The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[PauloL]

Evolution is not probable

Great

and probabilities do not apply.

Great.

Evolution has been observed and does happen over time, the time depending on the length of the life of the particular organism.

Great.

Evolution is not random chance

Great.

but is a certainty to happen over time.

Great.

Nice words. But you fail to explain how to overcome a probability of 1 in 10E190. Supernatural selection or just goodwill? Or do you hide a scientific explanation and just won't tell?

[davidm]

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

Yes I can, and have. Asimov's number is a calculation of pure chance. Evolution is not pure chance, as Asimov acknowledges and Dawkins explains in detail in the article to which I linked you and you have not read,

And as I have explained to you in detail many times.

You are a brain-dead creationist troll.

[PauloL]

I have counter-argument every argument of yours and all you could do was arrange for a new argument. Are they exhausted now?

[PauloL]

For example, that number would be far less than the chance of your or my existence - try getting the boffins to calculate that.

That's a great question. No one could calculate that, but we know that's really low probability. Let's assume it's a probability of 1 in 7 billion. Then you'll need to wait 7 billion births until someone just equal to you happen again. Or maybe that person exists now and you don't know... (but I hope your second will be clearer expressing ideas).

Your really low probability for existence, like mine and Davidm's, isn't that impressive, as you see.

[davidm]

A reminder for the mentally infirm.

[Greta]

For example, that number would be far less than the chance of your or my existence - try getting the boffins to calculate that.

That's a great question. No one could calculate that, but we know that's really low probability. Let's assume it's a probability of 1 in 7 billion.

No, even if we discount that you forgot the small fact that you stemmed from just one of billions of sperm, just one of millions of eggs, if we are to marvel at the haemoglobin molecule, why not marvel at the seeming impossibility of all the other molecules forming, and then combining helpfully with haemoglobin (or whatever)?

Your probability assessment is based on the idea of haemoglobin appearing immediately in a chaotic system. Now imagine the probability of a human appearing in an otherwise chaotic system.

But nature doesn't work that way. It takes time. Lots and lots of time. More time than you can even imagine you can imagine. Deep time.

[PauloL]

Keep that literature for you, I already commented a quote.

Explain how natural (or supernatural) selection generated hemoglobin bearing in mind how improbable (if not impossible) that is as demonstrated by Isaac Asimov.

[PauloL]

Your probability assessment is based on the idea of haemoglobin appearing immediately in a chaotic system. Nature doesn't work that way.

I didn't say it appeared immediately. But whatever way you run to joint the 141 amino-acids (or 423 nucleotide bases if you prefer) the probability is the same.

Whether system is chaotic or harmonic, it doesn't matter much. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise. The very concepts are relative and useless here. What kind of harmony would overcome probability? Supernatural selection?

Probabilities are so powerful (some Evolutionauts even negate them here) that they created a Powerball no one can overcame, perhaps not even with supernatural powers.

[Greta]

Your probability assessment is based on the idea of haemoglobin appearing immediately in a chaotic system. Nature doesn't work that way.

I didn't say it appeared immediately. But whatever way you run to joint the 141 amino-acids (or 423 nucleotide bases if you prefer) the probability is the same.

No, it is not. Natural selection does not work that way. The principle is explained on this episode of Through the Wormhole. Start at just after 8 mins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2aTc0Thh5w#t=8m

Freeman: Creationists often argue that evolution is a random, exhaustive search through all possible biological combinations. An impossible task that could never have gotten as far as it has in only four billion years.

Scott [Aaronson] believes complex traits like the human brain or a bacterium's tail can evolve in a reasonable amount of time because evolution is not a completely blind process. In fact, evolution has some clever shortcuts.

Imagine this chessboard is blank and Scott's goal is to properly colour it so that no two neighbouring squares are coloured the same. So, how could you do it? Well, there are three different approaches that may spring to mind.

Let's see my avatar, super Scott, here, try to do it [visual of a digitised avatar of Scott by a large digitised chessboard]. If super Scott had the magical powers of an intelligent designer, he could, I suppose, just see in his mind's eye all of the possible colourings and just instantly pick out the one that worked.

Freeman: If it takes just one step for the intelligent designer super Scott to fill each square, it would only take him 64 steps. You could create humans in a matter of minutes if you had this kind of God-like vision.

Aaronson: What else could we do? A brute-force approach just trying every possible colouring, every possible assignment of colours, to all 64 of the squares. Well, there are ways of coloring all the squares of a chessboard. That's about 18 quintillion. He's obviously gonna be at this for quite a while.

Freeman: On this purely random mission, even if super Scott gets all but one square correct, he has to start over again. If organisms evolved like this, it would take millions of times longer than the age of the universe for a single-celled bacterium to evolve into the intelligent life we see today. But evolution works differently. It makes random guesses, but doesn't go back to square one whenever it makes a mistake.

Aaronson: Here, super Scott starts out with a complete random colouring. He can just look for any two squares that are coloured the same, pick two of those at random, and then randomly change the colour of one of them.

Freeman: In this evolutionary approach, super Scott can make corrections along the way without having to start over every time.

Aaronson: But you might wonder how long will this take? Well, it turns out it will take longer than the intelligent designer, that's for sure. On the other hand, not nearly as long as the brute-force approach. With an eight by eight chessboard, this random-mutation approach will take about 5,000 steps.

Freeman: These emerging mathematics of evolution show that complex patterns can arise surprisingly quickly. We've seen that a mindless evolutionary process really can solve the problem, and it can solve it without an inordinate amount of time.

Freeman: Scott doesn't claim he's proven evolution happened, only that it is possible within earth's timeframe.

Aaronson: For me, the scientific attitude is not that there are no mysteries in the world. It's that you don't wallow in mystery. It's that you constantly look for explanations of things, and, you know, if you find a good explanation for something, you go with it, you know, at least until a better explanation comes along.

Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.u ... ode=s04e10

[thedoc]

Have you ever been talking to someone and thought, "This is the sperm that won?"

[davidm]

A reminder (from an actual biologist) about Asimov's Number.

"He's either lying or dumber than dirt.'

He's referring to YOU, PoloL.

[davidm]

Creationist liars

[davidm]

Let's recap. Asimov, with his number, was not trying to refute evolution, but support it.

Now, who here is lying, or dumber than dirt?

[PauloL]

Have you ever been talking to someone and thought, "This is the sperm that won?"

Yes, I did. Me and you are winners, too.

[PauloL]

A reminder (from an actual biologist) about Asimov's Number.

"He's either lying or dumber than dirt.'

He's referring to YOU, PoloL.

You insist that DNA explains it all. I already told you that the probability you have 423 nucleotide bases arranged in a sequence that will produce a chain of hemoglobin is 1 in 10E190 again.