The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[PauloL]

Basically, I challenged hemoglobin chain production given that probability you have 141 amino-acids so arranged is 1 in 10E179 (for hemoglobin molecule it's 1 in 10E619).

Most people offered semantic and ad hominem attacks counter-argumentation, but some people here offered some standard argumentation like a 7-billion ticked lottery running every second since Big Bang, the improbability that a concrete human being was born, and so on. But none worked. You may wish to re-analyze the question.

[Hobbes' Choice]

What are you saying? Are you trying to say that the existence of Haemoglobin means that evolution is not true?
You are talking about Isaac Asimov?

Maybe here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only_a_Trillion

You have it here.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=14226&start=645#p330953

Yes, it's Only in a Trillion by Isaac Asimov.

Basically, I asked to explain me how natural selection overcame a probability of 1 in 10E190 to produce a chain of hemoglobin, bearing in mind that such a probability is impossible in Asimov's words (and understandably).

Natural selection does not have to do anything. Asimov did not say it was impossible.

[PauloL]

Sorry can't be bothered to search this whole thread for your links to these sources, can you PM them to me please.

So you make comments without checking information first. Great.

What is there to refute? As his premise appears to be wrong given Dawkins explanation of cumulative selection and Aaronson's demonstration of how evolutionary algorithms can work.

Did you not read or watch them?

Yes, they have been discussed here and they are simply semantic counter-argumentation. Whatever way you run the probability is 1 in 10E190, unless you use supernatural selection.

Can you tell me what's the odds this weeks Powerball match will win next week?

Probability is so powerful no one can overcome Powerball, not even with supernatural powers.

I'd have thought that would depend what the content was? But in this case one appears to be from a book and the other from a TV series about such things. How would you like me to get such information?

I'd like you to offer reliable sources. Want to compare Nature, Scientific American, Thomas Morgan and Asimov reliability to clips?

I can do a clip in 5 minutes. Is that final information for you? (I won't discuss the 5-minute detail, which will be counter-argumented here predictably as usual. Take it as a metaphor).

[Hobbes' Choice]

Basically, I challenged hemoglobin chain production given that probability you have 141 amino-acids so arranged is 1 in 10E179 (for hemoglobin molecule it's 1 in 10E619).

Most people offered semantic and ad hominem attacks counter-argumentation, but some people here offered some standard argumentation like a 7-billion ticked lottery running every second since Big Bang, the improbability that a concrete human being was born, and so on. But none worked. You may wish to re-analyze the question.

There is a grain of sand that struck the earth last night. It could have landed anywhere in the Universe, but it hit the earth. The chances of it hitting the earth are much more unlikely than the figure you are using off the top of your head. And yet it hit the earth.
Every event that happens is less likely - it just depends on your POV and your interests.

[Hobbes' Choice]

So you make comments without checking information first. Great.

Interesting, since you did not even know the source of your Asimov fiction until I found it for you.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It seems IA was talking about how chemists managed to discover and understand it.
http://encyclopediaasimova.blogspot.co. ... llion.html

True.

Later they found DNA and everything went clear up.

But the question here is not hemoglobin synthesis, but how hemoglobin was produced ex nihilo.

You or I have not a clue how this happened, how long it took nor any of the intermediate processes. One thing is for sure it did NOT happen ex-nihilo.
You are trying to win an argument with hyperbole.

[PauloL]

Natural selection does not have to do anything. Asimov did not say it was impossible.

These are Asimov's words in Only a Trillion:

But these 'neutrinos' are computing units, remember. Let us suppose that each computing unit is a really super-mechanical job, capable of testing a billion different amino-acid combinations every second, and let us suppose that each unit keeps up this mad pace, unrelentingly, for three hundred billion years. The number of different combinations tested in all that time would be about 10E179.

This number is still approximately zero as compared with the hemoglobin number. In fact, the chance that the right combination would have been found in all that time would be only 1 in 4 x10E440.

Later, Asimov says:

It would seem then that if ever a problem were absolutely incapable of solution, it is the problem of trying to pick out the exact arrangement of amino-acids in a protein molecule out of all the different arrangements that are possible.

Do you need Asimov to add natural selection to reach the conclusion? Isn't that clear enough?

[PauloL]

Interesting, since you did not even know the source of your Asimov fiction until I found it for you.

Excuse me? Did you check the link I gave you where this all starts?

I mention Asimov right from the beginning and Only a Trillion six post later.

Check that before pretending to be the illuminated.

[PauloL]

You or I have not a clue how this happened, how long it took nor any of the intermediate processes. One thing is for sure it did NOT happen ex-nihilo.
You are trying to win an argument with hyperbole.

There's no hyperbole here. I don't use such argumentation.

You come late and aren't aware of previous posts.

Ex nihilo in the context means a state where no hemoglobin exists (or its DNA), as opposed to its mere synthesis from existing DNA.

If you check previous posts, I concede that you can start wherever you like (but I hope you won't start with 140 amino-acids without any explanation and simply add one amino-acid more).

Anyway, if you wish to start with Big Bang (that's ex nihilo in extremis), it's up to you.

[PauloL]

There is a grain of sand that struck the earth last night. It could have landed anywhere in the Universe, but it hit the earth. The chances of it hitting the earth are much more unlikely than the figure you are using off the top of your head. And yet it hit the earth.
Every event that happens is less likely - it just depends on your POV and your interests.

You're absolutely correct. There are standard arguments of the kind which are more elegant than yours, but that's fine (of course none is published by Nature, Scientific American or any other reliable source, as any hard scientist will know they're elegant indeed but flawed. But maybe you can ask Arising a small clip).

I never said it's impossible to have a 141 amino-acid chain. You can join 141 amino-acids randomly playing the Blind Watchmaker, no big deal. Then you tell me: Look the probability you'd get this sequence is 1 in 10E190! But your random chain is useless. The probability you'll get a hemoglobin chain is 1 in 10E190 and that is virtually impossible in Asimov's words.

About your grain. The probability it would reach any particular point is virtually impossible. It reached one point. Great. You have your 141 amino-acid chain. Or is that a hemoglobin chain? Then you'll need 3 mores grains to reach the same point to get hemoglobin molecule. But this is nothing to have a human being. You'll need lots of grains reaching there. What shall we call that? Supernatural aiming? Or dumb luck?

This is off-topic, but interesting. You confuse post hoc odds with pre hoc odds (something quite common). That's why Fischer once said that when the Statistician is called after the experiment is done all they can do is an autopsy (don't tell me later that this is Fisher's and I didn't know that).

[Hobbes' Choice]

Natural selection does not have to do anything. Asimov did not say it was impossible.

These are Asimov's words in Only a Trillion:

But these 'neutrinos' are computing units, remember. Let us suppose that each computing unit is a really super-mechanical job, capable of testing a billion different amino-acid combinations every second, and let us suppose that each unit keeps up this mad pace, unrelentingly, for three hundred billion years. The number of different combinations tested in all that time would be about 10E179.

This number is still approximately zero as compared with the hemoglobin number. In fact, the chance that the right combination would have been found in all that time would be only 1 in 4 x10E440.

Later, Asimov says:

It would seem then that if ever a problem were absolutely incapable of solution, it is the problem of trying to pick out the exact arrangement of amino-acids in a protein molecule out of all the different arrangements that are possible.

Do you need Asimov to add natural selection to reach the conclusion? Isn't that clear enough?

He is not making the argument you are.
Your argument is the old chest nut about Asking how long it would take for a wind in a scrap yard to assemble a passenger jet plane.
Its a stupid argument because evolution is not in that sense random.
The process of evolution is not goal related, you have an orthogenic fallacy on your hands.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is a grain of sand that struck the earth last night. It could have landed anywhere in the Universe, but it hit the earth. The chances of it hitting the earth are much more unlikely than the figure you are using off the top of your head. And yet it hit the earth.
Every event that happens is less likely - it just depends on your POV and your interests.

You're absolutely correct. There are standard arguments of the kind which are more elegant than yours, but that's fine (of course none is published by Nature, Scientific American or any other reliable source, as any hard scientist will know they're elegant indeed but flawed. But maybe you can ask Arising a small clip).

I never said it's impossible to have a 141 amino-acid chain. You can join 141 amino-acids randomly playing the Blind Watchmaker, no big deal. Then you tell me: Look the probability you'd get this sequence is 1 in 10E190! But your random chain is useless. The probability you'll get a hemoglobin chain is 1 in 10E190 and that is virtually impossible in Asimov's words.

About your grain. The probability it would reach any particular point is virtually impossible. It reached one point. Great. You have your 141 amino-acid chain. Or is that a hemoglobin chain? Then you'll need 3 mores grains to reach the same point to get hemoglobin molecule. But this is nothing to have a human being. You'll need lots of grains reaching there. What shall we call that? Supernatural aiming? Or dumb luck?

This is off-topic, but interesting. You confuse post hoc odds with pre hoc odds (something quite common). That's why Fischer once said that when the Statistician is called after the experiment is done all they can do is an autopsy (don't tell me later that this is Fisher's and I didn't know that).

See post above.

[PauloL]

He is not making the argument you are.

Did I say so? I'm using his calculations. Are they wrong if Asimov didn't mention an argument?

Your argument is the old chest nut about Asking how long it would take for a wind in a scrap yard to assemble a passenger jet plane.
Its a stupid argument because evolution is not in that sense random.

I didn't use your argument. Stupid indeed.

The process of evolution is not goal related, you have an orthogenic fallacy on your hands.

You're trying fallacies by trial and error (like evolution)? Can you tell me what you mean "orthogenic fallacy"? What's your dictionary? According to Merriam-Webster orthogenic means of, relating to, or devoted to the rehabilitation of emotionally disturbed or mentally retarded children. How on Earth do you arrange to connect that with a fallacy?

[Hobbes' Choice]

He is not making the argument you are.

Did I say so? I'm using his argument.

Your argument is the old chest nut about Asking how long it would take for a wind in a scrap yard to assemble a passenger jet plane.
Its a stupid argument because evolution is not in that sense random.

I didn't use your argument. Stupid indeed.

The process of evolution is not goal related, you have an orthogenic fallacy on your hands.

You're trying fallacies by trial and error (like evolution)? Can you tell me what you mean "orthogenic fallacy"? What's your dictionary? According to Merriam-Webster orthogenic means of, relating to, or devoted to the rehabilitation of emotionally disturbed or mentally retarded children. How on Earth do you arrange to connect that with a fallacy?

You do not seem to be very bright.
I'd never heard of Asimov's article, but it took me less than 30 seconds to find the references.
Smarten up.

Orthogenesis, also known as orthogenetic evolution, progressive evolution, evolutionary progress, or progressionism, is the biological hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a definite direction towards some goal (teleology) due to some internal mechanism or "driving force".

[PauloL]

You do not seem to be very bright.
I'd never heard of Asimov's article, but it took me less than 30 seconds to find the references.
Smarten up.

That's not an article, but a book. You don't know Asimov and I who needs smarten up?

Orthogenesis, also known as orthogenetic evolution, progressive evolution, evolutionary progress, or progressionism, is the biological hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a definite direction towards some goal (teleology) due to some internal mechanism or "driving force".

Great. I thought the Watchmaker was blind as they told me and evolution wasn't teleological. Now a "driving force". So amazing. Moved by what? Supernatural powers? So it was easy. "Driving force" joined the second amino-acid to the first, then the third and so on, knowing the final sequence right from the beginning. Nature produced hemoglobin teleologically because "driving force" told Nature animals would need it.

Everything is clear now. Evolution has a "driving force" that guides it (of course you'll tell I'm wrong, it's not guiding, it's something else, some sort of fallacy of mine because ignorance of words technically correct).

You didn't tell me if you prefer: supernatural selection or dumb luck?

We could win Powerball (of course I had to share a part with you). Can you tell me some details about "driving force"?

You're the most stubborn so far. Everybody gives up earlier.

You should tell me about your infancy, you were a terror movie for your parents, weren't you?