Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-22-2017 6:53 PM
347 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, Granny Magda, halibut (4 members, 343 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: willietern
Happy Birthday: Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 821,055 Year: 25,661/21,208 Month: 1,288/2,338 Week: 45/364 Day: 45/57 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516171819
20
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
Taq
Member
Posts: 7196
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 286 of 292 (805879)
04-21-2017 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by forexhr
04-21-2017 6:03 AM


forexhr writes:

Currently the discussion on air is about the jumping genes. Darwinists in this thread are on them like piranhas on a prey. But, jumping genes have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. They are just the pre-existing sequences that can move from one location in the genome to other. Evolution on the other hand, is supposed to explain the origin of higher life forms that are characterized by organs, organ systems, de novo molecular machines, metabolic pathways,... or in short - specific 3D shapes that we observe in living systems.

Please explain why transposons have nothing to do with the topic.

In this thread, I proved that there haven't been enough resources in the history of life to find these 3D shapes.

You made the assertion, but never provided the proof.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by forexhr, posted 04-21-2017 6:03 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 287 of 292 (805947)
04-21-2017 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by forexhr
04-21-2017 6:03 AM


But, darwinists in this thread completely ignored this important issue, either via non sequiturs, red herrings, appeals to authority, ad hominems and various others pseudoscientific techniques.

If you spent as much time studying biology as you do learning Latin words, then you'd be in a much better position to assess the nature of biological reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by forexhr, posted 04-21-2017 6:03 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 38 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 288 of 292 (806136)
04-23-2017 9:19 AM


Sunday summary: where we are on the O.P. so far.
forexhr writes:

In this thread, I proved that there haven't been enough resources in the history of life to find these 3D shapes.* But, darwinists in this thread completely ignored this important issue, either via non sequiturs, red herrings, appeals to authority, ad hominems and various others pseudoscientific techniques. It is really interesting to watch how pseudoscience operates.

*My yellow. It is indeed interesting to watch how pseudoscience operates.

forexhr in the O.P. writes:

But that begs the question: how did this selectable combination of CHNOPS(protein) came to be? This is the crucial and the most important question. There are virtually infinite number of ways in which CHNOPS comprising protein can be arranged, and most are junk, or non-selectable arrangements. For e.g. for a protein 92 AA long, with 10e122 possible AA combinatios, there is only 1 in every 10e63 functional sequence*. On the other hand, published extreme upper limit estimates puts the maximum number of mutations or CHNOPS re-arrangements at 10e43**. So, the total number of evolutionary CHNOPS re-arrangements is 20 orders of magnitude insufficient to find only one selectable state for evolution to preserve - a protein, let alone molecular machines, organs or organ systems.

*Functionally acceptable substitutions in two alpha-helical regions of lambda repressor. Reidhaar-Olson JF, Sauer RT.

**How much of protein sequence space has been explored by life on Earth?, David T.F Dryden, Andrew R Thomson, John H White

Well, if we wanted to do pseudoscience or bad science, the above shows a good way to start. We could look at an actual 92 AA sequence in one organism, and declare that it would take 10^122 searches of 92 AA sequences (or "CHNOPS re-arrangements") to get it. That, of course, would be wrong, because while every specific random assembly is 1 in 10^122 in search space, the chances of hitting a 1 in 10^122 combination is actually 1 per search, so looking at any functional "hit" that has been incorporated into the life system will give that "1 in 10^122" appearance.

Making one specific observed arrangement into a target with hindsight is an obvious fallacy.

Forexhr doesn't exactly do that creationist classic. Instead of making that mistake, he does it for a specific function. Estimating 10^57 to be the number of possible functional sequences for that specified function, he then concludes that, because they would comprise a 1 in 10^63 part of search space, it would take 10^63 random AA assemblies to get a hit for that function. Once again, any functional 92 AA hit with ~10^57 functional variations will give that impression, so we have the same "target with hindsight" fallacy. The search space would contain many different groupings of ~10^57 that might potentially perform many different functions in a life system, and a life system might hit on some of them, but it certainly doesn't have to search 10^63 times in order to do so. Pick out any one of them after its arrival, and the hindsight probability fallacy can be made, just as with the first example.

To compound that error, forexhr has made a major technical mistake in assuming 10^57 is the approximate limit to the number of AA sequences that could perform his specific function. There isn't actually anything that tells him that in the 1990 paper that he refers to (you can read it from the link above - no paywall as in the O.P.) It shows that there are likely to be at least that many functional permutations of the existing protein for that specific function, but not that there couldn't be many more.

Not only can proteins with very similar sequences perform very different functions, but proteins with very different sequences can perform the same or similar functions.

And proteins with different structures can perform the same function.

There are known examples of this. There are known examples in bacterial phages. There are known examples in the Lambda phage family. There happen to be, hilariously, known examples in the exact protein function forexhr was unfortunate enough to choose for his O.P.

He'd be wise to look it up.


  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 289 of 292 (806312)
04-24-2017 12:16 PM


This will be my last post on this thread and in it I will do two things:

A) summarize the main points of my argument
B) illustrate the pseudo-scientific character of the responses to my argument

No matter what level of bio-organization we choose, it is comprised of specific 3D shapes that perform specific bio-functions such as processing visual detail, reproduction, blood pumping, nutrient metabolism, etc. These 3D shapes are all built from some elementary constituents, (e.g.,molecules, cells). Each constituent has a set of possible states it can be in. The information about these states is memorized in the organism genome. The genome is composed of the four DNA nucleotides: A,T,G and C, which means that each 3D shape can be represented as a space with n dimensions, where n is the number of nucleotides. Each axis has 4 positions representing the 4 nucleotides. There are 16 possible 2 nucleotide DNA sequences which can be arranged in a 2D grid. The 64 sequences can be arranged in a 3D cube. Most genes are longer than 1000 nucleotides and so occupy large, multidimensional spaces containing an astronomical number of possible sequences. For example, there are 10^602 possible 1000 nucleotide DNA sequences which can be arranged in a 1000D grid.

To illustrate this astronomical number let us consider blood-pumping function. According to this study(1) there are over 1,700 genes that are required for mouse heart development. The expected average gene length in eukaryotes is 1346 bp. (2)

(1) https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1420.003
(2) https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msk019

Given these numbers, there are 2,288,200 nucleotides that represent 3D shapes requireds for blood-pumping function which gives the sequence space of 4^2,288,200 or 4.70*10^1,377,633. To explore this sequence space and thus, extract the 3D shapes requireds for blood-pumping function, there have been only a 10^43 nucleotide rearrangements in the history of life. This is insufficient to explore even the sequence space of one average-size gene required for mouse heart development.

Since it is obvious that with 10^43 nucleotide rearrangements we cannot explain the origin of 3D shapes that comprise organs and organ systems, in this thread I argued that with such a small number of rearrangements, we can't even explain the origin of one below average protein - lambda represor. To prove my point, in the O.P. I gave the paper whose authors concluded, I quote: "the estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the gamma repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 in 10^63 of the total number of possible 92-residue sequences.

In other words, there are 10^57 possible functional sequences for lambda represor function and in order to extract one such functional sequence we need on average 10^63 nucleotide rearrangements. Given the 10^43 nucleotide rearrangements in the history of life, it is easy to conclude that the ToE cannot explain the origin of one below average protein.

According to the logic of the average believer in evolution, since nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact, the conclusion that the ToE cannot explain the origin of just one simple and below average protein is obviously false. But, given the fact that appeals to the majority are pseudoscientific, the evolutionists on this thread tried to respond to this conclusion through some actual points. These points were all boiling down to this:

1) The sequence space of size 10^122 contains many functional sequences that might perform many different bio-functions(non-Lambda represor functions), and therefore populations don't have to search 10^63 times in order to find them.

2) Proteins with very different sequences can also perform the Lambda represor function.

As we shall see later on, these points are totally irrelevant to my argument about the lack of resources, but instead, they are just ad hoc excuses, empty claims, that were brought up not because they have some scientific or logical merit, but because it is necessary to have some excuse to label my argument as creationist nonsense.

The first point argues that proteins of size ∼92 AA can perform not only Lambda represor function but also many different bio-functions. We can express this point by using an analogy. With three letters we can produce many different meaningful words, and not only words that name animals, for e.g. This is of course true, but it is completely irrelevant to evolution. Why?

Whenever the proponents of the ToE talk about the origin of some bio-function, they will say that this function is simply an evolutionary adaptation by which the organism provides a solution to the problem that the environment sets.
Example:

Meiosis as an Evolutionary Adaptation for DNA Repair
https://www.intechopen.com/...nary-adaptation-for-dna-repair

So, according to the ToE, a particular bio-function is an evolutionary adaptation, while the eonviornment is something to which an organism must adapt.

Given this evolutionary narrative, let us use our three-letter words analogy and set up one population(P) of organisms and its gene pool:

Population P:
organism 1: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 2: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 3: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 4: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 5: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------

So, we have our population and its gene pool which contains 7 evolutionary adaptations(bio-functions).

After the reproduction, an extra copy of a gene is made in the genome of the "organism 2", which gives us the following gene pool:

Population P:
organism 1: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 2: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---wox-
organism 3: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 4: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 5: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------

This duplicated gene is free to explore new adaptations(bio-functions). But, given the evolutionary narrative, in order for an organism to adapt, we also need an environment. So let us suppose that the following new environment emerges:

"All three-letter words that name animals".

In the contect of this environment this adaptations are functional:

ant, ape, auk, bat, bee, bot, boy, bug, cat, cod, dab, doe, dog, eel, eft, elk, emu, ewe, fly, fox, gnu, guy, hen, hog, jay, kea, kit, owl, pig, ram, rat, sow, teg, cow

Since the sequence space of three-letter words is 17,576(26 letters ^3) and we have 35 functional sequences, it follows that only 1 in 502 three-letter sequences is functional. In other words, on average we need 502 resources in order to adapt to our new enviornment.

Now, given the first point made by evolutionists on this thread, they would respond in the following way:

"Forexhr, you made a major technical mistake in assuming that you need 502 resources to adapt to "All three-letter words that name animals" enviornment, because the Scrabble Dictionary recognizes 1015 three-letter words that are also functional."

The above claim presupposes that because theoretically we can create 1015 different "functions" with three-letter words, it follows that we don't need to spend 502 resources in order to find "functional" three-letter words that name animals, but only 17 (17,576/1015).

This is of course nonsense of a high order because there is no causal relationship between theoretically possible functions(adaptations) and a particular environment, that would reduce the number of resources that are necessary for adaptation at a particular physical locus in a gene pool. It is like saying that because there have been many winning lottery tickets in the history of lottery games, we don't need 13,983,816 different lottery tickets(on average) to get a winner in a particular 6/49 lottery game, but we must sum up all winning lottery tickets in the history of lottery games and then divide 13,983,816 with the number we get.

The absurdity of such reasoning is obvious. We cannot use all actual, or potential bio-functions that were, or will be produced with 92 AAs and then claim that the existance of these bio-functions reduces the resources necessary to adapt to a particular environment.

Given our population P:

organism 1: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 2: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---wox-
organism 3: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 4: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 5: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------

The fact that the three-letter words - "are", "bit", "hop", "fun", "vox", "too" and "yes" exist in the gene pool of the population, cannot change neither the sequence space of three-letter words(17,576), nor the number of three-letter words that are required for adaptation to the current environment("All three-letter words that name animals") at the "wox" loci.

So, the first point is pure nonsense.

The second point, which argues that proteins with very different sequences can also perform the lambda represor function, is like saying that we can use very different three-letter words to fulfil the above mentioned ecological niche - "All three-letter words that name animals".

As such, this point is just redundant rhetoric because if 10^57 possible sequences for Lambda represor are functional that also means that many of them are "very different". But of course, 1 in 10^63 ratio still stands. Likewise, in the group of three-letter words that name animals, many of them are very different(fox vs. gnu for e.g.), but from that it doesn't follow that the above mentioned ratio(1 in 502) is not valid.

As we can see, the responses given are totally unfounded, they are just nonsensical ad hoc excuses whose only purpose was to keep faith in the ToE and to have some justification for labeling my argument a fallacy(sharpshooter for e.g.). Therefore, my statement, that evolution can't even explain the origin of one below average protein is correct.

Since convincing an evolutionist that the ToE is false is like convincing a flat-earther that the Earth is spherical, there's nothing here for me anymore. Hence, over and out.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Taq, posted 04-24-2017 1:11 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 291 by bluegenes, posted 04-24-2017 3:11 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 292 by bluegenes, posted 04-25-2017 8:46 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7196
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 290 of 292 (806324)
04-24-2017 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by forexhr
04-24-2017 12:16 PM


forexhr writes:

No matter what level of bio-organization we choose, it is comprised of specific 3D shapes that perform specific bio-functions such as processing visual detail, reproduction, blood pumping, nutrient metabolism, etc.

There are other 3D shapes that can perform the same functions, and other functions that can result in a viable species.

From the very start, you are committing the Sharpshooter fallacy, and it destroys the rest of your argument.

Given these numbers, there are 2,288,200 nucleotides that represent 3D shapes requireds for blood-pumping function which gives the sequence space of 4^2,288,200 or 4.70*10^1,377,633.

You never demonstrated that a single one of those genes is required for the development of a heart. You only showed that those are the genes that result in a heart in the mouse. Until you understand the difference between those two things, you will continue to commit the same logical fallacies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by forexhr, posted 04-24-2017 12:16 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 38 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 291 of 292 (806329)
04-24-2017 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by forexhr
04-24-2017 12:16 PM


How many times can someone make the same mistakes?
forexhr writes:

This will be my last post on this thread and in it I will do two things:

Yes. You will make your Hindsight target fallacy, and you will repeat your technical mistakes.

Here's another paper for you to misunderstand, and for anyone who is actually genuinely interested in proteins.

Cro Structure

Instead of running away, why don't you tell us all how American history is impossible because of the impossibility of getting its particular set of Presidents in less than 60 elections?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by forexhr, posted 04-24-2017 12:16 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 38 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(3)
Message 292 of 292 (806375)
04-25-2017 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by forexhr
04-24-2017 12:16 PM


Was this a drive by shooting?
forexhr writes:

To prove my point, in the O.P. I gave the paper whose authors concluded, I quote: "the estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the gamma repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 in 10^63 of the total number of possible 92-residue sequences."

(Lambda) And that illustrates one of your technical mistakes. "Fold", not "function". As I've pointed out, the authors do not make your claim on 1 in 10^63 for function. That's just your misunderstanding.

Fold ≠ Function.

Cro Structure

forexhr writes:

In other words, there are 10^57 possible functional sequences for lambda represor function and in order to extract one such functional sequence we need on average 10^63 nucleotide rearrangements. Given the 10^43 nucleotide rearrangements in the history of life, it is easy to conclude that the ToE cannot explain the origin of one below average protein.

No. Fold ≠ Function + target fallacy (see below).

forexhr writes:

According to the logic of the average believer in evolution, since nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact, the conclusion that the ToE cannot explain the origin of just one simple and below average protein is obviously false. But, given the fact that appeals to the majority are pseudoscientific, the evolutionists on this thread tried to respond to this conclusion through some actual points. These points were all boiling down to this:

1) The sequence space of size 10^122 contains many functional sequences that might perform many different bio-functions (non-Lambda represor functions), and therefore populations don't have to search 10^63 times in order to find them.

The hindsight target fallacy (ex-post facto statistical fallacy)* has been pointed out. A life system doesn't target the existence of Lambda or its repressor. Everything it does get should look very unlikely when viewed as a target, just as the list of American Presidents' names is definitely a less than 1 in 10^122 chance when viewed as a target, and so are the names of your nearest 50 neighbours.

Have you worked out how many functions would have been useful to the Lambda ancestor at the time, and what proportion of 92AA proteins would have provided at least one of them? If 10^112 would have been advantageous, then 10^10 resources should have been ample to add a new functional protein of some kind, and the repressor's ancestor is just as good a result as any other.

forexhr writes:

2) Proteins with very different sequences can also perform the Lambda represor function.

And proteins with different structures/folds. I suspect you might have looked this up, found out that I'm right, and hence the hurried exit. My suspicions could be wrong, of course. You might still be ignorant of the relevant biology.

forexhr writes:

The first point argues that proteins of size ∼92 AA can perform not only Lambda represor function but also many different bio-functions. We can express this point by using an analogy. With three letters we can produce many different meaningful words, and not only words that name animals, for e.g. This is of course true, but it is completely irrelevant to evolution. Why?

Whenever the proponents of the ToE talk about the origin of some bio-function, they will say that this function is simply an evolutionary adaptation by which the organism provides a solution to the problem that the environment sets.

Example:

Meiosis as an Evolutionary Adaptation for DNA Repair
https://www.intechopen.com/...nary-adaptation-for-dna-repair

So, according to the ToE, a particular bio-function is an evolutionary adaptation, while the eonviornment is something to which an organism must adapt.

Given this evolutionary narrative, let us use our three-letter words analogy and set up one population(P) of organisms and its gene pool:

Population P:
organism 1: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 2: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 3: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 4: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 5: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------

So, we have our population and its gene pool which contains 7 evolutionary adaptations(bio-functions).

After the reproduction, an extra copy of a gene is made in the genome of the "organism 2", which gives us the following gene pool:

Population P:
organism 1: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 2: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---wox-
organism 3: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 4: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 5: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------

This duplicated gene is free to explore new adaptations(bio-functions). But, given the evolutionary narrative, in order for an organism to adapt, we also need an environment. So let us suppose that the following new environment emerges:

"All three-letter words that name animals".

In the contect of this environment this adaptations are functional:

ant, ape, auk, bat, bee, bot, boy, bug, cat, cod, dab, doe, dog, eel, eft, elk, emu, ewe, fly, fox, gnu, guy, hen, hog, jay, kea, kit, owl, pig, ram, rat, sow, teg, cow

Since the sequence space of three-letter words is 17,576(26 letters ^3) and we have 35 functional sequences, it follows that only 1 in 502 three-letter sequences is functional. In other words, on average we need 502 resources in order to adapt to our new enviornment.

Now, given the first point made by evolutionists on this thread, they would respond in the following way:

"Forexhr, you made a major technical mistake in assuming that you need 502 resources to adapt to "All three-letter words that name animals" enviornment, because the Scrabble Dictionary recognizes 1015 three-letter words that are also functional."

The above claim presupposes that because theoretically we can create 1015 different "functions" with three-letter words, it follows that we don't need to spend 502 resources in order to find "functional" three-letter words that name animals, but only 17 (17,576/1015).

No. If the animal words represent the only words which are useful to the organism at the time in your analogy, and a new coding gene arrives, 502 resources would be right. If other 3 letter words could be useful at the time, then it's less than 502 for any new gene. Whatever does arrive is not a target. So, how many different non-repressor functions would have been useful to the Lambda ancestor when it first gained its repressor? How many different evolutionary paths could it have taken without a repressor but with something else? How big is the field of potentially functional descendents of that Lambda ancestor that never came into existence? 10^1000 or more?

forexhr writes:

The absurdity of such reasoning is obvious. We cannot use all actual, or potential bio-functions that were, or will be produced with 92 AAs and then claim that the existance of these bio-functions reduces the resources necessary to adapt to a particular environment.

But how have you worked out what proportion of 92 AA proteins would have been of some use to Lambda's ancestor in any function at the time, and how do you know what actual function the repressor's ancestral protein had, and what makes you think it was necessary on arrival rather than just one of many possible advantages?

forxhr writes:

Given our population P:

organism 1: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 2: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---wox-
organism 3: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 4: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------
organism 5: -----are -------bit-----hop ----fun------vox----too--- yes---------

The fact that the three-letter words - "are", "bit", "hop", "fun", "vox", "too" and "yes" exist in the gene pool of the population, cannot change neither the sequence space of three-letter words(17,576), nor the number of three-letter words that are required for adaptation to the current environment("All three-letter words that name animals") at the "wox" loci.

So, the first point is pure nonsense.

So, if 2*(10^119) 92AA proteins would have been useful in some way to the Lambda ancestor at the time it received its repressor, that would match your analogy, and it would take ~500 resources with the repressor being just as good a result as any other, like "rat" in your analogy.

forexhr writes:

The second point, which argues that proteins with very different sequences can also perform the lambda represor function, is like saying that we can use very different three-letter words to fulfil the above mentioned ecological niche - "All three-letter words that name animals".

As such, this point is just redundant rhetoric because if 10^57 possible sequences for Lambda represor are functional that also means that many of them are "very different". But of course, 1 in 10^63 ratio still stands.

Fold ≠ Function and a specific function isn't a target.

forexhr writes:

Likewise, in the group of three-letter words that name animals, many of them are very different(fox vs. gnu for e.g.), but from that it doesn't follow that the above mentioned ratio(1 in 502) is not valid.

But you've made them both up. Your 1990 paper doesn't claim 1 in 10^63 for function and no function is a target. Because you don't know what proportion of all structures might perform a specific function, the best thing to do is to test random strings for an arbitrary specific function (Szostak: ~10^11 for a hit).

Functional Proteins from a random sequence library

forexhr writes:

As we can see, the responses given are totally unfounded, they are just nonsensical ad hoc excuses whose only purpose was to keep faith in the ToE and to have some justification for labeling my argument a fallacy(sharpshooter for e.g.). Therefore, my statement, that evolution can't even explain the origin of one below average protein is correct.

Since convincing an evolutionist that the ToE is false is like convincing a flat-earther that the Earth is spherical, there's nothing here for me anymore. Hence, over and out.

I think you're running scared, and might have found out that Fold isn't Function.

*I thought I'd just add a bit more pretentious Latin to the thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by forexhr, posted 04-24-2017 12:16 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1516171819
20
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017