Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It doesn't matter, each and every creature has a specific set of sequences that goes into working proteins structures.
Just one small change in one amino acid and this can disrupt the entire structure and render it useless.
There is a specific set for each and every creature. Even though each genetic makeup right down to the individual amino acid sequences is different for each animal the specific codes have to be right to produce a cow or a bird or a dog or human. But each creature still has the possibility of there being billions of combinations that are wrong and will create non functional proteins. In other words evolution just doesn't have to get one type of animals genetic make spot on out of billions and billions of possibilities but they have to get all the animals sequences right over and over again.How can there be a specific set when different creatures have different sequences and they all are still functional creatures?
I am not a biologist to know what the exact makeup of cytochrome is. But from what I understand it contributes to the oxidization of energy transfer during cell metabolism. I am sure there needs to be an exact balance of the right ingredients for it to work properly and be stable ie because the cytochromes (as well as other complexes) are held within membranes in an organized way, the redox reactions are carried out in the proper sequence for maximum efficiency.I just showed you that yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c by 40%, and they are both still functional.
I am facing the facts but you are not seeing things properly. You are thinking that because the two organisms have a different % of cytochrome that you can then have many different mixtures that will suffice. But each needs to be exact in their own right out of billions of possible mixtures. Then this has to be gauged against all the other proteins which are interdependent and contribute to the overall makeup.If you can't face up to these facts, I don't know what else I can show you.
There is a specific set for each and every creature.
Even though each genetic makeup right down to the individual amino acid sequences is different for each animal the specific codes have to be right to produce a cow or a bird or a dog or human.
But each creature still has the possibility of there being billions of combinations that are wrong and will create non functional proteins. In other words evolution just doesn't have to get one type of animals genetic make spot on out of billions and billions of possibilities but they have to get all the animals sequences right over and over again.
Of course evolution will say this can happen through natural selection and time to get it just right. But it seems to good to be true for this to happen. Its like not only tossing up one lot of letters to fall down in place and write out the correct Shakespeare's play but many lots of letters being thrown up and coming down writing out all of his plays plus all of Mozart's works, all of Picasso's works and all of every famous writer or composers works.
I am not a biologist to know what the exact makeup of cytochrome is. But from what I understand it contributes to the oxidization of energy transfer during cell metabolism. I am sure there needs to be an exact balance of the right ingredients for it to work properly and be stable ie because the cytochromes (as well as other complexes) are held within membranes in an organized way, the redox reactions are carried out in the proper sequence for maximum efficiency.
So even though humans and yeast differ they both need the right balance of structures and ingredients for it to function properly. Its like the right gas mix for a car. Some cars may run on a different mixture of the same gas and have different percentages but they use the same basic ingredients which need to be just right for each car or machine. There can be many possible mixture ratios that are wrong for each but only one right one for each as well.
I am facing the facts but you are not seeing things properly. You are thinking that because the two organisms have a different % of cytochrome . . .
There maybe 6 billion variations of the human genome but none of them produces a tomato...or a fish...or a monkey and the same goes for the billion or so ape genomes...none produces a tomato...a fish...or a monkey
You have just proved my point. By saying there is 6 billion different DNA sequences in humans you are acknowledging that somehow random mutations and natural selection are able to pick out the exact right 6 billion sequences out of all the possible sequences that can be randomly produced through random mutations. Remembering that for a typical protein length of about 300 amino acids, more than 10/390 (20/300) different polypeptide chains could theoretically be made. This is such an enormous number that to produce just one molecule of each kind would require many more atoms than exist in the universe.False. There just happens to be the DNA sequences that those creatures have. There is nothing specific about it as shown by the 6 billion different DNA sequences that produce humans.
It is when you consider the above statemnet where all the other possible sequences could also be produced that it has to get every single one of those 6 billion sequences just right otherwise they would be non functional. In fact as I have already posted evidence showing to just produce 2 simple changes in a protein would require more odds than all the atoms in the universe it makes it totally impossible to believe that billions of correct protein sequences can be produced through random mutations. Even when you add time there just isn't enough time. It would take more time than the earth has been in existence.Completely false. There are 6 billion different DNA sequences that make a human, and that's just one species. That isn't specific.
Yes but to find those possible functional combinations it has to sift through the billions of other non functional combinations as well. Because the process starts with random mutations this means that there is no direction and mutations dont know what is the best combination to start with. So it will blinding throw up a mutated combination. According to natural selection it will either select this is it proves beneficial or reject it if it is non beneficial or doesn't have a strong selective advantage. Thats the other point most mutations dont have a strong selective advantage and in fact have a slight cost to fitness associated with them. There are many more mutational possibilities that will have a fitness cost that have to be sifted through just to even find a possible beneficial one. So the process has to go through a lot of harm to get something good which makes no sense.No, they don't. All evolution has to do is keep the combinations that are functional. Evolution doesn't have to choose a specific target and aim for it. You are drawing the bulls eye around the bullet hole.
This only proves what I am saying. Imagine a slot machine that not only has 12 slots to get right to get the jackpot. But has millions to get right. The example of Mozart or Shakespeare is just a metaphor for how evolution has to find codes and languages all in the right order and making proper sense to be just right to build living things. Any wrong spelling mistake will render it non functional. Yet evolution through random mutations is popping up spelling mistakes all the time.Really? Can you pick out any plays out of these letters?
0001 maavtmsvpg rkapprpgpv peaaqpflft prgpsagggp gsgtspqvew tarrlvwvps
0061 elhgfeaaal rdegeeeaev elaesgrrlr lprdqiqrmn ppkfskaedm aeltclneas
0121 vlhnlreryy sgliytysgl fcvvinpykq lpiyteaive myrgkkrhev pphvyavteg
0181 ayrsmlqdre dqsilctges gagktentkk viqylahvas spkgrkepgv pasvstvsyg
0241 elerqllqan pileafgnak tvkndnssrf gkfirinfdv agyivganie tylleksrai
0301 rqakdecsfh ifyqllggag eqlkadllle pcshyrfltn gpssspgqer elfqetlesl
0361 rvlgfsheei ismlrmvsav lqfgnialkr erntdqatmp dntaaqklcr llglgvtdfs
0421 ralltprikv grdyvqkaqt keqadfalea lakatyerlf rwlvlrlnra ldrsprqgas
0481 flgildiagf eifqlnsfeq lcinytnekl qqlfnhtmfv leqeeyqreg ipwtfldfgl
0541 dlqpcidlie rpanppglla lldeecwfpk atdksfvekv aqeqgghpkf qrprhlrdqa
0601 dfsvlhyagk vdykanewlm knmdplndnv aallhqstdr ltaeiwkdve givgleqvss
0661 lgdgppggrp rrgmfrtvgq lykeslsrlm atlsntnpsf vrcivpnhek ragkleprlv
0721 ldqlrcngvl egiricrqgf pnrilfqefr qryeiltpna ipkgfmdgkq acekmiqale
0781 ldpnlyrvgq skiffragvl aqleeerdlk vtdiivsfqa aargylarra fqkrqqqqsa
0841 lrvmqrncaa ylklrhwqww rlftkvkpll qvtrqdevlq araqelqkvq elqqqsarev
0901 gelqgrvaql eeerarlaeq lraeaelcae aeetrgrlaa rkqelelvvs elearvgeee
0961 ecsrqmqtek krlqqhiqel eahleaeega rqklqlekvt teakmkkfee dlllledqns
1021 klskerklle drlaefssqa aeeeekvksl nklrlkyeat iadmedrlrk eekgrqelek
1081 lkrrldgess elqeqmveqq qraeelraql grkeeelqaa laraedegga raqllkslre
1141 aqaalaeaqe dleservart kaekqrrdlg eelealrgel edtldstnaq qelrskreqe
1201 vtelkktlee etriheaavq elrqrhgqal gelaeqleqa rrgkgawekt rlaleaevse
1261 lraelsslqt arqegeqrrr rlelqlqevq gragdgerar aeaaeklqra qaelenvsga
1321 lneaesktir lskelsstea qlhdaqellq eetraklalg srvrameaea aglreqleee
1381 aaareragre lqtaqaqlse wrrrqeeeag aleageearr raareaealt qrlaektetv
1441 drlergrrrl qqelddatmd leqqrqlvst lekkqrkfdq llaeekaavl raveererae
1501 aegrereara lsltraleee qeareelerq nralraelea llsskddvgk svheleracr
1561 vaeqaandlr aqvteledel taaedaklrl evtvqalktq herdlqgrde ageerrrqla
1621 kqlrdaever deerkqrtla vaarkklege leelkaqmas agqgkeeavk qlrkmqaqmk
1681 elwreveetr tsreeifsqn resekrlkgl eaevlrlqee laasdrarrq aqqdrdemad
1741 evangnlska aileekrqle grlgqleeel eeeqsnsell ndryrklllq veslttelsa
1801 ersfsakaes grqqlerqiq elrgrlgeed agararhkmt iaalesklaq aeeqleqetr
1861 erilsgklvr raekrlkevv lqveeerrva dqlrdqlekg nlrvkqlkrq leeaeeeasr
1921 aqagrrrlqr eledvtesae smnrevttlr nrlrrgpltf ttrtvrqvfr leegvasdee
1981 aeeaqpgsgp spepegsppa hpq
Can you point to Hamlet or Othelo? I don't see them, but you seem to insist that they are there. Show us.
They cant differ for humans. Humans cant have a yeasts percentage of cytochrome c and a yeast cant have a humans percentage otherwise each will have the wrong combinations and not function. All life is made up similar building blocks but with different combinations, mixtures and percentages. Some having none of certain sequences and others having different amounts of the same. But each needs to be exact and just because there are more than one position in this scale of what percentage each should have doesn't mean that we can just pick random points and combinations anywhere to make viable living things.That doesn't change the fact that the amino acid sequence of the proteins differ by 40%. You claim that they can't differ at all, yet they do, and by a lot. In fact, you can take the gene out of yeast and replace it with the human version and the yeast do just fine. Your claims that proteins have to be an exact sequence is hogwash.
Ok well you have just acknowledge what I am trying to sayThat is not what I am saying. I am saying that the protein sequence differs by 40% (36% to be exact). Here is what the sequences look like when you align yeast and human cytochrome C.
So would a human be able to have the same sequence of cytochrome C as yeast and still find this suitable and functional. Though they are different they are different for a reason. This is obviously what suits each living thing. But they still have to have those exact proteins for it to work. Change one letter and it renders them non functional. Yet the potential for each to randomly evolve any sequence of letters is unlimited. How did they both end up with the exact sequences of letters for each out of billions of possibilities.Notice all of the differences. All of those changes and the protein still functions identically.
You say that I cant understand what you are trying to explain. Then why is it that there are so many scientists who agree with what I am saying. Maybe it is you who dont understand what I and all the other scientists are saying about the fine tuning of the universe for life.Best of luck. I did my best to explain this but this concept, and everything that would go along with it, is something that he either won't comcede or simply can't understand.
You really have no clue what you are talking about.You have just proved my point. By saying there is 6 billion different DNA sequences in humans you are acknowledging that somehow random mutations and natural selection are able to pick out the exact right 6 billion sequences out of all the possible sequences that can be randomly produced through random mutations.
And yet you dismiss everything else those credible and authoritative experts say as something you "disagree with".You say that I cant understand what you are trying to explain. Then why is it that there are so many scientists who agree with what I am saying. Maybe it is you who dont understand what I and all the other scientists are saying about the fine tuning of the universe for life.
The existence of a multiverse, for appetizers.Such as.
The evidence for a finely tuned universe is there in the measurements of over 122 physical constants. The evidence for a multiverse is not there. It is only very flimsy and indirect evidence and in fact some scientists disagree. So that is why I discount a multiverse and not the fine tuning based on the evidence. As for common decent I havnt discounted this. I have disagreed with the conclusions. There maybe common decent for animals to a certain degree in that all dogs can be traced back to an ancestor such as the wolf. The wolf may be traced back to another ancient dog like creature.The existence of a multiverse, for appetizers.
The consensus that common descent remains the best explanation for the diversity of life, for starters.
Practically every relevant expert discounts your proposal that it is unlikely or otherwise impossible that ALL life comes from a common ancestor. And here you are, insisting they are all wrong from all of the authority of an irrelevant non-credible layperson, citing a handful of articles out of context and citing articles that are either from garbage non-journals or journals that have no impact factor or are otherwise irrelevant.The evidence for a finely tuned universe is there in the measurements of over 122 physical constants. The evidence for a multiverse is not there. It is only very flimsy and indirect evidence and in fact some scientists disagree. So that is why I discount a multiverse and not the fine tuning based on the evidence. As for common decent I havnt discounted this. I have disagreed with the conclusions. There maybe common decent for animals to a certain degree in that all dogs can be traced back to an ancestor such as the wolf. The wolf may be traced back to another ancient dog like creature.
But beyond this there is no evidence apart from speculation based on the fossil records which is very fragmented and has many gaps and up for interpretation based on observation of anatomical similarities. As stated before these similarities can be misinterpreted as normal variations between the same species. The genetic evidence does not support a tree like formation for all life being traced back to a common ancestor. It has many trunks and branches in a horizontal formation which indicates a sideways passing of genetic material rather than a vertical one which would be required for common ancestry. There is absolutely no verifiable evidence for the original common ancestor or any evidence for how it came about of how a single celled organism could evolve into a more complex living creature. There is plenty of speculation but no empirical evidence.
In fact there is evidence that life was already complex from the beginning and shared genetic info without any evolution through mutations and natural selection. The evidence points to non adaptive driving forces fro change such as HGT, epigenetics, developmental biology and endosymbiosis. Add to this the evidence already posted that shows that the amount of mutations needed to produce every living creature is beyond the capabilities of evolution. Mutations are mainly harmful or neutral and rarely beneficial. But evidence shows that all mutations have a slight cost to fitness and not an advantage for fitness. The tests show that to even get two small changes through random mutations to add new function would take to much time which is beyond the time needed for evolution to evolve complete living things. In fact the time needed would be more than the earth and universe has been in existence.
So my disagreement is valid and based on the evidence of science. Science is suppose to be testable and verified before it is classed as true. So if anything I am supporting things with the science.
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.abstract
Some Problems in Proving the Existence of the Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/479824/
Opposing the multiverse
The very nature of the scientific enterprise is at stake in the multiverse debate. Its advocates propose weakening the nature of scientific proof in order to claim that the multiverse hypothesis provides a scientific explanation.
This is a dangerous tactic. Two central scientific virtues are testability and explanatory power.
The extreme case is the multiverse proposal, where no direct observational test of the hypothesis is possible. Despite this, many articles and books dogmatically proclaim that the multiverse is an established scientific fact.
http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/2/2.33.full
Much of the so called evidence for common ancestry is based on observation and personal interpretation. Do you have any testable and verifiable evidence. The same evidence can be interpreted as common design. Some of the same experts challenge the fact that evolution can create a new and different type of animal out of an existing one which is needed for common ancestry as I have posted. So its no sense claiming that its true when the same experts cast doubts on the very mechanism thats needed for it to happen. And what about the same experts that show the genetic evidence doesn't support the tree of life that common ancestry uses.Practically every relevant expert discounts your proposal that it is unlikely or otherwise impossible that ALL life comes from a common ancestor. And here you are, insisting they are all wrong from all of the authority of an irrelevant non-credible layperson, citing a handful of articles out of context and citing articles that are either from garbage non-journals or journals that have no impact factor or are otherwise irrelevant.
What is a "new and different type of animal"? Is a new species of bat a "new and different type of animal"?Much of the so called evidence for common ancestry is based on observation and personal interpretation. Do you have any testable and verifiable evidence. The same evidence can be interpreted as common design. Some of the same experts challenge the fact that evolution can create a new and different type of animal out of an existing one which is needed for common ancestry as I have posted.
Errr... no.So its no sense claiming that its true when the same experts cast doubts on the very mechanism thats needed for it to happen. And what about the same experts that show the genetic evidence doesn't support the tree of life that common ancestry uses.
Been there, tried that - got no useful response ¯\_(ツ)_/¯What is a "new and different type of animal"? Is a new species of bat a "new and different type of animal"
You have just proved my point. By saying there is 6 billion different DNA sequences in humans you are acknowledging that somehow random mutations and natural selection are able to pick out the exact right 6 billion sequences out of all the possible sequences that can be randomly produced through random mutations.
Remembering that for a typical protein length of about 300 amino acids, more than 10/390 (20/300) different polypeptide chains could theoretically be made. This is such an enormous number that to produce just one molecule of each kind would require many more atoms than exist in the universe.
So times that by the number of proteins needed to make up a human and we are talking odds beyond anything we could comprehend. In other words totally impossible odds for it to happen by a random process of mutations.
Because the process starts with random mutations this means that there is no direction and mutations dont know what is the best combination to start with.
But on top of this if you consider what it is evolution is trying to find which is combinations.
This only proves what I am saying. Imagine a slot machine that not only has 12 slots to get right to get the jackpot. But has millions to get right.
The example of Mozart or Shakespeare is just a metaphor for how evolution has to find codes and languages all in the right order and making proper sense to be just right to build living things. Any wrong spelling mistake will render it non functional. Yet evolution through random mutations is popping up spelling mistakes all the time.
They cant differ for humans. Humans cant have a yeasts percentage of cytochrome c and a yeast cant have a humans percentage otherwise each will have the wrong combinations and not function.
All life is made up similar building blocks but with different combinations, mixtures and percentages.
They all have to have the exact combinations and mixtures to function properly out of billions and billions of other possible wrong combinations. So instead of having one precise point to get right on an almost unlimited scale of potential we have many precise points that need to be right. That to me is harder to achieve than just getting one right is there are unlimited possibilities that we could end up with.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?