Re: Wistar Symposium "Mathematical Challenge to Neo-Darwinism".

On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:45:47 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

Ernest Major wrote:

On 31/05/2024 18:36, Ron Dean wrote:

>
How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing on
the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it.
This symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.

 
At 10% of that price there is
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-Mathematical-Anti-Evolutionism-Jason-Rosenhouse/dp/1108820441
 

After I check the local library I'll look into this.

 
The summary for chapter 4 is "We discuss the famous Wistar conference
from 1966, in which high-level mathematical challenges to evolutionary
theory were presented. We refute these challenges and discuss the
historical significance of the conference in shaping modern mathematical
anti-evolutionism."
>

Where there is mathematics involved, how is the math challenged? If not
the math then what?
I don't think it's fair to call someone an anti-evolutionist. This is a
disparagement meant to discredit an opposition without a hearing. It's
like a court where the prosecutor presents his case, but  a defense is
not allowed. But a fair decision is expected.

Since you mention it, I would say baselessly calling someone an
anti-evolutionist is as fair as baselessly calling someone an atheist.
I bet even you recall who does that, and so diminishes its impact.

But you cannot challenge the mathematics. What is the chance of a single
functional protein can form through unguided, random and aimless
processes? For example, in the pre-biotic earth the first protein of say
150 (the average number amino acids in a protein is 500-400) amino acids
in a specific order is needed. Even in an ocean of amino acids and 4.5
billion years. It's said  it would be less chance than the number atoms
in the known universe. As you know in the pre-biotic universe there is
no natural selection.
"......we can calculate the probability of building our very modest
protein."
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaAfunctional protein to be 1 in
10^164.
Remember, this is only one protein, and life requires hundreds of proteins".
>
https://www.str.org/w/building-a-protein-by-chance

If by "challenge the mathematics" you mean by analogy whether 2+2=4,
you would be right.  But that's not what is being challenged. Instead,
the challenge is whether 2+2=4 is even relevant to the question being
raised.

In fact, the argument you present above is a PRATT.  Google "tornado
in a junkyard".  I know you know amino acids and proteins
self-assemble.  I know you know self-replicating molecules exist.  Why
continue to pretend that anybody identified the one and only very
first amino acid sequence?

I think this is where intelligence comes into play, there is no more
simpler explanation!
Where is Ocham's razor?

Indeed where?  Since you assert such skepticism about a string of
amino acids self-assembling, not sure how you continue to accept
without question the existence of a purposeful designer capable of
doing what you claim it did.

However, I know of several challenges that so far as I know have not
been answered.
The questions  are: There are over 500 amino acids found in nature,
50% left-handed, but if blind, aimless, unguided natural processes
selected the 20 or 22 amino acids that used by all life what are
the chances of these particular particular 20 left-handed amino acids
being selected?  I realize there are theories offered to explain why
only left-handed amino acids were selected, but what about the 20? Or
is it possible that any other set of amino acids would have worked
just as well?

 
The last time you made this claim I tracked down the source of the 500
number, and found that this was 500 different amino acids which occur in
living organisms. I asked you to consider how many of these amino acids
existed in meaningful quantities (if at all) on the pre-biotic earth. I
presume that you haven't done so.
>

I question the source. Who can know how many amino acids were present at
that time. Amino acids have been found in space rocks, meteors. The
Urey-Miller experment, in conditions representing early earth atmosphere
and electric discharges representing lightning produced several amino acids.
And later duplication of the Miller excrement produces even more than
Millers did.
So, who knows how many amino acids existed on the pre-biotic earth.

Since you asked, apparently not you, which verifies Ernest Major's
presumption expressed above.

I've also brought to you attention that 20/22 amino acids used by all
life is an oversimplification. All variants of the genetic code encode
20 proteinogenic amino acids, so those are used by all life. Some
prokaryotes have genetic codes that also encode a 21st amino acid, i.e.
pyrolysine. Wikipedia reports that the current consensus is that this
originated in stem-archaeans, and has subsequently been horizontally
transferred into some bacterial groups. A 22nd amino acid,
selenocysteine, is also incorporated into proteins from the genetic code
using a kludge. This is also not present in all organisms.
>

I did not address anything except the common used 20 or 22 amino acids.
Technically, you are right, I can accept that, but it does not undermine
the concept I offered.

 
However other amino acids are incorporated in proteins by
post-translation modifications. I've previously brought to your
attention that there's more hydroxyproline in human proteins than
several canonical amino acids.
 
Other amino acids play a role in biochemical metabolism.
 
They you get into the weeds with amino acids such as canavanine (one of
your 500). This is produced by some leguminous plants as an
anti-herbivore toxin. It mimics arginine (a proteinogenic amino acid),
from which it differs from by replacing a methylene bridge by an oxygen
atom, resulting in it being incorporated into the herbivore's proteins
to the detriment to their function. Specialist herbivores get round this
either by having means of metabolising the canavanine before it gets
near their protein synthesis machinery, or by improving the
discrimination of their tRNA-arginine synthetases.
>
 
There's a widespread belief that proteins are a relatively late addition
to the biochemical repertoires, catalysis having been previous performed
using RNAzymes. (RNAzymes are still essential for life.) If this is
correct that would mean that amino acids and proteins can be added to
the biochemical repertoires in gradual steps.
 
People have studied the development of the genetic code, and inferred
that the original code included fewer amino acids - perhaps as few as
for. The addition of amino acids to the code would depend on
availability and utility.
>

How far back would you have to go back for this? Certainly, at the time
of the Cambrian explosion the genetic code as we know it today was
present then. And as I mentioned at the time of the Cambrian explosion
there had to be an explosion of specific genetic information (instructions).
The origin of which is inexplicable, except through intelligence. The
truth is, information is degraded by errors, mistakes and copying.

Once again, you conveniently forgot to mention that genetic
information is corrected and amplified by reproduction and natural
selection, no intelligence necessary.

The availability constraint biases the genetic
code to simpler amino acids. The utility constraint biases the addition
of amino acids to the code to amino acids which expand the functional
range of proteins, i.e. which have properties (polar vs non-polar, basic
vs acidic, hydrophobic via hydrophilic, etc.) not already found in the
prior set.
>

This is supposition and hypothesis.

Since you mention it, your arguments are also supposition and
hypothesis.  Once again, your objection above applies as well to your
claims.

People have studied the robustness of the genetic code. The genetic code
is not optimal for robustness against mutation, but is a lot better than
a random one. Something similar may hold for the set of proteinogenic
amino acids. Other sets might work perfectly well, but a set with, for
example, only hydrophilic amino acids strikes me as likely to be
relatively ineffective, or perhaps even not effective at all.
 

We've discussed this before. I think originally the genetic code was
robust, but over time due to the 2/ND law and missed errors in copying,
the robustness declined and continues to decline. This I
think was anticipated from the beginning of the genetic code and several
proofreading and repair machines were implanted into the code. But even
these proofreading and repair systems are subject to errors over time.
However, they still catch overwhelming numbers of mutations and corrects
them, but not all. The evidence I think supports this. Still, each
generation inherits the mutations from previous generations and develops
new mutations, all of which is passed on down. At some distant time the
genetic code in each species becomes increasingly less robust until
reproduction
ceases and we see this in many extinctions as recorded in the fossil
record.
>
If one looks at the fossil record with _no_ biases, I think what we find
is the abrupt appearance of most (if not all) species in the strata,
then long periods of stasis followed by sudden disappearance.
I think Dr Stephen J. Gould was an honest scientist who voiced what was
actually observed in the fossil record without bias or an overriding
commitment to convention.

Once again, you conveniently forgot to mention that Dr. Stephen J.
Gould himself said that abrupt appearance and stasis is entirely
consistent with Darwinian evolution.

And since you mention it, try posting something about evolution that
lacks your well-documented biases, if only for the novelty of the
experience.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge