# Chance and Providence (reprised)

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Design, Theology\
**Created:** [June 13, 2019, 4:15am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620 "2019-06-13T04:15:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 2:40am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/147 "2019-06-19T02:40:32Z")

</div>

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> Is this an example of an irreducibly complex biochemical system?

It is part of a complex system called the spliceosome. It being irreducibly complex would take experiment to confirm. As the complex has almost 200 proteins and whether it could do the job with 1 missing in not known.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> with a 2,000+ amino acid sequence, the odds of this particular sequence just showing up are astronomically low. Additionally, since Prp8 plays a critical catalytic role in splicing, the allowable number of amino acid sequences that would retain functionality is probably pretty low.

Even through the evidence is there are limited functional sequences given the preservation the functional space still could be very large and yet finding this protein through a random search would not be possible. For example if 50% of the amino acids work in every position the functional space is still 1/2^2000 of the total sequence space. The mechanism needs to be deterministic in this case as there are less 2^200 evolutionary searches available since the beginning of life on earth.

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> Prp8 is so well conserved precisely because it is “fine-tuned”, in a sense, for the job.

Yes. The splicing function is very precise and mission critical for eukaryotic cells function. You need it to produce the prp8 protein (chicken and egg).  
The evidence shows that this sequence was achieved most likely by a deterministic process. In addition the 3 other spliceosome proteins that gpuccio aligned were also over 99% conserved in the alignment programs I ran between mice and humans.

Thanks for the summary.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 3:51am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/148 "2019-06-19T03:51:08Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Even through the evidence is there are limited functional sequences given the preservation the functional space still could be very large and yet finding this protein through a random search would not be possible. For example if 50% of the amino acids work in every position the functional space is still 1/2^2000 of the total sequence space. The mechanism needs to be deterministic in this case as there are less 2^200 evolutionary searches available since the beginning of life on earth.

Heh. Another day, another post by Bill with the ridiculous claim evolution has to search the entire ginormous possible search space randomly and find an extant functioning protein all at once.

I’d remind him that isn’t how actual evolution works for the 2,475th time 🙄 but he’ll just forget and be back tomorrow with the same dumb claim.

Wait for it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 3:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/149 "2019-06-19T15:51:10Z")

</div>

> [@Timothy\_Horton](#):
>
> Heh. Another day, another post by Bill with the ridiculous claim evolution has to search the entire ginormous possible search space randomly and find an extant functioning protein all at once.

What is your alternative proposal for the origin of prp8? What function does prp8 do on its own?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 4:46pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/150 "2019-06-19T16:46:36Z")

</div>

> [@Timothy\_Horton](#):
>
> Another day, another post by Bill with the ridiculous claim evolution has to search the entire ginormous possible search space randomly and find an extant functioning protein all at once.
> 
> I’d remind him that isn’t how actual evolution works for the 2,475th time 🙄 but he’ll just forget and be back tomorrow with the same dumb claim.

If it’s any consolation, it was watching the antics of people like Bill that (years ago), helped convince me anti-evolutionist Christians have absolutely no clue about the science, make stuff up as they go along, and are simply fighting a rearguard theological action against facts.

To me this was a clear demonstration that they had no scientific arguments against evolution, and were rejecting it out of personal distaste. People like this help convince other Christians to accept evolution.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/151 "2019-06-19T17:01:08Z")

</div>

> [@Jonathan\_Burke](#):
>
> To me this was a clear demonstration that they had no scientific arguments against evolution, and were rejecting it out of personal distaste. People like this help convince other Christians to accept evolution.

Do you believe that there is a good evolutionary explanation for the transition from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 5:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/152 "2019-06-19T17:03:16Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Do you believe that there is a good evolutionary explanation for the transition from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells?

Thank you for proving my point. Once again you make a post trying to change the subject while completely ignoring everything which has gone before, ignoring all the evidence for evolution, and ignoring the fact that you have presented no evidence for your own case.

This is all you ever do. If you had evidence for your case you would have presented it by now. You have nothing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 5:33pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/153 "2019-06-19T17:33:04Z")

</div>

> [@On another topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/660/152):
>
> This is all you ever do. If you had evidence for your case you would have presented it by now. You have nothing.

I tried to present evidence but I guess it was not good enough for you. You claim that I have nothing. Can you be more specific?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 5:45pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/154 "2019-06-19T17:45:51Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> I tried to present evidence…

Where?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 5:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/155 "2019-06-19T17:58:30Z")

</div>

Start on post 80.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 6:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/156 "2019-06-19T18:20:47Z")

</div>

I don’t see evidence, I see assertion. To challenge evolution credibly, you need a case at least as sophisticated and complete as the case you’re challenging. You need to account better for the available data. Where’s your explanation of the fossil record? Where are your nested hierarchies? Where are your hypotheses? Where are your predictions, experiments, validated theories? Where is your evidence?

All I’m seeing from you is the typical God of the Gaps argument. No evidence, and no science.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 6:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/157 "2019-06-19T18:37:18Z")

</div>

> [@Jonathan\_Burke](#):
>
> All I’m seeing from you is the typical God of the Gaps argument. No evidence, and no science.

I am challenging the claim of universal common descent by known evolutionary mechanisms. I am not challenging all of evolutionary theory.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 6:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/158 "2019-06-19T18:41:20Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> I am challenging the claim of universal common descent by known evolutionary mechanisms. I am not challenging all of evolutionary theory.

@Colewd

Which means you are proposing sequential special creation of individual species? With each new special creation a population of its own, owing no descent from populations that come before it, correct?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 6:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/159 "2019-06-19T18:49:59Z")

</div>

How? Where’s your evidence? Where are all the points I listed? You’ll at least need that in order to challenge common descent. So far so you ever do is point to absolutely tiny knowledge gaps and try to insert God. That’s literally all you ever do. No science whatsoever.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 6:55pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/160 "2019-06-19T18:55:52Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> Which means you are proposing sequential special creation of individual species? With each new special creation a population of its own, owing no descent from populations that come before it, correct?

No the argument is simply against the claim of universal common descent by known evolutionary mechanisms. The evidence is the highly preserved proteins that are observed in eukaryotic cells that don’t exist in prokaryotic cells.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 7:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/161 "2019-06-19T19:00:34Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> I am not challenging all of evolutionary theory.

Which parts of evolutionary theory aren’t you challenging? Be specific. You are clearly challenging common descent between species, including species of crocodiles and sparrows. “Universal common descent by known evolutionary mechanisms” doesn’t describe most of what you’re challenging.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 7:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/162 "2019-06-19T19:05:20Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Which parts of evolutionary theory aren’t you challenging? Be specific. You are clearly challenging common descent between species, including species of crocodiles and sparrows. “Universal common descent by known evolutionary mechanisms” doesn’t describe most of what you’re challenging.

This has nothing to do with this specific argument.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 7:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/163 "2019-06-19T19:08:23Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> This has nothing to do with this specific argument.

It has considerable to do. Notably, it’s relevant to your hypothesis (which you won’t state) of how things got to be the way they are, and it’s relevant to what sort of evidence one can use to explore the question.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 7:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/164 "2019-06-19T19:14:11Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> It has considerable to do. Notably, it’s relevant to your hypothesis (which you won’t state) of how things got to be the way they are, and it’s relevant to what sort of evidence one can use to explore the question.

I don’t have a complete hypothesis to how things got to the way they are. There is a claim that we can explain this solely by evolutionary mechanisms yet the first transition is very problematic.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 7:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/165 "2019-06-19T19:32:44Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> I don’t have a complete hypothesis to how things got to the way they are.

What function does the word “complete” serve in that sentence?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2019, 8:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620/166 "2019-06-19T20:06:24Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> No the argument is simply against the claim of universal common descent by known evolutionary mechanisms. The evidence is the highly preserved proteins that are observed in eukaryotic cells that don’t exist in prokaryotic cells.

How is that evidence against common descent?

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620.md?page=7)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/chance-and-providence-reprised/6620.md?page=9)