Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds

Abstract

Four decades ago, several scientists suggested that the impossibility of any evolutionary process sampling anything but a miniscule fraction of the possible protein sequences posed a problem for the evolution of new proteins…

Therefore, while it is effectively impossible to stumble upon a particular 1-in-10
^390 protein sequence by chance, the likelihood of stumbling upon
a particular protein function by chance will be m -fold higher, where
m represents the multiplicity of sequences capable of performing that function.
and…,.
Click to expand...
The trouble with the science in this analysis is that before you can calculate the probability of a certain protein sequence and folding, from the total number of theoretical sequences is that you would have to establish that the various sequences and folds are independent events with equal likelihood. You would have to establish that each one of them is not only theoretical conceivable but physically possible. Unless the events are independent events, you cannot conclude that the probability of a combination is the product of the probabilities of the individual components. That is Probability and Statistics 101. You have not established the necessary independence and equal likelihood of these components that you would need to establish the probability of any given outcome.
 
Rau said:
Is this something that ought to be incorporated into the science of biology? How would you do that?
Click to expand...
We could always copy the Bhagavad Gita into every biology textbook. After all, we know that Vishnu is perfectly capable of writing a program. 😀

That YHWH guy? No way, He doesn’t even know that there are planets orbiting other stars. He is obviously well behind Vishnu in the scientific stakes.

rossum
 
Techno2000 said:
Did evolution know Man was going to invent clothes to survive in his environment ?
Click to expand...
No, man evolved in Africa, where clothes are not generally needed. He invented clothes, or rather borrowed than from animals, in order to survive in different, colder, environments.

Are you really that lacking in knowledge of human history?

rossum
 
I now can apply the same standard to every claim you make? One error and you are out? Good.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You have not established the necessary independence and equal likelihood of these components that you would need to establish the probability of any given outcome.
Click to expand...
Correct. The probability of a new protein that is very similar to, but not the same as, an existing protein is much higher than the probability of a completely new protein appearing. New proteins almost always arise from mutations to existing proteins – see the group of globin proteins and their associated pseudogenes for an example.

The calculation is based on a false assumption and hence the result is not applicable to the real case. GIGO.

A typical case of YEC sites lying, relying on the lack of relevant knowledge in their readers to get their lies accepted.

rossum
 
Current thinking is Europe and I just read Asia. What you thought true yesterday gets overturned today…
 
rossum said:
A typical case of YEC sites lying, relying on the lack of relevant knowledge in their readers to get their lies accepted.
Click to expand...
Right back at you… How does your evolutionary formed brain know a lie?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
OK… The odds of a correct 3D fold are astronomical. Not just any folding, a meaningful fold. There are trillions of ways a protein can fold. Only a few are useful.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood what I wrote. There are small proteins which can fold themselves into the correct, natural configuration. Not just any fold, but the right fold, and the same fold every time. The physics of this is well-understood by molecular biologists. Here is a well-studied example, of a real, natural enzyme found in chicken eggs, and there are other examples of correctly self-folding proteins:

Loading…

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The implication of this, in the context of this thread, is that in the early history of life, self-folding proteins could have existed, actually must have existed, prior to the evolution of chaperone proteins and other mechanisms which exist now to guide the folding of larger proteins in cells.
 
Last edited:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Are you suggesting that God made that by hand?
 
The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again, expecting the same results. This thread is insanity.
 
buffalo said:
How many different protein folds are possible?
Click to expand...
You are making the mistake in thinking that just because we see an error in someone’s calculation we are therefore able to do that same calculation correctly. One does not need to do a calculation to prove that someone else’s calculation is garbage. If I tried to make an estimate of what you ask, it would probably be garbage too. So what?
 
IWantGod said:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Are you suggesting that God made that by hand?
Click to expand...
I"m suggesting that God set up a Hierarchy of lesser to greater, top to bottom creatures to fill a niche in a ecosystem.I don’t know the details of how he creates, but he doesn’t have to use evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top