Can an evolutionist explain these odds to me please?

LouisBooth · Sep 27, 2002

"I find it strange that people claim to be able to derive a probability of life when Ph.D. biochemists are still trying to understand why one protein is stable and another is not."

I'm actually doing research in this area odd enough, just thought I would add that.

The probablities can be estimated and if you're mathematically inclined you can see that 1. if its a one in a billon chance, this doesn't gurentee it will happen once every billon times, its just a over estimate. Thus comes the problem.

LouisBooth · Sep 27, 2002

Oh, and just to add, if you study biochem at all, you will see that evolution is quite improable due to the interdependance of systems and processes. It was a big clue for me.

Corey · Sep 27, 2002

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Oh, and just to add, if you study biochem at all, you will see that evolution is quite improable due to the interdependance of systems and processes. It was a big clue for me.

Funny thing that, I've actually taken biochem courses and completely disagree. Hate (well, not really) to tell you this, but the components of the system evolve in LOCKSTEP with one another.

Here's another little snippet of info, improbable does equate to impossible.

Late_Cretaceous · Sep 27, 2002

Gee Louis, Biochemists are biologists. If they considered evolution to be impossible, don't you think they would have mentioned it in some scientific journal or at some conference somewhere. Don't you think they would object to teaching evoution to undergraduate students?

Chuck_Darwin · Sep 27, 2002

Of course it's like Pen and Teller say,

"One in a Million odds happen 5 times a day in New York City"

ocean · Sep 27, 2002

Ridiculous odds are useless.

seebs · Sep 27, 2002

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Oh, and just to add, if you study biochem at all, you will see that evolution is quite improable due to the interdependance of systems and processes. It was a big clue for me.

Well, given the number of biochemists who don't come to this conclusion, I'm not sure I agree that it follows naturally from studying biochem at all. How much study, exactly, is required before this becomes so obvious that one cannot help but recognize it? Would a Master's pretty much guarantee that you would see how improbable it is?

RufusAtticus · Sep 27, 2002

Oh, and just to add, if you study evolution at all, you will see that is does produce interdependant systems and processes. It was a big clue for me.

P.S. "Darwin's Black Box" is not a biochem textbook.

Morat · Sep 27, 2002

  Once again: It amazes me to see, over and over, people with virtually no education and experience in a field, claim to be able to spot giant gaping holes in fundamental concepts and theories.

   And, of course, the problem is never on their end.

   Tell me, Louis, is it even possible that these "problems" you see (and biochemists are blithely unaware of) are not problems with evolution, but problems with your understanding of it?

   And, if it's possible,  is it more likely that the problem is

1) That teeming hordes of experts are too bloody stupid to see what a laymen can spot right off

   OR

2) That the laymen doesn't fully understand the field and the concepts.

   Which is it?

 

Smilin · Sep 27, 2002

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Oh, and just to add, if you study biochem at all, you will see that evolution is quite improable due to the interdependance of systems and processes. It was a big clue for me.

If you truly opened a Biochemistry book you would have a clue about the truth, concepts, & theories of evolution (from a microbiology standpoint).  You're statement is an insult to Christians who are scientists.

 

LouisBooth · Sep 30, 2002

"Hate (well, not really) to tell you this, but the components of the system evolve in LOCKSTEP with one another.

Here's another little snippet of info, improbable does equate to impossible."

1. are you serious? How can you say they evolve in a lockstep order? The enzymes alone are enough to show that's not so. Not to mention the percised placement of certain AA.

2. Yes, it does equate to impossible with the time table given by evolutionist and their theory.

" Tell me, Louis, is it even possible that these "problems" you see (and biochemists are blithely unaware of) are not problems with evolution, but problems with your understanding of it? "

Nope, not my problem understanding it at all. I have talked to a few PH Ds about it thanks to make sure my understanding of it was correct.

Oh, smiling, I'm just wondering, how well versed are you at biochem? I have cracked my book quite a few times and seen that the innerdependancy of the systems is a very tell tail sign that it could have have evolved seperatly.

Athlon4all · Sep 30, 2002

Isn't God's creation a thing to marvel and wonder?

Amen

Morat · Oct 1, 2002

Nope, not my problem understanding it at all. I have talked to a few PH Ds about it thanks to make sure my understanding of it was correct.

Oh, smiling, I'm just wondering, how well versed are you at biochem? I have cracked my book quite a few times and seen that the innerdependancy of the systems is a very tell tail sign that it could have have evolved seperatly.

   So, Louis, why is it that you and biochemists draw utterly different conclusions?

   I'm at a loss here. You look at it and say "no, this can't evolve". Those biochemists who aren't fundamental Christians say "yes, this can evolve".

   So why are you right, and they wrong, especially given you're not a biochemist?

 

SLP · Oct 1, 2002

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"I find it strange that people claim to be able to derive a probability of life when Ph.D. biochemists are still trying to understand why one protein is stable and another is not."

I'm actually doing research in this area odd enough, just thought I would add that.

The probablities can be estimated and if you're mathematically inclined you can see that 1. if its a one in a billon chance, this doesn't gurentee it will happen once every billon times, its just a over estimate. Thus comes the problem.

What if you run 1 billion trials simultaneously?

Does a 1 in a billion chance mean that, without exception, event X will occur no more than once in 1 billion trials?

How does that work with those folks that have been struck by lightening more than once?

SLP · Oct 1, 2002

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Oh, and just to add, if you study biochem at all, you will see that evolution is quite improable due to the interdependance of systems and processes. It was a big clue for me.

I did my graduate research on the molecular phylogeny of primates. Actually seeing and working with DNA datasets truly 'proved' the factual basis of evolution for me.

Can an evolutionist explain these odds to me please?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

Well-Known Member

Banned (just kidding)

God Made Me A Skeptic

PopGen Grad Student

Untitled One

Spirit of the Wolf

Well-Known Member

I'm offline indefintely

Untitled One

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

<font color="#880000" ></font&g