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.
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.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".
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.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.
And that is the question we are asking. How do we produce a specific protein that is required to do a function?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?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
Gene duplication followed by further diversification.And that is the question we are asking. How do we produce a specific protein that is required to do a function?
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.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 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.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.
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?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?
This is your reference: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?
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"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.
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.And that is the question we are asking. How do we produce a specific protein that is required to do a function?
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. .
10^^40 ≠ 20^^140This math is very simple, 20 raised to the power of 140.
Good spot.10^^40 ≠ 20^^140
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
There are other factors involved10^^40 ≠ 20^^140
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.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".
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?