Teaching of creationism in US public school science classes has dropped over past 12 years

[ZNP]

Awesome. You just demonstrated that you don't exist. If you don't understand that point then you clearly don't understand your own fallacious claims about probability. That's when it becomes "creationist maths".

Great logic. If our theory on how we got here doesn't make sense then we don't exist. Real science is willing to be scrutinized. You have just demonstrated that what you are holding to is not real science.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Otherwise known as math. Atheists embrace science and math until it is inconvenient, then it becomes "creationists math". A protein is a string of amino acids. These strings vary in length, but on average 140 amino acids in a chain is a reasonable average number. There are 20 different amino acids and any one can be put into any one of those 140 slots. This math is very simple, 20 raised to the power of 140. Simple, really. Everyone completing high school math should be able to calculate this.

That just gives the number of possible proteins of that length, it's not relevant to how a functional protein is generated. Evolution doesn't start with a random assortment of amino acids and attempt to produce a specific protein sequence.

 

[ZNP]

That just gives the number of possible proteins of that length, it's not relevant to how a functional protein is generated. Evolution doesn't start with a random assortment of amino acids and attempt to produce a specific protein sequence.

And that is the question we are asking. How do we produce a specific protein that is required to do a function?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Great logic. If our theory on how we got here doesn't make sense then we don't exist. Real science is willing to be scrutinized. You have just demonstrated that what you are holding to is not real science.

Like I said, if you don't understand the point I made (which you clearly do not), then you don't understand why your claims about probability of protein formation are fallacious. You can wave your hands and stomp your feet as much as you like, but until you demonstrate understanding nobody here will take your claim seriously.

 

[sesquiterpene]

Otherwise known as math. Atheists embrace science and math until it is inconvenient, then it becomes "creationists math". A protein is a string of amino acids. These strings vary in length, but on average 140 amino acids in a chain is a reasonable average number. There are 20 different amino acids and any one can be put into any one of those 140 slots. This math is very simple, 20 raised to the power of 140. Simple, really. Everyone completing high school math should be able to calculate this.

You know, scientists have actually done the experiment - creating random strings of peptides and seeing whether or not they have a function - and the results are very, very different from your calculations. You are doing something (really several things) wrong here. You shouldn't get your math from creationist websites.
De Novo Designed Proteins from a Library of Artificial Sequences Function in Escherichia Coli and Enable Cell Growth

 

[ZNP]

You know, scientists have actually done the experiment - creating random strings of peptides and seeing whether or not they have a function - and the results are very, very different from your calculations. You are doing something (really several things) wrong here. You shouldn't get your math from creationist websites.
De Novo Designed Proteins from a Library of Artificial Sequences Function in Escherichia Coli and Enable Cell Growth

Yes, it is well known that an amino acid and presumably all 20 could have formed in the primordial soup. In our analogy the amino acid would be a number, the protein would be a string of them like you find in a lottery ticket. So if your lottery ticket gave you the choice of any number from 1-20, and you had to put these numbers in the correct location for 140 locations in order to get 1 functional protein, that is what we are talking about. How did they string all these amino acids together for all the various proteins we have in our body and in the bodies of each and every species?

Random mutation requires two things: lots of replications and lots of time. It works quite well once you have a functioning species that can replicate.

But you will not have a viable species until you have all the functioning proteins. Since the fundamental templates for almost all species (phyla) showed up in a 15 million year time frame known as the Cambrian explosion it seems extraordinarily unlikely that this theory explains how we got these phyla.

 

[sesquiterpene]

And that is the question we are asking. How do we produce a specific protein that is required to do a function?

Gene duplication followed by further diversification.

This isn't a cladogram of organisms -it's a cladogram of proteins. Because many proteins are descended from other proteins due to gene duplication followed by divergence, one can construct family trees using the same genomic analyses that are used to construct other family trees.Protein superfamily - Wikipedia

 

[sesquiterpene]

But you will not have a viable species until you have all the functioning proteins. Since the fundamental templates for almost all species (phyla) showed up in a 15 million year time frame known as the Cambrian explosion it seems extraordinarily unlikely that this theory explains how we got these phyla.

The earliest known life apparently occurred at least 3.77 billion years ago, so we had viable species evolving in a 3 billion year time frame, not just 17 million years. Congratulations, your creationist numbers are off only by two orders of magnitude, quite the improvement.

 

[ZNP]

The earliest known life apparently occurred at least 3.77 billion years ago, so we had viable species evolving in a 3 billion year time frame, not just 17 million years. Congratulations, your creationist numbers are off only by two orders of magnitude, quite the improvement.

The Cambrian explosion is referred to in Darwin's book, I thought everyone discussing this would be familiar with it. About 500 million years ago we had the "Cambrian explosion" which is where we first saw shells and bony creatures. Prior to that it was single celled organisms, and algae, etc. At the time of Darwin he knew this development was rapid and didn't coincide with his random mutation theory, so he hypothesized that we would find the "missing link". Some new dig would discover the "missing link". Instead what has happened is that our time frame for this explosion has narrowed from estimates of 50 million years to 15 million years.

 

[sesquiterpene]

So if your lottery ticket gave you the choice of any number from 1-20, and you had to put these numbers in the correct location for 140 locations in order to get 1 functional protein, that is what we are talking about. How did they string all these amino acids together for all the various proteins we have in our body and in the bodies of each and every species?

It's not clear that you understand the reference I gave, so let me reiterate: there is clear experimental evidence that your calculation is off by 34 orders of magnitude. Doesn't that make you rethink what you are saying?

 

[ZNP]

It's not clear that you understand the reference I gave, so let me reiterate: there is clear experimental evidence that your calculation is off by 34 orders of magnitude. Doesn't that make you rethink what you are saying?

This is your reference:
A central challenge of synthetic biology is to enable the growth of living systems using parts that are not derived from nature, but designed and synthesized in the laboratory. As an initial step toward achieving this goal, we probed the ability of a collection of >106 de novo designed proteins to provide biological functions necessary to sustain cell growth. Our collection of proteins was drawn from a combinatorial library of 102-residue sequences, designed by binary patterning of polar and nonpolar residues to fold into stable 4-helix bundles. We probed the capacity of proteins from this library to function in vivo by testing their abilities to rescue 27 different knockout strains of Escherichia coli, each deleted for a conditionally essential gene. Four different strains – ΔserB, ΔgltA, ΔilvA, and Δfes – were rescued by specific sequences from our library. Further experiments demonstrated that a strain simultaneously deleted for all four genes was rescued by co-expression of four novel sequences. Thus, cells deleted for ∼0.1% of the E. coli genome (and ∼1% of the genes required for growth under nutrient-poor conditions) can be sustained by sequences designed de novo.

He is saying that if you start with a lab designed protein, and they start with 1,000,000 of them then it is possible for them to sustain life with parts that are not derived from nature. Either this is about intelligent design, saying you could seed earth with lab derived proteins and you could get life, or else it has nothing at all to do with this discussion.

 

[sesquiterpene]

This is your reference:
A central challenge of synthetic biology is to enable the growth of living systems using parts that are not derived from nature, but designed and synthesized in the laboratory. As an initial step toward achieving this goal, we probed the ability of a collection of >106 de novo designed proteins to provide biological functions necessary to sustain cell growth. Our collection of proteins was drawn from a combinatorial library of 102-residue sequences, designed by binary patterning of polar and nonpolar residues to fold into stable 4-helix bundles. We probed the capacity of proteins from this library to function in vivo by testing their abilities to rescue 27 different knockout strains of Escherichia coli, each deleted for a conditionally essential gene. Four different strains – ΔserB, ΔgltA, ΔilvA, and Δfes – were rescued by specific sequences from our library. Further experiments demonstrated that a strain simultaneously deleted for all four genes was rescued by co-expression of four novel sequences. Thus, cells deleted for ∼0.1% of the E. coli genome (and ∼1% of the genes required for growth under nutrient-poor conditions) can be sustained by sequences designed de novo.

He is saying that if you start with a lab designed protein, and they start with 1,000,000 of them then it is possible for them to sustain life with parts that are not derived from nature. Either this is about intelligent design, saying you could seed earth with lab derived proteins and you could get life, or else it has nothing at all to do with this discussion.

You're quite right, those sequences weren't completely random. Nonetheless, there is a reasonably large literature using entirely random sequences - and finding results that contradict your "calculations"
Functional proteins from a random-sequence library
Random sequences are an abundant source of bioactive RNAs or peptides | Nature Ecology & Evolution
Those are just two results pulled from hundreds in a quick search. Of course, anyone familiar with creationist probabilities knows why your calculations are nonsense.
Would you like to learn why?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And that is the question we are asking. How do we produce a specific protein that is required to do a function?

The proteins produced by organisms today are the result of over 3.5 billion years of trial and error changes modifying, extending, and duplicating the simple short sequences in the earliest RNA or DNA replicators. The sequences that persisted became enhanced over time were those that provided the greatest selective (reproductive) advantage.

The result is that each fragmentary ancestral protein has produced a diverse family of related proteins of various sizes, with a multitude of functions. What you see today as a specific protein with a specific function is the latest iteration of a long series of changes and branches of varying efficiency, functionality, and specificity. Most of these proteins have a range of variations within and between individuals and between species. Only those few with the most crucial core metabolic functionality are identical or nearly identical in all creatures.

 

[sesquiterpene]

The odds of a random mutation causing amino acids to line up in a chain approximately 140 long to make one of these functional proteins is 1 out of 1 with 40 zeros after it. .

This math is very simple, 20 raised to the power of 140.

10^^40 ≠ 20^^140

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

10^^40 ≠ 20^^140

Good spot.

[although it's irrelevant in any case, as that's not how biological proteins come to be]

 

[sesquiterpene]

The Cambrian explosion is referred to in Darwin's book, I thought everyone discussing this would be familiar with it. About 500 million years ago we had the "Cambrian explosion" which is where we first saw shells and bony creatures. Prior to that it was single celled organisms, and algae, etc. At the time of Darwin he knew this development was rapid and didn't coincide with his random mutation theory, so he hypothesized that we would find the "missing link". Some new dig would discover the "missing link". Instead what has happened is that our time frame for this explosion has narrowed from estimates of 50 million years to 15 million years.

You are the one insisting that new proteins needed to be made in the "short" span of Cambrian explosion (which has suddenly been shortened from 17 to 15 million years, it seems). I was merely suggesting that there was 100-fold that amount of time for novel proteins to develop. Of course, even 15 million years is a very long time in biology, and there are readily available ways for organisms to develop novel genes.

 

[sesquiterpene]

The odds of a random mutation causing amino acids to line up in a chain approximately 140 long to make one of these functional proteins is 1 out of 1 with 40 zeros after it. By comparison the odds of winning the lottery is only 1 out of 1 with 8 zeros after it. It is ridiculous to think this is the best explanation for how this happened.

Well, I have some time so I'll go over some reasons creationist probabilities are wrong. And this is creationist math - I've seen dozens, if not hundreds, of creationists making these same silly calculations in the course of around thirty years lurking on various debate forums. ZNP didn't show his work, but here are some common implicit assumptions and omissions.
1. The protein has a fixed length
2. There is only one possible sequence that works
3. there are 20 possible amino acids
4. All other types of mutations are ignored.
5. Post hoc calculations are meaningless

1. Yes, you have to start somewhere - but the probability of getting a functional protein might be quite dependent on the length of the protein.

2.This is a big one: no one who has the least familiarity with biochemistry would think this is true. Looking at the differing sequences of proteins from various species - all with identical functions - makes one realize that there are a huge number of different sequences that can perform any particular function. So you need to calculate the percentage of possible sequences that work. You might be able to find various estimates of that percentage, but you can't simply calculate it - it needs to be measured. That is why I tried (somewhat unsuccessfully, I'll admit) to provide ZNP with empirically measured percentages. Of course, there is no reason to think that there is a single percentage - some functions might be much harder to achieve than others.

3. Not necessarily relevant, but there were quite possibly fewer amino acids utilized early on in the history of life on earth

4. This is also a very big one: no one who has a good familiarity with evolutionary science thinks that forming proteins from random sequences is the most common path to novel sequences. Duplications of existing proteins means that you start with a protein that folds correctly and already has a function. Further mutations can make modifications to that function. This is amply supported by evidence that duplicated genes make up large swaths of our functional genome.

5. I'll let other posters have fun with this. If you make post hoc calculations on any set of mostly random events, you might conclude they are impossible.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

5. I'll let other posters have fun with this. If you make post hoc calculations on any set of mostly random events, you might conclude they are impossible.

I hinted at this but ZNP doesn't seem to recognise it. What is the probability that ZNP would be born? Using creationist maths It's a ridiculously improbable event, and yet ZNP appears to exist.

 

[ZNP]

10^^40 ≠ 20^^140

There are other factors involved

and obviously if there are thousands of functional proteins then it isn't going to be 1 out of 20^^140.

Another factor is the estimated random mutations that could take place over the time frame.

It is quite clear that in your arrogance you haven't so much as looked at the research done by the mathematicians, biologists, other scientists. You falsely claim to be scientists yet refuse to even attempt to falsify a theory or investigate it. If anyone else does the work that scientists are supposed to do you ridicule them, insult them, get them fired, and make fools of yourselves. You show yourselves to be hypocrites in your claim to "trust in science".

 

[Bungle_Bear]

There are other factors involved

and obviously if there are thousands of functional proteins then it isn't going to be 1 out of 20^^140.

Another factor is the estimated random mutations that could take place over the time frame.

It is quite clear that in your arrogance you haven't so much as looked at the research done by the mathematicians, biologists, other scientists. You falsely claim to be scientists yet refuse to even attempt to falsify a theory or investigate it. If anyone else does the work that scientists are supposed to do you ridicule them, insult them, get them fired, and make fools of yourselves. You show yourselves to be hypocrites in your claim to "trust in science".

I notice you haven't addressed the probability of you existing. Please do so - I'll be very interested to see how you make your own existence seem even remotely possible.