Talk Origins internet site

by hooberus 24 Replies latest jw friends

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA510_1.html

    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    Claim CA510.1:

    Problems with evolution are evidence for creationism.

    Response:

    1. This claim assumes that creation and evolution are the only two possible models, which is very false.
    2. Even if the two-model idea were true, problems with one model do not imply that the other model is true. Another alternative is that another as-yet unknown model is correct.

    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    My comments:

    Point #1. Creation, Evolution (or some combination thereof) are the only realistic options, so I think that point one is errant. In fact even some prominent evolutionists have stated our only options this way.

    Point #2 is a logical fallacy for "if the two-model idea were true" there can't be "another as-yet unknown model."

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    A moderator would be appreciated.

  • Mac
    Mac

    A peanut buster parfait would be equally appreciated right now...can I get a mod to be a sweatheart and run out to get one for all of us..I'm buying!

    mac, you fly/ I'll buy class

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB120.html

    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    Claim CB120:

    The overall effect of mutations is to lower the viability of populations, due to the "genetic load," or genetic burden, that they add to the gene pool.

    Source:
    Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 56-57.

    Response:

    1. As new harmful mutations enter the population, selection removes existing harmful traits. The genetic load of a stable population is an equilibrium between the two.
    2. Bacteria mutate much faster than plants and animals do, yet their populations are not becoming less viable.

    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    My comments:

    I think that load if sufficiently high can lower the viability of populations. Could it be that the Talk Origins author is making this based on textbook assumption?

    ReMine sates:"All evolutionary genetics textbooks discuss harmful mutation in terms of mutational load. Mutational load is a concept for estimating how harmful mutation rates affect differential survival. This concept assumes that mutation and selection are in equilibrium, that is, the rate that new harmful mutations occur in the population equals the rate they are eliminated by selection. In other words, the concept makes the hidden assumption that error catastrophe does not occur. evolutionary textbooks do not draw attention to this detail." ReMine The Biotic message p. 251

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html

    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    Claim CB121:

    J. B. S. Haldane calculated that new genes become fixed only after 300 generations due to the cost of natural selection (Haldane 1957). Since humans and apes differ in 4.8 × 10 7 genes, there has not been enough time for difference to accumulate. Only 1,667 gene substitutions could have occurred if their divergence was ten million years ago.

    Source:
    ReMine, Walter J., 1993. The Biotic Message, St. Paul Science, Inc.

    Response:

    1. Haldane's "cost of natural selection" stemmed from an invalid simplifying assumption in his calculations. He divided by a fitness constant in a way that invalidated his assumption of constant population size, and his cost of selection is an artifact of the changed population size. He also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, but because of sexual recombination, the two can be selected simultaneously and both reach fixation sooner. With corrected calculations, the cost disappears (Wallace 1991; Williams n.d.).

      Haldane's paper was published in 1957, and Haldane himself said, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision" (Haldane 1957, 523). It is irresponsible not to consider the revision that has occurred in the forty years since his paper was published.
    2. ReMine (1993), who promotes the claim, makes several invalid assumptions:
      • The vast majority of differences would probably be due to genetic drift, not selection.
      • Many genes would have been linked with genes that are selected and thus would have hitchhiked with them to fixation.
      • Many mutations, such as those due to unequal crossing over, affect more than one codon.
      • Human and ape genes both would be diverging from the common ancestor, doubling the difference.
      • ReMine's computer simulation supposedly showing the negative influence of Haldane's dilemma assumed a population size of only six (Musgrave 1999).

    ___________________________________________________________________________________

    My comments:

    ReMine never made some of these assumptions. He never implied that the majority of substitutions in a lineage would be due to selection. (also ReMine's Haldane argument didn't even focus on the differences between humans and apes, to begin with).

    I don't see how the TalkOrigins authors even read ReMine carefully. Here is ReMine's homepage:

    http://www1.minn.net/~science/index.html

    Click on the top subsection: "Haldane's Dilemma" and scroll down He has a response to the "Talk Origins" arcticle.

    Also see:
    http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles...ne_rebuttal.htm

  • Mac
    Mac

    Bludgeons Hoob repeatedly over the head with a rudimentary club for being presumptuous enough to dictate to the mods as well as the lowly amongst us as to the standards and course this thread would take..Hubris indeed!

    mac, scared of the multisyllabic class

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    Under the "Must-Read Files" page (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html) a single Abiogenesis arcticle appears called: "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations"

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

    No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, this model is nothing like Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard making a 747". Just to hammer this home, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis.
    [Two views of abiogenesis]

    The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies.

    My comments: First of all I am not going to defend every calculation made by every creationist, however the use of the terms "the theory criticised by creationists" and the heading "Creationist idea of abiogenesis" can give the impression that creationists only perform calculations for instant "bacteria" formation, and not also step by step abiogenesis (In fact I think you will find many diffferent abiogenesis scenarios discussed in various creationist literature). The Talk Origins arcticle doesn't mention this.

    Also, it should be noted that evolutionists have also used the "bacteria" calculation as well - in fact the source he listed (Hoyle) is an evolutionist. Furthermore, it may prove be true that the simplest truely sustaining life form may need to start with a much higher level of complexity than the "Real theory" of abiogenesis diagram above describes.

  • Mac
    Mac

    I'm not skeered of the Aborigine...

    just cuz they don't have access to triple edge shavers is no reason for alarm...

    mac, look...a flying boat! class

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    So let's play the creationist game and look at forming a peptide by random addition of amino acids. This certainly is not the way peptides formed on the early Earth, but it will be instructive.

    I will use as an example the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group mentioned above [7]. I could use other examples, such as the hexanucleotide self-replicator [10], the SunY self-replicator [24] or the RNA polymerase described by the Eckland group [12], but for historical continuity with creationist claims a small peptide is ideal. This peptide is 32 amino acids long with a sequence of RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE and is an enzyme, a peptide ligase that makes a copy of itself from two 16 amino acid long subunits. It is also of a size and composition that is ideally suited to be formed by abiotic peptide synthesis. The fact that it is a self replicator is an added irony.

    The probability of generating this in successive random trials is (1/20) 32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 10 40 . This is much, much more probable than the 1 in 2.04 x 10 390 of the standard creationist "generating carboxypeptidase by chance" scenario, but still seems absurdly low.

    However, there is another side to these probability estimates, and it hinges on the fact that most of us don't have a feeling for statistics. When someone tells us that some event has a one in a million chance of occuring, many of us expect that one million trials must be undergone before the said event turns up, but this is wrong.

    Here is a experiment you can do yourself: take a coin, flip it four times, write down the results, and then do it again. How many times would you think you had to repeat this procedure (trial) before you get 4 heads in a row?

    Now the probability of 4 heads in a row is is (1/2) 4 or 1 chance in 16: do we have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads (HHHH)? No, in successive experiments I got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up. The figure 1 in 16 (or 1 in a million or 1 in 10 40 ) gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say where it will occur in a series. You can flip HHHH on your very first trial (I did). Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10 40 , a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early. But there is more.

    1 chance in 4.29 x 10 40 is still orgulously, gobsmackingly unlikely; it's hard to cope with this number. Even with the argument above (you could get it on your very first trial) most people would say "surely it would still take more time than the Earth existed to make this replicator by random methods". Not really; in the above examples we were examining sequential trials, as if there was only one protein/DNA/proto-replicator being assembled per trial. In fact there would be billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates [2,15].

    Let's go back to our example with the coins. Say it takes a minute to toss the coins 4 times; to generate HHHH would take on average 8 minutes. Now get 16 friends, each with a coin, to all flip the coin simultaneously 4 times; the average time to generate HHHH is now 1 minute. Now try to flip 6 heads in a row; this has a probability of (1/2) 6 or 1 in 64. This would take half an hour on average, but go out and recruit 64 people, and you can flip it in a minute. If you want to flip a sequence with a chance of 1 in a billion, just recruit the population of China to flip coins for you, you will have that sequence in no time flat.

    So, if on our prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.

    Okay, you are looking at that number again, 1 chance in 4.29 x 10 40 , that's a big number, and although a billion starting molecules is a lot of molecules, could we ever get enough molecules to randomly assemble our first replicator in under half a billion years?

    Yes, one kilogram of the amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 10 24 molecules in it (that's well over a billion billion); a tonne of arginine has 2.85 x 10 27 molecules. If you took a semi-trailer load of each amino acid and dumped it into a medium size lake, you would have enough molecules to generate our particular replicator in a few tens of years, given that you can make 55 amino acid long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks [14,16].

    So how does this shape up with the prebiotic Earth? On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 10 24 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10 -6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]), then there are roughly 1 x 10 50 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 10 31 ) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 10 40 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).

    Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence [14,16]. Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort).

    Although I have used the Ghadiri ligase as an example, as I mentioned above the same calculations can be performed for the SunY self replicator, or the Ekland RNA polymerase. I leave this as an exercise for the reader, but the general conclusion (you can make scads of the things in a short time) is the same for these oligonucleotides.

    My comments:

    The Talk Origins author is attempting to demonstrate that a very small protein polypeptide sequence (32 amino acids) could be reached by chance. He makes several errors and incredible assumptions:

    • His early earth "ocean" "volume" (1 x 10 24 litres), is actually the volume of the entire earth (I believe that he has been made aware of this error).

    • He makes the incredible assumption that all the amino acids are going to somehow self-polymerize into billions of 32 acid length chains (and then based on this he starts his search sequence calculations) ! In a watery environment polymers will tend to de-polymerize, therefore the idea that amino acids are all going to "link up" into chain sequences is the opposite of expectation.

    • He completely omits the chirality issue and apparently assumes 100% L amino acids in this early earth (under most conditions amino acids form in 50%/50% L and R ratios (proteins such as the above ligase probably require 100% L amino acids). If one assumes chance formation this factor alone could reduce the odds of getting the protein by up to 2 32 .

    There are many other issues that are problematic for the above scenario, and the linked to source in the Talk Origins arcticle for his sample peptide has some very interesting comments.

    [7] Severin K, Lee DH, Kennan AJ, and Ghadiri MR, A synthetic peptide ligase. Nature, 389: 706-9, 1997
  • Mac
    Mac

    Inspired by Hoob...

    mac starts talking to himself...

    mac, stimulated class

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit