Jump to content

forex

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-48

About forex

  • Rank
    Meson

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    biology

Recent Profile Visitors

2306 profile views
  1. Although the public acceptance of the Evolution theory and the Flat Earth theory is quite different, they are both in stark contradiction with the knowledge gained through observation, which makes them equally pseudoscientific. The reason for the difference in public acceptance lies in the level of scientific knowledge required for understanding their pseudoscientific character. Namely, in the case of the flat Earth theory, images from space provided the public with simple observational proof that Earth is not flat but spherical, which made the Flat Earth theory very difficult to take seriously. However, in the case of Evolution theory, things are not so simple since the general public is not familiar with the empirical or mathematical knowledge about the actual capabilities of the evolutionary process, which supposedly created all the levels of biological organisation. But once the knowledge about the actual creative capabilities of this process is provided, the pseudoscientific character of the Evolution theory becomes obvious, just as in the case of the Flat Earth theory. The evolution theory, in its most essential form, is the belief of naturalistic philosophy according to which new functional genes for structures, processes and functions of living organisms can result from the evolution process. The evolution process is a natural process where mutations and gene migration create variation in the genetic material of an organism, and then this variation is filtered by natural selection and genetic drift. This process is believed to be responsible for the rise of biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules. Now, since the evolution process is a fact known by actual experience or observation, we can determine empirically, through the scientific method, what is this process actually capable of producing and whether the above mentioned belief is a valid scientific theory or a pseudoscientific philosophy equivalent to the Flat Earth theory. In order to do that, we are going to take a look at the biggest empirical observation of evolution in action, namely, the E. coli long-term evolution experiment (LTEE). The LTEE is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 66,000 in November 2016. To put this experiment into perspective, its 66,000 generations is equivalent to over one million years of human evolution, which is significant even on evolutionary time scales. Now, the most important question is what did Lenski find in this experiment with regards to the belief of naturalistic philosophy? Did he find that the evolution process produced new functional genes? Not at all. His experiment resulted in 0 - zero new genes. Most of the changes in the experiment involved streamlining the genome, deleting genes no longer needed, or reducing protein expression. The most significant change was mutational transfer of one pre-existing gene(citT) from one location to another which resulted in the ability of E-coli to grow on citrate under the oxygen-rich conditions. So, after more than 66,000 generations, the LTEE didn't produce a single functional unit of heredity - a gene. Let us now compare this empirical result with the theoretical perspective. According to the evolution theory, chimps and humans had a common ancestor five million years ago. Meaning, over the past five million years the human genome has been acquiring genetic changes via the evolution process. And one of such changes involves 60 orphan protein-coding genes, which were identified in a recent study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3213175/ Orphan genes are functional protein-coding genes that have no homologues in the ancestral species. According to comparative genome analyses every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10-20 percent of such genes. But let's focus only on the 60 orphan genes identified in the mentioned study. Even with this small number of genes, the discrepancy between empirically observed and theoretically assumed capabilities of the evolution process is more than obvious. Specifically, since according to the evolution theory chimps and humans had a common ancestor, the existence of 60 orphan protein-coding genes in human genome basically means they had to be produced by the evolution process in the last five million years. But, the biggest empirical observation of evolution in action(the LTEE) shows that in the equivalent of 1/5th of that time, this process has been unable to produce even a single orphan gene. This discrepancy is even more obvious in the context of the hypothetical evolution of whales, where in the time span of just 9 million years, a four legged terrestrial mammal the size of a wolf or sheep had to be transformed into a fully aquatic mammal like a whale. Since the difference between humans and chimp is negligible in comparison to the difference between a terrestrial and a fully aquatic mammal, the scale of morphological adaptations in this evolutionary scenario would have to be massive, and it would require thousands of orphan genes to be formed in a relatively short period of time. The empirical observation of the actual capabilities of the evolution process clearly demonstrated that this couldn't have happened. Now, with that being said there must be some explanation for this inability of the evolution process to produce even a single block of new functional genetic information. Such explanation does exist and it says this is because the number of neutral mutations for any given hypothetical evolutionary adaptation, greatly exceeds the total number of mutations that occurred in the entire history of life on Earth. Let's look at this in more detail. From the perspective of evolution theory any functional gene is basically an evolutionary adaptation by which the organism became better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment. Due to the fact that an organism cannot adapt with whatever gene it has in its DNA, the theory of evolution postulates mutations as means of DNA rearrangements that will ultimately result in adaptive genes. Thus, from the perspective of evolutionary adaptations, the mutations that result in adaptive genes are beneficial(adaptive), while the ones that don't are neutral(non-adaptive). Let us now consider a standard evolutionary scenario involving a population that is adapting to an aquatic environment and doesn't have the genes that code structures for breathing underwater. Evolution by gene duplication is considered one of the most important source of new genes and genetic novelty in organisms. So let's suppose that a duplication mutation causes duplication of some gene, that will represent the first step in evolution of structures for breathing underwater. Since this duplication supplies a gene that is already there, further mutations are required for this gene to develop into adaptive one. For the purpose of simplicity, let us assume that the duplicated gene is only three nucleotides long and has the following DNA sequence: CCC and that adaptive genes have the following DNA sequences: ATT, CGC, ACA and AAA. Given the fact that a gene consists of four different bases and that any base can assume one of four values (ATCG), a sequence of L basis can assume one out of 4^L values, which gives 4^3 or 64 possible sequences. In terms of beneficial and neutral mutations that means there are potentially 4 beneficial and 60 neutral mutations. This further means that the evolution process must generate 15 random mutations(60/4) before finding a beneficial one. As we can see from the above example, most genes(60) are non-adaptive, leaving relatively small number of adapting ones(4). But since the duplicated gene is only three nucleotides long, a small number of mutations are required to convert this gene to adaptive one and finish the first step in evolution of structures for breathing underwater. Let's now apply this mathematical rationale to experimentally measured ratio between non-adaptive and adaptive genes. Suppose the gene that codes for λ repressor protein is an evolutionary adaptation which helped the organism to survive and multiply in its environment. A study conducted by John F. Reidhaar-Olson, Robert T. Sauer investigated the informational content of the λ repressor protein and discovered, that "the estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the λ repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about one in 10^63, of the total number of possible 92-residue sequences." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prot.340070403/full What does that mean in terms of mathematical rationale of the above simple example? Well, since the mathematical principle is the same, that means that the evolution process must generate 10^63 random mutations before finding a beneficial one. In other words, if, as claimed by the theory, λ repressor protein is an evolutionary adaptation then the number of mutations in the entire history of life on Earth must be greater than this number. Now let's see what are the lower and upper limit estimates for the number of mutations: http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/25/953.full This study arrived at a figure of 10^43 for the upper limit and 10^23 for the lower limit. Given these numbers, it is obvious why the evolution process is unable to produce even a single block of new functional genetic information. Simply put, the quantity of neutral or non-beneficial mutations for a single evolutionary adaptation(λ repressor protein) is 20 orders of magnitude greater than the total numbers of mutations in the history of life. In other words, due to the enormous lack of mutational resources, the evolution process is stuck in a neutral territory and it cannot proceed towards evolutionary adaptations upon which natural selection or genetic drift can act. This makes the Evolution theory a myth equivalent to the Flat Earth theory. People believe this myth for ideological reasons, while most researchers in the field of evolutionary biology push this myth because it is imperative for them to continue to secure funding and employment. It always boils down to ‘follow the money’. Getting paid for empty storytelling about unseen past events is easy money for them. And of course, the whole 'new-atheist' crowd believes and adores this myth because it makes them 'intellectually fulfilled atheists'.
  2. According to the most generous interpretations of the fossil record, the longest possible time frame for the theorized evolution of a land dwelling animal into a whale is 9 million years. Now, transforming a four legged terrestrial mammal the size of a wolf or sheep, into a fully aquatic mammal like a whale requires many new genes to be formed. For a demonstration let us compare the two structurally highly similar organisms - human and chimp. http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002379 This study identified 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. Thus, despite the great morphological similarity between humans and chimps just this one study identified 60 de novo genes. The scale of morphological adaptations in whale evolution would have to be massive: a remodel of the skull and muscles to move the nostrils to the top of the head, the conversion of front legs into flippers, a reconstruction of the skeleton including a ball joint that allow the tail to move up and down, reorganization of kidney tissues to accommodate the intake of salt water, lungs dramatically enlarged and renovated to withstand the intense pressure of deep dives, the inclusion of a blubber layer for insulation in cold water, reproductive organs would have to move from the exterior of the animal's torso to inside, and many, many more. So here we are talking about hundreds and hundreds...even...thousands of new genes which would have to be formed in 9 million years. Now let's go to the biggest observation of evolution in action - Lenski's E-coli experiment, which is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988. After more than 67.000 generations, which translated into whale generations is equivalent to around one million years, the experiment produced 0 - zero new genes. Most of the changes in this experiment involved streamlining the genome, deleting genes no longer needed, or reducing protein expression. The most significant change was mutational transfer of one pre-existing gene(citT) from one location to another which resulted in the ability of E-coli to grow on citrate under the oxygen-rich conditions. Hence, according to the evolution theory, the processes of evolution should have produced hundreds and hundreds or even thousands of new genes in 9 million years, but the knowledge gained through observation and experimentation shows that in the equivalent of 1/10th of that time, these processes are completely impotent in their ability to produce even one new gene. Now, of course there must be some explanation for this inability of evolution to produce even a single block of new functional genetic information. Such explanation exists and it says that it is mathematically impossible for evolution to do something like that because the ratio between non-adaptive and adaptive DNA sequences for any given environment is many orders of magnitude larger than the number of all mutations that occurred in the history of life. What that means? Well, the theory of evolution view structures, processes or functions of organisms as adaptations that resulted from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment. For example: Meiosis as an Evolutionary Adaptation for DNA Repair: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221919264_Meiosis_as_an_Evolutionary_Adaptation_for_DNA_Repair . But given the fact that an organism cannot adapt to a new environment with whatever sequence it has in its DNA, the theory of evolution postulates mutations as means of DNA rearrangements that will ultimately result in adaptive DNA sequences and thus enable the organism to survive and multiply in its environment. In reality however, this theoretical view has one fundamental problem. If we presuppose an aquatic environment to which an organism without morphological structures for breathing under water is adapting, then random DNA rearrangements(mutations) have equal potential to rearrange some duplicated gene into sequences that are beneficial in aquatic environment but also into sequences that are either beneficial in various non-aquatic environments or completely useless(junk). But given the fact that the number of 'non-aquatic' and junk sequences greatly exceed the number of those that are beneficial in an aquatic environment the evolutionary process lacks the mutational resources to find adaptive ones. For example, given the absurd assumptions that only one average eukaryotic gene codes for some proto morphological structures for breathing under water and that 10^500 different sequences from its pool of 10^810(*) possible sequences are adaptive ones, it mathematically follows that evolutionary process requires 10^310 mutations to extract the information for these morphological structures. * The length of an average eukaryotic gene is 1346 bp. A gene consists of four different bases. Any base can assume one of four values (ATCG). A sequence of L basis can therefore assume one out of 4^L values, which gives 4^1346 or 10^810 possible sequences. Now let's see what are the lower and upper limit estimates for the number of mutations produced since the origin of life: http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/25/953.full Since this study arrived at a figure of 10^43 for the upper limit, it is obvious why is impossible for evolutionary process to produce the gene for morphological structures for breathing under water. Simply put, the quantity of non-adaptive DNA sequences is 267 orders of magnitude greater than the total numbers of mutations in the history of life. In other words, due to the enormous lack of mutational resources it is impossible for the breathing underwater adaptation to enter the gene pool of a population and increase its frequency through natural selection. Therefore, both empirical and mathematical facts show that the theory of evolution, according to which new functional genes for structures, processes or functions of living organisms can result from the process of evolution, is completely without basis in science. Of course, evolution is a fact, nobody denies that. Fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation. Evolution is based on mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift. The first two create variation while the latter two sort variation, and this is something that we know by actual experience or observation which makes evolution a fact. But from the premise that evolution is a fact, it does not follow that evolutionary process can produce every level of biological organisation. Likewise, it is a fact that humans can jump, but from that it doesn't follow that they can jump from Earth to the moon. That is way the theory according to which evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules, is just the belief of naturalistic philosophy, and as we have shown, this belief is totally contradicted by empirical science and mathematics.
  3. Given the evolutionary narrative, the traits in a population that are advantageous in a certain environment get passed down to future generations because those traits helped the organisms to survive. That's a nice story, but it begs the question: from where did the functional traits come from? Saying that an individual who owns a gun will be selected(will survive) in an enviornment where the gun is necessary for survival, does not explain the origin of the gun. If we appeal to random mutations for an "answer" to the origin of traits this is like appealing to random re-arrangement of particles that comprise a gun for an "answer" to the origin of gun. Given the poly-3D enumeration mathematics, only a thousand particles can be arrangement into approximately 8.37x10^3271 different spatial arrangements. On the other hand there are 10^80 of atoms in the observable universe. Thus, appealing to random re-arrangement of particles as an explanation for the origin of a particular thing is absurd. The same is true in the context of biology where only a 1000 nucleotides can be arranged into 10^602 different arrangements, which exceeds the number of atoms in the observable universe by more then 500 orders of magnitude. The standard evolutionary narrative completely ignores the mathematical aspect of the origin of traits, but it just explains their selection once they are present in the gene pool of a population(the Hardy–Weinberg principle for e.g.). What is the reason for this ignorance?
  4. If it was proven you didn’t commit a murder, then you would not have been obliged to provide a court with the explanation of a murder or some information on the eventual suspects. Likewise, if you have demonstrated that a proposed explanation for a phenomenon doesn't add up, than you are not obligated to provide an alternative explanation. Given your logic, you are guilty of a murder until you prove who the real killer is, although it was proven you didn’t commit it. Science is the "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation". Both, the available mutational resources and the level of degeneracy in the DNA information represent the knowledge gained through observation and experimentation. On the other hand, a proposed explanation for some aspect of the physical or material world is a human mental construct that can be either consistent or contradictory with this knowledge. If it is contradictory, that doesn't mean that science doesn't have all the information, but is simply means that the explanation doesn't fit the science.
  5. No, my argument is that due to the lack of mutational resources it is impossible to find the information for the bio-structures that we observe in living systems. From that it follows that the current explanation for the emergence of higher life forms doesn't add up. By saying that a proposed explanation for an event doesn't add up I am not saying that the event didn't happen. My eventual dishonesty or my posting history changes neither the available mutational resources nor the level of degeneracy in the DNA information. So, please stick to the topic.
  6. @Moderator Note I have opened this thread to discuss one particular question - available mutational resources vs. required mutational resources. My personal or mainstream explanation about a possible mechanism for the emergence of the higher life forms is completely irrelevant to this question since explanation of a phenomenon is not causally related to the properties of the phenomena. It is not my personal speculation that there is a high level of degeneracy in the information that specifies a particular bio-structure. This is the claim of the peer review papers I linked in my OP. The rest is simple mathematics. All I have done is ask one mathematical question. If the policy of this forum forbids to ask mathematical questions with regards to evolution or critically analyze the mainstream explanations, then please feel free to lock this topic.
  7. Off-topic. I will try to keep this discussion within the bounds of the topic at hand.
  8. In order to rearrange the sequence of nucleotides and thus, find the information for bio-structures that are beneficial in a particular environment, an organism(or population) requires resources(mutations). Given the most optimistic estimates, there have been only 10^43 mutations in the history of life(1). But, the adaptation to a particular environment is pretty demanding in terms of resources. For e.g., we need 10^11 mutational resources in order to extract simple ATP binding function(2). Given the fact that binding(sticking to something)can be achieved with myriad number of 3D shapes this is pretty trivial adaptation task. When simple binding is not enough and adaptation also requires some level of 3D specificity, for e.g. lambda phage genome regulation(3), this requires 10^63 mutational resources. In the case of structures like mechanical gears in jumping insects, where we need high level of 3D specificity, the amount of required resources grows exponentially. Given all the different and functional adaptations in the form of organs, organ systems, molecular machines, metabolic pathways... that we observe in living systems, an obvious question arises: how can just 10^43 mutational resources account for all of them? I will argue that it can't. What is your response? (1) http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/25/953.full (2) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12045894_Functional_proteins_from_a_random-sequence_library (3) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2199970
  9. All bio-structures are built from the same six essential elemental ingredients: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur (CHNOPS). They differ only in the number and spatial arrangements of these ingredients. Hence, if we start with the simple self-replicating molecule, then the only way to find evolutionary selectable spatial arrangements of CHNOPS is by re-arrangements. The idea of evolution is based on two fundamental premises. The first one says that mutations cause variations a.k.a. re-arrangements or different spatial arrangements of CHNOPS. The second one says that the certain variations will be selectively preserved in response to environment. For example, when variation/arrangement of CHNOPS, that we call - a photosensitive cell, exists, and it is beneficial in the current environment, then - it will be selected. That's fine. But that begs the question: how did this selectable combination of CHNOPS came to be? This is the crucial and the most important question. There are virtually infinite number of ways in which these CHNOPS can be arranged, and most are junk, or non-selectable arrangements. For e.g. for a protein 92 AA long, with 10e122 possible AA combinatios, there is only 1 in every 10e63 functional sequence(Reidhaar-Olson&Sauer). Using fast mutation rates, total number of organisms that have ever lived on Earth, length of genomes and so forth... published extreme upper limit estimates puts the maximum number of mutations or CHNOPS re-arrangements at 10e50. So, how can evolution be true if the total number of evolutionary CHNOPS re-arrangements in insufficient to find only one selectable state for evolution to preserve - a protein.
  10. Thanks for providing a straight-up answer, but unfortunately you just described how people differentiate between 'living system' and 'lifeless system'. Description is an abstract mental construct created in a human mind. If humans define something as 'live' because it is self-sustaining, from a physicochemical point of view it just means 'existence in time'. The stone in my backyard is able to exist in time the same as E. coli in Lenski's long-term evolution experiment. After 60,000 generations Lenski's bacteria are still ... bacteria, with little structural changes. In the same period of time the stone in my backyard, is still... a stone and due to interaction with its environment its structure have changed a little bit also. To be able to exist in time the bacteria reproduces every 20 minutes. On the other hand, the stone in my backyard is so well adapted to its environment that it is able to exist in time without reproduction. So, from a physicochemical point of view, if process that causes structural changes in stone is not able to turn stone into a physicochemical system with the ability to maintain and to replicate itself by what means would this process turn a collection unicellular organisms or collection of tissues into organs or organ systems with the ability to maintain and to replicate themselves? Or in other words, how does the ability to "change structure over time" differentiate between abiogenesis and evolution? Thanks for providing a straight-up answer. I agre with you. The only possible mechanism is chance. But here is the problem with chance argument. Everybody can make an appeal to chance to explain everything. For example I can say that Moai figures on Easter Island are emergent property of erosion process. The right constituents under the right circumstance result in the Moai figure. The constituents are the minerals or mineraloids, the circumstances we are yet investigating. Wind, rain, waves, ice, heat from the sun, acid rain... to name a few possible circumstances. So, is this reasonable scientific explanation or blind faith? It is an emergent property of far from equilibrium components that act together as an intricate whole.
  11. I asked a straight-up question: How does the ability to "add new structure" differentiate between evolution and abiogenesis if exactly the same ability exist in countless lifeless chemical systems in nature also? I expect a straight-up answer. If you don't have the answer, that's OK. But please stop spamming my thread.
  12. I'm a skeptic by nature, so I question everything. If you have a problem with that then don't enter into a discussion. Life is the ability to maintain and to replicate a set of interdependent molecular component parts forming a intricate whole(organism). This is NOT an emergent property of certain ensembles of 'lifeless' molecules because 'lifeless' molecules are heading towards equilibrium or towards a state of minimum potential energy and not towards a functions and conditions in which complex molecular component parts will maintain and replicate themselves. This is science that can be observed in a laboratory every day.
  13. I asked this question from a physicochemical point of view and not from a philosophical or theoretical point of view. The main reason for drawing the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is because it has never been observed that lifeless molecular component parts can gain the ability to maintain and to replicate themselves and because chances for that are practically zero. But, like I said: the ability to reproduce and thus producing gene duplications and mutations is nothing but the possibility to add some new molecular structure to the existing living system. Exactly the same possibility exist in some lifeless chemical system also - some new molecular structure can be added to the existing lifeless chemical system. If this adding process is not able to turn molecular component parts into the ability to maintain and to replicate themselves by what means would this adding process be able to turn an aggregate of cells, like tissue or - brain, heart, bones... into the ability to maintain and to replicate themselves? Just because you call something "evolution" it, doesn't mean it's different from a physicochemical point of view.
  14. Often brought up in the origins debate is that abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things due to the mutability of organism or its ability to reproduce. But, the ability to reproduce and thus producing gene duplications and mutations is nothing but the possibility to add some new molecular structure to the existing living system. But exactly the same possibility exist in some lifeless chemical system also - some new molecular structure can be added to the existing lifeless chemical system. Natural selection of this chemical system is then differential survival(existence in time) and the ability to add new molecular structures. Those structures that are not stable enough will cease to exist while the others will be selected. Variation exists within all populations of chemical systems. This occurs partly because changes arise through chemical reactions in the structure of an individual system, and these changes can be stable enough to exist in time. Throughout the existance in time structures of systems interact with their environments to cause variations. The environment of a chemical system includes other chemical systems, atoms, molecules, compounds, as well as various physical objects. Individual chemical systems with certain variants of the structure may survive and exist longer than systems with other, less successful or less stable, variants. Therefore, the population of chemical systems evolves. So how does the ability to "add new structure" differentiate between abiogenesis and evolution if exactly the same ability exist in countless lifeless chemical systems in nature also.
  15. No?! You deny the existance of experimental support despite the link I provided just a few moments ago in the post #75? Well, that's what I call denial. Here is another experimental support for the extreme rarity of functional sequences: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2199970 In this experiment Reidhaar-Olson&Sauer reported that on average, only 1 in every 10^63 sequences are functional for a protein 92 amino acids long. - "The results reveal the high level of degeneracy in the information that specifies a particular protein fold." Don't forget that we are at the micro-level. If we move to the macro-level and consider structures like mechanical gears in jumping insects then the number of non-functional sequences is immeasurably large in comparison with numbers on a micro-level. Nothing? Are you saying that calculations are nothing? Calculation is a process of calculating something, so it's not nothing. I calculated that if every atom comprising the planet Earth were a Tianhe-2 - the world's fastest supercomputer, searching at its highest speed from the Big Bang until now it would still need more than 108 orders of magnitude longer to find three functional protein folds. I also calculated that the entire sum of mutations operating over five billion years(10^43), would fall short by more than 188 orders of magnitude in producing this folds. Taking the next step down the path is the same as producing one mutation. Of course evolution is able to do that. The problem is not in taking the next step but in available resources to find something that is hidden by the side of one of so many world's roads.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.