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

a reply to: cooperton

You're gonna make me learn about protein folds with this. I mean, it's my choice to waste today, but I need to autodidact this s#, use this paper as a foundation, and be back to this shortly.

a reply to: Degradation33

Okay back...

Apparently I don't need to. I asked biologists... sorta.

biology.stackexchange.com...

David Gelernter:

...how hard it would be to create just one new protein by chance — the odds are so astronomical that there are fewer atoms in the entire universe in comparison: “The odds bury you. It can’t be done.”

Responses:

I don't wish to appear to be answering this question in a comment, and I have the feeling that it has been asked before, but if it hasn't anyone is welcome to expand on the following thoughts. 1. This is a common statistical fallacy. You have to ask what false assumptions are being made. What does creating a protein by chance actually mean? 2. The evidence says that it is possible to create a catalytic active molecule by 'chance' by the aptamer selection experiments. Lots of them. Just like there are lots of polyclonal antibodies against the same epitope. So how ever clever the arguments..

I'm not trying to answer the question: I'm saying that this is a conjouring trick. You are so busy following this calculation that you don't question its relevence to biology, even though from your experience you know that it is a trick. You have been tricked into accepting a deliberately vague false premise of the sort that evolution requires the chance formation from scratch of one specific 100-amino acid protein. We all enjoy being tricked by a good conjourer, but we don't go away believing in magic, do we?

And the top-rated response in entirety.

In the original column for The Claremont Review of Books, David Gelertner does not suggest starting from atoms, but from amino acids. This changes the calculation slightly:

The total count of possible 150-link chains, where each link is chosen separately from 20 amino acids, is 20^150. In other words, many. 20^150 roughly equals 10^195, and there are only 10^80 atoms in the universe.

In any case, these kinds of estimates are purely theoretical and are not hugely useful. We do not know how early proteins evolved, but they did not have to just assemble from scratch.

As mentioned in the comments, this kind of argument for creationism (or 'Intelligent Design') is like a card trick - you start by dazzling with vast numbers, and use them to conceal the logical sleight of hand.

The premise of his argument is simple - there are a vast number of possible sequences, only a small fraction of those can fold into functional proteins, and there have not been enough mutations to make up the difference.

There is this strange argument:

But what does generating new forms of life entail? Many biologists agree that generating a new shape of protein is the essence of it

I'm not sure who these 'many biologists' are, but the relationship between novel folds and new species is not clear to me, at least.

Anyway, the second part of his argument relies on the work by Douglas Axe on estimating the fraction of functional folds (see this paper for example). Although he describes him a bit oddly ("Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding") it's reasonable to make this kind of estimate.

He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 10^74 will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 10^74 is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 10^77.

So here is the very small number to contrast with the very large one of the first step. Now for the 'bridge' - the large number of attempts that would be necessary to make a very rare event (a folded, functional protein) possible.

Suppose, then, that every bacterium that has ever lived contributes one mutation before its demise to the history of life. This is a generous assumption; most bacteria pass on their genetic information unchanged, unmutated. Mutations are the exception. In any case, there have evidently been, in the whole history of life, around 10^40 bacteria—yielding around 1040 mutations under Axe’s assumptions.

So the argument - roughly - is that 10^-77 * 10^40 is still very small. That is, mutations are not frequent enough to overcome the extreme rarity of functional sequences.

The sleight of hand, I think, is to confuse abiogenesis and mutation. When talking about the entire 'landscape' of possible sequences we are talking about abiogenesis - randomly picking 150 amino acids (say) from an alphabet of 20. When talking about bacteria we are obviously talking about mutation.

We really have no idea how the first primordial proteins formed, or what their properties were. They could have used a smaller set of amino acids (although this does not change the numbers much), or could have assembled from multiple smaller peptides, or even been partially folded.

On the other hand, mutation of existing proteins necessarily happens on sequences that can already fold. Moving to a sequence that is a neighbour in fold space is very different to picking a completely new point in that space.

So really, the numbers do not tell us anything because they relate to separate questions.

Good. Biologists exposed the slight of hand. Even linked the same paper.

I can now not learn about boring f***** protein folds and defer to online peer-reviewed academia instead.

originally posted by: Degradation33
In the original column for The Claremont Review of Books, David Gelertner does not suggest starting from atoms, but from amino acids. This changes the calculation slightly:

The total count of possible 150-link chains, where each link is chosen separately from 20 amino acids, is 20^150. In other words, many. 20^150 roughly equals 10^195, and there are only 10^80 atoms in the universe.

In any case, these kinds of estimates are purely theoretical and are not hugely useful. We do not know how early proteins evolved, but they did not have to just assemble from scratch.

As mentioned in the comments, this kind of argument for creationism (or 'Intelligent Design') is like a card trick - you start by dazzling with vast numbers, and use them to conceal the logical sleight of hand.

The premise of his argument is simple - there are a vast number of possible sequences, only a small fraction of those can fold into functional proteins, and there have not been enough mutations to make up the difference.

There is this strange argument:

But what does generating new forms of life entail? Many biologists agree that generating a new shape of protein is the essence of it

I'm not sure who these 'many biologists' are, but the relationship between novel folds and new species is not clear to me, at least.

Anyway, the second part of his argument relies on the work by Douglas Axe on estimating the fraction of functional folds (see this paper for example). Although he describes him a bit oddly ("Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding") it's reasonable to make this kind of estimate.

He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 10^74 will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 10^74 is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 10^77.

So here is the very small number to contrast with the very large one of the first step. Now for the 'bridge' - the large number of attempts that would be necessary to make a very rare event (a folded, functional protein) possible.

Suppose, then, that every bacterium that has ever lived contributes one mutation before its demise to the history of life. This is a generous assumption; most bacteria pass on their genetic information unchanged, unmutated. Mutations are the exception. In any case, there have evidently been, in the whole history of life, around 10^40 bacteria—yielding around 1040 mutations under Axe’s assumptions.

So the argument - roughly - is that 10^-77 * 10^40 is still very small. That is, mutations are not frequent enough to overcome the extreme rarity of functional sequences.

The sleight of hand, I think, is to confuse abiogenesis and mutation. When talking about the entire 'landscape' of possible sequences we are talking about abiogenesis - randomly picking 150 amino acids (say) from an alphabet of 20. When talking about bacteria we are obviously talking about mutation.

We really have no idea how the first primordial proteins formed, or what their properties were. They could have used a smaller set of amino acids (although this does not change the numbers much), or could have assembled from multiple smaller peptides, or even been partially folded.

On the other hand, mutation of existing proteins necessarily happens on sequences that can already fold. Moving to a sequence that is a neighbour in fold space is very different to picking a completely new point in that space.

So really, the numbers do not tell us anything because they relate to separate questions.

They didn't offer any real solution, or any reasons why the odds would be different. The only resolution to these odds would be to have some sort of guidance for these mutations, which starts to get into intelligent design territory. They merely called it trickery because it is contrary to their beliefs. If they had a reason why it is wrong they could have offered a resolution.

originally posted by: Degradation33
You're gonna make me learn about protein folds with this. I mean, it's my choice to waste today, but I need to autodidact this s#

hahaha. My gf occasionally questions how much time I spend posting all this stuff here. Protein folds are kind of interesting but you could also definitely go your whole life without knowing them and it would make no difference.

a reply to: cooperton

So if these new DNA sequences to create working active sites cannot be made by chance, then they must have been made by something intelligent. I believe the Creator is extra-dimensional, able to create whatever as easily as we create vast landscapes in our dreams every night. This is good news, we have purpose and meaning in life, and this intelligent Creator allows us perpetuity of consciousness after death.

See, here is a giant leapfrog of/over logic - right to a creator who gives meaning to our lives and perpetuity of consciousness.

The God of the Gaps is one thing, criticized unfavorably by Atheists and Christians (such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer) alike. Because as knowledge increases the realm of GOTG shrinks.

I may argue on the contrary, the more we learn the more we know we do not know, therefore GOTG realm increases.

But perpetuity of consciousness! I'm looking forward to the thread you're thinking of that you mentioned to WakeUpBeer.

a reply to: pthena


You may enjoy exploring the mysteries that lay hidden in plain sight as you trace the path of the www.ultra-unlimited.com...

THE LIGHT-BEARERS, VENERATED PRIESTS OF AMUN, AND UNWAVERING PALADINS OF THE LIGHT

a reply to: TimeTravelX11

Virus blocker triggered.

I might try later with a different, sand-boxed system.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: cooperton

You can make up whatever numbers you want about the chance or the odds of something happening, but get this...it did happen.

Exactly.

With hindsight we know the chances of it happening were 1/1 (due to the fact that it did happen).

Making up imaginary numbers about it is somewhat meaningless in light of this fact. It's illogical creationist piffle "designed" to accommodate religious beliefs.

A more interesting evolutionary question might be whether religious belief and practices propagate as a memetic virus?

originally posted by: Quintilian


Exactly.

With hindsight we know the chances of it happening were 1/1 (due to the fact that it did happen).

"Evolution did it because evolution did it."

Riveting.

Making up imaginary numbers about it is somewhat meaningless in light of this fact. It's illogical creationist piffle "designed" to accommodate religious beliefs.

I believe the world is designed because it looks designed. It does not look like an accident.

A more interesting evolutionary question might be whether religious belief and practices propagate as a memetic virus?

Thinking you're the progeny of mutated ape-like things is the true ontological virus.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Disaster is upon the wicked, they ruin their own lives losing their children and what not.

originally posted by: Quintilian

Exactly.

With hindsight we know the chances of it happening were 1/1 (due to the fact that it did happen).

originally posted by: cooperton

"Evolution did it because evolution did it."

Riveting.

I've often wondered what the best way is to explain to those using such arguments (referring to Quintilian's argument and the one he was responding to) that they are employing circular reasoning. Cause it's clear that even though from our perspective it seems obvious, the people who argue like this here don't seem to be able to notice it. To them it sounds like a clever argument, perhaps because it tickled their ears. Otherwise they wouldn't keep using it even after it has been pointed out to them that their reasoning is circular.

The approach I've tried before was to remind them of the main causal factor as proposed by evolutionists, cause it is them that claim that these things happened "by chance" (or to use Dawkins' terminology in The Selfish Gene, "by accident"). So "chance" is their main causal factor. So the last part of Quintilian's argument is actually: "due to the fact that it did happen" by chance. And that's a claim or assumption, not an observation or fact. We don't know if it happened by chance. That's why the question, 'what are the chances/odds of this happening by chance?' becomes relevant.

So you can't argue that the chances of something happening by chance, are "1/1", just because you assume it happened by chance. That would be circular reasoning. Just because we are here does not support the assumption that we are the product of chance rather than engineering (the other proposed cause against which this claim is also evaluated).

But because wherever they heard this argument first, is usually a source that will not make any mention anymore* of their main proposed cause or causal factor, they (the first "they") tend to forget that that was the original claim under evaluation and why the discussion about odds/chances came up in the first place. (*: when they are doing their 'it happened because we are here' spiel, when they are actually saying/claiming/arguing it happened in a specific way: by chance; or at least that's what they were saying before or that belief is their main reason for making that argument, or it's why the subject of odds came up in the first place.) I hope you can figure out my usages of "they" and "their", cause I'm talking about 2 different types or groups as discussed at 2 Timothy 4:3,4, teachers (the source of such arguments) and 'students' if you will (those whose ears are tickled by such arguments and repeat it here on ATS, or express it in their own words).

Chapter 4: Could Life Originate by Chance? (Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)

WHEN Charles Darwin advanced his theory of evolution he conceded that life may have been “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”⁠1 But present-day evolutionary theory generally eliminates any mention of a Creator. Instead, the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, once repudiated, has been revived in a somewhat altered form.

Belief in a form of spontaneous generation can be traced back for centuries. In the 17th century C.E., even respected men of science, including Francis Bacon and William Harvey, accepted the theory. However, by the 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen spontaneously from nonliving matter.

A New Form of Spontaneous Generation

A current evolutionary position on life’s starting point is summarized in his book, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. He speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”​—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. [whereislogic: he's playing those who already have fallen for the 'because life is here, it must have happened' (by accident/chance) spiel.] Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.⁠2

At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins’ comment in the preface to his book: “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.”⁠3 But readers on the subject will find that his approach is not unique. Most other books on evolution also skim over the staggering problem of explaining the emergence of life from nonliving matter. Thus Professor William Thorpe of the zoology department of Cambridge University told fellow scientists: “All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was.”⁠4

The recent explosive increase of knowledge has only served to magnify the gulf between nonliving and living things. Even the oldest known single-celled organisms have been found to be incomprehensibly complex. “The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning,” say astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. “Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. . . . so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.”⁠5 And as information increases, the harder it becomes to explain how microscopic forms of life that are so incredibly complex could have arisen by chance.

The principal steps en route to the origin of life, as envisioned by evolutionary theory, are (1) the existence of the right primitive atmosphere and (2) a concentration in the oceans of an organic soup of “simple” molecules necessary for life. (3) From these come proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds) that (4) combine and acquire a membrane, and thereafter (5) they develop a genetic code and start making copies of themselves. Are these steps in accord with the available facts?

...

References:

1. The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, Mentor edition, 1958, p. 450.

2. The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, 1976, p. 16.

3. Ibid., p. ix.

4. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 68.

5. Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 8.

...

a reply to: whereislogic
According to your argument it would seem that both sides are assuming, in regards to creation, but chance exists.

What are the chances of guessing the number in roulette or being dealt four aces? Slim, but it does happen.

That is where your argument wanes, things happening by chance have been witnessed. God, not so much.

Sometimes god even gets the credit for what chance did.

a reply to: whereislogic

There used to be people posting in this subforum that would then say, "You're talking abiogenesis, which is off topic to evolution."

So what you're saying is Science doesn't know, or have a fully formed theory as to, how life began.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: whereislogic
According to your argument it would seem that both sides are assuming, in regards to creation, but chance exists.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was referring to with "those using such arguments" in my first sentence. I made an edit. I was referring to Quintilian's and strongfp's arguments. In strongfp's case it was more disguised as a statement of fact, or should I say better disguised, with the understanding that this was probably not on purpose. So should I describe it as 'hidden behind a lack of spelling it all out'? I don't know, that sounds weird, unclear.

In any case, I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to in my comment when you say "according to your argument". Ah, I think a see a sentence now in my comment that may be misunderstood or misinterpreted with the way I phrased it there. Is it this one:

Just because we are here does not support the assumption that we are the product of chance rather than engineering (the other proposed cause against which this claim is also evaluated).

Let's change "assumption" to "claim", and I will agree with you that there are 2 main opposing claims under evaluation in this discussion. That the origin of life, and/or specific steps, happened by chance, or by creation, or as I referred to it with the slightly more specific term, engineering (as it applies to technology and machinery).

The assumption that it happened by chance, is made when people say the type of things that Quintilian was implying (but not completely spelling it out, it's sort of 'hidden' cause he didn't spell out that according to his beliefs it happened 'by chance', but that's the claim under discussion when the odds/chances of something relevant to this subject (origin of life) happening come up, so responding to it by saying the odds are "1/1" because it happened, is both implying and assuming that it happened by chance).

Engineering is the other proposed cause against which the claim that it happened by chance (an alternative cause) is also evaluated. "Also" in the sense of besides the evaluation when one asks the question, 'what are the chances/odds that this happened by chance?' The answer to which gives an indication of the plausibility of the claim that it happened by chance. The more unlikely the odds, the more unlikely or implausible this claim is.

Odds are of no relevance in any evaluation of the claim that life is the product of engineering, other than when one is evaluating this other proposed cause/proposition ('by chance') in comparison, to see if it's an alternative that has any merit for further consideration.

What are the chances of guessing the number in roulette or being dealt four aces? Slim, but it does happen.

That is where your argument wanes, things happening by chance have been witnessed. God, not so much.

Do you think that the observation of some things happening by chance is (sufficient) evidence to support the claim that the machinery and technology that life is made up of emerged by chance, or is the product of chance?

Cause I don't see it as either evidence for, or sufficient evidence for that idea/philosophy. I've seen plenty of machines being the product of engineering but I've never seen one emerge by chance. Wouldn't that be a better place to start building a case for this idea than merely pointing out that some things happen by chance (the things you mentioned concerning roulettes and cards being quite incomparible to the odds under discussion by origin of life researchers and their critics) or that "chance exists"? It would be even nicer if the machine in question bears some resemblance to "the machinery of life" (some time ago I saw a video of some intelligently shaped magnetic pieces shaken by an intelligent agent in a tube in such a manner that they formed a useless sphere that wasn't a machine, suggesting some relevance to the origin of life and the popular term in that field, "self-assembly"; it was the video itself that suggested it, if I remember correctly).

Since it's more relevant to the topic under discussion, or evaluation if you will, concerning what the cause is for this effect:

originally posted by: whereislogic
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was referring to with "those using such arguments" in my first sentence. I made an edit.

I understood what you meant, it is something I have seen before and I do believe there is some merit to you calling it out as circular logic.

Yet, although I said both sides are assuming, the assumption that something can happen even when the odds, or the time according to this thread, are against it can be what happened.

To me it is a similar yet also a different type of circular logic to the idea that "it had to be a creator".

One side is saying "it could't happen without a creator" and the other is saying "it could have happened by chance", that is why I said chance exists. What are the chances of X, it doesn't matter how big the odds against something happening are, it can happen on the first try.

Let's change "assumption" to "claim"...

No need, I think we can all agree that the assumption leads to the claim.

The crux of my comment is that chance/luck/fortunate set of circumstances happen. Nobody can say why, but they sometimes do.

Do you think that the observation of some things happening by chance is (sufficient) evidence to support the claim that the machinery and technology that life is made up of emerged by chance, or is the product of chance?

No, but is it any worse than the god of the gaps?

So, the way I see it, science put's a "still to be figured out" label on it and the creationist side claims they know.

The truth is that neither side knows, with certainty, what the cause for the effect is but one is honest and the other is doubling down on their circular logic.

That honesty does not include those on the evolution side who claim to know with certainty but, then again, I have to ask are they any worse than their opposing side?

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: whereislogic

There used to be people posting in this subforum that would then say, "You're talking abiogenesis, which is off topic to evolution."

Which would be incorrect but a bit boring to respond to in much detail since it's often just an attempt to avoid responding to anything of relevance that was actually in my comment or relevant to this thread about the origin of new proteins, of which a lot are required for the origin of life.

So what you're saying is Science doesn't know, or have a fully formed theory as to, how life began.

I would never say something like that in that manner. Nor can it be read into anything I've said in any sort of plausible way (as in plausibly misunderstood). Evolutionists are fond of saying it though, often as they propose their own evolutionary (main cause: 'by chance') version of events (storyline based on evolutionary philosophies, most notably the causal factor of chance). If you are referring to them with your term "Science", it's OK to honestly call them that, "evolutionists". The term "science" just means "knowledge" for me, and that is how I use it. There's also no need to capitalize it. It also doesn't form theories, as a person or a group of persons. Since not all scientists agree with these evolutionists and their proposals or even the general notion that life emerged by chance, and quite a few scientists (past and present) have come to the conclusion that life is the product of creation/engineering, your usage of the term "Science" also does not seem to be applicable to* "scientists" in general (*: or "swappable with").

Anyway, I didn't really say anything about the subject described by you there (in the comment you were responding to).

originally posted by: daskakik
...

Yet, although I said both sides are assuming, the assumption that something can happen even when the odds, or the time according to this thread, are against it can be what happened. [whereislogic: is there something missing from this sentence?]

To me it is a similar yet also a different type of circular logic to the idea that "it had to be a creator".

One side is saying "it could't happen without a creator" and the other is saying "it could have happened by chance", that is why I said chance exists. ...

Well, I think I wouldn't quite put it that way (the bolded phrases), but in case anyone does, it would depend on their underlying reasoning or argumentation whether or not any circular reasoning is going on, or where the assumptions are made.

Just like the statement "it could have happened by chance" on its own doesn't tell me much about whether or not any circular reasoning is going on, or where any assumptions are made. Which is why my comment about circular reasoning was about the notion that the fact of our existence, or the existence of life, is conclusive evidence that the emergence of life happened by chance (another way of phrasing the type of reasoning I explained before in more detail, where someone treats the fact of our existence as evidence for that idea, 'because we are/life is here, it must have happened', by chance/spontaneously, the last part concerning the cause usually left out as demonstrated by Quintilian).

Those making the claim that "it could have happened by chance" are still subject to the evaluation concerning the question "what are the odds that it happened by chance" to get an impression as to the validity and plausibility of such a claim. Any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming by chance/at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists claim it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). If you go by their own numbers, you can do the math to evaluate whether "it could have happened by chance" or it "never" "could have happened by chance".

An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe.

Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random (as estimated by some scientists interested in this subject)? One chance in 10^40,000! “An outrageously small probability,” astronomer Fred Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously/by chance] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.” (Evolution From Space, p. 24.)

However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”⁠ (New Scientist, “Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,” by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151.)

More difficult to obtain than these are nucleotides, the structural units of DNA, which bears the genetic code. Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes). The chance of forming even the simplest of these histones is said to be one in 20^100​—another huge number “larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes.” (Evolution From Space, p. 27.)

Yet greater difficulties for evolutionary theory involve the origin of the complete genetic code​—a requirement for cell reproduction. The old puzzle of ‘the chicken or the egg’ rears its head relative to proteins and DNA. Francis Hitching says: “Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.” This leaves the paradox chemist Richard Dickerson raises: “Which came first,” the protein or the DNA? He asserts: “The answer must be, ‘They developed in parallel.’” In effect, he is saying that ‘the chicken’ and ‘the egg’ must have evolved simultaneously, neither one coming from the other. Does this strike you as reasonable? A science writer sums it up: “The origin of the genetic code poses a massive chicken-and-egg problem that remains, at present, completely scrambled.”⁠ (The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 66; Scientific American, September 1978, p. 73; The Sciences, “The Creationist Revival,” by Joel Gurin, April 1981, p. 17.)

Chemist Dickerson also made this interesting comment: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.”⁠ But is it good scientific procedure to brush aside the avalanches of “inconvenient facts” so easily? Leslie Orgel calls the existence of the genetic code “the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life.” And Francis Crick concluded: “In spite of the genetic code being almost universal, the mechanism necessary to embody it is far too complex to have arisen in one blow.” (Scientific American, September 1978, p. 85; New Scientist, April 15, 1982, p. 151; Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick, 1981, p. 71.)

Evolutionary theory attempts to eliminate the need for the impossible to be accomplished “in one blow” by espousing a step-by-step process by which natural selection could do its work gradually. However, without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select.

An additional hurdle for evolutionary theory now arises. Somewhere along the line the primitive cell had to devise something that revolutionized life on earth​—photosynthesis. This process, by which plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen, is not yet completely understood by scientists. It is, as biologist F. W. Went states, “a process that no one has yet been able to reproduce in a test tube.” Yet, by chance, a tiny simple cell is thought to have originated it. (The Plants, by Frits W. Went, 1963, p. 60.)

This process of photosynthesis turned an atmosphere that contained no free oxygen into one in which one molecule out of every five is oxygen. As a result, animals could breathe oxygen and live, and an ozone layer could form to protect all life from the damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation. Could this remarkable array of circumstances be accounted for simply by random chance?

When confronted with the astronomical odds against a living cell forming by chance, some evolutionists feel forced to back away. For example, the authors of Evolution From Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) give up, saying: “These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way . . . in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.”⁠ (Evolution From Space, pp. 30, 31.)

Hence, after acknowledging that intelligence must somehow have been involved in bringing life into existence, the authors continue: “Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”⁠ Thus an observer might conclude that a “psychological” barrier is the only plausible explanation as to why most evolutionists cling to a chance origin for life and reject any “design or purpose or directedness,” as Dawkins expressed it. Indeed, even Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after acknowledging the need for intelligence, say that they do not believe a personal Creator is responsible for the origin of life.⁠ In their thinking, intelligence is mandatory, but a Creator is unacceptable. Do you find that contradictory? (Evolution From Space, p. 130; The Selfish Gene, p. 14; Evolution From Space, p. 31.)

If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has been described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.

In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?

On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible. “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task,” Professor Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, “to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” But what does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: “Yet here we are​—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”⁠ And there you have it, the type of reasoning picked up by Quintilian that I've been talking about. Does that sound like objective science? (Scientific American, August 1954, p. 46.)

British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasoning as “simple dogmatism​—asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen.” How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known evolutionist Loren Eiseley conceded: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”⁠ (The Immense Journey, by Loren Eiseley, 1957, p. 200; Ibid., p. 199.)

Based on the evidence, the spontaneous generation of life theory appears better to fit the realm of science fiction than scientific fact. Many supporters apparently have forsaken the scientific method in such matters in order to believe what they want to believe. In spite of the overwhelming odds against life originating by chance, unyielding dogmatism prevails rather than the caution normally signaled by the scientific method.

Not all scientists, however, have closed the door on the alternative. For example, physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the odds against a spontaneous origin for life, said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” He further observed that after Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species, “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.” A sad but true commentary. (Physics Bulletin, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” by H. S. Lipson, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.)

Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor at University College, Cardiff, said: “From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. . . . For life to have been a chemical accident on earth is like looking for a particular grain of sand on all the beaches in all the planets in the universe​—and finding it.” In other words, it is just not possible that life could have originated from a chemical accident. So Wickramasinghe concludes: “There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale.” (Daily Express, London, “There Must Be a God,” by Geoffrey Levy, August 14, 1981, p. 28.)

As astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”⁠ (The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 19. a. Life Itself, p. 71.) Or the result/product of (an act of) engineering, as I would say. And the conclusion that the machinery and technology that life is made up of is the result/product of engineering, is a general conclusion based on inductive reasoning, not circular reasoning or assumptions. It is after all an established (and observed) fact that machinery and technology is the product of (caused by) engineering. As the Encyclopædia Britannica puts it concerning inductive reasoning: "When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..." Or as Newton puts it: “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.” “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.” (Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

originally posted by: whereislogic
...

Yet greater difficulties for evolutionary theory involve the origin of the complete genetic code​—a requirement for cell reproduction. The old puzzle of ‘the chicken or the egg’ rears its head relative to proteins and DNA. Francis Hitching says: “Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.” This leaves the paradox chemist Richard Dickerson raises: “Which came first,” the protein or the DNA? He asserts: “The answer must be, ‘They developed in parallel.’” In effect, he is saying that ‘the chicken’ and ‘the egg’ must have evolved simultaneously, neither one coming from the other. Does this strike you as reasonable? A science writer sums it up: “The origin of the genetic code poses a massive chicken-and-egg problem that remains, at present, completely scrambled.”⁠ (The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 66; Scientific American, September 1978, p. 73; The Sciences, “The Creationist Revival,” by Joel Gurin, April 1981, p. 17.)

...

QUESTION 1: How Did Life Begin? (The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking)

...

Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. He says: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’”5 [whereislogic: notice how apparently he feels it's OK to admit something is "impossible" to have happened a specific way, no appeal to the notion that we can't know that for certain or that we don't know for certain, or that it's "still to be figured out".] RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life? “The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland *, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”6

[*: Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood.]

...

That footnote describes a common pattern among evolutionists which I alluded to earlier when I responded to Pthena's remark: "So what you're saying is Science doesn't know, or have a fully formed theory as to, how life began." With:

I would never say something like that in that manner. Nor can it be read into anything I've said in any sort of plausible way (as in plausibly misunderstood). Evolutionists are fond of saying it though, often as they propose their own evolutionary (main cause: 'by chance') version of events (storyline based on evolutionary philosophies, most notably the causal factor of chance).

It's almost a mantra for them. As if it justifies ignoring all the evidence against it, the evidence that shows their proposition of events to be impossible. As a result:

...

IMPOSSIBILITIES NO DETERRENT

There are literally thousands of pitfalls for the evolutionary theory, en route from a primitive atmosphere, bombarded by lightning or radiation, to a one-celled living organism able to reproduce itself. Every competent scientist knows this. He knows that the many speculations advanced to evade these pitfalls are inadequate. Laws governing energy and matter declare impossible the spontaneous generation of life. Mathematical laws of probability doom its chances.

The simplest known self-reproducing organism (H39 strain of Mycoplasma) has 625 proteins averaging 400 amino acids each. However, some contend that, theoretically, one might get by with 124 such proteins. What are the chances of one of these proteins of 400 “left-handed” amino acids forming from a mixture of both “right-” and “left-handed” ones? One chance in 10^120 (1 followed by 120 zeros).

However, for this nonexistent cell 124 proteins are needed. What are the chances of spontaneously forming that many, all from “left-handed” molecules? One chance in 10^14,880. But these amino acids cannot be tied together just indiscriminately; they must be in the right sequence. To get these 124 proteins, averaging 400 “left-handed” amino acids each, with the acids in the correct sequence, the chances are 1 in 10^79,360. If we wrote out this last number in full (1 followed by 79,360 zeros), it would take about 20 pages of this magazine to do it! Dr. Emil Borel, an authority on probabilities, says that if there is less than a 1 in 10^50 chance for something to happen, it will never happen, no matter how much time is allowed. And that number could be written in less than two of these lines.

Prominent evolutionists know the problems. Some try to push them into outer space. British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said that ‘existing terrestrial theories of the origin of life are highly unsatisfactory for sound chemical reasons,’ and that ‘life did not originate on earth itself but, rather, on comets.’ Others grit their teeth and believe in spite of the lack of evidence. Nobel-Prize-winning biologist Dr. George Wald stated: “One only has to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are​—as a result I believe, of spontaneous generation.” On his own admission, he believes in the impossible. This kind of reasoning is comparable to that of an earlier biologist, D. H. Watson, who said that evolution was “universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”

...

And there at the end we have a hint regarding daskakik's preferred view of the argument of induction concerning creation/engineering. And the real reason why some people would prefer to see it as circular reasoning, making assumptions, or an argument from ignorance as in the god of the gaps remark earlier. But an argument of induction is none of these things.

If it helps understand the concept of inductive reasoning better, you might as well call it simply using your common sense. Michael Behe alludes to it when he says "and it uses the normal mode of reasoning that science uses", and a little later "it's simply us using our brains in an ordinary way" (starting at 38:36 below). After 40 minutes he also responds to the god of the gaps strawman argument as used by Francis Collins.

Oh I forgot the source for the last external box: Can Life Arise by Chance? (1978)

originally posted by: daskakik

To me it is a similar yet also a different type of circular logic to the idea that "it had to be a creator".

Complex cellular machinery exists, that's why I believe it was designed. When I see molecular machinery working non-stop to keep our bodies alive, I don't think it was an incident of chance.

So, the way I see it, science put's a "still to be figured out" label on it and the creationist side claims they know.

That's fair, but the fact that biological components work better than the man-made machines that resemble their behavior. This shows there was a greater designer that made all of it. In science you start with a hypothesis. My hypothesis of intelligent design is based on the apparent engineered nature of these micromolecular machines, as well as biological tissue, organs, and organisms as a whole.

a reply to: whereislogic

Do you have that link where that guy was exposing the absurdity of the claims about whale evolution? Come to think of it, you should compile all your sources into one megathread that goes point-by-point disseminating the actual evidence of each claim made by evolution.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Well, I think I wouldn't quite put it that way (the bolded phrases), but in case anyone does, it would depend on their underlying reasoning or argumentation whether or not any circular reasoning is going on, or where the assumptions are made.

This thread is one example of many the OP has authored that fall in that category.

originally posted by: daskakik
This thread is one example of many the OP has authored that fall in that category.

Where did I use circular reasoning in the OP? I used numbers from a peer-reviewed journal and other sources accepted by the scientific community to calculate the odds of creating new protein functional groups. Nowhere did I claim it must have been God because God did it. It was more so demonstrating the unfathomable improbability of one protein forming by chance.