Entropy contradict Evolution

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Hadeka, Jul 29, 2004.

  1. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Ok. MacM I told you many times that you misinterpreted the quote I presented. But you still claimed that you didn't. Here is the probablity presented by Julian Huxley, a very famous Evolutionist.

    Huxley, Julian, Evolution in Action (New York: Harper and Row, 1953), 182 pp.

    "A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out of gear. And a total of a million mutational steps sounds a great deal, but is probably an understatement--after all, that only means one step every two thousand years during biological time as a whole. However, let us take these figures as being reasonable estimates. With this proportion, but without any selection, we should clearly have to breed a thousand strains to get one favorable mutation; a million strains (a thousand squared) to get one containing two favorable mutations; and so on, up to a thousand to the millionth power to get one containing a million.

    "Of course, this could not really happen, but it is a useful way of visualizing the fantastic odds against getting a number of favorable mutations in one strain through pure chance alone. A thousand to the millionth power, when written out, becomes the figure 1 with three million noughts after it; and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print! Actually, this is a meaninglessly large figure, but it shows what a degree of improbability natural selection has to surmount, and can circumvent. One with three million noughts after it is the measure of the unlikeliness of a horse--the odds against it happening at all. No one would bet on anything so improbable happening: and yet it has happened! It has happened, thanks to the working of natural selection and the properties of living substance which make natural selection inevitable!" pp. 45-46

    To get 1 million favorable mutations then the probability is 1000 to the millionth power. I was going to write this in number. But it's just too long. When I wrote it in word. I got 906 pages.

    Now see that Huxley showed us the improbability. And even he admitted that this was imporbable. But at the end he asserted that "it has happened", without any proof. Now here is a person who knows that it is basically impossible, but still believes it happened. He proved the improbability, but he still believes without proof. Stupid, right?

    But i want you to look at the probablity. And I want you to notice that it is only for a horse. What do you think the probablity is going to be for a human? I think it is probably another 5 million or more zeros at the end. Oh well. I hope you see the impossibility of this. And that you misinterpreted he verse.

    Here is another quote regarding the improbability that Huxley provided.

    "And, let us remind you who find such odds ridiculous (even if you are reassured by Mr. Huxley), that this figure was calculated for the evolution of a horse! How many more volumes of zeros would be required by Mr. Huxley to produce a human being? And then you would have just one horse and one human being and, unless the mathematician wishes to add in the probability for the evolution of all the plants and animals that are necessary to support a horse and a man, you would have a sterile world where neither could have survived any stage of its supposed evolution! What have we now - the figure 1 followed by a thousand volumes of zeros? Then add another thousand volumes for the improbability of the earth having all the necessary properties for life built into it. And add another thousand volumes for the improbability of the sun, and the moon, and the stars. Add other thousands for the evolution of all the thoughts that man can have, all the objective and subjective reality that ebbs and flows in us like part of the pulsebeat of an inscrutable cosmos!


    "Add them all in and you long ago stopped talking about rational thought, much less scientific evidence. Yet, Simpson, Huxley, Dobzhansky, Mayr, and dozens of others continue to tell us that is the way it had to be! They have retreated from all the points which ever lent any semblance of credibility to the evolutionary theory. Now they busy themselves with esoteric mathematical formulations based on population genetics, random drift, isolation, and other ploys which have a probability of accounting for life on earth of minus zero! They clutter our libraries, and press on the minds of people everywhere an animated waxen image of a theory that has been dead for over a decade.

    "Evolution has no claim whatsoever to being a science. It is time all this nonsense ceased. It is time to bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction section of the libraries." The Truth God or Evolution pp. 39, 40.

    The main thing I want you to be concentrated on is the improbability that Huxley provided. And if you understand then I think this would end the debate on the probability of Mutation. Then we can move on to something else, if there is anything. Because we've already covered Natural Selection, and this would cover Mutation.

    I hope you understand the improbability. and that you really did misinterpret the quote I presented before.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    786

    Speaking of misinterpreting a quote:

    Sorry pal, you should have done your homework.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    "The frequency with which a single nonharmful mutation is known to once mutate is about 1 in 1000. The probability that two favorable mutations would occur is 1 in 103 X 10', in a million. Studies of Drosophila have revealed that large numbers of genes are involved in the formation of the separate structural elements. There may be 30,E involved in a single wing structure. It is moat unlikely that fewer than five genders could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown in the organism. The probability now becomes one in one thousand million million. We already know that mutations in living cells appear once in ten million to once in one hundred thousand million. It is evident that the probability of five favorable mutations occurring within a single life cycle of an organism is effectively zero." —*E. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World (1982), p. 120.

    If you might be wondering how to write one thousand million million. Then by my understanding it is written as:

    1000000000000000

    "The difficulties in explaining the origin of increased complexity as a result of bringing a 'cluster' of genes together within the nuclei of a single organism in terms of probabilities, fade into insignificance when we recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated into the development of the entire organism.

    "The improbability increases at an enormous rate as the number of genes increases from one to five . . The problem of bringing together the eve mutated genes we are considering, within a single nucleus, and for them to 'fit' immediately into this vast complex of interacting units, is indeed difficult. When it is remembered that they must give some selective advantage, or else become scattered once more within the population at large. Due to interbreeding, it seems impossible to explain these events in terms of random mutation alone." —*E. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, (1982), pp. 123-124.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    786:

    For somebody who claims to have taken college biology, you are taking an awfully long time to understand the simple point that evolution is not a totally random process. Huxley, who you quote, specifically says that if evolution was by chance alone, it would never have produced the complexity of life we see. But, he goes on to say, natural selection means that the process of evolution is NOT random, and that makes all the difference.

    It is a point that many children younger than you can understand, 786. How did you pass biology at UW without comprehending this simple point? (Come to think of it, you haven't said you passed...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
  8. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    I must give him a (P) for persistence!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Oh! that's not such a large number a googleplex of mutations could have occured in as little as 500 million years, think of all the variety of life that abouds earth, from microbial, plantain, plankton, fungus, alone a thousand million million mutations occured with out very significant change. BTW. the earth is calculated to be 4-6 billion years old. That is a megagoogleplex of variations of mutations have occured in the first billion years.

    I don't know biology, nor do I know much about evolution, but I do know numbers.

    Godless.
     
  9. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Well the probability is 1 to 1000000000000000 of a favorable mutation. That is an awefully bad chance. Let me try to write it in percent.

    0.000000000000001%
     
  10. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    I get that. But I am talking about Mutation, which is RANDOM, or in other words CHANCED

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Naomi [oxiglycodextrosium] Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    186
    Has anyone ever mentioned how important probability is to natural processes?

    For one thing, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is essential to explaining the thermodynamics of the fusion process within stars.

    But I don't blame people for trying so hard to deny the inevitable fact that chance plays a large role in nature. Even Einstein wasted most of the rest of his life trying to disprove Heisenberg ... unsuccessfully.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Mutation isn't entirely random. One can force mutations. They're affected by the environment. I'm pretty sure this 786 character hasn't even taken high school biology, let alone college. James, you're wasting your time on this guy. It's like trying to explain multiple integrals across manifolds to a kid who doesn't even know algebra.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. kula (Memes enclosed) within Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    148
    Male sperm is affected by hormone levels in the body when the sperm are produced every few weeks. No doubt these levels will vary throught the course of the males life, effect the dna in his sperm and cause mutations in direct response to his environmental experience.

    kula
     
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Excxellent point James R.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    How many life forms do you suspect exist on earth at this time? How many breeding pairs do they represent? What is the gestion period and time before offspring become breeding pairs?

    Starting with only a Billion life forms (which I suspect is actually low), that would be 500 Million breeding pairs. Somes species give birth multiple times in one summer season, some only give birth every few years. Some become breeding adults in one season and some require a couple decades. But assuming on average it is 5 years (there are many more microabial lives than human lives) and that the earth has existed and been evolving for 4-5 billion years. That means (assuming a linear increase).

    1 Billion generations. But life didn't begin with one living cell. It is considered to have been Trillions upon Trillions of cells formed in brackish waters over the earths surface.

    Just for the hell of it lets say there were only 1 Million viable living cells at the start. (An assinine low figure)

    1,000,000^1,000,000,000 mutations /1,000 Trillion (your odds) = 1E^51.

    Hmmm, a very positive number I think.

    It does seem you have continued to repeatedly quote creationist propaganda which has taken scientific data and/or scientists comments, totally out of context, which radically alters the conclusion.

    You may claim you are not basing all this on religion but you certainly are being duppped by their propaganda.

    Odds are only meaningful statistically. The odds of winning the lottery may be 100,000,000/1 but some body wins each week. The odds of flipping a coin for 1,000 straight heads are astronomical, yet each flip is 50/50, 1 in 2 odds.

    Perhaps a course in statistics and probability mathematics would be helpful to you.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2004
  15. b0urgeoisie I am the Bourgeois Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    189
    Fine! When you are talking about mutation, you can say it is only chance. But Mutation is not even the basis for evolution. It plays a great role. But, natural selection only "cares" about gene combination. Gene combination influences gene frequency. Mutation is only relevant as it impacts gene combination.
    Have you read any of Mendel's work? He was a monk. He was a gardener. He was brilliant. As soon as we could understand that you, just like any person, are the result of protein. Once the protein structure is established, everything comes as a result of the shape that protein takes. The shape it takes is a result of previous, and more primitive forms of the same protein. At some point, when dissecting any protein, you will come to a peptide chain. The peptide chain is the direct result of a small part of your DNA. There are only four primary building blocks for DNA.
    You can't imagine how complicated the process is. I am referring to the steps that take you from Gene>3 Kinds of RNA>Peptide. As I explained before, electrons can be wild. They like jumping from atom to atom. Their orbits are funny. That is the reason they are usually called - clouds or fields or shields. If an electron hiccups right, it can fool an enzyme into making a "typo" in replication or transcription.
    Again from Mendel's postulates, we ultimately divined the dictionary for protein synthesis. (If anyone knows a link where it can be found post it or I'll find one eventually) From that we can understand what is possible. We see how the tiniest "hiccup" and a the wrong peptide is lined up for the Ribosome. The peptide bonds determine the shape of the primary structure of the protein. The shape of the protein will determine what it does and how other molecules will interact with it.
    This happens every time. There is a mistake every time. You have performed protein synthesis in your bodies enough time to have a beneficial mutation. Whatever the odds against it, are not important. You do it enough. The only thing that will keep your kids from being born with their ass on backward is timing.
    Cells begin dividing immediately upon conception. The cells that will code for your gametes are differentiated before you are born. Mutation or deletion or trans-location or whatever can change things has to happen exactly at the right place and time. If it does, and there is no Dominant form from the other parent, you have a new allele.
    That is why an eyeball can't just appear. It takes lots of little steps of recombination and gene frequency to set in. Then, once a trait becomes common, it will be shifted by another electron gone bad. Then another wait until it proves itself and frequency increases. Or, it dies out. The worst thing that can happen is you get a dominant allele that is lethal but not expressed until after sexual maturity. If it is bad enough it is lethal before very early in pregnancy. So, we never knew it happened.
    The only question you have to answer for yourself is - Can the environment select for or against traits. Once you answer that, honestly, the picture is clear. We can watch this stuff happen. It is all fact. The only part that makes us call it "theory" is the above question. The answer is obvious. But, because we weren't around to watch when it happened, we can only theorize about what we cannot observe. But, don't confuse "theory" with "hypothesis."
     
  16. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    The frequency with which a single nonharmful mutation is known to once mutate is about 1 in 1000. The probability that two favorable mutations would occur is 1 in 103 X 10', in a million. Studies of Drosophila have revealed that large numbers of genes are involved in the formation of the separate structural elements. There may be 30,E involved in a single wing structure. It is moat unlikely that fewer than five genders could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown in the organism. The probability now becomes one in one thousand million million. We already know that mutations in living cells appear once in ten million to once in one hundred thousand million. It is evident that the probability of five favorable mutations occurring within a single life cycle of an organism is effectively zero." —*E. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World (1982), p. 120
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    786:

    If you're just talking about mutation, and not about selection, then you're not talking about evolution, as I am sure you are aware.
     
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Lets see. 100 thousand million. I count that as being 1E11. That leaves 1E40 to go. Recall that that is based on only 1 million initial cells in the entire ocean.
     
  19. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    He is fixated on mutation. He doen't get evolution at all. It is just hopeless.
     
  20. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    MacM I think you should take your calculations to the scientists. So they will know how wrong they were. I just have a question. How many "beneficial" mutations will 1 animal recieve? (not population, but 1 single animal)

    James R. I think I explained this before that Natural Selection cannot do anything unless favorable variations occur. So we must start from the base, which would be Mutation. So Mutation occurs by chance.
     
  21. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I think everybody understands these calculations are grossly rudimentary but have been made to try and make you understand that the large number of mutations required {Climbing Mount Improbable) are not that signifigant when you consider the number of mutations which can occur.

    An individual animal may or may not have a mutation and that mutation may of may not be beneficial. That is why statistics are important on a population of breeders and why the size of the population and the number of breeding cycles over 4-5 Billion years is important.

    The 1E51 number of beneficial mutations was based on an ultra-conservative 1 million living cells at the beginning of life forming in the ocean and using your "Improbable" 0.00000001% or what ever number of zero's you put on the odds.

    So what do you not understand that these astronomical numbers when considered from only one perspective appear impropable if not impossible but when considered in light of the also more astronomical number of cycles and mutations possible results in a view not of impossible, not even just probable but highly inevitable result FOR evolution.
     
  22. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Ok, but the thing is that the Mutation must alter the same gene many times, in order for it to make something from "simple to complex".

    For example if lets just suppose "reptile to birds". Birds have a different lung system, and have feathers. In order for reptiles to turn into birds then you would need the mutations to altar the "particular gene". This would also reduce the probability.

    Could you show us the math of Mutations altaring "particular genes", many times?
     
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I don't think I have access to any real numbers to susggest a starting point for such an exercise. However, I would think that using a more realistic initial living cells population, i.e. from 1 million to perhaps a trillin trillion would result in an increase of 1E51 to 1E75. That would be divided by probabilities simular to flipping the coin but based on the number of options greter than two.

    That would be a large decreases in the function but since we see evolution I suspect it is a smaller number than the positive result on the statistical average.
     

Share This Page