Proof that evolution is physically impossible [None so far]

[forex]

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.

Edited February 26, 2016 by forex

[Phi for All]

So what do you think is going on when we observe evolution actually happening daily?

[forex]

So what do you think is going on when we observe evolution actually happening daily?

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.

[swansont]

In my (admittedly limited) experience, the error in these cases is in calculating probabilities by assuming all states or outcomes are possible, when that is in fact not the case.

[John Cuthber]

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.

And yet it happens.

So there's an error in your maths or your logic somewhere.

I'm not going to waste my time looking for it; that's your job.

[Strange]

Eppur si muove.

[Phi for All]

P.S. General evolution debate is not the topic.

 

Forgive me then, your title's claim seems to suggest otherwise.

[forex]

In my (admittedly limited) experience, the error in these cases is in calculating probabilities by assuming all states or outcomes are possible, when that is in fact not the case.

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.

And yet it happens.

So there's an error in your maths or your logic somewhere.

I'm not going to waste my time looking for it; that's your job.

So, you deny the existence of microstates in physical systems? Interesting.

Edited February 26, 2016 by forex

[John Cuthber]

 

So, you deny the existence of microstates in physical systems? Interesting.

Staw man argument. I said no such thing. I didn't mention them.

I just pointed out that, since evolution happens, your claim that it does not must be wrong, either in the basis you are choosing, or in the extrapolation(s) you make from that basis.

[Phi for All]

So, you deny the existence of microstates in physical systems? Interesting.

 

Don't go all fallacious on us now.

[John Cuthber]

 

Don't go all fallacious on us now.

His argument was already fallacious.

If you argue that all cars are black and I show you a white one, then I have proved that there's a fault in your argument.

I haven't tracked down what the error is, but I have proves that there must be one.

[Phi for All]

His argument was already fallacious.

 

I only use emoticons a couple times a year, so I'll forgive that you missed my sarcasm.

 

This seems like the old irreducible complexity argument that's been debunked for a long time, but continues to be used by many creationists. Apparently "throwing random bags of chemicals into the cells" and ending up with a fertilization process is wrong just because if you wave your hands broadly enough, it makes things automatically physically impossible.

[MEC1960]

OP - GIGO

 

Apart from the innumeracy of the OP, there are some fundamental mistakes in his premises that makes his argument, in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, "not even wrong".

 

He is deeply confused about what randomness means with regards to mutation; they are random in the sense that they occur without regard to their utility.

 

His logic is internally inconsistent throughout. For example, he says this; "Since this specific arrangements are not predetermined in the laws of nature or in the properties of matter..." This is immediately followed by "(like snowflakes are)". Which is it? Are their limitations to the arrangements of matter or aren't there (hint; there are). Snow flakes have a finite set of possible arrangements because the structure is constrained by the shape of the water molecule. Just so, biomolecules are constrained by their electrochemistry, by contingency (they are descended from previous versions) and by the forces of natural selection.

 

He is also deeply confused about the difference between probability and possibility. He is trying to use apriori probabilities to determine aposterori outcomes, which is nonsense; there are approximately 8 x 10^67 possible combinations of dealing out a deck of cards but when I deal one out the probability of the set I obtain is 1.0. This is telling in that he seems to think things, like heart valves, appear ex-nihilo as if there were no precursors.

 

He is mistaken also in thinking that the laws of chemistry, much less the rules governing the evolution of traits, do random walks through chemical "space" or, wrt to evolution a random walk through sequence space. Neither of these things are true. Chemistry and evolution abide by and are constrained by rules, most of which we have discerned.

 

There are many other simple mistakes and it isn't worth the time to go through them. The post can be dismissed with prejudice. It's all very silly.

[swansont]

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.

 

 

Basically my point. You haven't shown enough detail, so it's not clear that you haven't over-counted that actual number of available states by ~389 orders of magnitude.

 

I mean if I have a collection of hydrogen and oxygen molecules, I could count the number of ways they can combine mathematically (let's say I have enough so that this is ~10^20), but that ignores the chemistry. If I add a spark, what I'm going end up with primarily is water, and possibly a few other molecules. The results are not random. Similarly, I have seen calculations of the formation of amino acids from simpler molecules is basically impossible from similar reasoning, but then we have the Miller-Urey experiments, which shows such analysis to be flawed.

 

The outcomes of chemistry are not random. Treating them as such makes for a flawed argument.

[CharonY]

Indeed. The constraints on the possible reactions are governed by many factors. On the most basic level of course by thermodynamics, but more importantly biological systems (and if we talk about evolution we have to talk about whole systems) create specific constraints to make certain reactions favorable.

There is a reason why all known life is dependent on membranes, for example.

[Greg H.]

 

I only use emoticons a couple times a year, so I'll forgive that you missed my sarcasm.

 

This seems like the old irreducible complexity argument that's been debunked for a long time, but continues to be used by many creationists. Apparently "throwing random bags of chemicals into the cells" and ending up with a fertilization process is wrong just because if you wave your hands broadly enough, it makes things automatically physically impossible.

That's what I was thinking while I was reading it.

[Daecon]

You forgot to mention how the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution, too.

 

Or was it how evolution disproves the 2nd law of thermodynamics? I always get those two mixed up.

 

Either way, reality contradicts your "proof".

[Vitul]

Interesting argument, however, I would like to mention a few points/questions.

 

Considering that semiotic microstates are not probable and the number of non-semiotic microstates are abundant, don't you think you need only one semiotic microstate for there to be development. Think about it like this, evolution doesn't re-create everything and assuming that the creation of semiotic microstates needs to go through the same, original search is fallacious. If we have the creation of certain microstates that are biologically functional due to various environmental factors (which you ignored completely), the creation of other semiotic microstates isn't an independent process.

 

Natural selection as a semiotic microstate spreading mechanism isn't even related to your axis of argument. For natural selection to occur, you need to have populations with variations and therefore, semiotic microstate creation isn't in the domain of evolution but more in the domain of the creation of life. You must understand that evolution did not create life.

 

You also underestimate the possible microstates that are biologically functional. Personally, I believe that we shouldn't limit our search for semiotic microstates to only what is observed. Life on Earth had multiple microstates for the same function which were then modified and corrected by evolution and natural selection. Therefore, there is a significant hole in your mathematics.

 

I hope you understand my points. I know I'm not qualified to answer this, and therefore, most of my reply is based on logic and my limited knowledge.

[Strange]

You must understand that evolution did not create life.

 

Biological evolution didn't (by definition). However, it is quite possible (likely, even) that chemical evolution did.

[Vitul]

 

Biological evolution didn't (by definition). However, it is quite possible (likely, even) that chemical evolution did.

 

I was referring to natural selection in biological evolution, based on the original argument. Thank you for the clarification!

[forex]

OP - GIGO

 

Apart from the innumeracy of the OP, there are some fundamental mistakes in his premises that makes his argument, in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, "not even wrong".

 

He is deeply confused about what randomness means with regards to mutation; they are random in the sense that they occur without regard to their utility.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

His logic is internally inconsistent throughout. For example, he says this; "Since this specific arrangements are not predetermined in the laws of nature or in the properties of matter..." This is immediately followed by "(like snowflakes are)". Which is it? Are their limitations to the arrangements of matter or aren't there (hint; there are). Snow flakes have a finite set of possible arrangements because the structure is constrained by the shape of the water molecule. Just so, biomolecules are constrained by their electrochemistry, by contingency (they are descended from previous versions) and by the forces of natural selection.

 

 

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?

 

He is also deeply confused about the difference between probability and possibility. He is trying to use apriori probabilities to determine aposterori outcomes, which is nonsense; there are approximately 8 x 10^67 possible combinations of dealing out a deck of cards but when I deal one out the probability of the set I obtain is 1.0. This is telling in that he seems to think things, like heart valves, appear ex-nihilo as if there were no precursors.

 

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.

 

He is mistaken also in thinking that the laws of chemistry, much less the rules governing the evolution of traits, do random walks through chemical "space" or, wrt to evolution a random walk through sequence space. Neither of these things are true. Chemistry and evolution abide by and are constrained by rules, most of which we have discerned.

 

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.

 

There are many other simple mistakes and it isn't worth the time to go through them. The post can be dismissed with prejudice. It's all very silly.

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."

 

 

Basically my point. You haven't shown enough detail, so it's not clear that you haven't over-counted that actual number of available states by ~389 orders of magnitude.

 

I mean if I have a collection of hydrogen and oxygen molecules, I could count the number of ways they can combine mathematically (let's say I have enough so that this is ~10^20), but that ignores the chemistry. If I add a spark, what I'm going end up with primarily is water, and possibly a few other molecules. The results are not random. Similarly, I have seen calculations of the formation of amino acids from simpler molecules is basically impossible from similar reasoning, but then we have the Miller-Urey experiments, which shows such analysis to be flawed.

 

The outcomes of chemistry are not random. Treating them as such makes for a flawed argument.

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.

Interesting argument, however, I would like to mention a few points/questions.

 

Considering that semiotic microstates are not probable and the number of non-semiotic microstates are abundant, don't you think you need only one semiotic microstate for there to be development. Think about it like this, evolution doesn't re-create everything and assuming that the creation of semiotic microstates needs to go through the same, original search is fallacious. If we have the creation of certain microstates that are biologically functional due to various environmental factors (which you ignored completely), the creation of other semiotic microstates isn't an independent process.

 

Natural selection as a semiotic microstate spreading mechanism isn't even related to your axis of argument. For natural selection to occur, you need to have populations with variations and therefore, semiotic microstate creation isn't in the domain of evolution but more in the domain of the creation of life. You must understand that evolution did not create life.

 

You also underestimate the possible microstates that are biologically functional. Personally, I believe that we shouldn't limit our search for semiotic microstates to only what is observed. Life on Earth had multiple microstates for the same function which were then modified and corrected by evolution and natural selection. Therefore, there is a significant hole in your mathematics.

 

I hope you understand my points. I know I'm not qualified to answer this, and therefore, most of my reply is based on logic and my limited knowledge.

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.

[Prometheus]

So, what is the point of this non sequitur objection?

 

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

In particular in this debate you left number of points unanswered, including your misunderstanding of non-sequiturs, citing a lack of time. Yet you have found time to start a new thread.

 

Selectively leaving debates when they get difficult to start on another tangent? Yet another anti-science tactic.

[swansont]

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.

Re-asserting this doesn't make it true. You're naively applying probability in a way that's incorrect.

[forex]

 

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

In particular in this debate you left number of points unanswered, including your misunderstanding of non-sequiturs, citing a lack of time. Yet you have found time to start a new thread.

 

Selectively leaving debates when they get difficult to start on another tangent? Yet another anti-science tactic.

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.

Re-asserting this doesn't make it true. You're naively applying probability in a way that's incorrect.

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.

[Strange]

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.

 

Hmmm... if only there were some way of selecting from that space.