The copying errors (mutations) or probabilities issue that we have been thinking about is completely separate from the order of operations issue. Looking at the image above how could anyone ever work out the order in which the various pieces would need to be accidentally invented to add to the machine?
When you consider that most of the cell is irreducibly complex, meaning that each of the parts are interdependent upon one another in order to survive, you end up with thousands of interlocking chicken and egg problems.
Interactive cell versions here
Complexity, Evolutionists Biggest Problem
by Sea Breeze 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Sea Breeze
-
snare&racket
With respect, complexity keeps the ignorant ignorant.
It takes seconds to read and believe "God created the heavens and the earth."
it takes literally years to learn advanced physics, chemistry and biology so as to understand how theories such as evolution works and the evidence for it. How far in to your studies are you?
It is like deciding to post about how unlikely it is that planes fly in the sky because of how improbable aeronautic theories seem to you, having never picked up an aeronautics textbook or attended a class on it.
Just to prove a point, you have been impressed and moved by a 'real cross-section X-ray' of a human cell. After 6 years in university, I was instantly able to say "No it isn't, that is clearly an artists cgi rendition of cellular organelles." I could easily identify the mitochondria, the sarcoplasmic reticulum, the ribosomes...
Education is not about ego or elitism, it is a safety net for ignorance, as easily as you can be caught out by an artists fake picture, assuming it was a real xray, you can be seduced by a fringe narrative that suits your biases and beliefs.
It is always your choice, what do YOU really want to know?
The TRUTH about the universe
or
A narrative that reinforces your beliefs, i.e. COMFORT
Truth v's Comfort..... not easy, but your choice...
P.s. my reason for posting was because your OP was incredibly misleading, though I suspect unintentional. You started with a quote and reference to an experiment but then added a lot of personal conjecture. Only after seeing the 'Atlantic' article (not science) was I able to differentiate what you had read, what you had misunderstood and what you had added as conjecture as someone I assume not trained in science or statistics. I think it is important to be more transparent in the future, your conjecture is wildly mistaken/untrue and I am sure you would not want to intentionally mislead someone.
-
Sea Breeze
So far in our discussion we haven't brought up the problem of genetics. The fact is that the vast majority of copying mistakes (mutations) are detrimental to the organism. One of the questions is how long does it take for copying mistakes of either sort to reach "fixation" which is the change in a gene pool from a situation where there exists at least two variants of a particular gene in a given population to a situation where only one of the alleles remains.
Genetics is really where evolution stands or falls IMO. This national Institute of Health Lecture addresses population genetics and how it affects the theory of evolution.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNOAoONRb60&t=244s&ab_channel=BobEnyart
-
HowTheBibleWasCreated
Wrong. See the issue is a misunderstanding of evolution. The driven force of evolution is reproductive success. What this means is that if I have enough children before I can no longer reproduce, or more likely before my wife can't, then I can send half my genetic material into subsequent generations. Suppose one of those thousand genes enable me to react quicker. Then I'm less likely to die before a car hits me etc. Now let's take this formula to 100,000 years ago. The pre-human would carry his genes and reproductive success would ensure that his genes would carry over to a large amount of children or... his line would go extinct if it was a bad gene. The whole idea of bad mutations is nonsense. Those lines would have died off. Unless we live in the modern era with a new social order.
-
HowTheBibleWasCreated
Sorry t kill this discussion but here is the evidence for evolution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI&t=0s
Refute it!
-
keinlezard
Hello,
Such a calculation is misleading.
I explain, in the real world all chemical reactions occurs at same time.
But in computer calculation , it's a simulation with our scientific comprehension of the phenomenom.
There is another problem what is exactly the purpose of this calculation simulate all chemical reaction or only a part ?
If you simulate all reaction .. we should use chemical quantum theory.
If you think that for hydrogen computation there are only one electron that interract with atomic nucleus ... for carbon you have 6 electrons who interact with nucleus .. but also with other electrons ...
so, if quantum calculation is easy for hydrogen
1 orbital 1s1 ...
with
carbon
1s2 2s2 2p2
electrons on orbital 1s interact with electron on 2s and 2p
2s interact with 1s and 2p
2p interact with 1s and 2s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation
If you think that we cannot compute exactly with math more than 3 electrons
but the real world made it ...
and this is only one atom ... a little protein in living cell has 100 or 200 atoms ...
The problem is not the "complexity" that we think to see here but what we want to simulate and the tools we use ...
At the other hand ... we could simulate these reaction in a real living cell when we
modify one thing at time ...
The reaction will be immediate but the time to analyze resulting data could take time ...
with computation ... calculation take time and analyze resulting data could be fast
To see a tree is immediate , study a tree take time , even without calculation or theorical work ( see botanist work :) )
or comparing real world of airplane and FlightSimulator :)
To conclude, it is an interresting work , but it could be misleading to compare real world
to simulation and conclude that complexity is a problem for evolutionist ...
It's not the same world, nor the same reality, nor finality ...
Best Regard
-
LoveUniHateExams
The evolution theory has run out of time - this is a dubious statement.
Life has existed on Earth for billions of years. That's untold individuals for natural selection to act on, over many, many generations.
-
FFGhost
Arguments such as in the OP can be reduced to one simple sentence:
"I can't understand [X], therefore God must have done it."
Reminds me of how the Watchtower goes on and on about the Bible providing "satisfying" answers to "life's big questions" - not true answers, or accurate, or logical, or reasonable, or verifiable, but "satisfying".
It is "satisfying" to think there is a big invisible man in the sky overseeing and controlling everything. There is of course no evidence for such a conclusion, but it is "satisfying" to think so.
-
Rocketman123
Ancient mythological expressions are fictional expressions inherently based upon human ignorance, thereby making all the gods believed in the past and in the present nonexistent.
We can learn from these human endeavors to why they were created by man to an understanding and reason though.
-
Sea Breeze
In the video above that I posted of a lecture from a geneticist professor at Cornell University, (Time @ 21:10) the professor describes his peer-reviewed paper that shows how much time is needed for a string of only 8 nucleotides to become fixed in a population.
Keep in mind that 8 letters would be a small genetic word. His research proves that it would take longer than the supposed age of the universe for that to happen. Now think about how big the human genome is - If you were to print it on 8.5x11 sheets of paper, it would reach to the moon and back!
But, we have run out of time after the unlikely emergence of only an 8 letter beneficial genetic "word".
The professor claims the research paper is rock solid and has been read by 10,000 colleagues with no serious challenges.This is a big problem for evolutionists.
As an aside, it makes no difference to me if God made us, an alien made us or we made ourselves. I am not attacking anyone personally for their beliefs. But, I am for truth and against error. The presentation is fascinating in that regard.