Abiogenesis and Probabilities

[DrNoGods]

I'm creating a new thread here to continue debate on a post made by EarthScience guy on another thread (Science and Religion > Artificial life: can it be created?, post 17). This post challenged probability calculations in an old Talkorigins article that I had linked in that thread:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Are the arguments (on creationist views) and probabilities presented reasonable in the Talkorigins article? If not, why not?

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #417]

1. Vestigial organs are the organs that have no apparent function and are considered to be the residual parts from the past ancestors.” https://byjus.com/biology/vestigial-organs/
No, that's wrong. And it's been wrong since Darwin pointed out that "rudimentary" did not mean "no function."
2. Vestigial organs are organs, tissues or cells in a body which are no more functional the way they were in their ancestral form of the trait. It is authentication of evolution and hence, were helpful in explaining adaptation. https://byjus.com/biology/vestigial-organs/
This is good. Do you see the difference?
3. “a bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related forms.” The Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary
Wrong.
4. Vestigial organs and body parts refer to those that have little or no purpose in humans. They are a vestige leftover from our ancestors. https://universityhealthnews.com/daily/ ... dont-need/
5. A "vestigial structure" or "vestigial organ" is an anatomical feature or behavior that no longer seems to have a purpose in the current form of an organism of the given species. https://www.thoughtco.com/about-vestigi ... es-1224771

Nope. That's wrong, too. Your theological preference for informal sources tripped you up again.

Here's the proper definition: "A structure that no longer serves its original function." Darwin pointed out that such structures often become adapted for other purposes, and are often not useless.

I will answer this last part because evidently, you cannot defend your position with actual researched facts.

You relied on some sources that had it wrong. But as I showed you, even Darwin pointed out that rudimentary (vestigial) organs often evolve new functions.

Point out to me the definition that is from any creation journal. You can't because they are not.

As you just learned, many people don't know what a "vestigial organ" is. You cited some of them. Here's Darwin's theory on it:
An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. Thus in plants, the office of the pistil is to allow the pollen-tubes to reach the ovules within the ovarium. The pistil consists of a stigma supported on a style; but in some Compositae, the male florets, which of course cannot be fecundated, have a rudimentary pistil, for it is not crowned with a stigma; but the style remains well developed and is clothed in the usual manner with hairs, which serve to brush the pollen out of the surrounding and conjoined anthers. Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct one: in certain fishes the swimbladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into anascent breathing organ or lung. Many similar instances could be given.
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species

As you now realize, "vestigial" never meant "useless", although there are a few vestigial organs that have no purpose.

biology online defines vestal organ like this: refers to an organ or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function.

https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/vestigial

There you go. You just didn't realize what it meant. I emphasized the part you missed.

New World Encyclopedia In evolutionary biology and comparative anatomy, "vestigiality" in a species describes organs (vestigial organs), structures (vestigial structures), behaviors, and biochemical pathways that have seemingly lost all or most of an original function present in ancestor species.

And here again, I emphasized the part you missed.

Like seriously can you cite anyone that uses that definition.

Darwin. And the links you provided here. Dictionary of biology:
https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/vestigial

At any rate, it's Darwin's theory, and his definition is the one that counts.

And could you explain why there was a change in the definition?

As you now realize, it hasn't changed. Same definition since Darwin first included it in his theory.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #421]

Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct one: in certain fishes, the swimbladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy but has become converted into anascent breathing organ or lung. Many similar instances could be given.
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species

As you now realize, "vestigial" never meant "useless", although there are a few vestigial organs that have no purpose.
biology online defines vestal organ like this: refers to an organ or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function.
https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/vestigial

There you go. You just didn't realize what it meant. I emphasized the part you missed.
New World Encyclopedia In evolutionary biology and comparative anatomy, "vestigiality" in a species describes organs (vestigial organs), structures (vestigial structures), behaviors, and biochemical pathways that have seemingly lost all or most of an original function present in ancestor species.

You just proved my point that the definition of a vestigial organ is a moving target. You went from altering function to reduced or no longer functional or all three. That was my point. You originally said that the organ altered its function. Now you have added reduced and no longer functional to your definition. And you added it to Darwin's definition.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #421]

Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct one: in certain fishes, the swimbladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy but has become converted into anascent breathing organ or lung. Many similar instances could be given.
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species

As you now realize, "vestigial" never meant "useless", although there are a few vestigial organs that have no purpose.
biology online defines vestal organ like this: refers to an organ or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function.
https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/vestigial

There you go. You just didn't realize what it meant. I emphasized the part you missed.
New World Encyclopedia In evolutionary biology and comparative anatomy, "vestigiality" in a species describes organs (vestigial organs), structures (vestigial structures), behaviors, and biochemical pathways that have seemingly [b]lost all or most of an original[/b] function present in ancestor species.

You just proved my point that the definition of a vestigial organ is a moving target.

Nope. As you see (I highlighted for you) they are all consistent with each other. A vestigial organ may be useless, but that's not what "vestigial" means. And as you just learned, it's been that way since Darwin first discussed them. He pointed out that an organ may no longer serve it's former purpose, but can serve a different one.

You went from altering function to reduced or no longer functional or all three.

This is why "vestigial" means "no longer has original function." Notice that is in all the definitions. It could be useless, have a reduced function, or have an entirely new one. And as you now realize, Darwin himself pointed that out. You were badly misled into believing that "vestigial" meant useless. And now you know better.

BTW, you were going to give us the scientific definition for biological evolution. Have you found out what it is, yet?

That was my point. You originally said that the organ altered its function.

No, that's wrong, too. I said originally, that vestigial means "no longer has its original function."

Now you have added reduced and no longer functional to your definition.

No, you got that wrong as well. It's possible for an organ that no longer has its original function to be useless.

And you added it to Darwin's definition.

And you're wrong yet again. Darwin pointed out that an example of that in the quote I gave you above. And he also mentions vestigial organs like the wings of island beetles sealed under fused elytra which are both rudimentary and useless. Would you like me to show you that? And do tell us what you now think the scientific definition of biological evolution is, hear?

[Noose001]

No such thing as natural selection or beneficial mutations.

It's directly observed. Even organizations like "Answers in Genesis" admit that natural selection is a fact. Would you like me to show you? And of course, we have many, many examples of favorable mutations. The HPAS1 allele that allows Tibetans to live and reproduce at very high altitudes is an example that evolved in humans in the last few thousand years. Would you like to learn about more of them?

Life creates life, fact.

God says that life was brought forth by things already created. I believe Him. You should, too.

As if evolution is a fact, no it's not.

We observe it happening all around us. Perhaps you don't know the scientific definition for biological evolution. What do you think it is?

Human language completely disproves evolution.

Human language is far beyond any language used by any other species.


Human language is a 'specific' trait that has nothing to do with mutations and natural selection. Wherever the human language comes from is where all specific traits come from.

It has been suggested that Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas are unique to humans. Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas are cortical areas specialized for production and comprehension, respectively, of human language. Broca’s area is found in the left inferior frontal gyrus and Wernicke’s area is located in the left posterior superior temporal gyrus. Non-human primates (both apes and monkeys) possess cortical areas that are in similar locations to and have similar cytoarchitecture as Wernicke’s and Broca’s areas in humans, and are probably homologous to them...In both macaques and humans, this region is likely involved in producing orofacial expressions and in understanding the intentions behind orofacial expressions of others. In humans, it has evolved an additional communicative function, namely speech production. However, it does not appear to be involved in monkey vocalizations, which are instead mediated by limbic and brainstem areas. Regarding Wernicke’s area, evidence suggests that the left superior temporal gyrus is specialized for processing species-specific calls in macaques just as it is specialized for speech comprehension in humans, although the specific anatomical focus of this macaque specialization is still in doubt.
https://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/top ... ckes-areas

According to the authors, during primate evolution area Tpt became increasingly connected with inferoparietal regions and these contributed to a link between the auditory system and a parieto-
premotor circuit with incipient Broca’s area. A second parallel pathway may also have evolved directly between the precursor of Wernicke’s area and prefrontal cortex. Hypothetically, Broca’s
area developed, in part, as a phonological rehearsal device entailed in generating complex vocalizations. Eventually, an evolving parieto-premotor circuit contributed to the origin of a
lexicon (perhaps at the level mastered by apes schooled in American Sign Language). Syntax and the generation of discourse, however, emerged only later in conjunction with further elaboration of these circuits (Aboitiz and García 1997). Because Aboitiz and García’s model is well-reasoned and based on comparative and experimental evidence, their observations warrant serious
consideration.

The anatomical arrangement of the language areas fits this large-scale cortico-cortico network and can be described as part of it. In this sense, the neural architecture involved in language is
embedded in a complex system of large-scale connectivity that is the hallmark of the primate brain, and therefore should not be considered as an isolated system working independently of
similarly organized cortico-cortico networks (Aboitiz and García 1997:388).
https://ibro.org/wp-content/uploads/201 ... s-Area.pdf

The neuroanatomy of speech areas in the brain for making and understanding speech are much more ancient than our species. The fact that chimpanzees are competent in language and can converse with us in sign language indicates that human speech evolved out of simipler and earlier functions.

Very nice suggestions but they are meaningless. Think?!

1. Deaf people do not speak 'languages' not because they have not developed those left and right parts in the brain you qouted in your piece; they don't speak language(s) simply because they do not get a chance to hear and LEARN a language.

So, human languages are acquired from external knowledgeable sources through learning/teaching.

2. Sign language is sign language, it can never morph into 'human language', not in a billion years.

I think you don't realize how complex a human language is.

[Noose001]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #376]


Unfortunately, these have both long been proven to be "things." A statement like this is just as nonsensical as claiming that cheese does not exist because you don't like cheese. Do you believe in artificial selection (eg. breeding dairy cows for better milk production, or corn for higher yields, etc.)? Nature can do the same kind of thing, as proven countless times.

Then 'proven' must mean different things for different people. Sickle cell anaemia, a killer disease which is as old as the human race has increased with increase in population. It certainly kills even before one is able to sire an offspring?
Explain.

[Difflugia]

Then 'proven' must mean different things for different people. Sickle cell anaemia, a killer disease which is as old as the human race has increased with increase in population.

In certain environments, heterozygous sickle cell disease offers a selective advantage by conferring a resistance to malaria.

It certainly kills even before one is able to sire an offspring?
Explain.

This statement is wrong. Homozygous sickle cell disease kills early, but not heterozygous. In the places that malaria isn't present, sickle cell disease had only negative effects and was removed from the population by natural selection. Where malaria is prevalent, sickle cell disease actually affords a greater chance of producing offspring by making malaria less deadly. Since homozygous sickle cell is invariably fatal, though, it can't become fixed in the population for obvious reasons.

[JoeyKnothead]

Delete post cause it looks like Difflugia posted in there while I was typing mine up, and I don't want folks thinking I was copying off his page.

[Noose001]

Then 'proven' must mean different things for different people. Sickle cell anaemia, a killer disease which is as old as the human race has increased with increase in population.

In certain environments, heterozygous sickle cell disease offers a selective advantage by conferring a resistance to malaria.

It certainly kills even before one is able to sire an offspring?
Explain.

This statement is wrong. Homozygous sickle cell disease kills early, but not heterozygous. In the places that malaria isn't present, sickle cell disease had only negative effects and was removed from the population by natural selection. Where malaria is prevalent, sickle cell disease actually affords a greater chance of producing offspring by making malaria less deadly. Since homozygous sickle cell is invariably fatal, though, it can't become fixed in the population for obvious reasons.

1. Aah, when i said sickle cell, i meant the DISEASE.
Why has the disease increased with increase in population?

2. If heterezygouz states offer afvantages against malaria in certain environments, why is it that the frequency of heterozygous individidual is not increasing significantly?

[Noose001]

...
Then 'proven' must mean different things for different people. Sickle cell anaemia, a killer disease which is as old as the human race has increased with increase in population. It certainly kills even before one is able to sire an offspring?
Explain.

Having just one copy of the gene for sickle cell confers a benefit against malaria.

So, one copy, and you get sickle cell trait.
With two you get the dread sickle cell anemia.

Since two copies causes the fret, we can expect single copies to pass down more readily, such that it doesn't get removed from our dna near rapid as we might prefer.

If natural selection were true, we would expect 'single copy' individuals to be more in certain populations, isn't it?

[JoeyKnothead]

If natural selection were true, we would expect 'single copy' individuals to be more in certain populations, isn't it?

I'll defer to Difflugia's more informative post up there a couple up.