god only knows

[mr. piper]

I heard on R4 that it takes 10 specific proteins to clot blood. and that the chance of evolution putting these things together by chance over eons is still highly unlikely apparently, without devine intervention, are we going to end up poo pooing Darwinian theory?

[Loosehead]

It's evolution, it takes billions of years, there are many aspects that are improbable but over time, they happen they evolve. Imagine the history of the earth as a 12 hour period, well mamals evolve at about 1.5 seconds to midnight. It took a long time many thousands of "natural selections" genetic dead ends general failures and extinctions but it dosn't matter how improbable something is if it's possible then it's only a matter of time. Imagine you want to roll 10 double sixes, it may take you 100 goes, probably not 10 but you'll get them.

No one is saying that evoloution explains everything but it seems a much more likely explanation than the devine intervention one.

[MargeB]

Proteins are one thing, but within our universe, as we find it, with physical forces as they are, the planets as they are, all these things need to be like this for proteins to have even a basic chance of coming together as they did. Then for this to evolve into complex life still needs some pretty rare conditions, then to get evolved human-level intelligence? A complete fluke, that we jumped into a tool using or socially complex nice. What I'm saying is that in the larger picture, it IS odd that everything panned out like this.

This does not mean that there was anything 'divine' about any intervention, however. There is no evidence AT ALL to suggest something 'magical' had a hand in it. There are other possibilities.

Google 'anthropic principle'

[MargeB]

*niche

[jake-the-peg]

This is a very old and well trodden subject.

Traditionally is was engaged in over the eye.

Creationalists argue that some biological feature such as the eye (or in this case blood clotting proteins) are too complex to have arisen by chance and evolutionist say no they're not they could have arisen via this or that methodology - creationalists then take issue with the proposed methodology and the argument goes back and forth for a while whilst everybody else looses interest.

Then another example is seized upon R4 does another 2 minute item and the whole cycle repeats.

Put simply in what I plan to refer to as JBP (Jake's Biological Principal)

"There is no evidence of evolution sufficient for creationalists to accept the theory and there is no biological system too incredible that an evolutionist cannot conceive of a mechanism of natural selection that would result in it"

However the best new science always comes out of things that previous understanding cannot explain, so a better explanation would be fabulous - preferably one that doesn't involve supernatural beings

[kempie]

Let's turn the argument on its head and in doing so frame the first question of kempie's katechism;

How phenomenally large are the odds that a Divine Being exists, has always existed and will exist in perpetuity?

[MargeB]

42:1

That's that out of the way :-)

[stevie21]

Touche Marge! hahaha

There's so much in this debate that's unknown that there's space to put forward any over-reaching theory that tries to plug the gaps.

[tony1941]

But all the mutations with 9 or less of these proteins simply bled to death before they could procreate.  Isn't that ow it works?

[tony1941]

".....how it works?"   Of course, all those who persistently misspell will eventually be barred from the site!!, Sorry!

[MargeB]

the 'h' is silent. onestly.

[Hamish]

Hi folks, just to put a oar in. The probability argument is an interesting one. As loosehead says, its all a matter of time, but more often than not, how much time is ignored.

ie, if we need 10 protines out of say 100 (probably many more than this to choose from) then we have a chance of 1 in (100^10)/10 - 1 in 1x10^19. The creature must be a comples organisum to have blood, so lets assume it reproduces a litter of 10 three time a year. If every offspring has a mutation in the required gene it would take - 3x10^17 years to get the required combination. The earth is supposed to be 42 billion years old - 42x10^9 - so not quite enough time on these very rough calcs.

[jake-the-peg]

Unfortunately Hamish that's the kind of dodgy logic  that gets us all into this mess in the first place.

You are assuming (as creationalists always do) that there is no evolutionary advantage in have half an answer.

In the same way that having a few light sensitive cells isn't as good as having an eye but is better than having none at all then its entirely possible that having certain combinations of these proteins held a biological advantage, possibly quite distinct from blood clotting.

Your calculation assumes that this sequence was arrived at purely randomly and I suggest that what it shows is that it wasn't.

Just imagine if other protein sequences had been evolutionary advantageous three are a lot of things wrong with the human design - we might have been able to grow back limbs which would have seemed a lot more magical than simply clot blood

[Hamish]

As I said it is a very rough calculation. However you cannot dismiss it on the basis that the theory must be correct and therefore the calculation must be makeing some unfounded assumption.

On the other hand I also allowed every birth to have a mutatuion - very unlikely even estimates of 1:1000 are probably high.

Lets calculate it gain based on every step being favourable. Based on that if each protine giveing an advantage we have 100*1000*10/30 - requires about 33 thousand years for what is infact a very small change.

However, you also have to cosider that the implaction here is that the mutation only occours in the gene you are interested in, if the animals cells contain say 1000 genes (a very simple system) then we get an answer of 33million years.

As the process of mutation is very improbably (1:1000) the chances of parallel mutations are very low - even with 42000million years I doubt you would have enough time to evolve from a single cell system.

[mr. piper]

Well i am sure loosehead said it only took 12 hours?

[jake-the-peg]

Yes that is true. To argue that the theory must be correct therefore so and so must have happened is illogical.

But it's also just as illogical to argue that the process was truely random and there was not enough time therefore Darwinian Evolution is wrong and all living creatures were therefore created by intelligent design - that is a classic false dichotomy built on top on top of an unproven assumption. 

I doubt Darwinian evolution is precisely accurate anymore than Newtonian Physics was. The problem is whilst Creationists are making it a political issue anybody seriously questioning it is going to need a pretty good alternative mechanism. Preferably one that doesn't include Gods, Godesses, Pixies, Trolls or any other supernatural being. 

[MargeB]

Genetic mutation is random, natural selection is non-random.

[stevie21]

MargeB, I don't disagree with your words (well, I'm tempted) but what's your point?

[monodge]

just want to say to Loosehead, its not necessarily true that if you want to roll 10 double sixes its only a matter of time. the past isnt a basis onwhich to make assumptions on the future.there is nothing to say that if you go on forever that you will roll 10 double sixes.

[bazwillrun]

Does Intelligent Design/ID/Creationism consist of the elimination of 70% of the existing species 250 million years ago and 90% 65 million years ago?

Why did the creation of humans take so long ? to fit the evidence for this you have a designer who created single celled life, got stuck for a very long time (billions of years) tried again several routes later, rubbed out with mass extinctions (a couple mentioned earlier) the last major error being the dinosaurs, and then finally got it right with humans. That assumes that the designer has got it right this time and we arent just  a mistake to be rethought after another cup of coffee !

the fact that good ole George Dubya wants ID taught  in American schools is proof in itself of what a load of tosh this theory is.

[bazwillrun]

Another question to ask is this , Who designed the cosmic designer ? if the answer, most probably, is that nobody designed the designer, then you can legitimately ask the follow up question, If a designer is not needed to design the designer ,why is a designer needed to design a human, or a butterfly etc etc ?

Answers on a postcard