There's not enough time in the world for mutations to create new proteins

a reply to: Phantom423

"The mechanisms of evolution — like natural selection and genetic drift — work with the random variation generated by mutation."

The traits that are getting selected emerge by random chance mutations to the genetic code. That's the whole point of the peer-reviewed paper, they are calculating the probability of this mechanism creating a novel active site on a protein

It even says so in your own link lol:

originally posted by: Phantom423

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving “desirable” (adaptive) features and eliminating “undesirable” (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

The underlined part of your quote above is what the paper in the OP is referring to. The odds of these random mutations being able to create a new active site to be naturally selected. Your ability to disprove your point with your own link is astonishing

originally posted by: Kreeate
...
That is the basis of civilized discussion. Acceptance of an opposing perspective, whilst maintaining one's own standpoint.

What about the basis for learning?

“The more one is involved in learning activities, the more one’s ability to learn expands. Continuing learners are better learners,” says the book Elderlearning​—New Frontier in an Aging Society.

“We've learned 85 per cent of what we know by listening,” says a report in the Toronto Star newspaper. “Poor listening skills are at the root of many of society’s problems,” according to the report.

For good reason, Jesus stressed the need to “pay attention to how you listen.” (Luke 8:18) Good listening shows good manners. It is a vital part of good conversation.

Those who only listen to someone trying to hear something they can fit into their preferred straw man argument (such as the 'god of the gaps' straw man argument), do not have good listening skills (or on that occasion, they are not applying those, 'they don't want to hear it', as the expression goes, they prefer hearing the god of the gaps argument, cause that allows for a more dismissive response rather than taking the actual argument seriously, and evaluating it as such, considering it for serious). When that becomes a paintjob in their response to someone else (strawmanning someone else's argumentation), it demonstrates a lack of good manners. So their commentary ends up missing a vital part of good conversation.

A couple of examples of this behaviour can be found on page 9 (daskakik and Phantom423). But regarding the god of the gaps straw man, it's a regular event in this subforum. Or demonstrated by those on the other side of the fence concerning God's existence in general, especially popular speakers, such as Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer (The Skeptic Society), Matt Dillahunty (The Atheist Experience), the prominent scientists shown at the start of the documentary below (that are critical of The Discovery Institute), etc.

I was talking about the scientists at 2:50 (starting with Dawkins):

These are the types that condition the 'flock' that the strawmanning behaviour I've been talking about is perfectly reasonable and justified. Because of their reputation and because they are doing it too, and they are quite efficient at making it appear that way (reasonable and justified), at least to their already biased flocks, tickling their ears in the process. Part 6 gets into the behaviour as well (strawmanning an opponent's argument, in particular the god of the gaps straw man is discussed, cause that's the most common one, as it is here on ATS):

As the man puts it at 0:47: "It's a wanton distortion of our position". But it's extremely effective on the flock as demonstrated here on ATS, so they'll continue with it (both the teachers and the flock) no matter how many times or in what manner it is explained to them that that is not the argument, and if they would please just respond to (or think about) the actual argument for a change.* Because it makes dismissal without giving it much thought so much easier. So that one can fall back on their preferred notion that there is no (convincing) evidence for God. (*: Some time ago I tried getting some thoughts and responses from those usually responding to the god of the gaps straw man, about the actual argumentation used in support of the existence of a Creator that is based on inductive reasoning, and it felt like pulling teeth from a great white shark, with the accompanying metaphorical biting as well. Their actual views on the arguments and the supporting facts/realities/truths as I broke those down one at a time, still remain a bit unclear regarding some of the individual arguments or statements of facts, because they kept on changing and contradicting previous responses, or avoiding a clear acknowledgement of a stated fact when that fact was inconvenient to them because of what it meant for the accompanying argumentation supported by that fact.)

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: TerraLiga
... He also uses "complexity" as an excuse to claim a "designer" is responsible for life. All without an iota of evidence.

Coming back to my previous comment, "complexity" is one of the triggerwords for the strawmanning behaviour I discussed, for reading the god of the gaps straw man argument into what someone else is saying. Often, it doesn't even matter how the term "complexity" is actually used (sometimes it's not even used at all, but still read into it), the god of the gaps straw man is always read into it when someone like Cooperton uses the term. It is also the term used in part 6 of the Expelled documentary that I linked in the part about the god of the gaps straw man argument (the beginning of the video).

At the end of what I quoted from TerraLiga, you can see a demonstration of what I said about the reason for continuing with this 'reading a straw man argument into what someone else is saying' behaviour, in spite of any type of explanation that that is not what the actual argument is:

So that one can fall back on their preferred notion that there is no (convincing) evidence for God.

The amount of times this routine is demonstrated, would give the impression it's all they've got in response to the argument of induction (and logical conclusion by induction) that the machinery of life was the product of engineering.* That's worse than using unverified hypotheses to evade the argument of induction. [* edit: I'm spelling out the conclusion here, not the argument itself as I did before component by component, fact by fact, with the underlying inductive reasoning, in another comment that I'm looking for to link here but can't find for now, in which I discussed the 2 main established facts on which the underlying inductive reasoning is based, 1. that machinery and technology is the product of engineering, and 2. that life is made up of machinery and technology, or other ways to describe that, not sure if I used that exact description before. Maybe someone else remembers which thread that was. I'm talking about the 'pulling teeth from a great white shark' experience I mentioned before. This whole footnote was just to prevent anyone from interpreting the original sentence as me spelling out the whole argument itself, and while I was at it, at least referencing some things concerning the underlying reasoning. It's also a later edit having been influenced by my remark about claims in contrast to arguments in my comment below. So when I said "the argument of induction (and logical conclusion by induction) that the machinery of life was the product of engineering", I was making a reference to the argument, not spelling out the argument itself, I was however spelling out the resulting conclusion based on the underlying inductive reasoning related to the 2 facts I mentioned.]

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.” [or worse, endless and repetitious strawmanning no matter what, and not budging one inch from that routine no matter what is said or explained in response; repeat in the next thread or discussion. If you'd tried to do a count here in this subforum, you'd probably lose count.]

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.” [And certainly not straw man arguments.]
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

Keep in mind that the term "experimental philosophy" was also referred to as "modern science" somewhat later. Just like the term "natural philosophy" was once used synonymously with "science", until the latter term became more popular. The quotation above is from the time when the term "natural philosophy" was used to refer to what people knowadays often call "science".

a reply to: whereislogic
Sorry:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

No that is exactly what I am claiming. God did it.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: whereislogic
Sorry:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

No that is exactly what I am claiming. God did it.

And what's his underlying argumentation or reason(s) for that claim, conclusion and resulting opinion and belief (but not an argument itself)?

Just in case this needs to be spelled out for anyone, the phrase "God did it" on its own is not an argument and can therefore not be used to read an argument from ignorance, like a god of the gaps style argument, into it (no matter how well the phrase fits the phrasing of the god of the gaps straw man argument that was drilled into your mind, popular speakers using the phrase a lot when doing their strawmanning routine, just as it's done in the entertainment media). Well, if you want to remain reasonable about this that is.

Surely by now, Cooperton has explained his position and the reasons for his position in many different ways. And much more elaborate than simply with the phrase "God did it", which was a response to someone asking him specifically about that phrase. And still not a god of the gaps argument.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Coming back to my previous comment, "complexity" is one of the triggerwords for the strawmanning behaviour I discussed, for reading the god of the gaps straw man argument into what someone else is saying.

There are two debates that seem to get mixed into each other. The one is whether life/universe is intelligent design or not. The other is evolution, or how life in general changes over time. What the religious group suggests is not only is life intelligent designed, but God would not use evolution as his tool and would just pop life into existence in its current form. They just do not see that intelligent design and evolution can also go hand in hand.

Then we have another logical argument that suggests the chances of humans being formed are as close to impossible as one could get and I agree if we were looking from the present to the past asking what would be the probability that humans were the end result without intelligences drive it all. The key here is if we looked forward from 4 billion years ago and just said life will go in whatever direction it ends up we would still have what we have today with the probability not being a factor as life would be something in the end, and what we see today is that something.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Well, if you want to remain reasonable about this that is.

It is all nothing more than a non-falsifiable hypothesis that we just go round and round and round with.

a reply to: whereislogic
Sure he has explained it and even tried to pass it off as a sciency type theory but the fact is we don't really know. And what is good for the goose and all that jazz

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Evolution did it" is the true blind god of the gaps theory, since it is both empirically untestable, and against the clear logical nature of biological organisms.

originally posted by: whereislogic

This one has an interesting point. The blond-headed guy says that atheists are like flat-earthers and anti-vac people who no matter what would not change their minds. Well first, that is an ad hominem fallacy...

So why would someone atheist or otherwise not believe in aliens? Would not believe they could be massively advanced than us, could be from another universe, could be so advanced that can do whatever they want at will. if we let the path for life go down this direction who is to say otherwise once we build evidence that supports it?

Where the guy in the video and most of the religious here pushing the intelligent design side go wrong is that it is the Christian God who does it and the morals of the bible including Jesus are all part of it too. Intelligent design is not religious by nature, but it is made that way and then used as the basis for their hypotheses which is why people push back.

This is an interesting take on the subject (apart from everything after 8:04):

originally posted by: Xtrozero

This one has an interesting point. The blond-headed guy says that atheists are like flat-earthers and anti-vac people who no matter what would not change their minds. Well first, that is an ad hominem fallacy...

He's just sharing his experience in response to how TJ Kirk pictured the situation (which he referred to as "that openness to evidence you described"). I wouldn't call that an ad hominem fallacy.

Haven't you had a similar experience with people in general? People in general do not change their minds easily regarding these sort of subjects (God's existence, the origin of life), regardless of their position on the matter.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: TerraLiga

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving “desirable” (adaptive) features and eliminating “undesirable” (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

...

Back to enthroning natural selection as the designer again? Let's have a little stroll down history lane...

Evolution’s Revolution (Awake!—1981)

WANTED: A REPLACEMENT FOR DARWIN

THE SCRAMBLE IS ON FOR NEW ANSWERS

EVOLUTION “is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years.” So said a report on a meeting held in Chicago last October. Some 150 specialists in evolution held a four-day conference on the subject “Macroevolution.”

Science, the official journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, reported the mood: “Clashes of personality and academic sniping created palpable tension . . . the proceedings were at times unruly and even acrimonious.” Many frustrated scientists complained that “a large proportion of the contributions were characterized more by description and assertion than by the presentation of data.” However, has not assertion instead of data long been the tactic of evolutionists?

Darwin had said that life evolved very slowly by small changes from a single-celled organism into all life on earth, including man. The fossil record should show these transitions, but he admitted it doesn’t. One hundred and twenty years ago, he said the record was incomplete, but he felt that more fossils would be discovered in time to fill in the gaps.

“The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist,” declared Niles Eldridge, paleontologist from the American Museum of Natural History in New York. He believes new species arise, not from gradual changes, but in sudden bursts of evolution. The many transitional forms needed for Darwinian evolution never existed​—no fossils will ever bridge the gaps.

Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard agrees with Eldridge. At the Chicago meeting he declared: “Certainly the record is poor, but the jerkiness you see is not the result of gaps, it is the consequence of the jerky mode of evolutionary change.” Everett Olson, UCLA paleontologist, said: “I take a dim view of the fossil record as a source of data.” Francisco Ayala, a former major advocate of Darwin’s slow changes, added this comment: “I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.”

Science summed up the controversy: “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution [small changes within the species] can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution [big jumps across species boundaries]. . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No.”

This revised view of evolution is called “punctuated equilibrium,” meaning one species remains for millions of years in the fossil record, suddenly disappears and a new species just as suddenly appears in the record. This, however, is not really a new proposal. Richard Goldschmidt advanced it in the 1930’s, called it the “hopeful monsters” hypothesis, and was much maligned for it then. “Punctuated equilibrium” is a much more impressive designation.

This theory is somewhat of a boon to evolutionists, for it does away with the need to come up with transitional forms. It makes changes happen too fast, the evolutionists contend, for fossils to record the events​—but not fast enough for us to see them happening. However, it is also a liability. When creationists pointed to the intricate designs in nature that required a designer, evolutionists enthroned natural selection as the designer. Now the role of natural selection has been eroded, and chance is ensconced in its place​—creationists have long held that evolutionists must depend on chance.

Gould recognizes that natural selection has lost ground to chance: “Substantial amounts of genetic change may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through populations at random.”

David Raup, curator of geology, writes in the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin for January 1979, on “Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology.” Raup says the fossil record shows change, but not “as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. . . . it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare. . . . A currently important alternative to natural selection has to do with the effects of pure chance. . . . We are thus talking about the survival of the lucky as well as the survival of the fittest.” He thinks perhaps that “the mammals were not better than the dinosaurs but just luckier,” and concludes his article by saying of Darwin: “The part he missed was the simple element of chance!”

With chance in the dominant role guiding evolution, the thorny question of design returns: How can chance accomplish the intricate and amazing designs that are everywhere? The eye, Darwin said, made him shudder. Moreover, it is not just once that such miracles of design by chance have to occur, but they must happen again and again in unrelated species.

For example, the octopus is no relative of ours, but his eye is amazingly “human.” Unrelated fish and eels have electrical shocking equipment. Unrelated insects, worms, bacteria and fishes have luminous organs giving off cold light. Unrelated lampreys, mosquitoes and leeches have anticoagulants to keep their victims’ blood from clotting. Unrelated porcupines, echidnas and hedgehogs are said to have independently evolved quills. Unrelated dolphins and bats have sonar systems. Unrelated fish and insects have bifocal eyes for vision in air and under water. In many unrelated animals​—crustaceans, fishes, eels, insects, birds, mammals—​there are amazing abilities for migration.

Even more than all of this, evolutionists would have us believe that three different times warm-blooded animals developed from cold-blooded reptiles; three times color vision developed independently; five times wings and flight developed in unrelated fish, insects, pterodactyls, birds and mammals.

Could chance repeat these feats over and over again? The mathematics of probability shouts, No! Evolution’s revolution may have helped it live with the gappy fossil record, but it has handed chance a role to play that is far beyond its powers to perform.

[Blurb on page 10]

The “hopeful monsters” hypothesis reappears as “punctuated equilibrium”

[Blurb on page 11]

Before you can have survival of the fittest, chance must bring about arrival of the fittest

That last point counts regardless if you want to go with “punctuated equilibrium” or Darwin's proposed gradualism, or any other variation of the evolutionary storyline. Invoking natural selection (which can only be used to explain survival of the fittest, and not arrival of the fittest*) also doesn't negate the need for it. *: In the words of evolutionist Hugo de Vries: “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.” His favorite talking point being mutations as "the source of novelty, creating new forms and new species, potentially instantaneously, in sudden jumps." (quoting wikipedia on his "mutation theory of evolution.") If any of that sounds familiar, see here: Evolution—Myths and Facts

Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations​—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—​can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.19

a reply to: whereislogic

The statement that disproves phantom's point is literally the prior sentence to the one she bolded in her link:

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving “desirable” (adaptive) features and eliminating “undesirable” (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

Their ability to shoot themselves in the foot, yet still have the others cheer them on (i.e. give them stars) is the clear exemplar of the blind belief they have in evolution theory. None of them know how to properly debate it, as is shown by phantom disappearing again since they were shown to be demonstrably wrong.

Since no one has been able to refute any of the empirical evidence or the numbers presented in the OP, then I assume that is their admission to defeat.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: whereislogic
Sorry:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

No that is exactly what I am claiming. God did it.

Whereislogic already answered for me correctly. You blatantly leave out the part where I explain the reason for my hypothesis that God did it. There is enough evidence for certainty that this world is designed. They're micromolecular machines, not random blobs of nonsense.

a reply to: cooperton
And Xtrozero also replied correctly, many atheists push back because the claim is usually made by people that they know it was the god they worship that did it.

You sidestep this by claiming it is some being called, Most High God, that many people worship but that is just a macguffin on your part.

There is no proof that this being exists and even if it did, there is no proof it asks to be worshiped or that it has any other characteristic attributed to it, except in the ideas created by man.

I'm not a scientist (maybe a wanna be scientist) but in line with the debate here and 'god of the gaps' theory, if we humans are able to create a "self-replicating" synthetic bacteria doesn't that somewhat make us humans the 'god of the gaps' in this specific breakthrough or at the very least designers of self-replicating life?

Now, this scientific team headed by Drs. Craig Venter, Hamilton Smith and Clyde Hutchison have achieved the final step in their quest to create the first synthetic bacterial cell. In a publication in Science magazine, Daniel Gibson, PhD and a team of 23 additional researchers outline the steps to synthesize a 1.08 million base pair Mycoplasma mycoides genome, constructed from four bottles of chemicals that make up DNA. This synthetic genome has been "booted up" in a cell to create the first cell controlled completely by a synthetic genome.

The work to create the first synthetic bacterial cell was not easy, and took this team approximately 15 years to complete. Along the way they had to develop new tools and techniques to construct large segments of genetic code, and learn how to transplant genomes to convert one species to another. The 1.08 million base pair synthetic M. mycoides genome is the largest chemically defined structure ever synthesized in the laboratory.

www.jcvi.org...

The video is an interesting exploration on more of the competing theories and Darwin's Doubt that being the mystery of the missing fossils (before the Cambrian explosion) and early and extinct marine fossils that pose more questions of and highlight the 'gaps of evolution':



So far there are explanations of evolutionary survival but no explanations as to the arrival of the fittest - also there are no explanations of morphological innovation in form and structure.

To Cooperton: At the 30:00 mark on the video, he speaks to mutations, DNA information and amount of time that you may be interested in listening.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Haven't you had a similar experience with people in general? People in general do not change their minds easily regarding these sort of subjects (God's existence, the origin of life), regardless of their position on the matter.

IDK, but referring to people not accepting God as flat earthers is pretty damn close...

As I said the narrative pushed not only says you must think intelligent design is a possibility, but it is the Christian God too. People here use bible passages all the time in their prooftelling.

I personally do not see intelligent design as a religious event, can be for some, but as to the discussion overall I don't think it is good. So yes, let's talk intelligent design, but when I'm told I'm going to hell if I do not accept Jesus as my savior too then things might get a little strained to have a real conversation about it.

originally posted by: whereislogic

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

"Chance" is a word no one but the religious side uses as a counterpoint. What is life other than a very complex chemical process with a ton of laws, rules, and natural processes set in stone? The term life is also a human construct to explain all that, but to the universe, there is no such thing as life. Randomness is in what direction life flows and that randomness is caused by an unlimited number of internal and external influences. If we went back 500 million years and reran life on Earth it would not be exactly as it is today, and I'm pretty sure we humans would not be here as most other life we see today would not be here either, but there would still be a world of life.

originally posted by: whereislogic

With change in the dominant role guiding evolution, the thorny question of design returns: How can chance accomplish the intricate and amazing designs that are everywhere? The eye, Darwin said, made him shudder. Moreover, it is not just once that such miracles of design by chance have to occur, but they must happen again and again in unrelated species.

For example, the octopus is no relative of ours, but his eye is amazingly “human.”

No one today talks about evolution using Darwinism. He had a truly monumental good start but got a lot wrong along the way. What we know today is a crazy level to anything Darwin has talked about.

The eye is an interesting topic in evolution that is far from perfection, so we can call it "just good enough" I don't think intelligent design would be just good enough. Our eye if it was a TV would have all the cables poking right out of the front TV tube, boy, I don't think intelligence would do that. We mere humans know better too, but it seems God didn't. The octopus has crazy good eyes that act more like a camera lens that allows it to see in very dark places, why didn't God give humans something that good? We get the cables out the front of the TV tube...lol

originally posted by: Xtrozero

IDK, but referring to people not accepting God as flat earthers is pretty damn close...

Maybe you should listen again to how DeflatingAtheism actually puts it in his conversation with TJ Kirk, cause you already seem to have heard something else the first time from the way you phrased it first. And now you took it one step further. DeflatingAtheism did not refer to atheists as flat earthers. He did not even compare their reasoning or beliefs as equally ridiculous, i.e. he did not say or imply that they were like flat-earthers or anti-vaxxers in that sense.

From the way you described it first, one may get the wrong impression as to what was actually said, from the way you described it now, that's definitely the wrong impression (and probably more based on your first description than what DeflatingAtheism actually said).

Here's what he actually said: "Unfortunately, that openness to evidence you described characterizes, in my experience, approximately 0.1% of atheists. Uh, you assume that atheists are just completely willing to change their minds upon encountering new evidence, I do not share that assumption, again, in my experience, atheists are no more willing to change their minds than say hardcore anti-vaxxers or flat-earthers."

So he's not saying that anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers or atheists will not change their minds "no matter what" (as you first put it).* He's also not saying that atheists are like anti-vaxxers or flat-earthers in all respects (an impression one may get from reading your first description), or in any other respect than their willingness to change their minds. *: also keep in mind that TJ Kirk was ascribing the other extreme end of the scale of openmindedness to atheists (the other end as the one you described as not changing your mind "no matter what"). DeflatingAtheism was nuancing that view by sharing his experience. I have not encountered someone as openminded as TJ Kirk described myself either, certainly not amongst those calling themselves atheists.

There's a good reason he includes the phrase "in my experience" in there a couple of times, but I don't think this subject warrants a longer comment.