Jump to content
forex

How does the theory of evolution explain the problem of available mutational resources?

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will argue that it can't. What is your response?

 

 

 

What is your alternative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What is your alternative?

They are simply rehashing an argument from ignorance. To quote their first citation: "Hence, we hope that our calculation will also rule out any possible use of this big numbers ‘game’ to provide justification for postulating divine intervention." Unfortunately the author's hopes are obviously not met here.

Edited by Arete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What is your alternative?

 

Off-topic. I will try to keep this discussion within the bounds of the topic at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Off-topic. I will try to keep this discussion within the bounds of the topic at hand.

 

 

So your argument is that its impossible but it happened. Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off-topic. I will try to keep this discussion within the bounds of the topic at hand.

 

!

Moderator Note

It's not off-topic to ask you what you're substituting for an accepted mechanism other than just waving your hands. "It can't" is NOT an argument. If you can't offer evidence to support and clarify your anti-mainstream position, I have to move this to Speculations. Let's see some science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, yes. The old dishonest "I'm only asking" trick.

 

Anyone can see your posting history, you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So your argument is that its impossible but it happened. Got it.

 

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.

Ah, yes. The old dishonest "I'm only asking" trick.

 

Anyone can see your posting history, you know.

 

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.

Edited by forex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From that it follows that the current explanation for the emergence of higher life forms doesn't add up.

 

 

So what is your alternative explanation?

 

If you don't have one, then this thread seems a little pointless. (After all, you are not actually asking a question to get answers, are you.)

 

We have already had one "abiogenesis is impossible (but it happened)" thread. Which went nowhere for obvious reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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. ....

Why is it that science has to have all the information now and if they don''t have it now it's automatically wrong?

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't SJ - only people that don't understand science believe that it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So what is your alternative explanation?

 

If you don't have one, then this thread seems a little pointless. (After all, you are not actually asking a question to get answers, are you.)

 

We have already had one "abiogenesis is impossible (but it happened)" thread. Which went nowhere for obvious reasons.

 

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.

Why is it that science has to have all the information now and if they don''t have it now it's automatically wrong?

 

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.

Edited by forex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

Upon review of your posting history, I see that your previous argument along these lines was locked and you were told not to reintroduce the subject

 

Thus, locked

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.