Your probability is not scientific, since you have not understood the science of evolution. Mutations are random, but cumulative natural selection feeding on them is not. There is no ‘random’ assembly of something like a single small human gene.
I find it hard to believe that a real biochemist would make such an incompetent, irrelevant set of statements. But, you seem to know the jargon. University of Phoenix degree? DeVry?
If there is “no random assembly of …a gene,” the remaining alternative is deliberate, controlled, thoughtfully engineered gene assembly.
I shall assume that you have become confused by the nonsense programmed into your brain by atheist nits in school, so shall explain a little bit about how evolution does and does
not work.
I’m not doing this for your benefit, because I have learned from prior experience that people like you are going to reiterate whatever doctrine they’ve been programmed to believe, until some authority figure comes along and says, “
That’s okay, boy. We finally figured out what’s really going on, and thanks for believing our mistakes. You don’t need to fetch that newspaper anymore, because we’re on the internet now.”
I’m doing this because there are people with functioning minds, rather than programmed brains, who read CAF threads.
Let us consider a few simple things, tackling a subset of the problem. Genes are snippets of DNA which are used within biological cells to make proteins. These proteins are essential components of all critters.
The genes are not the proteins, and cannot actually make proteins. Genes are reduced to RNA molecules by protein-mechanisms within the cell, and decoded to make proteins by other cellular mechanisms.
Genes are subsections of a larger DNA molecule. They are contained within the molecule. Their endpoints are designated by specific markers which can be identified by cellular mechanisms, like a BEGIN-END sequence amid a string of computer code.
The known mechanisms for the modification of a gene are random events, which may include natural forms of splitting and splicing. Genes may also be modified by non-random human interventions, such as gene splicing.
Obviously, no Darwinian evolutionary scheme can allow non-random interventions. Therefore, all Darwinian mechanisms are random events.
The typical size of a small human gene is 900 nucleotide base-pairs, which will code for a specific protein. There is some overlap which allows for small variations within a gene to successfully code for the same protein. But bottom line is that before your body can make one of these small (300-amino acid) proteins, a coding gene must first be produced.
It must be produced by random mechanisms. Unless one allows for the intervention of a genetic engineer (e.g: Creator) there are no other possibilities.
Perhaps, a pair of some other genes might split and recombine in large sections, with the first half of one connecting to the back half of another. This is also a random event, one with extremely low probabilities of producing a useful gene. Whatever, the nucleotides comprising each half had to be assembled in a specific order. The probabilities for the random assembly of two half-genes, multiplied, become the probability for the final gene, the same value as that for a linear assembly of the gene. However, this probability is worsened by the odds against the half-genes dividing and recombining in a useful manner, and along triplet boundaries.
Since Darwinism cannot admit to the deliberate, engineered assembly of nucleotides, random chance is the only remaining option. The best possible odds for the random assembly of 900 nucleotide base pairs is, to be more precise than before, 1.4 x 10[sup]-542[/sup].
Natural selection has nothing whatsoever to do with the assembly of nucleotides in a particular sequence. I cannot understand why someone who claims to be a scientist would propose that N.S. intervenes, as if intelligently, in nucleotide sequencing. Are you making stuff up, just to assert some justification for your beliefs?
Natural selection can only take place after a gene has been modified and a new protein produced.
Natural selection is a very simple process which amounts to an evaluation-- does the end product work, and if it does, can it compete successfully in the marketplace? Natural selection determined short lifetimes for Edsels, Yugos, and Jimmy Carter’s alleged “presidency.” However, natural selection had nothing to do with the engineering of Edsels or Yugos, and played an uninformed part in Carter’s election, as in B.O’s. It is simply a marketplace evaluation which has no function in the absence of a market.
The “natural selection” in the above examples is based upon a slight measure of intelligence. In non-engineered biology it operates at lower, non-intelligent level, where the biological equivalent of Edsels and Yugos might survive for awhile simply because they work, at the level of,
does worm A reproduce faster than worm B, thus surviving by depriving worm B of nutrients?
I defy you to explain to anyone here exactly how “natural selection” which itself is genuinely “natural,” i.e. random, can affect the random mutation of genes.
The words you’ve wrapped around this, above, are meaningless. Do better.
Indeed, it gets worse and downright absurd when someone does not understand how evolution works.
It sure does, Al. I have to wonder why you bother to be a Catholic, but frankly, since IMO you seem to exist happily in the la-la land of cognitive dissonance, I don’t really care.
