Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design Natural selection News

Evolution by natural selection acting on random mutation (Darwinism) within the known life of the universe

Spread the love

From Steve Williams, author of What your atheist professor doesn’t know but should, in the Honolulu Church and State Examiner, the “Software” of Life Argument for an Intelligent Designer, Part seven:

Going back to hard Science, another one of the problems that Darwinism must solve (ha ha) is summed up very well by biophysicist, Hubert Yockey. The “problem” is that the genetic code has error-minimization abilities built into it that are astonishing. The particular question addressed in his book Information Theory and Molecular Biology is: “If the genetic code could change over time to yield a set of rules that allowed for the best possible error-minimization capacity, then is there enough time for this process to occur?” Yockey determined that natural selection would have to explore 1.4 x 10 to the 70th power (1.4 followed by 70 zeros, a very, very large number!) different genetic codes to discover the universal genetic code found in nature. The maximum time available for it to organize the universal code-of-life was estimated 6.3 x 10 to the 15th power seconds or 200 million years. Darwinian processes would have to evaluate roughly 10 to the 55th power codes-per-second in the available time to find the one that’s universal. Put simply, Darwinism lacks the time necessary to find the universal genetic code by many billions of trillions of years (literally).

On top of this, as if to kick a dead theory when it’s down, Nobel Laureate (and co-discoverer of DNA) Francis Crick argued that the genetic code can’t evolve in any substantial way, because if the rules of the code were altered in any direction, it would result in a catastrophic condition for the cell. Can you say “intractable problem”? More.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

20 Replies to “Evolution by natural selection acting on random mutation (Darwinism) within the known life of the universe

  1. 1
  2. 2
    jerry says:

    I am getting confused. The book is by Stephen Williams but the link is to a Stephen King video.

    I love the short commentary which is under the video which is apparently by Stephen Williams. I will have to get the book.

  3. 3
    CHartsil says:

    And the odds of throwing a stone and it hitting the ground by chance approach infinity.

    The problem? Stones don’t hit the ground by chance and DNA doesn’t cleave, bond, recombine etc. by chance.

  4. 4
    Bob O'H says:

    I am getting confused. The book is by Stephen Williams but the link is to a Stephen King video.

    Well ID, like horror, requires that you suspend your disbelief and leaves you terrified to go out into the world lest you be molested by some look wielding a flagellum.

    Um, wrong audience?

  5. 5
    CHartsil says:

    I wonder if the person that posted this is even dimly aware of the fact that it’s not talking about mutation and selection, but the origin of RNA/DNA.

  6. 6
    jerry says:

    I just bought the book for the Kindle, $2.99 (I have downloaded it to my Kindle app on my IPad.) They had a deal that you could read it for free but I believe that is just for a month.

    Based on the introduction, the book is one on probabilities. From the introduction:

    “Collective probability” is the concept I suggest you keep in mind while reading this book. In each chapter we can estimate whether or not the evidence is less than, or greater than, a 50% likelihood for each proposition considered.

    So is it science? Probably, it is evidence based reasoning.

    It’s not talking about mutation and selection, but the origin of RNA/DNA

    Darwin, selection and mutations are extensively discussed but its empahasis is elsewhere. And the example in the OP is about selection and Darwin. It is not about the origin of RNA/DNA but about the origin of error correcting machinery which is certainly referring to mutation and selection and the failure of Darwinian processes to explain this very complex capability.

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    CH,

    FYI, the sequence of bases in D/RNA is not chemically determined or it could not store information.

    Instead it is determined according to the requisites of codes and algorithms/control processes to be effected based on effectively programmed-in rules. Which is of course relevant not just to OOL but to origin of subsequent body plans and varieties up to our own.

    And I give a hint, the heart of that was known by 1953.

    KF

  8. 8
    Bob O'H says:

    Hm. This is interesting…

    Yet ironically, atheism is actually still not the prevailing metaphysical view among American Scientists. … According to a recent Pew poll, less than half of The AAAS (The American Association for the Advancement of Science; the world’s largest general scientific society) are atheists (http://www.pewforum.org/2009/1.....nd-belief/), so this is a false narrative being peddled by a pushy oligarchy which feels a need to “control the agenda”. In fact, only 17% of those Scientists identified themselves as atheists!

  9. 9
    jerry says:

    Hm. This is interesting…

    Translation. Let’s get away from evidence based Darwinian processes which cannot be defended to something that is guaranteed to generate 200 silly comments.

    Love the edit function.

  10. 10
    CHartsil says:

    “FYI, the sequence of bases in D/RNA is not chemically determined or it could not store information.”

    They’re called base pairs.

  11. 11
    Joe says:

    …DNA doesn’t cleave, bond, recombine etc. by chance.

    Right, it does so by design. That’s what we have been telling you.

  12. 12
    CHartsil says:

    “Right, it does so by design. That’s what we have been telling you.”

    By what mechanisms? What predictions did you make from this model? How could they be falsified? Be specific

  13. 13
    jerry says:

    By what mechanisms? What predictions did you make from this model? How could they be falsified? Be specific

    This is another attempt to get away from the basic proposition of the OP, the failure of Darwinian processes to produce anything of consequence in life forms.

    The relevance of ID could be reduced if one could find a naturalistic way these complicated systems could arise through the laws of physics and chemistry. But so far as the OP says, there is nothing.

  14. 14
    Mung says:

    Bob O’H, troll less contribute more.

    CHartsil, there is more to life than your mechanical philosophy. what are the mechanisms of software development?

  15. 15
    CHartsil says:

    “This is another attempt to get away from the basic proposition of the OP, the failure of Darwinian processes to produce anything of consequence in life forms.”

    So you’re accusing me of dodging while you dodge my question.

    “what are the mechanisms of software development?”

    False equivocation

  16. 16
    Mung says:

    CHartsil: False equivocation

    So you’re accusing me of dodging while you dodge my question!

    What, pray tell, is a false equivocation? Is it an equivocation that is not a true equivocation? That would be my guess.

    Perhaps there are processes in the world that are not mechanical.

    You claim that design is a mechanical process.

    Let’s review:

    Joe: Right, it does so by design.

    CHartsil: By what mechanisms?

    Perhaps it is you who equivocate.

    If you are claiming that design is a mechanical process then my question to you is entirely appropriate. There is nothing equivocal about it.

    If design is not a mechanical process then your question to Joe is just so much positioning.

    Look, lets’ get something clear from the start. You are not smarter than me. My IQ has been tested and is a solid 98.2.

  17. 17
    jerry says:

    So you’re accusing me of dodging while you dodge my question.

    I didn’t dodge the question. I showed you how one could reduce the relevancy of the ID proposition which is one of the things you asked for. You are trying to apply to the use of intelligence, the same processes of analysis that are applied to the standard model of physics. But any act of an intelligent creature, will over ride these forces.

    I pick up a piece of paper. The movement of the piece of paper in no way can be explained by the basic model of physics or its step child, chemistry. So much of what an intelligent creature does is not amendable to such analysis.

    Now people have tried to model human behavior in such areas as psychology and social psychology. But no one can even come close to a model that exactly predicts what any intelligent entity will do especially in a creative area. So your basic question is really meaningless in terms of a model or predictions.

    But ID per se can be attacked as I said by providing naturalistic explanations to life and its evolution. The non-life area of the universe seems to be amenable to the standard model but not life. Obviously certain life processes are very predictable but it so happens that many others are not. For example, the origin of complex new capabilities in life forms over time as well as the origin of life itself or just creative actions in general.

  18. 18
    Mung says:

    I am sure we would all benefit if CHartsil could present the mechanism for ID denial.

  19. 19
    Joe says:

    CH:

    By what mechanisms? What predictions did you make from this model? How could they be falsified?

    Design is a mechanism, I predicted the processes are IC and my claim could be falsified by demonstrating blind and undirected processes can produce both DNA and those processes.

  20. 20
    Mung says:

    CHartsil can’t be bothered to stick around and be questioned.

    So what’s new?

Leave a Reply