forex

Nice try but it fails miserably. Let's use the intronic insertions problem as an example. Genes of today's eukaryotic cells are interrupted by noncoding sequences called introns that need to be removed via splicing machine from the RNA molecule before the process of protein synthesis can begin otherwise they would destroy the protein-coding capacity of genes. So, from the evolutionary point of view the splicing machine is the complex evolutionary solution to the intron insertions problem, that began early in a cellular live, once one of these early cells get one of these introns inserted into a critical gene. Now let's use your expalnation: "Slowly, mutations that are selected for change the function to better suit the needs of the environment..." In our intron insertions problem, semiotic relationship(bio-function) or "better suit" is achieved when five splicing subprocesses exist: to recognize mRNA and its intron-exon boundaries, then to cut the RNA, to rearrange cuted parts, to join and finally to release the mRNA molecule. Only when combination of nucleotides in the DNA that contains all five subprocesses exists only then natural selection can act as organism is then in the state of "better suit". For example: If we assume the existance of splicing helper proteins that assembly at the intron-exon borders to guide small nuclear ribo proteins to form a splicing machine, this partial correctness of the splicing process won't cause introns to magically disappear without a complete splicing machine. This partial correctness won't cause random, blind and unintelligent process to put aside these helper proteins because they're good for the future splicing function. Evolution has no long term goal, it cannot plan. There is no long distance target to serve as a criterion for selection. So your explanation is a standard evolutionary just-so-story, unfalsifiable narrative explanation, that completely ignores the question of how would random dna rearrangement produce functional splicing machine in the space of nearly infinite dna rearrangement results that have nothing to do with RNA splicing. All you need to do is to hide your explanation behind the dual mantra phrase: "it better suit the environment - it is selected", and problem solved. In reality, you did nothing but completely ignore the problem. Of course, it doesn't matter, but you need a transitional resource(energy) to produce that swap.

This is an irrelevant objection. Cells can be arranged into gears, jaws, teeth, ribs, knee, heart, penis... so there is no chemical constraint for the possible three-dimensional shapes bio-structures can adopt. At the molecular level, the information regarding the formation of a given enzyme or protein is written on genes. At that level, any combination of four nucleotides (ATCG) is permitted. I explained that in my previous posts. How mutations influenced by the environment is explaining the problem of huge transitional resource shortage in searching for semiotic microstates in the vast sea of non-semiotic microstates?

Your unfalsifiable narrative explanation, also called an ad hoc fallacy or just-so story, falsely presupposes that appeal to an abstract phrase like "tiny incremental steps over millions of generations" can solve the problem of huge transitional resource shortage in searching for semiotic microstates in the vast sea of non-semiotic microstates. In doing so you are projecting human intellectual capabilities to natural processes. Of course that it is possible to produce things via tiny incremental steps, but only is you have a priori knowledge of what you want to achieve and the ability to perform goal-directed action. Given the above example of producing the clay replica of the Statue of Liberty, humans can do it in no time. Why? Because humans are able to create mental representation of one arrangement of matter(Statue of Liberty sculpture on Liberty Island in New York City ) and then, by using its cognitive faculties and motor skills, arrange clay according to this mental representation. But natural processes are not able to produce this kind of effects because they are determined by physicochemical causality and not by semiotic causality, which means that by physicochemical causality a structure or body shall deform or displace to a position that minimizes the total potential energy and not to a position that incrementally heads towards semiotic relationship between various structures (like between female sex organs and male sex organs). Nature doesn't "care" about semiotic relationships and representations. Hence, you have made the same mistake Dawkins did when he created WEASEL program, presented in chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins knows that a purely random approach to generating bio-structures is practically impossible, due to the excessively huge search space. So he created WEASEL program where he aims to show that the process that drives evolutionary systems (random variation and natural selection) is different from pure chance. So, how he did it? Well, by inteligent design. He had used a priori knowledge of what he wanted to achieve. Program begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation until target phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" is reached. Without further elaboration, we can easily see what technique is used here. At each step of the program the current state of the "individual" is judged according to the target phrase. In other words, program uses a priori knowledge of the goal before the goal is reached. The use of a priori knowledge is called planing. Plan is defined as a set of actions that have been thought of as a way to do or achieve something. By creating plans we, as inteligent agents, are creating representations of what we want to achieve. Then, by using our cognitive faculties we design objects by comparing this plans with a current state of the object. In short, this activity is called inteligent design. Now, isn't it interesting how proponents of evolution in their just-so-stories are explaining the power of evolution by attributing the design methods of intelligent agents to natural processes? There is nothing to be acknowledged. Gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer, exon shuffling, etc., merely provide a mechanism for transferring pre-existing genes and does not provide a mechanism for the origin of de novo genes. Creation of three-dimensional cellular structures and arrangements like lungs, heart, brain, ... requires the development of new genes.You cannot create functional heart by transfering pre-existing bacterial genes. So, the appeal to "novel genetic material" will not solve this problem.

I am not writing to fulfill someone's desires but to give reasons why evolution of bio-systems is impossible. So far I haven't seen adequate response against my position. Reasons for lack of adequate response are simple: my position is based on three simple facts that are so obvious that nobody can deny it: a) any bio-structure is built of elementary constituents(atoms, molecules) like any other physical object. b) each constituent has a set of possible spatial states it can be in relation to another constituent. The collection of states of all the constituents is the microstate - one of the unimaginably huge number of different accessible arrangements of the constituents. c) pre-existing bio-structures are predetermining the microstates for subsequent bio-structures (e.g. leg structure predetermines microstates of constituents forming mechanical gears in jumping insects(this is called semiotic relationship). Mechanical gears discovered on planthopper insects provide an opportunity to recognize semiotic relationship between bio-structures. Gear is a structure for transmitting rotational motion while leg is a locomotive structure. As such they are connected through their relation to a concept of motion. Evolution is not an intelligent agent to be able to conceive concepts. So the only available way to achieve mentioned semantic relationship is by pure chance. But, believing that semiotically undirected transformations from one microstate to another would create semiotic relationship is like believing that erosion processes would turn a piece of clay into clay replica of the Statue of Liberty. This replica would then represent specific arrangements of clay constituents predetermined by a colossal neoclassical sculpture on Liberty Island in New York City just like arrangement of cells forming mechanical gears is predetermined by animal's legs. We all know that erosion processes can shape and reshape various physical objects(hence causing transitions from one microstate to another) the same as mutations can shape and reshape various bio-structures(e.g. causing genital tumors), but no rational person would claim that this processes are able to create predetermined arrangements of clay constituents represented in the of Statue of Liberty. The reason nobody would believe that undirected transformations of matter could produce semiotic microstates, lies in the unimaginably huge number of different accessible arrangements of clay building blocks or particles. The same is true for bio-systems, but people believe the opposite because they have a prior commitment to materialism and atheism. And that commitment trumps all of the logical, mathematical or scientific reasons. The appeal to uniqueness and accessibility will not solve this problem because number of functional variants at "macroscopic" level of some bio-structure, e.g. protein, does not reduce the number of possible arrangements of nucleotides in the dna. For example, if there are 10^130 possible protein sequences that are 100 amino acids long and if 10^65 of this sequences are functional(carrying out function x to some specified degree) that doesn't mean that there are more transitional resources(mutations) available to evolution. Mutations are occurring on genes regardless of function achieved. Evolution is not intelligent so it cannot decide that a particular gene won't be mutated anymore because function X is achieved, so that transitional resources can be moved somewhere else. But even if that were the case it solves nothing. Life requires hundreds of different protein families, each with a 3D shape that is unique to each family and thousands of different structure-structure interactions that needed to be temporary and spatially coordinated because, to interact functionally, bio-structures are needed at the same time and place.

It has already been explained in the post #1.

Identifying previously unknown genes and proposing hypothesis for the origin of this genes has nothing to do with experimental evolution, e.g. tracking the genetic changes in initially identical populations of organisms. The longest-running evolution experiment ever undertaken is Lenski's long-term evolution experiment. Lenski's work showed that evolution can't create new genes. Most of the changes in this experiment involved streamlining the genome, deleting genes no longer needed, or reducing protein expression. One of the changes in Lenski's experiment involved something that proponents of evolution refers to as evidence for bacteria evolving a "key innovation", a "new function" and a "fascinating case of evolution in action." A New Scientist writer proclaims: "A major innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait". In September of 2012 the well-known science journal Nature published an article about Lenski’s experiment entitled, "Evolution: How the unicorn got its horn". One evolutionary biologist said that Richard Lenski’s published research is: "another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists". So, te question is: what all the fuss was about? Well, Lenski’s lab discovered that at generation 31,500, one line of E. coli could utilize citrate – something they weren’t able to do before. And, they achieved this novel function via evolutionary processes - random mutations and natural selection. As is generally the case, the devil is in the details. And, when one looks a bit more closely at the details of the Lenski experiment, it loses quite a bit of its luster. What Dr. Lenski did was to grow E. coli under oxic conditions in citrate-rich media. E. coli bacteria are generally unable to use citrate under oxic conditions as a source of energy. However, they can use it under anoxic conditions. In other words, they already have the gene for citrase in their genome. It is just that it is normally turned off under oxic conditions. How is it turned off? Well, the promoter for the gene that transports citrate into the bacterium (citT) is not active under oxic conditions. So, all that needs to happen is to move the citrate transport gene close to a promoter that is actually active under oxic conditions. Once this is done, citrate will enter the bacterium and be used for energy. And, this is exactly what happened. Nothing structurally new needed to be evolved. After about 31,000 generations, in a large population of bacteria, there was a single genetic mutation in a bacterium that ended up moving the citT gene and placing it under the control of a promoter that is active under oxic conditions. The protein product, however, remained the same with no required amino acid changes to achieve a selectable effect. All that was required was to move a pre-existing gene close to a promoter to turn it on during oxic conditions. That’s it. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/90622-how-can-a-rational-person-believe-in-evolution/?p=881811

I'm sorry, there was nothing to answer. Your response was an ad hoc fallacy, substitution for a valid argument you made up to make your belief that contradicts experimental evidence more acceptable. But, you didn't show that mecA is a de novo gene. So, the null-hypothesis that process of evolution are not able to create new/de novo genes still stands. My position is not based on "re-asserting" but on the fact that in physical systems there is a unimaginably large space of possible microstates.

You've missed the point of my argument. I am talking about randomness with regards to pre-existing bio-structures. Microstates that need to be found are predetermined by this structures. E.g. You cannot pack DNA into chromosomes or replicate and repair DNA molecule with all possible microstates that molecules, forming DNA packaging systems or DNA polymerase, can adopt. That is why you need specific microstates that are predetermined by the DNA molecule structure or the structure of other components of reproducing or packaging machinery. In biology, we have predetermined microstates on every level of structure-structure interaction. Since only 100 molecules, like amino acids, can adopt more microstates then there are atoms in the observable cosmos, it is obvious that you can't achieve predetermined or semiotic microstates with only 10^45 transitional resources(mutations), for even a simple enzyme let alone functional self-replicating system or organism containing many trillion cells. I don't know what is your point here. I just wanted to say that bio-structures are not popping in and out of existence depending on the temperature and humidity of the air like snowflakes do. I am not denying that any physical system has a finite set of possible arrangements or constraints. So, what is the point of this non sequitur objection? Are you trying to stifle debate or what? My argument is not about probability but available resources. You can't fly a rocket to the Moon with one gram of propellant or preform a brute-force attack in password cracking without using computer's processing resources. In the same way, you can't find semiotic microstates in the vast sea of non-semiotic microstates without transitional resources. But just to clarify, your card example is not about probability but necessity. When you deal cards it is necessary to get some distribution of cards. That has absolutely nothing to do with probability. This is called - necessity. Probability is the measure of the likeliness of being dealt a specific cards that you specified before dealing. Evolution is constrained by shapes of pre-existing bio-structures. In the presence of female reproductive system, specific arrangement of molecules is nedded in the form of male reproductive system, or vice versa, in order to perform functional reproductive interaction. It's too obvious, it can't be denied. Your appeal to some abstract term(rule) won't cause this fact cease to exist. Regarding your appeal to chemistry it is again, non sequitur. Chemical forces that govern protein folding for example, can't change the fact that 100 amino acids, can adopt more microstates then there are atoms in the observable cosmos. Of course It's all very silly, when you construct a straw man. "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition." Chemistry has nothing to do with randomness, I never claimed the opposite. The outcomes of chemistry are belonging to the category of necessity. The outcomes of mutations are belonging to the category of randomness. Regarding the number of available states. Like I mentioned above, only 100 molecules, like amino acids, can adopt more microstates then there are atoms in the observable cosmos. Now imagine all possible microstates in organism containing many trillion of cells. Of course I don't know the actual number but I am sure it is many millions orders of magnitude larger then transitional resources available to evolution. Your point misses the nature of random search and diversity of bio-structures. Three-dimensional cellular structures and arrangements like lungs, heart, blood vessels, stomach, liver, kidneys, muscles, brain, nerves, skin, hair, ovaries, uterus, testes, prostate, penis, bones, ligaments, ... are significantly different in their three-dimensional shape and function, hence semiotic microstates also need to be significantly diferent. Ear is different than eye, heart is different than kidneys, DNA polymerase is different ATP synthase, mechanical gears in jumping insects are diferent then bacterial flagellum, knee is different than jaw, liver is differnt then stomach... So, you cant just randomly duplicate existing genetic code for a particular organ or part of the organ, add few hundred random mutations and voilà, new organ or molecular machine will emerge. The point is this. In order to get different semiotic microstates (new organ/system/enzyme) you need to step from the island of functionality(pre-existing organ/system/enzyme) into the sea of randomness. But once you step into the sea of randomness you are lost in the huge space of non-semiotic microstates. And to be able to navigate in these waters you need to have huge amount of resources. For example, try a simple brute-force attack on 50 character password and you will get the point. People that believe in evolution often ignore the nature of randomness because somewhere deep inside they are aware of the extent of the problem.

Of course that all states or outcomes are NOT possible, that is why I said "approximately". But that changes nothing since available transitional resources still fall short by many orders of magnitude to search for semiotic microstates in the vast sea of non-semiotic microstates. For example, on a micro-level, only one average enzyme has a 2.3x10^390 possible microstates. Now imagine all possible microstates for a system of sex organs within an organism. So, you deny the existence of microstates in physical systems? Interesting.

Frequency of genetically predetermined varieties within a given type of organism. This observation, or "evolution" if you want, has nothinhg to do with the idea that you can get all of the bones and joints in the body or cardiovascular system by accumulating copying mistakes. P.S. General evolution debate is not the topic.

All relationships between biological structures are semiotical which means that arrangement of moleculs forming the bio-structure A is predetermined by bio-structure B. Otherwise functional biological interactions would be impossible. Examples: a) intron-exon gene structure predetermines that specific arrangement of molecules is nedded for editing of the nascent pre-messenger RNA transcript in which introns are removed and exons are joined together. This specific arrangement of molecules is called "rna splicing machinery". b) Structure of egg cell predetermines that specific arrangement of molecules is nedded in order to initiate the development of a new individual organism. This specific arrangement of molecules is called "sperm". So, you can't just throw random bags of chemicals into the cell and expect splicing or fertilization function to emerge. Specific arrangement of molecules is nedded. Since this specific arrangements are not predetermined in the laws of nature or in the properties of matter(like snowflakes are) and since all possible arrangements of molecules for ordinary collections of matter are inconveniently large it is physically impossible to achieve even theoretical semiotic relationship via random rearrangements of nucleotides in the dna, let alone temporary and spatially coordinated semiotic relationship, because biological structures are needed at the same time and place to interact functionally. Below we will explain why. Given a bio-structure (e.g., a heart valve ), we view it as built from some elementary constituents(atoms, molecules, cells). Each constituent has a set of possible spatial states it can be, in relation to another constituent. The collection of states of all the constituents is the microstate. The semiotic microstate of the bio-structure represents the number of distinct biologically functional microstates versus and all possible microstates. For a system of a large number of constituents, like a bio-structure, the overwhelmingly probable microstate would be non-semiotic microstate. In other words, overwhelmingly probable microstate or random arrangement of elementary constituents that form a heart valve would be non-functional - not able to close off the atrium or not able to prevent the back flow of blood from the ventricle to the atrium when blood is pumped out of the ventricle. The specific arrangement of cells or semiotic microstate, allowing the valve to function properly is predetermined by the structure of the heart the same as the specific arrangement of the cell phone battery is predetermined by the structure of the cell phone. Now, we know that there is no natural tendency for atoms to move towards arrangements that would form the cell phone battery because - cell phone exists. The same is true for the heart valve or any other bio-structure - there is no natural tendency for atoms to move towards arrangements that would form a heart valve because - other heart structures exists. So, the obvious question arises: how then semiotic relationship is achieved? From the perspective of evolutionary theory the only possible way to achieve semiotic relationship is via random mutations. But viewed from that perspective, one physical problem arises: where would you get the transitional resources to search for semiotic microstates in the in the vast sea of non-semiotic microstates. The heart valve for example consists of many millions of cells. Given the poly-3D** enumeration mathematics, only one thousand cells can be arrangement into approximately 8.37x10^3271 different microstates. ** 2^(n−7)n^(n−9) (n−4)(8n^8−128n^7+828n^6−2930n^5+7404n^4−17523n^3+41527n^2−114302n+204960)/6 To put this into perspective. 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 transitional resources at 10^43. If we make a generous assumption that there are 10^1000 functional semiotic microstates in our collection of thousand cells, we have only 10^43 opportunities to find semiotic microstates, and that would, on average, require 10^2271 transitional resources. In other words, the entire sum of mutations operating over four billion years, would fall short by more than 2228 orders of magnitude in producing only one semiotic relationship. Since all components of biological systems are in semiotic relationships and since the number of cells in the human body is 3.72 × 10^13 it is physically impossible that evolutionary transitions from one microstate to another via random mutations would produce semiotic relationships. Of course, ad hoc alibi in the form of natural selection does not work. Natural selection is NOT semiotic microstate search mechanism, but semiotic microstate spreading mechanism. Once semiotic microstate(bio-function) is found and enters the gene pool, natural selection can spread this microstate through the population. But the search for the semiotic microstates in the vast sea of non-semiotic microstates is completely random.

In the internet debates I have one simple rule: do not respond to claims that have nothing to do with basic argument. The basic premis of my argument was this: "There is no knowledge in biology, based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that process of evolution can create new/de novo genes." Lenski experiment clearly demonstrated that the premise is true. Your claim was this: "We have populations of a certain bacteria that were once susceptible to antibiotics which are no longer susceptible to antibiotics", and you gave the mecA gene as an example. mecA gene is not "de novo" gene, whose evolution has been observed in the laboratory from initially identical populations that lack this gene. The mecA gene was discovered by scientist in bacterial cells fully functional. All we know is that in the wild it spreads by horizontal gene transfer and that it allows a bacterium to be resistant to penicillin and penicillin-like antibiotics. So, there is no knowledge in biology, based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that the mecA gene is de novo gene, formed through random genetic changes from pre-existing junk genes/DNA. All we know is that the mecA gene exist. Nobody saw it "evolving". So, your "evidence" has nothing to do with my basic premis. That is why I responded with general claim that antibiotic resistance via mutation is due to loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities and that resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes and does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes. Now, imagine how much time I would need to respond to every non sequitur claim like yours. For this reason there is one Latin maxim: semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit or "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges". This rule exists in a courtrooms, in science, in philosophical discussion, in debates... burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You implicitly made a claim that mecA gene is "de novo" gene formed through random genetic changes, but you didn't prove it. This time I made an exception and went to disprove something I shouldn't, but I won't do that next time.

Miller-Urey Experiment showed that some organic compounds of life were possible through chemical reactions. Nothing more. On the other hand, life is the ability to maintain and to replicate a set of interdependent molecular component parts forming a intricate whole(organism), which is impossible to form through chemical reactions because chemical systems are heading towards equilibrium or towards a state of minimum potential energy and not towards a state in which complex molecular component parts will maintain and replicate themselves. Magic of time doesn't work here. The greater the time elapsed the greater should be the approach to equilibrium. This is science that can be observed in a laboratory every day. Everything else is pseudoscience, just so stories, wishful thinking and hyped-up media reports. Regarding evolution, what we see is nothing but frequency of phenotypic plasticity - results of the build-in ability of an organism to change its phenotype in response to changes in the environment.And that will not turn a bacteria into something like a human. Sorry about what that does to your beliefs.

By the same token, evolution and abiogenesis are disproved also. The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. The null hypothesis - "natural processes are not able to create life" has never been refuted. The second null hypothesis - "evolutionary processes are not able to create new genes" has also never been refuted. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/90622-how-can-a-rational-person-believe-in-evolution/?p=881811 Without new genes evolution is not possible.

Then the appeal to the Miller–Urey experiment in the context of this topic is beside the point. God is invoked because life is characterized by the way building blocks are organized, and not because building blocks contain carbon atom in their structure.

Life is the ability to maintain and to replicate a set of interdependent component parts forming a intricate whole. So, the Miller-Urey experiment has to do with life the same as the experiment producing oil paint has to do with Da Vinci's Mona Lisa.

Ok. Can you please provide a causal explanation of how would 'selective pressure' produce representation of one arrangement of atoms in another arrangement of atoms? Your example is about choosing X in preference to Y and has nothing to do with representations.

Let’s suppose that you create an idea in your mind about an entity that you plan on making, for example a clay sculpture of a dog. Since we are material entities, composed of atoms and molecules we can say that this newly created idea in your mind is a newly created arrangement of atoms(neurons in your brain) - AA_1. After that, you draw out the sculpture you plan on making in order to get an idea of where everything goes and how the shapes will meet up. You draw a highly detailed sketch to get accurate representation of your previously created idea. Since drawing is created using graphite pencil, our newly created drawing is newly created arrangement of carbon atoms - AA_2. These two arrangements of atoms(idea and drawing) are completely different in their three-dimensional structures but they exist in a relationship or in other words, one arrangement of atoms contains information about the other arrangements of atoms and vise versa. This relationship is the same as the relationship between DNA and the entire structure of a human being. When you put human DNA alongside human body you have two completely different three-dimensional arrangements of atoms. But we know that one arrangements of atoms(DNA) contains all the biological instructions needed to make a human body. The same relationship exist , for example, between image X on a photographic paper, image X on a memory card or image X in the form of electromagnetic radio waves. These are all different types of representations of the same image. We will call relationship between different types of representations of the same entity - 'semiotic relationship'. Now, you decide to implement idea you created, get a necessary materials and tools and start clay modeling process. Once modeling process is halfway through completion, you stop. Clay is also a material entity composed of atoms so we can say that this half-created clay sculpture of a dog is also an arrangement of atoms - AA_3. At this point we have these three structurally completely different arrangements of atoms( AA_1, AA_2 and AA_3) but they are all semiotically conected. Semiotic relationship between AA_1 and AA_2 is complete, meaning the idea is completely incorporated into drawing. We will call this state of completeness - 'semiotic closure'. Semiotic relationship between AA_1 or AA_2 and AA_3 is incomplete, since sculpture is half finished. We will call this state of incompleteness - 'semiotic gap'. Now we can ask a crucial question: are natural processes able to close semiotic gap between AA_1 or AA_2 and AA_3? Or in other words, are natural processes able to finish job you’ve started, and produce a clay sculpture of a dog according to your idea or drawing? We all know that physical processes, such as rain, wind, earthquakes, erosion... can shape and reshape various physical objects but no rational person would claim that this processes are able to close semiotic gap and create a clay sculpture of a dog. Why? Reason is simple. Because natural processes are determined by physicochemical causality and not by semiotic causality, which means that by physicochemical causality a structure or body shall deform or displace to a position that minimizes the total potential energy and not to a position that minimizes 'semiotic gap' between various structures (like between idea or drawing and half finished clay sculpture). For the same physicochemical reasons if you drop a glass and a glass breaks you will not see that through the operation of natural processes a broken glass re-assemble itself. Nature doesn't 'care' about semiotic relationships, representations or information. That is why nature can’t complete modelling proces of half finished clay sculpture, although nature can, in a random fashion, shape and reshape various clay made objects, or any other physical objects. Second question: is intelligent agent able to close semiotic gap between AA_1/AA_2 and AA_3? Yes. Why? Because intelligent agent is able to create mental representation of one arrangement of atoms(half finished sculpture/drawing) and then, by using its cognitive faculties, arrange atoms(clay) according to this mental representation. So, in order to close semiotic gaps there is necessity for the existence of entity that is capable to arrange atoms to a structure represented in other arrangement of atoms. So, when we observe some material entities that exhibit semiotic relationship we know they are the are the product of intelligent being and not natural processes. And this is exactly what we observe in biology - one arrengement of atoms(body) is represented in completely different three-dimensional arrangements of atoms(DNA). Since we know that physicochemical causality doesn't produce representations we know that this arrangements are not the product of natural processes. If people believe in evolution or in abiogenesis they believe that natural processes are able to close 'semiotic gaps' and create 'semiotic relationships'. They believe that natural processes are able to arrange atoms to a structure or body represented in completely different three-dimensional arrangements of atoms(DNA). More precisely, they believe that natural processes are able to create system of rules and incorporate them into complex molecular tools and machines, to convert sequence of nucleotides into another form or representation. Believing this is like believing that nature will arrange clay to a structure represented in completely different three-dimensional arrangements of atoms(drawing) and produce a clay sculpture of a dog. Believing this is like believing, given enough time, nature will build you a house because you wish for a new one and you made a blueprint. In a nutshell, people who believe in evolution or in abiogenesis believe in things that are in complete contradiction with scientific observations and reality. They deny physicochemical causality in nature and belive that natural processes are intelligent.

In your previous posts, you didn't make any claim about some aspect of biology I presented in my arguments so that it is possible for me to respond by examining the validity of this claim. I really have neither time nor mental energy to respond to every abstract or non sequitur reply or request on this topic. Concernig the number of trials. 10^80 atoms, at 10^45 per sec for 10^25 sec = 10^150 trials. This is one trial per atom per 10^-45 sec for the thermodynamic lifespan of the observable cosmos. Since there are 10^390 possible dipeptides for a single average protein of 300 amino acids and since less than 10^90 of them exist as clusters of active proteins, even if all physical events that have occurred in the thermodynamic lifespan of the observable cosmos were used to find a single average protein,the probability of finding this single protein is less than a 10^150. This is like winning the same lottery with the same numbers 20 times in a row. Remember, we are talking about one single protein. But, things are even worse. In reality, processes of inanimate nature heads toward a state of minimum total potential energy(equilibrium) and not toward a state necessary to find a functional protein sequences. // The following method to disprove evolution is pretty simple. All cellular systems,processes and structures that enable the cell to live, grow and reproduce are temporaly constrained by the speed of chemical reaction that can takes place in fractions of a second or minute. Complete series of chemical events that take place in a cell leading to its division and replication that produces two daughter cells generally lasts 12 to 24 hours in mammalian tissue. So, how could a proteins that are carriers of this events evolve over the course of many thousands or million years? Metabolic reactions, DNA replication, responding to stimuli, transporting molecules from one location to another.... all involve series of biochemical reactions that are connected by their intermediates - the products of one reaction are the substrates for subsequent reactions, and so on. So it is a continuous process that can not be stoped or freezed in order for evolution to produce some enzyme in some random point in the future. If enzyme is not present in the metabolic pathway when signaled by cell, resulting product will not be produced, cell will lose the ability to complete its cycle and die. So, the effect responsible for the operation of temporarily constrained dynamical system cannot be caused by a temporarily unconstrained process.

A) Sorry, but random outcome of rolling a dice 100 times is called necessity and not probability. If you roll a dice 100 times it is necessary to get some numbers. Probability is the measure of the likeliness of rolling 100 specific numbers that you select before rolling. In the context of biology, probability is the measure of the likeliness that a random DNA shuffling will result in functional protein. Most sequences in protein sequence space have no function, leaving relatively small islands of functionality. Despite the diversity of protein superfamilies, sequence space is extremely sparsely populated by functional proteins. Most random protein sequences have no fold or function. Enzyme superfamilies, therefore, exist as tiny clusters of active proteins in a vast empty space of non-functional sequence. So, in reality your answer is something like this: imagine one person wins the same lottery with the same numbers 100 times in a row. Then, after this pearson and lottery organisers are suspected of manipulating a lottery, they defend themselves by using your type of answer: The probability of getting the same six numbers is extremely low. However the probability of all other outcomes is also extremely low. Using post hoc reasoning(fraud investigation) to deny the probability of the outcome is fallacious. Improbable things happen all the time, because "improbability" is an illusion based on our preconceptions. What do you think, will someone buy this kind of reasoning? But, in the evolution context, we are not talking about winning the same lottery 100 times in a row, but millions and millions times in a row since there are 10^195 possible dipeptides for even a small protein of 150 amino acids, and that is higher than the number of physical events* that could possibly have occurred since the big bang. (* 10^45 is the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur). Probability problem in evolution will not cease to exist because evolution defenders constructed various non sequiturs and misrepresentation of probability, like you did above. Sorry. B) Phrase "Evolution is not a random process" does not help you because natural selection acts only when functional solution/trait/allele/variation/protein/information enters the gene pool . Once this is done natural selection can spread this new solution through the population. Finding functional solution/trait/allele/variation/protein/information in a vast empty space of non-functionality is completely random. I explained that extensively in post #38 .

I hope you don't deny that DNA of an organism contains more information than William Shakespeare's Hamlet. We will now consider probabilities of a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard to type a text of Shakespeare's Hamlet. If there were as many monkeys as there are atoms in the observable universe typing extremely fast for trillions of times the life of the universe, the probability of the monkeys replicating even a single page of Shakespeare is unfathomably minute. Ignoring punctuation, spacing, and capitalization, a monkey typing letters uniformly at random has a chance of one in 26 of correctly typing the first letter of Hamlet. It has a chance of one in 676 (26 × 26) of typing the first two letters. Because the probability shrinks exponentially, at 20 letters it already has only a chance of one in 26^20 = 19,928,148,895,209,409,152,340,197,376 (almost 2 × 10^28). In the case of the entire text of Hamlet, the probabilities are so vanishingly small as to be inconceivable. The text of Hamlet contains approximately 130,000 letters. Thus there is a probability of one in 3.4 × 10^183,946 to get the text right at the first trial. The average number of letters that needs to be typed until the text appears is also 3.4 × 10^183,946, or including punctuation, 4.4 × 10^360,783. Even if every proton in the observable universe were a monkey with a typewriter, typing from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when protons no longer exist), they would still need a ridiculously longer time - more than three hundred and sixty thousand orders of magnitude longer - to have even a 1 in 10^500 chance of success. To put it another way, for a one in a trillion chance of success, there would need to be 10^360,641 universes made of atomic monkeys. As Kittel and Kroemer put it, "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event...", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers." This is from their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys. In fact there is less than a one in a trillion chance of success that such a universe made of monkeys could type any particular document a mere 79 characters long. To put this into perspective... producing Hamlet at random is like won the lottery more than 100,000 times in a row. So, if you believe that organisms are product of random chance, then be my guest. I won't try to convince you otherwise. But, I will say: I admire you for your faith.

One of the ways to refute Darwin's theory is to show that evolution can build things by random chance alone and that natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with it, since even the most ardent advocates of evolution admit that organisms complexity is orders of magnitude too improbable to have come about by chance. In order to successfully demonstrate this point we first have to define the meaning of the word "solution" in biology, of course in the context of evolution. Since the DNA is a molecule that carries most of the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known life, the solution in biology is nothing but some arrangement or combination of nucleotides in a DNA. To be more precise, it is the combination of nucleotides that contains the information on how to billd some biological structure with the ability to cope with a particular problem at the level of environment, cell or the whole organism. Let us now look at some examples to illustrate this point. Imagine that we have an ecological or environmental area that is inhabited by some organisms. Sources of food in this area are drying up and population of organisms is introduced into a new environment. In this new enviorment there is a plenty of energy rich substances. But, the problem is that genes for metabolic pathway to convert this substance into usable energy do not exist in a gene pool of that population. Metabolic pathway that can convert this new food into useable energy consists of 2 enzymes. So the information on how to bulid those enzymes is not present in the DNA, just like information on how to bulid eyes was not present in the genetic material of the first self-replicating organism. So, here evolution needs to find a solution to this problem which means, evolution needs to find the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA so that cell can produce functional enzymes with the ability to convert new energy rich substance into a usable energy. Once this is done and solution enters the gene pool, natural selection can kick in and spread this new solution through the population. So, this was an example of finding a solution in the context of the enviorment or by filling of ecological niches. For the problem solving at the intracellular level we can use intronic insertions problem. Genes of today's eukaryotic cells are interrupted by noncoding sequences called introns that need to be removed via splicing machine from the RNA molecule before the process of protein synthesis can begin otherwise they would destroy the protein-coding capacity of genes. So, from the evolutionary point of view the splicing machine is the complex evolutionary solution to the intron insertions problem, that began early in a cellular live, once one of these early cells get one of these introns inserted into a critical gene. Now that we know what the concept of solution in biology is, we can turn towards the critical point of this demonstration and show why fundamental assumption behind darwin's theory of evolution is false. We will do that with the help of one simple analogy in the context of previous intronic insertions example. By using this analogy we will try to solve one problem via evolutionary mechanisms. Ok. Imagine that someone offers to pay you one million U.S. dollars if you can provide the correct answers to the question written down on paper. So, you will be rewarded if you provide the right combination of letters, just as the cell in our intron insertions example would be rewarded if evolution provides the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA with the information to make splicing machine. So, the principle is the same in both problems. In answering a question you are allowed to use whatever method you want. You can use encyclopedias and textbooks, you can do a Google search, you can conduct science experiments, communicate with other people, and so on. But, you have only one constraint - you are required to use mechanisms of Darwinian evolution. You say, ok, I am fine with that, evolution is a powerful method of finding solutions, as demonstrated in nature and by evolutionary programming so this shouldn't be a problem. Finally you ask: so what is this million dollar question? And the person replies: well, you are not allowed to see the question. Remember, you are required to use mechanisms of evolution. And we know that evolution have no intelligence and no mind so evolution can't see, read, think, percieve,... evolution cannot grasp the problem. The only thing evolution can do in finding solutions is a random shuffling of nucleotides in the DNA and once the solution emerges natural selection process can kick in and spread this solution through the population. In the same way, you are alowed to combine existing letters, words and sentences that exist in books, newspapers, magazines,dictionaries, internet or in your mind. You can do whatever you want in creating new combinations of linguistic elements. The only constraint is your inability to use engineering and inteligent design principles in solving a problem. You are unable to notice or become aware of the question, or in other words, you are unable to create a mental representation of perceived question and then, using your cognitive faculties, to co-opt the right combination of letters, words and sentences according to this mental representation. In short, no intelligence is allowed. Now you just thing about the extent of the problem. The subject of the question can be any aspect of the reality that can be expressed in words. So there is a potential for nearly infinite number of potential questions. And since you do not know what the question is you don't know what words or letters to use, how to combine them, you don't know what amount of words constitute the correct answer. You just pick letters and words randomly, put them together randomly and hope the correct solution will pop up, so that you can win a million dollars. Also, in this process you are not able to communicate with the asker about a partial accuracy of the answer since communication is intelligent activity, and we know that evolution does not have intelligence and therefore its not able to communicate. In our intron insertions problem, solution consists of at least five subprocesses: to recognize mRNA and its intron-exon boundaries, then to cut the RNA, to rearrange cuted parts, to join and finally to release the mRNA molecule. Only when combination of nucleotides in the DNA that contains all five subprocesses exists only then natural selection can act. And not before. For example: If we assume the existance of splicing helper proteins that assembly at the intron-exon borders to guide small nuclear ribo proteins to form a splicing machine, this partial correctness of the splicing process won't cause introns to magically disappear without a complete splicing machine. This partial correctness won't cause random, blind and unintelligent process to put aside these helper proteins because they're good for the future splicing function. Evolution has no long term goal, it cannot plan. There is no long distance target to serve as a criterion for selection. In the same way you will be selected by the author of the question and rewarded one million dollars only when complete and acurate answer is provided. Selection process cannot help you in finding solution. If that is the case then the only available way for you to find a solution is by pure chance. At this poin we can clearly conclude that evolution is refuted since even the most ardent advocates of evolution admit that organisms complexity is indeed orders of magnitude too improbable to have come about by chance. But, we are not finished yet. We want to unmask the empty rhetoric and logical flaws behind the rationalizations invoked in the "covering up" of the fact that evolution proceed by random chance alone. This rationalizations are usage of terms like "functional shift," "exaptation," "co-option". We will se how absurd they sound when they are put alongside our previous examples. Finally we will see how intelligent design is presuposed in the rationalization called evolutionary algorithms. Functional shift is an idea in evolutionary biology where some cellular or morphological element adopts a new function. And this is said to be the process by which evolutionary novelty is generated. In the words of our analogy, you are alowed to change one semantically correct word into another, or one syntactically correct sentence into another so that existing words and sentences adopt new semantic or syntactic function or meanings. But, what that has to do with providing the right answer?? Absolutly nothing. The problem is not in creating some new random and functional word or sentence the problem is creating words and sentences which will allow you to win one million dollars. In the same way the problem in biology is not in creating some new random function, problem is in creating function that solves a particular enviormental or intracellular problem, like enzymes with the ability to convert new food into usable energy or molecular machine with the ability to cut introns. So the claims like: the acquisition of new functions by molecules involved in developmental pathways is suspected to cause important morphologic novelties... are nothing but empty claims. They are like saing: the acquisition of new meaning by words involved in writing a novel is suspected to cause important linguistic novelties. Like I said at the beginning , proponents of evolution completely ignore the question of how evolution finds the solution. Instead, they just appeal to the empty terms and abstract hypothetical scenarios that do not exist in reality. Second therm, co-option, says that the parts nessecary to create molecular machines could be taken from other molecular machines and combined into the new machine being constructed. In the words of our analogy this is like saing: words nessecary to create the correct answer could be taken from dictionary or some textbook. As we can see, this is again completely irrelevant since the problem is not in creating the new combination of words. Problem is in creating the correct combination of words in the space of nearly infinite number of possible combinations. But there is also another problem. The co-option argument presupposes that all functional parts already exist. But this is not evolution. The hypothetical first self-replicator, which is the starting point of the evolution, did not contain genes for three-dimensional cellular structures and arrangements like organs or organ systems. You cant co-opt parts of the organism like bacteria and expect kidneys to emerge. In the context of our analogy this is like using only 1 percent of the dictionary and then trying to evolve new words by randomly shuffling letters of existing words. Now imagine that after the long, long shuffling process, finally one semantically correct word pops up. This is like evolving one new functional protein for future splicing process. Since you dont know what the question is, this new word is completely useless to you. The potential for providing the correct answer and win one million dollar by using this new word is the same as using any other functional word. So, the ability to evolve new functional proteins does nor explain problem-solution relationship that we observe at every level of biological organization. Finally, we will demonstrate how proponents od evolution implicitly presuppose existance of inteligence in their explanations. They are doing this when claiming that programming techniques known as genetic algorithms mimic biological evolution as a problem-solving strategy. We will first ask a question: can you solve your million dollar question by using evolutionary algorithms. Of course not, because you dont know what the question is so you are not able to calculate fitness. To calculate fitness you have to comunicate with the asker, but we know that communication, which is an intelligent activity, is not available to evolution. To ilustrate this consider the following example: you start with population of 20 individuals located at the center of the soccer field. Individuals will be rewarded(selected) if they manage to reach the right corner of the field using the following metod: they are alowed to move one step at a time, in one of four different directions; left, right, forward, or backward. Direction of every step is determined randomly. We know that chances od finding solution by using this type of random search are extremely low. This is similar of answering our million dolar question by chance. But, we can do the following. We start our simulation and every individual is randomly moved one step in one of four mentioned directions. When this is done we measure the distance between individual and the right corner of the field. We repeat this calculation for every individual. Now using this data we calculate fitness of each individual. Next step is the selection process. We want to be constantly improving ourindividuas overall fitness. Selection helps us to keep the best individuals in the population - so individuals who are most distant from the corner are out. Now we have our next generation and we can start again the whole procces until we reach the right corner. Without further elaboration, we can easily see what technique is used here. At each step of the simulation we have a communication bettwen a solution and the current state of the individual. In other words, we have an a priori knowledge of the solution before the solution is reached. Without this a priori knowledge about the search space structure evolutionary programing does no better than blind search. The use of a priori knowledge is called planing. Plan is defined as a set of actions that have been thought of as a way to do or achieve something. By creating plans we, as inteligent agents, are creating solution before the solution exists. This solution or representation to show the construction or appearance of something, is created in the form of architectural blueprints, engineering drawings, schemes, models, prototypes and so on. Then, by using our cognitive faculties we design objects by comparing this plans with a current state of the object. In short, this activity is called inteligent design. So the proponents of evolution are explaining the power of evolution to the general public by attributing the design methods of intelligent agents to evolution. Best example of this manipulation is Dawkins weasel program presented in chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins knows that a purely random approach to generating biological solutions is theoretically impossible, due to the excessively huge search space. So he created WEASE program where he aims to show that the process that drives evolutionary systems — random variation and natural selection — is different from pure chance. So, how he did it? Short answer. By inteligent design. Now, long answer. Program begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation until target phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" is reached. Here Dawkins is using an a priori knowledge of the target phrase or solution - METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL- and then in each generation of selective 'breeding', the mutant 'progeny' phrases were judged according to this target phrase. So, Dawkins proved that the process that drives evolutionary systems is different from pure chance by using engineering principles and methods of inteligent design. Now here's an interesting consequence of this manipulation with evolutionary programing. When creating arguments about the creative power of Darwinian evolution, proponents of evolution are implicitly presupposing the existence of intelligence. And then in the conclusion of the argument they are denying the existence of intelligence, and in the same time they mock people who are claming that living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. Isnt that intresting? Of course, we have lots of evidences that overwellmingly supports a flat Earth.... if we ignore direct empirical observations that Earth is an oblate spheroid. We have knowledge about the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation, and that knowledge shows that Earth is an oblate spheroid. Likewise, we have knowledge based on facts learned through experiments and observation which shows that evolution is not able to create new genes. So, excuses mentioned above(we should looking to scientifically explain any of these problems) are completely flawed. They are like saying something like this: Because we currently cannot provide an adequate explanation of why we observe Earth's round shape what we should be doing is looking to scientifically explain any of these problems, and not simply by ignorance state - "Earth is round". Meaby there are some undiscovered laws of nature that cause distortion of our perception so that we observe round earth, when in reality the Earth is flat. You see where your reasoning is going?

Examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding. Mutation phenotypes leading to resistances of specific antibiotics are as follows: Actinonin - loss of enzyme activity Ampicillin - SOS response halting cell division Azithromycin - loss of a regulatory protein Chloramphenicol - reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein Ciprofloxacin - loss of a porin or loss of a regulatory protein Erythromycin - reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein Fluoroquinolones - loss of affinity to gyrase Imioenem - reduced formation of a porin Kanamycin - reduced formation of a transport protein Nalidixic - acid loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein Rifampin - loss of affinity to RNA polymerase Streptomycin - reduced affinity to 16S rRNA or reduction of transport activity Tetracycline - reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein Zittermicin A - loss of proton motive force Resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes and does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes. So, what antibiotic resistance has to do with creating completely new, de novo genes? Absolutely nothing. So, you will completely ignore scientific arguments I presented above to explain my reasons for not believing in evolution, and start engaging in ad hominem attacks against me?

I believe what evidence suggests - we have a common designer that might not created humans de novo, but by adding on genes into a genetic material of some existing organism, like common ancestor of chimps or other great apes. That is why, for eg., we have transposable elements in our genome which occur in parallel sites in other species.

I forgot to add "according to evolution"... chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor 240,000 generations ago...