I've read all Evolutionaut's arguments to trying (unsuccessfully) to overcome Asimov's calculations, but maybe you'll be able to impress me.

You still miss a quite customary argument by Evolutionauts. It's another poor argument of course, not shared by any peer-reviewed renowned scientific publication (it would be ludicrous), but it's easily found in popular press for the masses.
Last edited by PauloL on Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Greta »

Then again, what are the probabilities of the complete formation of an adult human out of thin air? A lot higher than any molecule. Yet here we are because we don't just pop out of nowhere but evolve over time. The probability that you state, which is the chance of the molecule formong right now under our noses, is not relevant or helpful.

How do unlikely things in nature happen? Over deep time. As Dawkins has explained, the chances of winning the football pools at the time of writing was hundreds of millions to one, yet at the scale of evolutionary time, a person who bought a ticket every day would win many times - guaranteed. So, over that period the odds may change from about 300,000,000:1 to 1:12 - to a near certainty.
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL »

Greta wrote: Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:55 pm
Well, Greta you're not aware how big is 10E190. All atoms in Universe sum up 10E80. An event with a probability of 1 in 10E190 is virtually impossible for any practical purpose.

Dawkins uses very small numbers to impress masses. Davidm even proposed a much bigger 7-billion ticket lottery running every second since Big Bang, but that summed up less than 10E28 losers until today (but they are still counting every second, keep your hope).

The probability that an actual human being generates from air is very flawed, so it isn't that big (just look to world's population reaching 7 billion). It isn't that hard to generate human beings because people have a code that creates another human being under the sole condition that a sperm meets an ovum, and this happens really many times in a single day, as you know.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Greta »

PauloL wrote: Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:04 pm
Greta wrote: Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:55 pm
Well, Greta you're not aware how big is 10E190. All atoms in Universe sum up 10E80. An event with a probability of 1 in 10E190 is virtually impossible for any practical purpose.
That is because you are talking in the realm of pure mathematics, not physical reality. That figure is simply not correct in the context you are using it. For example, that number would be far less than the chance of your or my existence - try getting the boffins to calculate that. Even the exponential would be exponential. The chances would be FAR more remote than one of your molecules.

Deep time is the key. Without understanding this, nothing about nature can be understood with any depth.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by thedoc »

PauloL wrote: Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:32 pm I understand you can't refute my arguments, Davidm.

Keep that puerile attitude when you're losing.

You keep betting in theories that ignore probabilities and rely on supernatural selection to overcome a probability of 1 in 10E190.

Given that all atoms in Universe sum up 10E80, you can call 10E190 supra-astronomical in size.

I think I've read all Evolutionaut's arguments to trying (unsuccessfully) to overcome Asimov's calculations, but maybe you'll be able to impress me.

You still miss a quite customary argument by Evolutionauts. It's another poor argument of course, not shared by any peer-reviewed renowned scientific publication (it would be ludicrous), but it's easily found in popular press for the masses.
Evolution is not probable, and probabilities do not apply. Evolution has been observed and does happen over time, the time depending on the length of the life of the particular organism. Evolution is not random chance but is a certainty to happen over time.
Locked