/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13443396

100KiB, 900x900, stephen-meyer-paradigm-project-square-900x900.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 03:22:41 2021 No.13443396 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13443551 >>13443597 >>13443609

Ok, he has to be wrong, there is no way a theory as widely accepted as Darwinian Evolution is so majorly flawed.
https://youtu.be/L0-hgSjnomA

What slimey trick is he pulling here? where are the refutations?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 04:25:33 No.13443551 Report

Quoted By:

>>13443396
The thing about evolution is it occurs over hundreds of millions of years, and there are no metrics to measure or even a requirement that fitness increases over a period of time. the idea that evolution is occuring is absolutely true and only a brainlet would think otherwise. we see it in bacteria and viruses all the time, whether in the wild or in controlled experiments.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 04:43:57 No.13443597 Report

Quoted By:

>>13443396
>What slimey trick is he pulling here?
his biggest trick is roping in ignorant evangenlical americans like you

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 04:47:42 No.13443609 Report

Quoted By: >>13443632

>>13443396
Why don't you just summarize a couple of his arguments. I tried watching it but he's just a fucking retard who doesn't understand evolution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 04:56:24 No.13443632 Report

Quoted By: >>13443767 >>13443805 >>13443809 >>13444767 >>13444846 >>13445482

>>13443609
>Cambirian explosion saw the emergence of a large number of species with different body plans in a short amount of time.
>Genetic mutations can't account for the creation of new proteins necessary for the change because the number of useless amino acide combinations to useful amino acids combination is too high
>Complexity that acxoeding to evolution needs to be born out of random mutation exponentially grows when you consider integrated circuits.
>All this not to account for epigenetic information necessary for the emergence of new forms of life.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 06:18:25 No.13443767 Report

Quoted By:

>>13443632
Awesome, thanks. So..
>Cambrian explosion [was] a short amount of time.
Not really. 13-25 million years is pretty long. It was faster evolution because in a different environment changes are more likely to confer advantages than in an environment that ressembles the past.
.
>Genetic mutations can't account for the creation of new proteins necessary for the change because the number of useless amino acide combinations to useful amino acids combination is too high.
This is why I say he is a brainlet who doesn't understand evolution. The useless mutations also happen and either get filtered out or stay without particularly spreading depending on whether they are useless=bad or useless =identical. This argument seems to fundamentally miss the selection part of mutation+selection. Each generation has many many members who do not successfully reproduce. Many of them had useless combinations.
>Complexity that ... exponentially grows...
Yes. It literally does. Each mutation adds complexity to an already complex system, modifying the complex system. A consequence is that the most potent genes (ex the ones that control gene expression) end up in very stable configurations while the ones that are least potent are unstable and mutate more. It only seems not exponential because each generation filters out most individuals, but if you imagine the number of "potential" offspring if each member of each generation had as many kids as the most successful individuals you easily see that it is an exponential number. Again, you need you fully understand the implication of selection at each generation.
>All this not to account for epigenetic information necessary for the emergence of new forms of life.
I'm not sure I understand this argument. Could you elaborate?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 06:28:42 No.13443787 Report

Quoted By: >>13443797 >>13443812

I think I listened to him for an hour or so once. He never seemed to get to the point.

I mean I get it, it's easy to have a hand-wavy credulity about evolution having enough time, but if he wants to seem like he's making a technical challenge, he should get more technical.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 06:36:01 No.13443797 Report

Quoted By: >>13443905

>>13443787
He did give technical information for example there are about 10^77 invalid proteins for every valid protein.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 06:41:14 No.13443805 Report

Quoted By: >>13443865

>>13443632
I'm not really familiar with this field but wagner's arrival of the fittest and nick lane's vital question addresses these issues. Evolution isn't just random mutations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 06:42:02 No.13443809 Report

Quoted By: >>13443822 >>13444576

>>13443632
Simple to respond to. Evolution is not "random" in the way he thinks it is. There isn't a search over the entire space, its more like a guided search.
To put it simply, evolution clearly has a momentum effect. This is controversial I know but its obvious when you think about it, and if you've spent anytime tinkering with evolutionary algorithms.

Put another way, creatures can conserve some genes and allow others to be more variable. Its really complex how this happens but it clearly does. Height varies, but nearly all humans have 2 arms 2 legs. Kind of a crappy example but you get the point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 06:43:18 No.13443812 Report

Quoted By: >>13443814

>>13443787
>get technical or else youre not going to be taken seriously
>but dont publish in technical journals you are not real science

when will you admit its literally a philosophical debate, not a scientific one. The fact is all mainstream neo-darwinists have defined the concept of information and design out of existence.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 06:44:58 No.13443814 Report

Quoted By:

>>13443812
So did you watch the lecture? care to give your thoughts on it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 06:46:53 No.13443822 Report

Quoted By: >>13443831 >>13443865 >>13444569

>>13443809
>Evolution is not "random" in the way he thinks it is. There isn't a search over the entire space, its more like a guided search.
thats retarded, its like saying there really is a position and momentum to the particle even if it is impossible to observe it. You might aswell say angels are guiding it, because thats the length of the jump you are taking. ID says we shouldn't base it on random material processes that take 10^77 times to work, and instead focus on the actual information.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 06:50:32 No.13443831 Report

Quoted By: >>13443855 >>13443899

>>13443822
Thats not all what those words mean.

DNA exists for a reason, it massively cuts down the search space and allows for the conservation im talking about.

And did you compare that to angels while advocating for ID? Big kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 07:00:22 No.13443855 Report

Quoted By:

>>13443831
You still have a 10^77 chance of creating a new protein, what DNA does is ensure that what you have right now is functional but if you want to evolve into a new species you still neeed to win that 1 in 10^77 lottery.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 07:06:27 No.13443865 Report

Quoted By: >>13443899

>>13443822
Genotype networks are pretty robust because they can maintain same phenotypic meaning for different configurations, and the neighborhood of these different configurations has different potential innovations that can be realized when environment changes and selects for them. I urge you to read books I mentioned here if you're a layman like me >>13443805.
You should have a good knowledge of biochemistry to understand evolution. Also, nick lane talks about why complexity of organisms piled up only with eukaryotes, and how it's such a chance thing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 07:33:42 No.13443899 Report

Quoted By:

>>13443831
It's not just DNA. Focusing solely on DNA is the reason scientists failed to understand evolution.

>>13443865
This nigga is the only one in this thread who knows what he is talking about. The questions raised by OP are actual issues that scientists are dealing with. Most of this knowledge is very recent and didn't come out of ivory towers into popular consciousness. Darwin's evolution was a massive step in the right direction but it is incomplete on its own.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 16274577130277756702721299738443.jpg, 2MiB, 4000x3000

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 07:39:37 No.13443905 Report

Quoted By: >>13444534

>>13443797
Ok, but starting from a valid protein if it mutates to an invalid protein you don't reproduce and so you don't subsequently explore the vast number of related invalid proteins. But you do reproduce thousands of specimens with the valid protein, each which may subsequently mutate to a related valid protein. It's only the valid paths that get explored. It's important to see the consequence of gradual changes.
In other terms, the 10^77 number doesn't correspond to anything real. It's a number that has no meaning. Mutations happen in small numbers on each specimen, on the order of one in a million transcribed codons. You don't produce any of all the possible sequences, only slight variations on existing and, crucially, functional sequences.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 12:56:21 No.13444534 Report

Quoted By: >>13444539 >>13444576 >>13445337

>>13443905
There isn't enough time or organisms from the beginning of time to now to search the protein space.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 12:57:23 No.13444539 Report

Quoted By:

>>13444534
*beginning of life

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 13:08:18 No.13444569 Report

Quoted By: >>13444576

>>13443822
>thats retarded, its like saying there really is a position and momentum to the particle even if it is impossible to observe it.
science blocks your path
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilizing_selection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_effect

Just think about it. A huge advantage for a creature undergoing evolution is to evolve in a way that preserves traits and accelerates the evolution in a particular direction, while decelerating in other directions. It's not actually "guided" or anything but that is a useful conceptual model to understand what's happening.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 13:13:22 No.13444576 Report

Quoted By: >>13444590

>>13444534
see
>>13444569
>>13443809
Evolution is not searching the entire protein space. Not even close.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 13:20:02 No.13444590 Report

Quoted By: >>13444600 >>13445354 >>13445390

>>13444576
Conserving traits doesn't help you create new proteins. Even if you survive, to create new proteins that you need to transform into a new species, you still need to take that 10^77 roll.
We are syaing that even if every off-spring "succeeded" if every mutation/roll in the history of life is accounted for, there simply isn't enough rolls to generate new porteins.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 13:25:07 No.13444600 Report

Quoted By: >>13444604 >>13444611

>>13444590
>10^77 roll
No its not. First of all, evolution is not operating directly on protein space, it is operating on DNA alleles. This is a massive state space reduction. This is hugely important and you can't ignore DNA.
Second organisms conserve a huge portion of their genes, and only a small number are left for variation. I won't get into all the mechanisms here because it is very complex but look into it. This means you are effectively searching over a small space of variation for small incremental benefits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 13:28:00 No.13444604 Report

Quoted By: >>13444621 >>13444644

>>13444600
>This is a massive state space reduction
Have any numbers?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 13:30:57 No.13444611 Report

Quoted By: >>13444644

>>13444600
If you reduce the space to allels only you reduce yourself to macroscopic traits (eye colour, height), If you want to create new proteins you need to work on the DNA bases, the full amino acid combination space, those are the mutations that matter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 13:34:33 No.13444621 Report

Quoted By: >>13444689

>>13444604
I don't have the numbers off the top of my head but this should give you a perspective.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750478/
>We characterized a broad spectrum of genetic variation, in total over 88 million variants (84.7 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), 3.6 million short insertions/deletions (indels), and 60,000 structural variants), all phased onto high-quality haplotypes.

This is the effective amount of variation we see in humans for example. Down from 10^77 to 88 million. Still quite big but hugely more searchable.

Also remember that our DNA is sliced into 23 chromosomes, which you can think of as splitting the search space into 23 parts to enhance conservation. And there is a shit ton of "junk DNA" so the real numbers of variation are probably even lower than what these numbers are showing.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO genes.png, 148KiB, 962x831

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 13:40:03 No.13444644 Report

Quoted By:

>>13444604
>>13444611
more perspective, pic rel

Just think, people train machine learning models with billions of parameters. The search space of our DNA is far smaller than it might seem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 13:58:41 No.13444689 Report

Quoted By: >>13444697

>>13444621
That's genetic variation observed among humans. What the fuck are you going on about about with this unrelated shit. This is totally unrelated to 10^77 number that anon was talking about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 14:01:48 No.13444697 Report

Quoted By: >>13444724

>>13444689
How many times do I have to say it?

Evolution is not operating on protein space, which is what the 10^77 number is about. Actually read for once instead of impulsively sperging.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 14:16:37 No.13444724 Report

Quoted By:

>>13444697
How is this 88 million even related? This isn't fucking search space. It's just a measure of genetic variation observed among those people whose genome is analyzed. Evolution occurs on all fucking spaces; metabolic, protein, whatever the fuck. How these phenotype interact with the environment enables selection on genotype. You really aren't explaining anything about evolutionary pathways that makes this process a lot more intuitive and simpler. It's fucking obvious you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 14:45:22 No.13444767 Report

Quoted By: >>13444790

>>13443632
If someone starts talking about trans generational epigenetics in higher lifeforms, you can be pretty well assured they dibt know what they're talking about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 14:53:27 No.13444790 Report

Quoted By:

>>13444767
Why? this man has a Phd he published books that many scientis praised, he has surely done his research.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 15:16:49 No.13444846 Report

Quoted By:

>>13443632
>Genetic mutations can't account for the creation of new proteins necessary for the change because the number of useless amino acide combinations to useful amino acids combination is too high
>Complexity that acxoeding to evolution needs to be born out of random mutation exponentially grows when you consider integrated circuits.
Andreas Wagner's biological computation research is basically about this

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 17:45:53 No.13445337 Report

Quoted By:

>>13444534
Because you are counting every variation of bad sequence, but not every descendent that never appeared because it is related to an ancestor with a bad sequence. It's an efficient search of a kind. You are being duped.
There are processes which allow to explore solutions. Evolution is one.
The 10^77 argument is like saying "there are 10^80 ways you can put a tonne of metal and rubber together, there is no way for Toyota to improve cars by trying random stuff" AS IF every trial was a complete random pile of twisted metal. But Toyota might try to change a single thing, say increase the wheel size a bit, and then run tests. If that works, they might try to change the type of metal used for the doors. They wouldn't say crumple up 2 tonnes of metal, in order to explore the whole metal space. And neither dies natural evolution. To understand evolution you need to think about it a bit. Look at simulated evolution in computers, maybe that will help you visualize what is happening, and stop being attracted to charlatans.

El Arcón

El Arcón Wed 28 Jul 2021 17:49:03 No.13445349 Report

Quoted By:

The Truth About Evolution
https://vixra.org/abs/1602.0132

The purpose of this report is to debunk Darwin's theory of evolution and any variant theory that relies on the natural rate of mutation to explain the origin of new genes. We construct a model of DNA and show that the minimum rate of mutation needed to produce humans within the geological age of the Earth is too high. It is much higher than any realistic model of random mutations. The calculation presented here should end the evolution debate, at least in its Darwinian limit. Other problems with evolution are discussed.

Jonathan Tooker • 2 years ago • edited

In the paper, I have dismissed the relevance of "coding for a protein" by dismissing it as purely a contemporary fascination. However, under the parameters of the protein coding model, it has been argued that random mutations in the proteins that code the DNA can account for the end product mutated DNA as well as my own model of DNA mutations. Due to the much smaller number of atoms in the coding proteins compared to the DNA molecule itself, one could construct a realistic model of DNA mutation with much lower mega-byte (Mb) quantities than I have used in the tables. Therefore, in that model accounting for variations in the DNA through mutations in the coding proteins rather than the totally simplistic thermodynamic fluctuation model which I have motivated using physics, it might not be possible to immediately reject the theory based on the required inter-generational mutation rate. However, I have no knowledge of any means by which mutations in the coding proteins of a species with N chromosomes can result in a superior species with N+M chromosomes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 17:50:13 No.13445354 Report

Quoted By:

>>13444590
>We are syaing that even if every off-spring "succeeded" if every mutation/roll in the history of life is accounted for, there simply isn't enough rolls to generate new porteins.
Do you have some numbers for that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 18:03:58 No.13445390 Report

Quoted By:

>>13444590
Actually this is so retarded I have to throw some numbers here.
So consider just a single bacteria, an E coli, that reproduces every 20 minutes (some bacteria do it in 4 minutes but whatever), but none of its descendents die, they all reproduce.
In 20 minutes we have 2, in 40 we have 4 and so on.
In one day we have 2^71.
In one week we have 2^503.
In a year we have 2^26280.
In 15 million years we have
2^394200000000.
That is about
10^118260000000.
A bit bigger than 10^77.
Can you go think about this on yourself for a while and let this stupid thread disappear now?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Jul 2021 18:29:32 No.13445482 Report

Quoted By:

>>13443632
>Cambirian explosion saw the emergence of a large number of species with different body plans in a short amount of time.
The conditions for evolution were just ripe to accelerate it, lots of niches to be filled.
>Genetic mutations can't account for the creation of new proteins necessary for the change because the number of useless amino acide combinations to useful amino acids combination is too high
>Complexity that acxoeding to evolution needs to be born out of random mutation exponentially grows when you consider integrated circuits.
>All this not to account for epigenetic information necessary for the emergence of new forms of life.

>NOOOOOOO MY THEORY SAYS IT IS HECKIN' IMPOSSIBLE
The real world has shown that evolution is possible so your theory is incorrect you hack

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches