RoR: Forum

Bachler wrote:

Grammarian and Robert D,

If we have never witnessed any "gain of information" evolution only random "loss of information" that cannot generate new species in nature.

Why has the creator decided to stop with evolution of new species now?

Did he get bored?

I don't know. Conversely, if Neo-Darwinism claims that evolution is an ongoing process (which it does), why don't we actually observe new species -- not merely new varieties of old species -- coming into existence?

Post 181

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:50am

Grammarian,

I note that some of the Objectivists here have thrown in the towel with mock conversions to ID. As for me, my thanks for your essays on the subject. You given this Darwinist much food for thought.

Andy

Post 182

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:54am

Grammarian,

Why does the creator allow random "loss of information" through mutation to occur?

Why doesn't he have an uncontrollable urge to direct the process himself?

Conversely, if Neo-Darwinism claims that evolution is an ongoing process (which it does), why don't we actually observe new species -- not merely new varieties of old species -- coming into existence?

Because rather than being directed by the expedient hand of the creator, it requires natural selection of variations that occur randomly in populations, which takes millions of years to produce a new species.

Post 183

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 8:51am

If you type in www.creation-science.com, you are directed to ARN (Access Research Network), which is a non-profit organization. Listed among the "friends of ARN" are Jonathan Wells, William Dembski, and Michale Behe.

There is an excellent article in the latest New Republic called "Unintelligent Design", in which the connections between ID and Creationism are laid out. In addition, it is an updated argument against Creationism and ID.

When people bring up the credentials of these so-called experts, I am always reminded of a classmate of my wife in graduate school. He was working on a PhD in Molecular Biology. He was a born-again Christian (this was in the '80's) and his education was being funded by his church. His declared sole purpose in getting the PhD was to be able to use his credentials when arguing for Creationism. He had no intention of working in the field when he graduated (which he did).

Using these professionals with their credentials to advance Creationism and ID is nothing but an intellectual version of money laundering.

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 184

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 8:52am

"why don't we actually observe new species -- not merely new varieties of old species -- coming into existence?"

I know I'm going to regret this but...

The first part of the problem is that the concept of "species" as the smallest taxonomic unit needs an overhaul. It was created in a time before science had the ability to comprehend how the most numerous living organisms on the planet (microorganisms) reproduced.

To be declared "a new species" members of the new species and the old one must be incapable of successful sexual reproduction. Thus "species" as it is classically defined is an inappropriate concept to apply to micro-organisms (bacteria and fungi.) These being the smallest, simplest and fastest evolving organisms on the planet. That is they evolve fast enough that you can witness the process well within your working career if you so choose.

The second part of the problem is that microbiologists and mycologists have yet to design a way to isolate and study all but a tiny fraction (ie 1-3% of the total) of the fungal & bacterial "species" thought to exist. If you can't see 'em then you can't see them all then it is hard to judge the scope of their evolution nes pas? Hell microbiologists had to wait until PCR and phylogenetic analysis was invented to even get an idea of the scope of their problem.

The third part of the problem is that christians have only existed for 2,000 years. That is barely a twinkling in the eye in terms of evolution - or at least in terms of the evolution of a multicellular organism.

The fourth part of the problem is that christians probably won't be convinced until they've witnessed the genesis of a totally new genera. And when they've seen that it probably won't be enough so they'll want to see a new family or kingdom emerge.

Frankly I have got better things to do than wait around that long just to prove the bleeding obvious.

Post 185

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 8:55am

Michael Stuart Kelly wrote:

This is similar to what happened to me, except that I never denied Objectivism. Anyway, I empathise.

Well, that's mighty kind of you. (BTW, when did I say that I "denied" Objectivism?)

I cannot get around one issue in the middle of all this verbiage, however. Consciousness (the mind) is a faculty of some living organisms - not all.

Is that a fact? Well, I'm glad I came here and started hanging out with all these smart people. To think that all these years I had this prejudice that consciousness, in greatly varying degrees, was an attribute of all living organisms and here I am getting set straight on this -- thank you! (Now, was this something that you actually observed in reality, or was this an axiom with which you started?)

Robert's "process" that is "smart" (smart being an attribute of consciousness)

So far we've got: "smart" [attribute of] "consciousness" [requires a] "brain."

Sounds to me as if you're ultimately attributing "smartness" to "brains", which is a lump of tissue.

Back to primacy of consciousness. "Minds" and "smart stuff" that need no physical support like a living organism or a brain. Funny how simple things become when stated like that.

Well, we can say the same about a simple statement such as "Existence exists." Most Objectivists -- probably Miss Rand herself -- take that to mean the primacy of matter. You probably take it to mean that, too. The "Just So" story goes like this: Somehow or other, unconscious matter came into existence (or always was in existence, whichever version of the myth gets you less upset), a bunch of changes started happening (because of the Great Law of Identity and the Unyielding Law of Causality), and then life somehow got built up out of this stuff, and then a bunch of other changes
occurred and consciousness got built up out matter.

The technical name for that is "epiphenomenalism": consciousness as an end result of purely material processes. If consciousness is an end result of purely material processes, then ultimately it is governed by laws that govern material processes. Sounds like a recipe for determinism to me. Conversely, if we hold to epiphenomenalism but insist that consciousness has unique attributes -- like free will -- then we must also claim that free will, or some precursor to free will, is an attribute of matter. (Quantum physics fans like to attribute free will to a basic "indeterminacy" of matter; an explanation I find far from satisfactory.)

I think that must be the reason why the vast majority of pro-ID arguments is by example and metaphors (TV set, molecular properties and whatnot). Religions do that a lot.

Really? You know, I am so happy we met! There I was, assuming that Darwinist theory -- especially its notion of Natural Selection -- was nothing but metaphor (even the All Knowing Bachler claimed that Nature "is like" a capitalist economy -- which he then incorrectly characterized as being a lawless free-for-all, rather than [as Mises, et al. teaches] a tightly integrated whole governed by money prices, notions of private property, division of labor, etc.). When we combine the metaphor of Natural Selection with the impossibly small probabilities of certain specific things coming together in just the right way, at just the right time, and with the just right environment waiting for it with open arms, we get an explicitly miraculous view of the universe -- which is precisely the view proposed by Darwinism. ID criticizes Darwinism, not for being science, but for being bad science.

I don't feel confident that you're well enough acquainted with either the literature on ID or Neo Darwinism to claim that the former is mainly metaphor and analogy and the latter is literal "hard" science. In fact, when ID gets quantitative and starts calculating these numbers (and many ID people have strong backgrounds in math), that's precisely when Darwinists disbelieve them!

If you're referring to my own copious posts above, the analogies I used -- the archers, for example -- was meant to explain certain concepts in their essentials. You object to that?

Big G and Robert, I have a request. Could you possibly give me some more details on your position? Something a little more elaborated? Maybe some really long articles and literature from other people? Something that will explain the details of "primacy-of-consciousness" without necessarily going into the essentials?

By characterizing this as "primacy of consciousness" vs. "primacy of matter" you already accept the Cartesian Divide. First read Darwin (he's a dry, boring writer, but I'm sure you can get through it), especially Origin of Species and Descent of Man. Then go to the library (if you know where it is) and read "History of Asian Languages" by Max Muller, a 19th century linguist who despised Darwin. There's no evidence that languages were built up out of simpler elements -- like pointing at an object while making a grunt, for example -- and then, through some Darwinian process, getting "built up." The farther back in time we go, the more poetic, metaphorical, and figurative all languages become (this is without exception). Language's use as a "sign," capable of referencing, or pointing, to a thing is a recent development, not an early one. It's opposite to what a Darwinian approach would expect.

Then, in about a year, come back and tell us all about the great "primacy of matter" over consciousness.

(Edited by The Grammarian on 8/22, 11:24am)

(Edited by The Grammarian on 8/22, 11:26am)

Post 186

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 9:18am

Robert Winefield wrote:

I know I'm going to regret this but...

The first part of the problem is that the concept of "species" as the smallest taxonomic unit needs an overhaul.

True.

It was created in a time before science had the ability to comprehend how the most numerous living organisms on the planet (microorganisms) reproduced.

To be declared "a new species" members of the new species and the old one must be incapable of successful sexual reproduction.

The problem is with the word "incapable." Do you mean genetically? or physically? The domesticated dog (canis familiaris) and the wolf (canis lupus) are considered to be two different species. They do mate sometimes. Conversely, a beagle and a St. Bernard don't mate, yet they are considered to be the same species.

Horses and donkeys, two different species, mate successfully to produce mules, though the latter are sterile. Does that count as "successful" mating?

Thus "species" as it is classically defined is an inappropriate concept to apply to micro-organisms (bacteria and fungi.)

Probably true, but what does all that have to do with us? Surely humans are not merely a "variety" of chimp, or chimp a mere variation of a tree shrew, etc.

These being the smallest, simplest and fastest evolving organisms on the planet. That is they evolve fast enough that you can witness the process well within your working career if you so choose.

I don't understand why you use the word "evolving." Things with big populations that reproduce quickly will tend to show lots of genetic changes, either through a genuinely random mutation, or through an induced one. These are different strains of bacteria, fungi, viruses, etc. If what you're saying is that Darwinian evolution should not really be concerned with such things as the appearance and evolution of a species because it can't define it clearly, then you should tell that to the Darwinists. Perhaps you or they can come up with a new title for "Origin of Species."

Post 187

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 9:20am

Andy Postema wrote:

I note that some of the Objectivists here have thrown in the towel with mock conversions to ID. As for me, my thanks for your essays on the subject. You given this Darwinist much food for thought.

Andy

;)

Post 188

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 9:24am

Because rather than being directed by the expedient hand of the creator, it requires natural selection of variations that occur randomly in populations, which takes millions of years to produce a new species.

Then the process has obviously been going on continously for at least the last million years and we should be seeing some sort of changes in media res just about now. Where are they?

Post 189

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 9:54am

Ah Jody - was wondering when someone was going to bring up ol' Vel... fits right in here, huh... :-)

Post 190

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 11:21am

Science Leader wrote:

May we study his design with baited breath.

Good grief, SL, that's BATED breath, not "baited." Look it up.

Post 191

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 2:00pm

Big G,

There is an unwarranted epistemological conceit that is held by most everyone I have discussed this with who advocate some variation or other of primacy-of-consciousness. The conceit is that the five senses give us all there is in interacting with physical reality. The presumption is that if we cannot perceive it, or magnify it or diminish it or transfer it to a support for one of our other senses, then it does not physically exist. So there must be a non-physical existence to explain phenomena that doesn't act according to presently known sense-based expectations.

They see the five senses as being a limitation on metaphysics, not on epistemology. They think that limited perception limits reality. The correct sequence is that one existence only encompasses everything. Then we fall within that existence, perceive parts of it and utilize a conceptual consciousness based on what we perceive.

What I see so often is the reverse - that there must be another reality based solely on what is lacking in our awareness.

(As an aside, I suspect that many who posit this are simply afraid of dying and are searching for a rationalization for an afterlife.)

Frankly, I am hesitant to engage you much further, though. You are quick to fall into smarm and I hate smarm. I love ideas and you seem intelligent, albeit very, very lonely and truculent. I suspect that after a small amount of time, any interaction with you will end up in a smarm-fest.

So, before this even starts, I'm thinking fondly about that year off from discussion with you that you suggested.

Michael

Post 192

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 2:48pm

I wrote (post #91):

For a given sized packet, more randomness in it implies less information. However, this does not imply that for a given packet, a small random addition or change to it decreases the information. It may increase it (or stay the same).

In post #92 Grammarian responds:

Sure. I fully admit, as does any statistician . . .

In post #159 Grammarian responds to the same remark:

Your 2nd and 3rd sentences contradict your 1st sentence.

Well, you contradict yourself. First you grant its truth, then you say I make a contradiction. The 1st sentence is a restatement of your claim that you did not contest. There is no contradiction in my sentences. Indeed, the 2nd sentence says "this does not imply", which should indicate the lack of an inference between the 1st sentence and the other two. It seems you are as capable of seeing contradictions absent evidence as you are seeing ID-ers absent evidence.

Grammarian wrote:

In order to get a computer to reproduce that specific pattern, you have to instruct it with all the original characters of the pattern:
1. print H 2. print H 3. print T 4. print H 5. print T 6 print T
etc. etc. until the entire original pattern is given.

With the random (more exactly, pseudo-random) number generators in programming languages I have worked with, this is clearly false. The random number generator has a "seed" which feeds off the computer's clock by default. If the user sets the same seed for two different computer runs, the same sequence of random numbers is generated for each.

These technical points have little to do with ID. I have no more interest in discussing ID with you. I don't have the background, time, or interest to check all your and your heroes' detailed claims about biology. But I'm confident that there are others who can identify their fallacies and weaknesses, as I have found so far. And having a career dealing with probabilities a lot, I am tired of listening to anyone who dreams up numbers, maybe does a few unfit calculations, and believes they have some connection to the real world.

Why do I say unfit? Marcus Bachler made the point in post #98. You replied in post #105 like his point was irrelevant. So I will try again with an analogy. Suppose we have a sequence of 100 coin flips. Whatever the exact sequence is, we can look it from three time perspectives - before (T0), sometime during such as after 95 flips (T1), and after 100 flips (T2). Accept at least for the moment that probability is an ex ante concept. At T0 the probability of that sequence is .5^100. At T1 the probability of that sequence is .5^5. The first 95 are now given, and what the probability was at T0 is now irrelevant. At T2 probability is inapplicable; all 100 are a given.

You repeatedly take a T0 perspective, and I submit that this is improper applied to evolution. What has happened is a given. The T0 perspective applied to evolution is to imagine yourself many eons ago and calculating probabilities for T2 (or T1) as if the first 100 (or 95) are not a given, when in fact they are.

Moreover, considering the stochastic process in the context of evolution, at each time step there are in effect multiple trials across individuals of a species. So the probabilities are effectively higher than at first glance!

I said I'm tired of hearing of others dreaming up numbers and doing some calculations. Regardless, I indulge myself once. I ID'd a model -- it took six days and nights and then I rested a day -- to compute the probability of your general thesis being correct. The model's "fitness for survival" output for your thesis is less than Dembski's universal probability bound, which may as well be zero. :-)

Thank you for sparking my interest and I've learned, but the flame has went out. Bye.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 8/22, 3:47pm)

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 8/22, 4:09pm)

Post 193

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 4:05pm

Things with big populations that reproduce quickly will tend to show lots of genetic changes, either through a genuinely random mutation, or through an induced one.

No, no Grammarian. The creator does not allow this. He guides the process, therefore randomness is not allowed - remember?

I have no idea what he means when he says that the "normal function is NOT to bind to antibiotics" as if a ribosomal lock teleologically evolved knowing that it would someday be attacked by a poisonous key. I suspect that he doesn't know what he means, either.

What do you think I mean, when I write that binding an antibiotic is not a normal function? If a molecule changes in order not to bind to an antibiotic, but still carries out it's original function, how could that possibly imply a "loss of information"?

A point mutation can desensitize the bacterium to the antibiotic, not by conferring a brand new ability (which requires new information coding for new proteins), but by degrading an already-existing function in such a way that the specific shape of the binding site is altered. When this occurs, the antibiotic can no longer attach itself to the ribosome.

No. It does not degrade it's function. The ribosome still functions properly in protein synthesis. It has mutated so it no longer binds the antibiotic. This not a loss of information, it still performs it's normal function!!! Why can't you grasp this simple notion?

This is simply a positive adaptation that allows the bacteria to survive in a changed environment. One that has the antibiotic.

Post 194

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:06pm

I've been following this ID/evolution debate on SOLO ever since it recently flared up. I am not an expert on evolutionary theory, but I would lake to add my two cents with the three points that I think summarize a few key facts in this debate:

1. Not all ID proponets are advocates of a particular religion, nor even of an Abrahamic "God" concept as is commonly understood by Westerners.

2. Biblical creationists enthusiastically support the advancement of and promotion of ID theories, particularly insofar as said theories are an attack on Darwinian theory. They love the scientific veneer that ID carries as they know that literal Biblical creationism is bankrupt in the intellectual marketplace of ideas. (As a case study, rent the season of Penn & Teller's Bullshit which had the creationism episode - it profiles a controversy in a Georgia school district where parents wanted to put a sticker on their kids science books that in effect said "Evolution is still an unproven theory...". They interviewed many of the creationists leading the charge, and all of them dropped the phrase "Intelligent Design" repeatedly)

3. The only aspect of Intelligent Design theory that can be consistent with Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology would be the space alien hypothesis, wherein lifeforms from somewhere else in the universe introduced complex organic compounds and processes to the Earth, and set the process of evolution in motion. Yes, I know, it begs the question of how the aliens themselves were created, but we can't even begin to answer that since we know nothing about them (or whether they even exist). Nevertheless, it remains within the laws of the natural world to speculate that other inelligent lifeforms might exist, and that these life forms might be smart enough to create life as we know it on earth.

FUTHER THOUGHTS

As an amateur on this subject, the only aspect of the current evolutionary theory that seems questionable to me is how life came about from non-life. Assuming biology was set in motion, I have no problems accepting that humans evolved from lower primates who evolved from lower creatures and on and on and on...
However, science has yet to demonstrate the exact way in which chemicals can randomly come together to become spontaneously regenerating in the way that life as we know it is. I'm not saying I outright disagree with the current speculation - it seems to be the best we have - but the Darwinian crowd will certainly put the nail in the coffin of this issue if and when they can create authentic micro-organisms "from scratch".

Post 195

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:25pm

Pete,

Good post.

There've also been many others but his was the most recent.

I think the arguement comes down to this. All you ever hear out of ID proponents is holes in Evolution you don't usually hear strong scientific foundations FOR their ideas. It kind of reminds me of nihilists who are fantastic at disproving things but don't really come up with good standards to even run their own lives.

Why does it seem no ID proponents are interested in understanding the nature of the "Designer." If there is something as important to the nature of science as AN INTELLIGENCE THAT DESIGNED THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND ALL THE RULES THAT GOVERN IT, people who believe it is there aren't trying harder to understand what it is?

---Landon

Post 196

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:53pm

Another thing which continues to be fogged - that if it isn't ordered, it therefore must be random. Not so. Randomness, like chaos, is a fiction, an inability at that then present time of seeing the complexity of the inherent orderliness - the cosmoticness - of the universe, and all within it.In effect, an unwillingness to accept the integratedness of the universe.
(Edited by robert malcom on 8/22, 8:00pm)

Post 197

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 8:58pm

Robert M,

I think there is much you could learn about randomness.
You could start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random

A book titled Probability, Statistics, and Truth
by Richard Von Mises, Ludwig's brother, has an
excellent description of it. Here is some info on him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Mises

Hope that helps.

Post 198

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 3:08am

Merlin wrote:

EXHIBIT A:

For a given sized packet, more randomness in it implies less information. However, this does not imply that for a given packet, a small random addition or change to it decreases the information. It may increase it (or stay the same).

Then Grammarian responded:

EXHIBIT B

Sure. I fully admit, as does any statistician, that there is a non-zero, calculable probability monkeys making random additions of text to a blank page of paper might increase the information density on the page by typing intelligible sentences, and that these sentences might randomly be assembled into paragraphs, and the paragraphs randomly assembled into chapters, and the chapters randomly assembled into sequences, and the sequences into a full novel like "Atlas Shrugged." If you believe that it actually DID happen that way, then I have bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Then Merlin continues:

Well, you contradict yourself. First you grant its truth, then you say I make a contradiction.

Uhh, I didn't grant "its" truth. I posted a WHOLE PARAGRAPH EXPLAINING PRECISELY WHAT I MEANT, WHICH YOU DISHONESTLY OMITTED AFTER YOUR ELLIPSES (". . . "); TO WIT:

In post #92 Grammarian responds:

Sure. I fully admit, as does any statistician . . . [NB: Where the hell is the rest of my sentence, Merlin, ehhhhh???????]

There is no contradiction in my sentences.

Merlin's 1st sentence: For a given sized packet, more randomness in it implies less information.
Merlin's 2nd sentence: However, this does not imply that for a given packet, a small random addition or change to it decreases the information.

Randomness = [A]
Information = [B]

1st sentence: More [A] implies less [B].
2nd sentence: A small addition of [A] does not imply a decrease in [B].

Sorry, but that's what you wrote. Sentence 2 disaffirms sentence 1 by means of negating the copula and that is the essence of contradiction.

Are you going to quibble over distinctions-without-a-difference such as those between "more" and "a small addition" or "less" and "decrease in"?

Perhaps you meant to write, "Though big amounts of randomness will no doubt decrease the information of a system, a very small random addition need not." Is this what you meant?

If so, then it appears you're trying to argue that genomic information could have increased in the distant past as a result of very small random changes. And (for the 20th time) here's my reply:

1. The smallest possible random change to a genome is a single nucleotide substitution -- an error in DNA replication.  After many decades of inducing such substitutions in fruit flies, nothing really interesting has happened; i.e., no new species. No flies-turned-into-wasps; no flies-turned-into-mosquitoes. Only a few monstrosities (flies with legs sticking out of their heads where their antennae should be.)

2. Many diseases in humans correlate with small, random changes in their DNA: Sickle-Cell Anemia, Cystic Fibrosis -- probably cancer, who knows? Show any correlations between random DNA mutations and positive additional traits to the human genome -- "trading up" -- which doesn't have some sort of protein/tissue/organ degradation associated with it. I don't know of any.

3. Other aspects of Darwinism say you're wrong. The field of population genetics demonstrates that very small mutations that try to "seep" their way into a population get sloughed off; they get rejected by the population as a whole, and the population maintains its original integrity (meaning: no increase in information in their genomes). Latest press release from the molecular biology department at University of Chicago claims that there is now direct experimental proof of this (rather than just statistical inference). They claim that they have shown (to their own surprise) that small mutations, occurring gradually, will be rejected. Conversely, lots and lots of mutations happening quickly are likely to be accepted. This is the opposite of what a Darwinist would expect. Darwinists don't like "catastrophism." They like "gradualism." It's bad enough to calculate the odds of ONE specific mutation happening at just the right time, in just the right order, at just the right place, with just the right enzyme to help things along, with just the right environment to ensure it gets selected; now to assume that MANY such mutations must happen in a very short amount of time if we are to get evolution to work at all, is to inflate already impossible odds.

So I will try again with an analogy.

I thought you didn't like analogy?

Suppose we have a sequence of 100 coin flips.

Already you've mischaracterized the problem and provided a faulty analogy. Don't give a hand-waving argument and say "suppose we have just any old sequence of 100 coin flips." Damnit, specify the outcome you're looking for! Give us in advance the sort of target you're trying to hit.

I no longer like you Merlin, but I feel sorry for you, so I'll do the math for you.  100 tosses are too many for an example. Let's take 10. Here's the scenario:

Somewhere in the universe there's a little known protein called "Merlinine" which is indispensible for the vision of space aliens. The protein consists of an impossibly short chain of amino acids, but that's our example. The sequence is this:

alanine+valine+leucine+proline+leucine+glycine+serine+valine+tyrosine+cysteine

That's the specified sequence. That's what we need. If we don't have exactly THAT, the aliens are blind. OK? What are the odds of forming that specific sequence -- not just any sequence we feel like, but THAT one -- by chance?

The math is the same as in coin tosses, except instead of 2 choices (heads/tails) we have 20 choices (the total number of amino acids, which forms a set of twenty discrete elements).

We start out with a bag of amino acids, we shake it up, and we reach into the bag to pull out the first one.

1. Odds of pulling out "alanine" are 1/20. [we pull out a 2nd]
2. Odds of pulling out "valine" are 1/20. [we pull out a 3rd]
3. Odds of pulling out "leucine" are 1/20. [we pull out a 4th]
4. Odds of pulling out "proline" are 1/20. [we pull out a 5th]
5. Odds of pulling out "leucine" are 1/20. [we pull out a 6th]
6. Odds of pulling out "glycine" are 1/20. [we pull out a 7th]
7. Odds of pulling out "serine" are 1/20. [we pull out an 8th]
8. Odds of pulling out "valine" are 1/20. [we pull out a 9th]
9. Odds of pulling out "tyrosine" are 1/20 [we pull out the 10th]
10. Odds of pulling out "cysteine" are 1/20.

Total odds = 1/20^10 of hitting THAT target (remember the archers? That specific amino acid sequence above is the bullseye we're trying to hit).

Whatever the exact sequence is, we can look it from three time perspectives - before (T0),

This is not a physics experiment in kinematics; there is no "T0" and time has nothing at all to do with this (except for the fact that we can take as much time or as little time as we wish to reach into the bag and pull something out).

sometime during such as after 95 flips (T1), and after 100 flips (T2). Accept at least for the moment that probability is an ex ante concept. At T0 the probability of that sequence is .5^100.

At all points along the selection process, the probability is 1/20^10 to hit the target, once we've decided that it's the bullseye; once we've specified it.

At T1 the probability of that sequence is .5^5. The first 95 are now given, and what the probability was at T0 is now irrelevant.

No. We repeat the experiment with a slight change:  what are the odds of randomly creating an amino acid chain 10 residues long of the following specified structure:

TARGET = alanine+valine+leucine+proline+leucine+glycine+serine+valine+tyrosine+cysteine

1. Odds of pulling out "alanine" are 1/20. [we pull out a 2nd]
2. Odds of pulling out "valine" are 1/20. [we pull out a 3rd]
3. Odds of pulling out "leucine" are 1/20. [we pull out a 4th]
4. Odds of pulling out "proline" are 1/20. [we pull out a 5th]
5. Odds of pulling out "leucine" are 1/20. [we pull out a 6th]
6. Odds of pulling out "glycine" are 1/20. [we pull out a 7th]
7. Odds of pulling out "serine" are 1/20. [we pull out an 8th]
8. Odds of pulling out "valine" are 1/20. [we pull out a 9th]

(Here we break for lunch; we listen to some music; we read a book; we do some chores; we run some errands; we brush our teeth (and floss). Then we brew some coffee, and heigh-ho! it's back to work for us. We assume, of course, that the above sequence is now a given.):

9. Odds of pulling out "tyrosine" are 1/20 [we pull out the 10th]
10. Odds of pulling out "cysteine" are 1/20.

Probability of hitting that specific target, even with a lunch break = 1/20^10.

The fact that you've picked 8 of the 10 correctly in no way changes the odds, no matter where you decide to pause for lunch, or how long the lunch break is (analogy not parody). This is probability not physics. Time doesn't enter into it except if we become interested in how long it might take someone actually to perform this selection process.

Consider that in the real world, most proteins have amino acid chains of 300, 500, or more; not 10 as in the example above. Then there's the problem of the odds of creating all the different sorts of proteins, each one with a different sequence. Then there's the problem of creating all the different sorts of enzymes and regulation systems that integrate proteins together. Then there's the problem of why a protein would even be useful for anything, unless there was an organism and DNA to make use of it and to copy it. Darwinist theory has too many proteins and too many DNA sequencing it has to calculate odds for, and not enough time since the Big Bang to have searched through the "search space" of possibilities in a plausible way.  If you tell me hey, maybe a bunch of amino acids just got lucky and formed first time around, then you endorse a miraculous view of the universe. Nothing beats odds of numbers like 1/10^65.

(Except, of course, intelligence, which is NOT governed by chance itself, and which routinely and easily beats odds like that.)

At T2 probability is inapplicable; all 100 are a given.
You repeatedly take a T0 perspective, and I submit that this is improper applied to evolution.

You can assume anything you want. Why not assume that that all the amino acid sequences were already there in the distant past and all the requisite proteins were already formed, just waiting to be made use of by biological organisms that hadn't even appeared on the scene yet.

Grammarian wrote:

In order to get a computer to reproduce that specific pattern, you have to instruct it with all the original characters of the pattern:
1. print H 2. print H 3. print T 4. print H 5. print T 6 print T
etc. etc. until the entire original pattern is given.

Post 199

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 3:20am