Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why Bother? A scientific Critique of Evolution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="chickenman" data-source="post: 214658" data-attributes="member: 2570"><p>Max: Alternatively, it could just as well be argued that in all cases of single amino acid replacements there has been no change in information content at all, in that any given amino acid sequence is equally improbable compared with any other amino acid sequence of the same length.</p><p></p><p>Spetner: This is not a useful concept. It is like the pleading of the poker player who had a bust hand. When it came to the call, his opponent showed four aces. He pleaded that his bust hand was just as improbable, and therefore worth as much, as the four-aces, and suggested they split the pot. Hes right about the probabilities of the two hands, but in the context of poker, four aces win and the bust hand loses. Although in the context of the organisms survival in streptomycin, the degraded specificity of the S12 protein is beneficial, in the context of evolution, it is a dead end and it loses.</p><p></p><p></p><p>spetner again, shows that logic is not his forte. Using his poker argument the guy with the bust hand has four different cards, and just as much informational content as the guy with 4 aces, and thats what max is arguing - that two amino acid sequences of the same length contain the same amount of information, just as two sets of four cards contain the same information. Spetner just goes off on some tangent about the rules of poker.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="chickenman, post: 214658, member: 2570"] Max: Alternatively, it could just as well be argued that in all cases of single amino acid replacements there has been no change in information content at all, in that any given amino acid sequence is equally improbable compared with any other amino acid sequence of the same length. Spetner: This is not a useful concept. It is like the pleading of the poker player who had a bust hand. When it came to the call, his opponent showed four aces. He pleaded that his bust hand was just as improbable, and therefore worth as much, as the four-aces, and suggested they split the pot. Hes right about the probabilities of the two hands, but in the context of poker, four aces win and the bust hand loses. Although in the context of the organisms survival in streptomycin, the degraded specificity of the S12 protein is beneficial, in the context of evolution, it is a dead end and it loses. spetner again, shows that logic is not his forte. Using his poker argument the guy with the bust hand has four different cards, and just as much informational content as the guy with 4 aces, and thats what max is arguing - that two amino acid sequences of the same length contain the same amount of information, just as two sets of four cards contain the same information. Spetner just goes off on some tangent about the rules of poker. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why Bother? A scientific Critique of Evolution
Top
Bottom