What are the Odds of Life evolving by chance alone?

[Moontanman]

16 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

This statement and your post that followed makes me think that I have the wrong idea of what "information" is. Has it been redefined? I watched your video twice. What I do ask is that you or someone else who is reluctant to watch the Tour video watch only the first 5 or so minutes. Can you spare that? If during that time (or subsequently if you decide to proceed further) you think he is not presenting his talk in a scientific manner, I have no problem with your stopping your viewing.m I would be interested in hearing your criticism. My original post was to ask others in the scientific community if there was anything of value in what he is saying.

I have a 3 hour video that completely refutes this one, do not think that no one watches videos but an hour and 20 minutes of nonsense is a lot to ask... It's very source suggests this is nothing but theist obfuscation. Right off the bat it makes unjustified assumptions about what the first life is. Modern bacteria are nothing like what it thought the first life forms were. No one has ever said a cell popped into being out of nothing fully formed... Abiogenesis is indeed thought to be chemical evolution of simple catalysts to more and more complex versions. This guy is talking nonsense... 

I watched, I can give you the real science behind this and no biochemist is clueless about the origin of life he is being deceptive and obfuscating the facts in his favor for his own reasons... 

I have to think there is good reason the comments are turned off for this video... 

Edited January 25, 2018 by Moontanman

[mistermack]

I got through about fifteen minutes of the youtube video. The guy is not a good communicator, it's hard going. My criticism of him from that fifteen minutes, is that he's comparing what happens in a lab to what happens in the Earth. And concluding that the various processes are so hard to achieve in the lab, it could never have happened in the early earth without intelligence and design.

What he's COMPLETELY ignoring, is that when you try to achieve something in a lab, you want it to be successful. Not necessarily first time, but within a reasonable number of attempts. You wouldn't be very happy if you had to attempt the process a billion times, before you made it work. But in the early Earth, a billion attempts is nothing. You have billions of billions of little chemical labs, all with conditions that range from slightly different to completely different. And with conditions changing by the minute, hour, day or year, your number of experiments is multiplying billions with billions. A billion billion failures means nothing, it took no effort and happened naturally. But just one success, of a reproducing organic entity, no matter how basic, and the process is off and running. With no competition or grazers or predators, the thing would have a clear run, and the numbers could shoot up to billions of billions of examples. Which itself provides the conditions for the next development.

It's a numbers game. No matter how unlikely, if the numbers are big enough, it might well happen. 

The impossible might take a bit longer.

[GalvestonTommy]

7 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I have a 3 hour video that completely refutes this one

I'd be willing to watch the 3 hour video for my own education. I'm scheduled for an esophajectomy next Wednesday and if and when I make it I'll probably have lots of time on my hands after a few weeks. Send me a link. By the way, was he not technically correct in his description of molecular synthesis?

6 hours ago, mistermack said:

It's a numbers game

Because we weren't there when either abiogenesis or creation happened it might just be a matter of faith on either account. It looks like a case of God-of-the-gaps versus Deep-Time-of-the-gaps. It's sort of like what Louis Nizer wrote in The Implosion Conspiracy concerning which witness is telling the truth. You almost have to be there for the testimony. And even then the most believable witness may be the best deceiver. I'll keep studying. This will probably be my last post for a while.

[Strange]

14 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

“self-organisation and emergent phenomena” are only workers and not plans and specifications.

I'm not sure what that means. They are not "workers". They are the processes by which structure appears without an explicit plan. Like the structure of snowflakes or the emergence of a phenotype from the genetic instructions.

14 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Simple, yes. Physics, yes, but only in accordance with natural laws.

Just like biology, then.

14 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

“Biochemical gradients” are the same as “self-organisation and emergent phenomena.”

Not at all. They are one of the mechanisms that drives self organisation.

Your snap rejection of this mechanism by which cells communicate their position in the developing organism perhaps explains why you haven't been able to find an explanation: you have rejected those that disagree with your beliefs, despite the fact that there is a large amount of evidence for them.

14 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

You imply that a creationist cannot have a valid scientific thought.

Not at all. Tour may well be an excellent chemist. I haven't looked at his work in that area. It isn't relevant. There are a few creationists who are good scientists in their own fields; it is just when it comes to evolution that they reject it unscientifically. (And sadly, use pseudo scientific arguments to defend their beliefs.)

14 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Tour just says that the question of abiogenesis needs to be addressed before evolution can be resolved.

And this is a another typically dishonest (or ignorant? I don't know) creationist argument.

14 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

As I suspected, in order to participate in a science forum, one must extol the scientific validity of the theory of evolution.

Nope. Another straw man. You don't have to extol the scientific validity of the theory. But it is a scientific theory. With mountains of evidence and well understood mechanisms. (And, of course, some open questions.) As such, the correct way to challenge it is with scientific evidence that it is wrong, not by statements of incredulity (especially from people who admit not to understand the field).

Quote

This is like a Yankee fan saying an Astro fan cannot know anything about baseball. 

No it is completely different. That is just a matter of opinion.Science doesn't work that way. (Something that creationists don't seem to understand - they seem to think that scientists are like them and only "believe" in the theory of evolution as a matter of faith.)

14 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

persons with a prejudiced viewpoint could be afraid of what might happen if they view it.

Oh yeah, terrified.

Pretty much everyone who is interested in science is excited by the possibility of new science - wether that changes our view of the universe or the nature of life. There have been several major paradigm shifts in various aspects of science in my lifetime from the big bang to plate tectonics. No one has been frightened by these.

13 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

If anyone expresses doubts concerning the scientific validity of abiogenesis or the theory of evolution then they are labelled non-scientific

The trouble is, the only people who throw doubt on the validity of the  theory of evolution are not scientific. They are creationists. 

13 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

This something is separate and apart from "biochemical gradients” and “self-organisation and emergent phenomena."

Of course it isn't. The genes create the biochemical gradients. They then respond to them so that they are expressed differently. Which may cause them to create yet more signals to other cells, which may change how genes are expressed. 

 

Edited January 26, 2018 by Strange

[GalvestonTommy]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

I'm not sure what that means. They are not "workers". They are the processes by which structure appears without an explicit plan. Like the structure of snowflakes or the emergence of a phenotype from the genetic instructions.

What is the difference between "an explicit plan" and "genetic instructions"? You say in one sentence there is no explicit plan and then in the next you say there are genetic instructions.

In Keith L. Moore, et. al., The Developing Human; ISBN 978-323-31338-4 (2016) page 487, under the heading of Common Signaling Pathways Used During Development, the authors state: “During the process of embryonic development, undifferentiated precursor cells differentiate and organize into the complex structures found in functional adult tissues. This intricate process requires cells to integrate many intrinsic and extrinsic cues for development to occur properly. These cues control the proliferation, differentiation, and migration of cells to determine the final size and shape of the developing organs. Disruption of these signaling pathways can result in human developmental disorders and birth defects. …the differentiation of many cell types is regulated through a relatively restricted set of signaling pathways:”

In this chapter of The Developing Human,  a long list of signaling pathways is explained. But the “many intrinsic and extrinsic cues” mentioned remain a mystery. These cues are part of the biological architecture necessary for the genes and signaling pathways to do their jobs properly.

I think we can separate the enzymes, signalling pathways, and other controlling factors (workers) from the “many intrinsic and extrinsic cues” (explicit plan). There is a lot written about the "workers" and nothing about the "genetic instructions".

3 hours ago, Strange said:

The genes create the biochemical gradients. They then respond to them so that they are expressed differently. Which may cause them to create yet more signals to other cells, which may change how genes are expressed.

Sounds like a plan to me. Heart cells and bone cells contain the same DNA and controlling factors. A heart cell has the function of the built-in pulse capability. The bone cell has the function of producing the extracellular matrix containing calcium phosphate for structural strength. I just haven't found an explanation of where the "genetic instructions" are that are followed when "The genes create the biochemical gradients." It's evident that the instructions are inherited and are separate and apart from genes.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

What is the difference between "an explicit plan" and "genetic instructions"? You say in one sentence there is no explicit plan and then in the next you say there are genetic instructions.

There is nowhere in the laws of physics or the rules of chemical bonding where you will find the six-pointed star of a snowflake. There is nothing in the four rules of Conway's "Game of Life" about creating complex self-replicating and interacting structures. There is not a gene (or even a set of genes) that encode the shape of a hand or an eye.

These structures emerge, implicitly, from the underlying instructions. 

11 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

These cues are part of the biological architecture necessary for the genes and signaling pathways to do their jobs properly.

Where do you think the signalling pathways come from? The signals are proteins created from the genetic information. The signalling chemicals that each cell produces will depend on its neighbours (and the signalling chemicals they produce) and the environment.

Quote

 Heart cells and bone cells contain the same DNA and controlling factors. A heart cell has the function of the built-in pulse capability. The bone cell has the function of producing the extracellular matrix containing calcium phosphate for structural strength. I just haven't found an explanation of where the "genetic instructions" are that are followed when "The genes create the biochemical gradients." 

They differential into different cell types because of the different environment they developed in - surrounded by other heart cells or other bone cells; prior to that because they were adjacent to cells that would become other tissue types at that location in the body.

The genetic instructions that are followed are in the genes. So a cell is surrounded by other cells. It gets signals from those cells. Those signals cause particular genes to be expressed or not expressed (the mechanism that causes expression to be turned on or off is, of course, encoded in the genes). So one cell will turn into muscle, another into bone and a third into hair. 

This horribly complex and messy system is what you get when there is no intelligent design behind the system. If we were to design self-replicating organisms that were capable of evolving to meet different environments, they would be much simpler. 

14 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

It's evident that the instructions are inherited and are separate and apart from genes.

And what is the evidence for this alternative mechanism? Other than your incredulity.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

What is the difference between "an explicit plan" and "genetic instructions"? 

 

An explicit plan and genetic instructions both contain knowledge, but only one requires understanding...

[Moontanman]

9 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

I'd be willing to watch the 3 hour video for my own education. I'm scheduled for an esophajectomy next Wednesday and if and when I make it I'll probably have lots of time

on my hands after a few weeks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5jh33OiOA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfq5-i8xoIU

9 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Send me a link. By the way, was he not technically correct in his description of molecular synthesis?

Possibly, I am not a biochemist, but I know he was using the information wrong. 

9 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Because we weren't there when either abiogenesis or creation happened it might just be a matter of faith on either account. It looks like a case of God-of-the-gaps versus Deep-Time-of-the-gaps. It's sort of like what Louis Nizer wrote in The Implosion Conspiracy concerning which witness is telling the truth. You almost have to be there for the testimony. And even then the most believable witness may be the best deceiver. I'll keep studying. This will probably be my last post for a while.

God of the gaps yet again? We weren't there? Ken Ham much? The god of the gaps keeps getting smaller and smaller and nothing supports the idea. Eyewitness testimony is not valid science and deep time is also demonstrably correct.   

[mistermack]

9 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Because we weren't there when either abiogenesis or creation happened it might just be a matter of faith on either account. It looks like a case of God-of-the-gaps versus Deep-Time-of-the-gaps. It's sort of like what Louis Nizer wrote in The Implosion Conspiracy concerning which witness is telling the truth. You almost have to be there for the testimony. And even then the most believable witness may be the best deceiver. I'll keep studying. This will probably be my last post for a while.

This is a very common fallacy that's pushed by creationists. Pretending that the two possibilities are equal, when one is following all the evidence so far, and the other is basically a fairy story.

If you follow tracks in the snow for fifty miles, and they are always pointing towards a cave in the foot of a distant mountain, and you follow them faithfully right up to the cave, and the tracks never diverge, always pointing towards the cave, and then they disappear, at the mouth of the cave, what do you suspect?  You might conclude that whoever made the tracks walked out of the cave. Or you might conclude that a pink unicorn swooped down on huge wings, and dropped him there.

Both are possible. But that doesn't make them equal theories. One is based on evidence, the other is away with the fairies. And that's where your faith puts you.

The evidence for evolution is the equivalent of tracks in the snow, and it goes all the way back to the mouth of the cave.

Edited January 26, 2018 by mistermack

[Strange]

The "we weren't there" thing is a pretty typical anti-science argument (similar to "if you can't reproduce it in a lab, it isn't science") used by creationists, people who oppose the Big Bang model, and many others.

 

[GalvestonTommy]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

There is not a gene (or even a set of genes) that encode the shape of a hand or an eye.

These structures emerge, implicitly, from the underlying instructions.

I'm only asking the simple question, where are the "underlying instructions" and what form do they take? "Implicitly" implies indirect interpretation which implies intelligence which we are trying to avoid implying.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

"Implicitly" implies indirect interpretation which implies intelligence

No, it really doesn't. You're trying to force a square peg through a round hole by thinking like this. There is no need to assume intelligence, and frankly... even if we do... it just displaces the question and forces us to ask "what is the source of the intelligence." It's a non-answer in every conceivable way.

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

I'm only asking the simple question, where are the "underlying instructions" and what form do they take?

In the genes.

9 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

"Implicitly" implies indirect interpretation which implies intelligence which we are trying to avoid implying.

Of course it doesn't.

The shape of a salt crystal or a snow flake is implicit in the laws of physics. But maybe you think an intelligence creates each one.

 

[GalvestonTommy]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

In the genes.

Can you tell me where in the genes are the instructions for, as you put it in an earlier post, determine the "shape of a hand or an eye"? Shapes and sizes of body parts are only one or their characteristics. Others include location, materials, polarity, connectivity, orientation, color (for some body parts like hair, skin and eyes).

[Strange]

25 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Can you tell me where in the genes are the instructions for, as you put it in an earlier post, determine the "shape of a hand or an eye"? 

Firstly, I said there ISN'T a gene or genes that specify that explicitly. 

But I will answer the question as soon as you can tell me which of these four rules describe a puffer-type breeder that leaves glider guns in its wake, which in turn create gliders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conways_game_of_life_breeder_animation.gif):

1. Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbours dies, as if caused by underpopulation.
2. Any live cell with two or three live neighbours lives on to the next generation.
3. Any live cell with more than three live neighbours dies, as if by overpopulation.
4. Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbours becomes a live cell, as if by reproduction.

Is that rule 1? Or maybe rule 3? Or all of them? Or none of them? Oh, it's all so confusing! Why can't the universe be simpler and just have explicit architectural plans for everything that happens.

Or maybe we just have to accept that unexpected complexity can arise from the interaction of simple rules.

But just imagine what could emerge if there were thousands of such rules and they were all very complex in what they did and the many subtle ways they interacted... 

[elias_marquez_zoho]

On 25/1/2018 at 9:16 PM, Moontanman said:

 

Citation please. My sources do not say that. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

 

 

What your own source precisely says is "The definition of life is controversial". Second paragraph.

Its completely logic, you cannot measure "life". You can measure energy, mass, pressure, speed, electric potential, etc.

[Moontanman]

13 minutes ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

 

What your own source precisely says is "The definition of life is controversial". Second paragraph.

Its completely logic, you cannot measure "life". You can measure energy, mass, pressure, speed, electric potential, etc.

Being controversial doesn't imply unknown or lacking knowledge of, nor does it mean it can't be measured. 

[elias_marquez_zoho]

Just now, Moontanman said:

Being controversial doesn't imply unknown or lacking knowledge of, nor does it mean it can't be measured. 

 

What is the unit for measuring life in the International System?

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

 

What is the unit for measuring life in the International System?

What is the unit for measuring Love, hate, or fright? 

[GalvestonTommy]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

unexpected complexity can arise

My question has more to do with expected complexity, like the shape of a hand. Sometimes the first thing a mother of a newborn child does is count the baby's fingers and toes. If she and the father are normal, she expects (and hopes) her baby will inherit certain expected complexities with minor normal variations, but not a different number of digits. Although I knew a fellow engineer who had 6 digits on each on his extremities. He showed me the scars of the operation to remove the extra little finger on each hand but he still had 12 toes. He claimed to be living evidence of the theory of evolution.

I'm not sure if I got the answer I was looking for in the first place, that scientists haven't yet been able to explain the plan that controlling factors go by to produce the expected complexities we are born with. I'm not implying intelligent design with this question nor creationism. I'm only trying to point out one of the countless bits of knowledge that has eluded us so far. Do I understand that you agree that details of the genetic instructions have not yet been fully discovered? It was really a simple query, I thought.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, GalvestonTommy said:

My question has more to do with expected complexity, like the shape of a hand.

Do you mean that you expect that you can look at the genome and see the hand coded there?

If so that is a futile wish. You can't see all the complex structures in the Game of Life encoded in the rules. There is no "plan" of the sort you are looking for, any more than there is a plan for the structure of a snowflake or the shape and function of a protein.

1 hour ago, GalvestonTommy said:

I'm not sure if I got the answer I was looking for in the first place, that scientists haven't yet been able to explain the plan that controlling factors go by to produce the expected complexities we are born with.

This is largely understood. Both in principle and many of the details. But there are, of course, a lot of unknowns. (This is science, after all.)

1 hour ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Do I understand that you agree that details of the genetic instructions have not yet been fully discovered? It was really a simple query, I thought.

It is not a simple question at all. At one level the details of genetic instructions are completely understood: triplets of bases code for amino acids. Sequences of these code for proteins. There are several ways in which particular genes can be turned on or off. Some of these are controlled by other genes - either in the same cell or other cells in the body, via chemical signalling. In some cases, the control mechanisms are understood almost completely. In other cases, hardly at all.

So it isn't a question to which there is a yes or no answer. But I think most people with any understanding of the subject would say that overall, it is closer to "yes" than "no".

[GalvestonTommy]

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

But I think most people with any understanding of the subject would say that overall, it is closer to "yes" than "no".

Whew! I guess I'd better let that dog go back to sleep.

I do have another question, however. It has to do more with how features or body parts like the heart or jawbone evolve in the first place rather than the previous question that asked about the genetic instructions that controlling factors follow once a feature has evolved. Is this appropriate venue or thread to pose such a question?

[iNow]

1 minute ago, GalvestonTommy said:

another question, however. It has to do more with how features or body parts like the heart or jawbone evolve in the first place rather than the previous question that asked about the genetic instructions that controlling factors follow once a feature has evolved. Is this appropriate venue or thread to pose such a question?

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by “how.” 

The evolution of beings over hundreds of millions, and even billions, of years is a very complex subject.

We can talk about specific pressures and transitions. We can explore specific lifeforms and relationships. We can explore how specific traits have helped specific organisms to survive. 

My suspicion, however, is that you want to explore fantasy. So, what exactly is your question? Let’s start with that.

[GalvestonTommy]

53 minutes ago, iNow said:

My suspicion, however, is that you want to explore fantasy. So, what exactly is your question? Let’s start with that.

Do I detect prejudice? Hopefully no fantasy, just the facts.

My understanding of the theory of evolution that I think is universally accepted is that it primarily involves descent with modification and natural selection. I know that genetic drift and other processes are mentioned also.

I'll use the jawbone (simpler than heart, brain, lung, etc.) as an example. And for purposes of this discussion, I'll use the term characteristics for things like material or color. And I'll use the term traits for things like calcium phosphate for the material characteristic and red or brown for the color characteristic.

Going back far enough in time we are told there was an ancestor that had no jawbone, an invertebrate, say. Now all vertebrates, excepting maybe hagfish and lampreys, have jawbones.

I understand that for each characteristic there is/are genes or other controlling factors that determine that there is that characteristic and what traits will be exhibited; Bone morphogenetic protein 4 or  BMP4 is reported to be associated with the size/shape characteristic of the jawbone due to the fact that certain mutations that might occur in BMP4 cause malformation of the jawbone. Another gene is collagen, type 1, alpha 1 (COL1A1) that when mutated, causes abnormalities in the jawbone. The material characteristic is affected adversely if the ANKH or ALPH gene is mutated. For the position characteristic, msh homeobox (Msx) Homeobox genes are thought to be essential for normal craniofacial development. While bone may have color, it would not be considered a characteristic (like in hair and skin color) because the color of bone is only a non-variable aspect of its material makeup.

 In addition to size/shape, material, position, and color there are other characteristics like connectivity, polarity (left and right), orientation, surface texture, extracellular makeup, quantity, and developmental process to mention a few.

It appears that all of the characteristics of a feature like the jawbone (beak if it is a bird) must be in place for the jawbone or beak to be of benefit to the vertebrate. And each controlling factor must not have a detrimental mutation or the feature could be rendered unusable to a point that would be hazardous to the organism. I.e., the genes and other controlling factors must be in place and in sufficiently good order.

My question is; is it logical to assume that all of the necessary characteristics (and therefore all of the genes and controlling factors) must be in place before a feature is of benefit to the organism in order to be selectable by natural selection? Or, will these factors show up periodically throughout time until eventually a jawbone will appear?

 

[iNow]

I’ll begin by informing you that use of multi-syllabic words won’t distract me, and follow-up by sharing that your inquiry is ignorant in the extreme.

You suggest there were a bunch of unusable pieces that suddenly became usable. Implicitly, your assertion here is that components can’t become characteristics unless a dog...erm... sorry... not dig.  I mean.., unless a “god” is involved. 

What your stance ignores... perhaps not intentionally, but it’s plainly bankrupt in this space... is how traits evolve even when they’re not useful. Something doesn’t require purpose to have expressed itself genetically. 

Sometimes, mutations happen. Sometimes, they’re helpful. Sometimes, they’re neutral. Sometimes, they’re detrimental. Most times, however, we see more of the beneficial mutations  downstream through offspring and across the generations. 

Your question is nonsense. You may as well be asking if it’s logical to assume that the electromagnetic spectrum must be defined before X-rays and gamma rays and infrared radiation can interact with the matter around them (hint: they do, even if puny primate brains struggle to accept it).

Evolution happens. It’s valid. It’s real. It’s true. Life did evolve and begin in an undirected way. You can ignore this and cling to fairy tales if you prefer, but that’s your problem to deal with... that’s your fantasy to create... not ours.  I have no desire to join you in your childish and obviously flawed delusions. 

Now, kindly please go take a stroll down the Strand or the causeway and think about how you’ve wasted your life believing in a ridiculous Iron Age unsupportable fiction. 

Edited January 27, 2018 by iNow