Nils wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:44 pm
DBowling wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:56 am
Nils wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:21 am
DBowling wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:05 am
You have yet to demonstrate anything inaccurate in what Meyer has said.
My first comment on Meyer was on his clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c9PaZzsqEg
, which you referred to, #179. Between 4:33 and 6:08 he discusses the possibilities of proteins and says that the chance to find a new protein is one in 10^70 and the age of the earth isn’t long enough for generating a new protein. He concludes: “The bottom line is that the new Darwinian mechanism is not a plausible mechanism for generating new functional biological information”.
Is this reasoning correct? And this argument is one of only two argument for dismissing the evolution theory in this video clip.
I have seen nothing to indicate that Meyer's statement is factually incorrect.
The statement is correct but explain to me how it is possible to come from the statement to the conclusion. How does he reason?
Meyer's reasoning from the quote above is factually accurate...
If the probability of finding a new protein is 1 in 10^70 then he is correct that the age of the earth isn't long enough to generate a new protein.
If you wish to prove Meyer is wrong you only need to demonstrate that the possibility of finding a new protein is significantly less than 1 in 10^70.
That would support your assertion.
Again... data free assertions do nothing to help out your argument.
And your primary point shows that you don't even understand Meyer's position. Which is why it might be beneficial for you to spend some time understanding Meyer's position before you make factually inaccurate assertions about his position.
Meyer actually understands and agrees with the stepwise nature of the Darwinian process in the clip you referenced.
The issue Meyer brings up involves the rarity and size of functional steps, which are important because Natural Selection requires functional steps in order to propagate a mutation.
So the issue becomes how many coordinated amino acid changes in a protein are required to move a biological organism from one functional state to a new more beneficial functional state.
I use the standard definition of mutation as a change in the genetic code or more specific: “In biology, a mutation is the alteration of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA” from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
. Do you use the same definition, I'm not sure? And what you mean by “functional state” I’m not sure that I understand? What is then a non-functional state? Please explain this.
Yes I agree with that definition
But that definition does not specify the number of amino acid changes involved in the alteration of the nucleotide sequence...
The key principle that you are evidently not understanding is functional/beneficial mutations (ie mutations that Natural selection can propagate) often involve changes to multiple amino acids in a protein (such as the two amino acid changes that are required for malaria to develop resistance to chloroquine).
So if the distance between functional states that Natural Selection can propagate involves 4 or more amino acid changes in a protein, then that step between functional states of an organism cannot be breached by random mutation.
Since you evidently don't even understand Meyer's position, its not terribly surprising that your critique of his position has no basis in fact.
Meyer is relying on empirical evidence
- Empirical evidence tells us the maximum step size of a mutation that random mutation is capable of producing within the time span of the existence of life on our planet.
One example of empirical evidence involves comparing the ability of malaria to develop resistance to atovaquone (which requires one amino acid change) and chloroquine (which requires 2 coordinated amino acid changes).
The observed rate of malaria to adapt to atovaquone (which requires 2 coordinated amino acid changes) is 1 in 10^20 cells.
It seems that you cite some scientific article. Do you have the reference?
Meyer discusses that (with references) in...
you guessed it...
Chapter 12 Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math
The library is your friend
- Empirical evidence tells us that the distance between functional states in many biological organisms in existence today exceeds the maximum observed step size that random mutation is capable of.
I disagree completely
Of course you disagree... but your disagreement is based on inaccurate assumptions.
I would recommend going to your local library and checking out Darwin's Doubt.
Chapter 12 Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math has a good discussion on this topic with specific examples (such as the bolyerine snake). The Chapter is only 25 pages long, so you should be able to survive.
As I said before, I don’t trust Mayer so I would prefer to have a reference from some independent source.
Well... who you choose to trust or not to trust is not terribly relevant.
If you don't trust people who actually know what they are talking about then that says more about you than it says about them.
I have a hunch you won't trust anyone who doesn't share your set of presuppositions no matter how factually accurate their position is...
But lets give you the benefit of the doubt and try another source.
The Edge of Evolution Chapter 3
The Mathematical Limits of Darwinism
Did I mention...
The library is your friend
- Empirical evidence tells us that random mutations primarily involve deletions not additions.
Yes, so what? There are some beneficial mutations, that’s enough.
No that's no where close to enough...
The vast majority of 'beneficial' mutations that we observe in the lab and in nature involve deleting information at the molecular level.
So the existence of beneficial mutations does not equate to adding information to the DNA.
We do not see any empirical evidence to support the premise that random mutation is able to infuse new information (which requires insertions not deletions) into the DNA that we see in life today.
Read the wikipedia article about mutations (se above).
There's nothing there that I disagree with
or that disagrees with me for that matter
You couldn’t be more wrong. You dismiss a clear majority of biologists worldwide and say that they have been working on a theory for over hundred years in spite of there is ZERO evidence!
Again... show me the empirical evidence...
What about 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
(about 100 pages).
And note again: This is not a “proof”, only a lot of evidence, much much more than zero evidence.
Again you evidently do not understand my position (or Meyers either)
I am not arguing against common descent, and I will be the first to acknowledge that there is genetic and fossil evidence to support some sort of shared ancestry.
The argument that I (and Meyer) am making is that random mutation (as empirically observed in the lab and nature) is totally incapable of infusing information into the biosphere that we can observe in genetics and the fossil record.
The short version is that genetics and the fossil record demonstrate that lots of information has been infused into the biosphere at certain times during the existence of life on our planet.
Empirical evidence tells us that random mutation is incapable of generating that information.
We have empirical evidence of only one cause of information ...
And that cause is intelligence.