I would reject this claim because you are mutating through a sequence with enormous possible combinations.
Why does having an enormous number of possible combinations cause you to reject evolution?
Denton estimated 10^44 total evolutionary resources since first life. Lets go 6 orders of magnitude up to be conservative at 10^50. Now can you get to a light sensitive spot and process the information with less then 10^50 searches if you use a random search?
Start with the origin of rhodopsin. The build the structure that can process the light. Here is Beheās simplified diagram.
[quote]nature, and it would be only a matter of time before science would discover that. As Behe points out in the next example, this assumption of simplicity was quite wrong.
The Chemistry of Vision:
How Does a Cell Become Sensitive to Light?
Scienceās misconception that the āblack boxā of light sensitivity would be simply explained is demonstrated by Michael Behe through a series of animations and illustrations diagraming the complicated chemical processes involved with sight.
Figure 2a is an animation showing the first event in the pathway to vision. When the light photon first hits the retina, it interacts with the molecule ā11- cis-retinalā. As the photon is absorbed, the 11-cis-retinal molecule goes from an elbow-type position to a straight position.
Figures 2b and 2c illustrate much of the rest of the pathway. In a complicated series of reactions, 11-cis-retinal is bound to the protein ārhodopsinā (RH). The change in the shape of the retinal forces changes in the shape of the rhodopsin (RH). This provides the rhodopsin with the ability to interact with the protein ātransducinā (T). This interaction creates a situation in which a small organic molecule āGDPā falls off the transducin and is replaced by another molecule āGTP.ā The complex of T and GTP has the ability to interact with āphosphodiesteraseā, whose shape is changed by the interaction, causing a ācuttingā of the molecule "cyclicGMP (cGMP), turning cGMP into 5-prime-GMP (5ā-GMP).
Some of the cGMP interacts with a protein āion channelā to allow sodium ions from the outside into the inside of the cell. The ion channel closes down, the sodium concentration changes, and this changes the voltage across the membrane, causing a current to be sent down the optical nerve to the brain to be interpreted.
In short, this is a much-oversimplified explanation of the āsimple light- sensitive spotā of Darwin.[/quote]
I completely agree with this assertion and am guilty as charged. I am interested to learn more about the development of the eye, as Joshua promised. I suppose that genetic divergence will come in to play and Iād like to know more.
I disagree with the conclusions regarding probability with the lottery winner probabilities, though.
- It is true that there is incredibly low probability that any specific individual will win the lottery. The odds are calculable.
- It is NOT true that is a very high probability that some individual will win the lottery, given enough players. Given sufficient opportunity, we will nearly always have a lottery winner. If not, it carries over to the next drawing.
To me, this is similar to the discussion around the multiverse. If we merely offer enough opportunities for universes to occur, odds are that one like this one, with the appearance of fine-tuning, will occur. In reality, fine-tuning that is perceived is merely an illusion, caused by the this universe is merely one of billions of billions of billions of universes, such that it was likely enough that someone would win.
Similarly with functions like the trilobite eye, there is an incredibly low probability that this eye would form (a single, individual lottery player would win). It is highly probably that something will form, though, because mutations occur and are selected over time (some, any, lottery player will win.) This seems as though the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy has been applied in this case.
Do you agree with the inherent weakness? Or am I seeing it incorrectly?
The number of solutions has to be almost as large as the search space for evolution to work. The evidence does not support that hypothesis as measured function is a fraction of total search space. We are also observing optimized sequences in nature.
I agree with you. I am not asking for a mutation by mutation record at all. Iām asking for a plausible description of the evolutionary pathway that is agreeable to one who might not accept evolution a priori. That the Civil War happened is not at all in question. What is in question is how did we arrive at a Civil War.
Iām also not desiring to put the entire burden of evidence on evolutionary science, Iām merely asking what is the evidence that you are seeing that could have allowed this to happen. This would be over and above the fact that a trilobite possessed an eye, to which we all agree.
And how many of those resources results in an eye? Without that number we canāt get past this initial number.
Thatās only one solution, the solution that did evolve. How many other possibilities are there?
One of the first clues is all the different types of eyes out there, and the fact that these different types of eyes are lineage specific. For example, everything with a back bone has one type of eye regardless of environment. Molluscs, on the other hand, have a different type of eye. Different types of eyes in different lineages shows that there were many solutions, and the fact that these eyes fall into a nested hierarchy is evidence that they evolved independently in each lineage.
As to the genetics, you may be interested in reading up on Pax6 which is a highly conserved homeobox gene involved in eye development:
I was going for a much more subtle example. If we look at the last 10 people to win a specific lottery, the combined probability of those specific players winning is nearly improbable, and yet it happened. If all we had to go from is just the players who won we would think that it required a miracle since we would have no evidence that anyone else every played the lottery.
Thatās the danger of only looking at the winners in the evolutionary lottery. We can lose sight of all the other evolutionary pathways that had an equal chance at winning but just didnāt due to the same processes that keep people from winning the lottery.
3 Likes
Thanks very much for the explanation and I will read the article too. It would be interesting to know more about the eye lineages in terms of how they relate (or did relate at one time) to the common ancestors from whom they diverged, as well. It seems that such a chart would have some incredibly descriptive power.
I still cannot understand what you are getting at here. That ten people won a specific lottery has no significance whatsoever. Nearly every lottery has a winner. That those specific ten people won is astronomically improbable. That it happened does not lessen the miracle at all.
To have a lottery and end up with an eye (to mix metaphors) IS a miracle because of the other players (the alternative pathways.) Alternative pathways are not evidence that the selection of an eye is not significant at all. Rather for every alternative pathway available, the selection of an eye would become less likely (statistically speaking.) So Iām just not getting the lottery example.
I donāt understandā¦
Let me go about this another way, staying with the lottery all the way throughā¦ If we agree, then maybe we can translate it to the evolution of some result like an eye.
If we look at the last 10 people to win a specific lottery, the combined probability of those specific players winning is nearly improbable, and yet it happened.
I agree completely. That those specific players won is amazing. I agree too that it happened.
If all we had to go from is just the players who won we would think that it required a miracle since we would have no evidence that anyone else ever played the lottery.
This is where I disagree with you. The winning of a lottery has to do with the selection of specific numbers. Whether you look at if there were other players or whether or not there were any other players at all is immaterial. The ten who won did not win because of the other players or the lack of other players.
You have mixed up a lottery with a drawing. The two have very important distinctions in this conversation. One is an entrant simply by being; the other is a specific entrant based upon its unique combination. In a drawing, 100% of the time someone will win. In a lottery, this is not the case. Sometimes a person will not select the winning combination.
Do we agree?
Sorry, ignore, it was a poorly worded reply.
In a lottery you are dealing with about 50 possible numbers and 5 lottery balls. If you take the number of lottery balls up to 20 then how often would someone win the lottery? Assuming 30 million ticket holders that expected frequency with 5 balls is 1 win per 10 trials. If you go up to 20 balls the expected frequency is 1 win per 10^26 trials or probably never in the history of mankind.
The average human protein has 20^500 ways to arrange it.
1 Like
I completely agree with you. We are not talking about the same thing though. Iād like to get back to what you are referring to, but I donāt want to lose this thread.
If we agree on the prior point (and I donāt know if we do or not) then when you say this:
The process that allows people to win the lottery is the selection of the correct numbers. The number of other ticket holders (possible evolutionary pathways) has no effect on the probability (or lack of such) that this one person chose the right numbers. It is still utterly unlikely that this one specific person won the game whether no one else played, or a billion people played.
The lottery vs. a drawing is a very good analogy for this situation, I think. Because, as @colewd mentions:
With a lottery, the unlikely selection of the right combination results in a winner. With a drawing, if one purchases a ticket, one wins. In the case of the drawing, all players have an equal chance to win. In a lottery, only the one(s) with the right combination will win. If one person plays Billās game above, they will not win. Unless they know how to select for the right combination, which has astronomical odds.
To swing this analogy over to the current discussion is going to be hard, because so many words and ideas have been shared, but I will try. Hopefully you can help me through with translating the analogy.
Herein is where two different perspectives meet head on. The trilobite eye, from my perspective, is akin to a specific lottery ticket. There is a specific combination that was chosen (gross oversimplification) that resulted in the eye.
When you point to this (development of the eye) potentially being less statistically unlikely because of the number of other lottery players (alternative evolutionary pathways), this does not follow in my mind. To me, pointing to the winning ticket and saying that it was not miraculous because a billion others played is wrong. Those others had no effect on whether or not the right combination was selectedā¦ I hope that you can see what I mean.
Another point to be made is if the sequence space is 20^500 and there are one billion combinations that can form an eye this is still a highly unlikely outcome. About the same as if there is only 1 chance for an eye or 100 billion billion billion possible way to make an eye. The enormous sequence space trumps the even astronomically large functional space.
At the end of the day conscious intelligence is required for the eye producing DNA code.
1 Like
For goodness sakes please stop making pronouncements like this. Your math is just wrong here.
If your goal is to argue for ID that is out of scope for this forum. We are trying to find a better way forward.
1 Like
Please explain why. Given the huge sequence space of these proteins this seems obvious so I am expressing my view.
Letās step back and see the big picture.
Biology is non intuitive. Probability is non intuitive. Mathematical biology is doubly non intuitive.
The ID movement has leaders that are putting forward a host of mathematical biology arguments, all is which (except 1 in population genetics) has been rejected by almost every mathematician, biologist and computational biologist in the field, includigg Christians like myself.
You guys are not adding anything to these arguments at all, except revealing a lot of confusion we wouldnt expect from one of the principles. Even if you were to convince @T_aquaticus it myself you are right this will do nothing to change the gridlock ID faces in science.
So what is a rational goal in this situation.
-
If you want to understand why we reject these arguements we are happy to explain. You donāt have to agree but at least make understanding the basics a goal instead of trying to convince us. Iām fine if you disagree, but Iām not interested in arguing about it endlessly.
-
Invite the principles like Dembski, Durston, Axe, Behe, and Marks to join us here to make there case. If you work hard at #1 you might even be able to follow the conversation. They might have a better chance of convincing us of something than you; this much should be certain.
-
Find ways to work around the predicament ID is painted into so you are not limited by the strength of their arguments. Find a better way forward.
-
Figure out why ID has not retracted any of their falsified arguments.
In the end you donāt have to agree with us, but letās at least choose to use our time productively. Iāve delayed in a promised exchange with @EricMH that will be far more enlightening, and he was a PhD student of Marks, and is much better qualified than you guys to make progress. Donāt you want to see that exchange?
1 Like