h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well some one did work them out but I will that at the end of this.

When looking at fossil I can't help to notice that they have supposedly evolved anti predotury devices before they were needed.
For instance one of the creatures which suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age was Hallucigenia, seen at top. And as with many other Cambrian fossils, it had spines or a hard shell to protect it from attack by enemies. The question that evolutionists cannot answer (I have found so far) is how could they have come by such an effective defense system at a time when there were no predators around? The lack of predators at the time makes it impossible to explain the matter in terms of natural selection.

Another thing is that the Burgess Shale fossil bed is accepted as one of the most important paleontological discoveries of our time. The fossils of many different species uncovered in the Burgess Shale appeared on earth all of a sudden, without having been developed from any pre-existing species found in preceding layers. Because of the findings there is a serious debate amongst evolutionists about well evolution and how it started.

It seems odd to me that fossils from one small locality, no matter how exciting, should lie at the center of a fierce debate about such broad issues in evolutionary biology. The reason that it does is that animals burst into the fossil record in astonishing profusion during the Cambrian period, seemingly from nowhere. Increasingly precise radiometric dating and new fossil discoveries have only sharpened the suddenness and scope of this biological revolution. The magnitude of this change in Earth's biota demands an explanation. Although many hypotheses have been proposed, the general consensus is that none is wholly convincing.

Plus recent findings show that almost all phyla (the most basic animal divisions) emerged abruptly in the Cambrian period. An article published in the journal Science in 2001 says:

"The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today."

The same article notes that for such complex and distinct living groups to be explained according to the theory of evolution, very rich fossil beds showing a gradual developmental process should have been found. So far none has been found.

Heres the probability.

an average molecule comprising of 500 amino acids is:

1. The probability of the amino acids being in the right sequence:

There are 20 types of amino acids used in the composition of proteins. According to this:

-The probability of each amino acid being chosen correctly among these 20 types = 1/20

-The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being chosen correctly = 1/20^500= 1/10^650 1 chance in 10^650
probability of each amino acid being chosen correctly is 1 chance in 10^650

2. The probability of the amino acids being left-handed:

-The probability of only one amino acid being left-handed = 1/2

-The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being left-handed at the same time = 1/20 x 500 = 1/10^150
The probability of only one amino acid being left-handed = 1 chance in 10^150


3. The probability of the amino acids being combined with a "peptide bond":
Amino acids can combine with each other with different kinds of chemical bonds. In order for a useful protein to be formed, all the amino acids in the chain must have been combined with a special chemical bond called a "peptide bond". It is calculated that the probability of the amino acids being combined not with another chemical bond but by a peptide bond is 50%. In relation to this:

-The probability of two amino acids being combined with a "peptide bond" = 1/2
-The probability of 500 amino acids all combining with peptide bonds = 1/2499 = 1/10^150
probability of 500 amino acids all combining with peptide bonds = 1 chance in 10^150

TOTAL PROBABILITY IS: 1/10^650 X 1/10^150 X 1/10^150 = 10^950
1 chance in 10^950

Oh and if your interested British mathematician Roger Penrose wondered about the probability of the univesre being created by the big bang and the way it has ended up. He tried to calculate the probability of this happening with all the information he had at that time. The result he got was 10^123 to 1. In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10^50 mrans “zere probability. Penrose’s answer is more that an trillion, trillion, trillion times less than 1 in 10^50

Hope that was interesting.

Adib

Yes it worked. You know the message you see that is moderated well thats the one I put on unfinished so I complained to the moderation team and got it removed. Its funny you can do that.

Adib

First a factual correction. At least one large freeswimming predator is known from the Burgess shales. (Can't remember the name offhand, it's a while since I read this stuff). Hallucigenia's defence system was just what was required to protect it.

It's because there the only ones we've found. What do you reckon are the odds against fossils being preserved for 550 million years? That these are MARINE fossils, and found halfway up the Rockies, several thousand feet above sea level should give you a clue.

Your method of working out probabilities has a faulty conceptual premise.



THE right sequence? The right sequence for what?

There are millions of (known) proteins, all with different sequences that have proved useful, and probably several orders of magnitude more that would have proved useful if life had hit on them.

And the same misconception runs through the entire list.

The handedness of amino acids is a frozen accident. There's probably a reason why life favours it, but once its set in it simply gets carried on. Any righthanders simply get discarded or kill off there possessors.

Noggin

This post has been removed.

Adib,

Are you copying and pasting huge amounts of text from other websites again?

No I am not. The calculation of the probability was from a internet site but I did not cut and past it. The universe prob is from my entry Islam and the big bang an in there it states the English guy who workrd it out. I have not cut or pasted anything. If I had my entries would have been modulated woulnd'nt they. The only one that is modulated I modulated my self because i accidenty posted it when it was not finished.

Adib

Plus I did not take credit for either of the probabalitys as on the first one I did say some one had worked it out. And the second one I said the exact person who came up with it.

Adib

Actually, regarding the Burgess Shales, I'm sure I read/heard something in the last week about as complex multicellular lifeform having being found very recently in significantly older rocks. I'm not absolutely clear on the details, but I'll try and remember where it was.

Fair enough Adib, sorry.

Found it.
Last week's New Scientist (11 January - Unfortunately not in the online version)
Fossils of 4 different species of anatomically complex multicellular animals (including some filter-feeders up to 2 metres long) were found in 575 million year old rocks in Newfoundland.
The Burgess Shales seem to be dated around 505 million years ago (and the whole Cambrian period was only from 540 to 500/490 million years ago.

This discovery appears to stretch out the timescale for the development of complex lifeforms somewhat.

No problem Ste I know you want a fair and balanced debate with us all.

Adib

Damn it I missed that copy I'm going to have to by a back copy. Thanks for letting us know.
Adib

It should still be in most decent-sized newsagents - it was only a quarter-page article on page 13, so maybe you could just take a quick look in your local WH Smith?

The people who found the fossils were Guy Narbonne and Jim Gehling, and the original article seems to have been in 'Geology' Vol. 31 p.27

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/30/fossil021230
covers basically the same ground as the New Scientist piece.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/mistaken.html

http://geol.queensu.ca/museum/exhibits/ediac/mistaken_point/mistaken_pt.html

might be useful for background on the area they were discovered in

More generally,
http://icg.harvard.edu/~bio187/Weekly_Readings/Valentine_et_al_1999.pdf.
(a paper on precambrian life) looks interesting in terms of me getting my head round some of the dates involved.

BookMark

OK thanks for the links.

Adib

Sorry, sorry, sorry I'm late, got here as fast as I could.

Yes Adib, this was the thread I was referring to. Sorry I Xed up the link but I was in a rush to get home on Friday night.

'lo Ste, long time no see.

A lot of geologists now prefer to refer to the 'Cambrian explosion' as the 'Cambrian slow burn'. When it was first discovered, it did indeed seem that a huge variety of life had appeared pretty much instantly. However, as it has been examined in more detail, it has been found that it actually took a very long time for this to happen. This 'explosion' took at least 50 million years, and as others have previously noted this seems to be being stretched even further with more discoveries. It's a classic case of what geologists mean by 'instantly' .

So given that you see no relationship by descent between humans and chimps, why would you expect any more than the 25% DNA resemblance that you would expect by chance? (Or any DNA at all?) Bear in mind that much of this DNA has no function, so if your answer is 'God used the same solution to the same problems, economy of design, etc.', why extend this to redundant DNA? Indeed, why include redundant DNA at all? And, if that is your answer, do you consider it contradictory that God should create life in so many varied forms, to fill every available niche, with such imagination, and yet base it all on the same boring four bases?

The problem with calculations such as you present (or quote the results of for Penrose) is that the whole point of evolution is that it presents a mechanism that is non-random, and statistics can only be applied to random events.

Finally, transitional forms. Archeopteryx seems to fit your definition - it contains features found in birds but not lizards and features found in lizards but not birds . As for the development of flight, what about flying fish or flying squirrels? Or ballooning spiders, which drift around on their own threads? Couldn't lizards and early insects have gone through similar stages? As for land development, this is probably the only chance a mudfish will ever have for glory! Though feeble on land, with poorly developed lungs (just air-sacs, really), limbs and skeleton, it can survive for long periods of time and has a major survival advantage over other fish, which would obviously die during a drought. Surely it is easy to see that improvements to lungs etc. could then be a gradual process with a survival advantage at each step?

Waiting to hear you replies with interest.

Gif

Sorry about the wait I have been a bit bust to answer this one.

Good to see you Gif.

My point on DNA was that for a long time scientists are like we are 99% the same as apes and have been found not to be. I know that the test wasdone on only a small fragment of the genone code but so was the one that resulted in the 99% one. As we do not have the complete Genonme of any ape or monkey as of yet.
In order to claim that the genetic make-up of man and chimpanzee bear a 98% similarity, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped, just like that of man, the two have to be compared, and the result of this comparison has to be obtained. However no such result is available, because so far, only the human gene has been mapped. No such research has yet been done on the chimpanzee.
The results for the 99% simularity was gathered on the comparing of the sequence of 30 or 40 basic proteins that man and chimp share.
My example of the 75% simularity to nematode worms shows how the same DNA appears in different species even when supposidly they were sepperetad millions of years ago.
New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p. 27

There is also a simularity between humans and fruit flie of the Drosophilea species (is that spelt right?)of 60%
Hürriyet daily, 24 February 2000

In a survey carried out by researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of land-dwelling animals were compared and amazingly, in nearly all samples, human beings and chickens were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was the crocodile
New Scientist, v. 103, 16 August 1984, p. 19


It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. All construction in the world is done with similar materials. For example buildings are made from bricks, Iron and wood but they are built seperatly the same can be applied to life.

As to what Gif said about mch of DNA hass no function though well I read a article on the subject and it was saying that the whole idea of junk DNA was coming apart.
It was called 'Junk DNA' Contains Essential Information' and I think it was in the Wahington post, I'm not sure as my mate in America sent me the article only.

Anyway it was saying

"The huge stretches of genetic material dismissed in biology classrooms for generations as "junk DNA" actually contain instructions essential for the growth and survival of people and other organisms, and may hold keys to understanding complex diseases like cancer, strokes and heart attacks"

and

The newly discovered mother lode of genetic instructions does not, by and large, contain genes, which are templates for building the proteins that do most of the work in human or other bodies. Instead, the new material appears to consist mostly of instructions for how the body should use its genes--when and where to turn them on and off, for example, and for how long.

Scientists have long known that genomes contain such instructions and that these are likely to be important in understanding disease and development.

But the new analyses shocked them by revealing that the instruction set is at least as big as the gene set, and probably bigger. It's the scientific equivalent, perhaps, of a consumer buying a trim new gadget and opening the box to find a 300-page instruction manual.

Oh and here is some thing interesting I found. Don't worry I'm not going to say anything about evolution and thermodynamics. Just like to hear your views on it.

Dear Mr. Priest,

The results of my research in thermodynamics were to show that
non-equilibrium systems may lead to complex structures. For a recent
account, see my book "Modern Thermodynamics, From Heat Engines to
Dissipative Structures" (D. Kondepudi and I. Prigogine, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, 1998). However, this is still far from a theory of biological
evolution. To my knowledge, we have still not discovered the mechanisms,
which lead to the remarkable adaptation between life, and environments,
which we observe in nature. Darwin's theory remains important but it is far
from giving a complete answer.

Kind regards,

Ilya Prigogine.

This letter is published in the Intelligent Design Network. For further information, see, Intelligent Design network, inc; www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org

Ilya Prigogine is probably the most important scientist of the 20th century who tried to find a solution to this problem of the evolutionary theory. His theory of dissipative structures asserted that energy flow into a system could help it to organize itself in such a manner to create life.

So whats your thoughts on this?

Which leads me to ask. I know that Thermodynamics does not apply to the theroy of evolution but can I ask some thing about it I wanted to ask H but he has gone now.

How does energy get put in to the earth in a way it can be used before plants were around. As I know plants sort the energy out and turn it in to away the animals can absurb it I just don't know how else energy is put into the system from the sun.

Thanks

Adib

This post has been removed.