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.
Yes. Biology 101 has references and calculations.any reference? calculation? something?
It's not a matter of calculation, its a matter of definition. If evoluution of mammals ocurred twice it would be a violation of the nested heirarchy principle.any reference? calculation? something?
i dont think its possible. we need to start from something. we know for instance that even a simple function like binding to a molecule will need about 40-50 amino acids (by experiment). so if we assume at least 2 parts for a minimal protein function (say a protein that bind two molecules to each other). we will need about 90-100 aa to begin with.
In the textbook.where them?
no its not. it will be call "convergent evolution".It's not a matter of calculation, its a matter of definition. If evoluution of mammals ocurred twice it would be a violation of the nested heirarchy principle.
its depent in the function. even a single amino acid may do something in the cell. but we are talking about a tipical function that required something like 100aa to begin with.IIRC, functionally minimal proteins can have as a few as only 10 amino acids. So no, you don't need 90-100 to begin with.
No, that's not what "convergent evolution" means. Convergent evolution is about mere functional similarty, not identity.no its not. it will be call "convergent evolution".
its depent in the function. even a single amino acid may do something in the cell. but we are talking about a tipical function that required something like 100aa to begin with.
Experimental studies have shown that the full sequence complexity of naturally occurring proteins is not required to generate rapidly folding and functional proteins, i.e. proteins can be designed with fewer than 20 letters. This raises the question of what is the minimum number of amino acid types required to encode complex protein folds? Here, we investigate this issue from three aspects. First, we study the minimum sequence complexity that can reserve the necessary structural information for detection of distantly related homologues. Second, we compare the ability of designing foldable model sequences over a wide range of reduced amino acid alphabets, which find the minimum number of letters that have the similar design ability as 20. Finally, we survey the lower bound of alphabet size of globular proteins in a non-redundant protein database. These different approaches give a remarkably consistent view, that the minimum number of letters required to fold a protein is around ten.
if so the similalrity between apes and human is also the result of convergent evolution rather then a common descent. since they arent identical.No, that's not what "convergent evolution" means. Convergent evolution is about mere functional similarty, not identity.
its just folding. not function. as i said: even a single amino acid may be functional. but it doesnt mean that complex proteins can evolve stepwise from a single amino acid. this protein for instance need at least 2 pockets for its substrate (the function in this case is to separate a molecule into two pieces). so 10 aa will not help you in this case:
No. "Ape" is not a single species--it's a family of species to which humans belong.if so the similalrity between apes and human is also the result of convergent evolution rather then a common descent. since they arent identical.
Similarities between closely related species is not.
here for instance:You have an example in mind?
In respect of a self replicating system, I am afraid that one shot is all you've got before you have to start all over again.1. That would be fine if we only had one draw from the hat, and
2. We had to get the entire sequence in one shot.
There have only been 15 billion years or so and the vast majority of that time has not been conducive to any form of biogenesis. Nevertheless for th sake of good humour we'll give you 15 billion years. The chances don't even come close. The number runs to a factor of more than 120. It is an actual physical impossibility to have drawn from the hat that many times.But neither applies here. As has been pointed out, a huge number of draws from the hat likely occurred. Given enough draws from the hat, an incredibly improbable event becomes LIKELY...in fact, a fantastically improbable event even becomes a virtual certainty if given infinite draws.
Larger target? A larger target increases probability, but even the larger target is irrellevant really because it still does not produce a self replicating organism.Secondly, the 50 amino acid sequence need not happen all at once, if a smaller sequence is sufficient to sustain the organism. Then small changes can be added piecemeal after that.
Your probability estimate is not analogous to evolution or abiogenesis, because it assumes 1 pull from the hat, and a larger initial target from that one pull.
One of the greatest ironies in the field of evolutionary biology is the point made by Rupert Riedl that if the homologs were not in fact distinct, if no Type-defining homologs existed, then it would be impossible to build a tree of life showing the derivation of all extant forms of a particular clade from a common ancestor.... How ironic that for Richard Dawkins and other defenders of the Darwinian faith the very notion of evolution depends on the fixity of the Type.You have an example in mind?
Yes, and I have just bought a Lotto for every week of this year, full in the expectation that each and every one will win the major prize.What argument? All I have seen is your argument from probability that a specific chain is unlikely. Sure, but I am not taking about specific chains, but about non-specific chains that have a slight tendency to catalyze something like themselves.
Are you aware that in an open system entropy at a local point can decrease?
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?