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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
Ok well you have just acknowledge what I am trying to say
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.
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.
And yet you dismiss everything else those credible and authoritative experts say as something you "disagree with".
The existence of a multiverse, for appetizers.
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.
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.
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.
What is a "new and different type of animal"? Is a new species of bat a "new and different type of animal"?
Errr... no.
