|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5245 days) Posts: 27 From: Adelaide, Australia. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
20,000 (that's the estimated number of enzymes possible) What do you mean here? That there are 20,000 protein coding genes in humans? That there are only 20,000 possible functional coding sequences? Once again simply picking a number out of the air with no real basis leads you to make ludicrous statements. Simply understanding the concept of third base wobble shows you should be cutting your improbablilty factor by about a third since in many cases changes at the third base do not affect the amino acid sequence produced. The number you need to be able to divide by is the number of all possible functional coding sequences for the function in question, if you want to calculate the chance of a specific function arising. But even then you are making the same mistake that has been pointed out numerous times by assuming that that particular function was a goal that had to be reached rather than just the particular endpoint that happened to be reached. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4488 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
What do you mean here? That there are 20,000 protein coding genes in humans? That there are only 20,000 possible functional coding sequences? It is estimated that there are around 20,000 enzymes. I don't know how accurate this figure is- if you have a more accurate one, please let me know.
Simply understanding the concept of third base wobble shows you should be cutting your improbability factor by about a third since in many cases changes at the third base do not affect the amino acid sequence produced. You want to reduce the figure by 1/3? Go ahead. It's still side-splittingly improbable.
But even then you are making the same mistake that has been pointed out numerous times by assuming that that particular function was a goal No no. By taking all the enzymes into account I'm including any function. "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
It's really not that hard. No, I understand your probablity. Having taught enough maths/physics undergrads probablity theory, that would be expected of me You claimed that 41000-20,000 different combinations of 1000 bp would not produce *anything*. That is very very wrong...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
It is estimated that there are around 20,000 enzymes. I don't know how accurate this figure is- if you have a more accurate one, please let me know. I would, but I still don't know what you mean and it doesn't sound like you do either. Can you tell us where you got this estimate from? I can find sources quoting 20,000 as the number of distinct enzymes in a human body or cell, but thats all. That certainly doesn't fit with your idea that there are only 20,000 possible functional enzymes sequences since almost all other species have numerous functional enzymes with multiple structural differences from those in humans.
No no. By taking all the enzymes into account I'm including any function. But you are only taking all other enzymes in the human body into account, if that is the origin of your number, this won't include all the other possible sequences that perform the exact same function. If you can't tell us where this number comes from how can we tell you exactly how wrong you are? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
Kaichos Man writes: But given fertile, child-friendly ancestors, the chances of a human being occuring, Colin or someone else, is 1. Evolution doesn't have to achieve anything. That's why the overwhelming probability is that it will achieve nothing. You're still lost on probabilities and targets, and you seem to be assuming the necessity of teleology in order to prove it, all of which indicates that you have a very Behe-like mind. History always "achieves" something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Look at it this way. Let's say evolution has 1000 base pairs to play with. It can do anything it likes with them. There are 41000 possible combinations. One of them will produce an enzyme. The other (41000)-1 will produce nothing useful.
Take a look at the online lecture I referenced in post #9. It shows that genetic networks are robust. By robust biologists mean that many combinations work. That is in complete opposition to the numbers you are playing with. The title of the lecture is "Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices." It is found at the link I provided in post #9, as well as on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsbKzFdW2bM Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MarkAustin Member (Idle past 3815 days) Posts: 122 From: London., UK Joined:
|
'cos I have this feeling that you're making this up as you go along... It's really not that hard. Each nucleotide can be one of four bases A,T,C or G. The chance of any one being correct for the enzyme in question is therefore 1 in 4. First nucleotide correct? 1 in 4. Second nucleotide correct as well? 1 in 42=16. Third as well? 1 in 43=64. And so on, all the way up to 1 in 41000. The -1 represents the one chance in this enormous figure that will give you the desired enzyme. If you want any enzyme you can divide the result by 20,000 (that's the estimated number of enzymes possible). It's still a laughingly tiny probability. Yet another argument based on a misunderstanding of basic statistics. The calculation is based on a number of incorrect assumptions. The first is that mutations are independent of each other. They are not. Each mutation must produce a viable outcome. That means that any mutation, in order to survive and be selected for must either be an improvement or neutral. Unfavourable ones will be selected out. This reduces the number of possible outcomes. Once a mutation has been fixed another mutation which may not have been possible/viable before now becmes possible. (OK it is possible that a mildly unfavourable mutation might survive long enough for a second one to happen). Secondly, the calculation assumes a goal: that the particular enzyme (for example) produced is the only possible one. We know from biological observation that enzymes with greatly differing structures will perform the same function: see cytochrome c:
Here is an example of the differences in cytochrome C between organisms; this was posted on talk.origins: "Nearly every living thing on earth has as part of its makeup a protein called cytochrome C. This protein is made up of about 100 amino acid molecules arranged in a long chain. In a yeast cell ony 50 of these amino acids are the same as man's.In a kernel of wheat 43 are different. In a silkworm's body 31 are different In a tuna fish's body 21 are different. In a frog's body 18 are different. In a snake's body only 14 are different. In a dog's only 11 are different. And in a rhesus monkey's body only 1 amino acid out of 100 in the chain of cytochrome c is different." Also, in many cases, you can take the enzyme from one species, imnplant it in another and have it function. The plain fact is that calculating evolotionary probabilities is impossible: all that those wo try to do is construct an calculation of the propability of a particular molecule exisiting as a function of the probability of assembling it from its components in one operation and then draw an a priori assumption that the mindumbing number conclusion that it could not happen. This is what I call the Bridge Hand Fallacy. If you are playing bridge, the probability of getting any hand of 12 cards is 1 in 158,753,389,900. However, the probability of getting a hand of 12 cards is very slightly less than 1 (the game could be interrupted). For Whigs admit no force but argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4488 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
But you are only taking all other enzymes in the human body into account Let's simplify things and say its the possibility of evolving a human enzyme. There. Now the figures are correct. Show me how wrong I am. "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4488 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
The title of the lecture is "Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices." Computer models can return any result you like. You just tweak the variables until you get the desired outcome. Dawkins "Weasel" is a classic example. Edited by Kaichos Man, : typo "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Kaichos Man writes: Computer models can return any result you like. You just tweak the variables until you get the desired outcome. I suggest you ask John Baumgardner, creationist developer of the Terra computer model of the flood, if he agrees with this characterization. If what you said were actually true then there would be no point in building computer models of the weather, spacecraft flight paths or anything else. I myself develop software for modeling computer designs so that hardware designers at companies like Intel and IBM can verify that their designs work before they go through the expensive step of actually casting their design into silicon. If all they did was simply "tweaked" their models until they got the result they wanted instead of learning about the problems in their design then they'd never get a successful design and there would be no point to modelling. Your modus operandi is to cast about thoughtless criticisms right and left. Might I suggest a bit of fact checking or study before putting fingers in gear. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The title of the lecture is "Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices." Computer models can return any result you like. You just tweak the variables until you get the desired outcome. Dawkins "Weasel" is a classic example. Do you have any evidence that that model has been tweaked? Any evidence that that model is flawed in any way? Or do you just dislike the results, and are looking for some way to denigrate the model? Unfortunately, I suspect that creation "science" is nothing more than this in the long run. No evidence, just a bunch of "what ifs" thrown out cast doubt on legitimate science and to fool the gullible. Why don't you watch that lecture again and see if you can refute the science and math. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
There. Now the figures are correct. Show me how wrong I am. "The figures are correct", seriously? You just totally changed what the figure was supposed to represent but your argument is still supposed to make sense? The point is that, as has now been pointed out ad nauseam, the specific sequence coding for an enzyme is not the only possible sequence that codes for a functioning form of that enzyme. All you need to do is look up a few enzyme encoding genes in entrez and you can find numerous sequence variations in humans, in the form of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). So even these estimated 20,000 human enzymes have a wider range of functional variation in the human population than you are willing to concede, and we have little if any idea what the limits of that functional variation are. So you are wrong because the numbers you are using don't actually seem to refer to anything in reality, and also in that your approach relies on the need for specific sequences. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Computer models can return any result you like. You just tweak the variables until you get the desired outcome. Don't be silly.
Dawkins "Weasel" is a classic example. Good grief, are you still being wrong about that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3641 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined: |
Oh dear!
It's really not that hard. Each nucleotide can be one of four bases A,T,C or G. The chance of any one being correct for the enzyme in question is therefore 1 in 4. First nucleotide correct? 1 in 4. Second nucleotide correct as well? 1 in 42=16. Third as well? 1 in 43=64. And so on, all the way up to 1 in 41000. The -1 represents the one chance in this enormous figure that will give you the desired enzyme. If you want any enzyme you can divide the result by 20,000 (that's the estimated number of enzymes possible). It's still a laughingly tiny probability. Utter miscomprehension on how probability stacks up in evolution. What you don't appreciate is that evolution works on the power of accumulation. I'm sure Michael Wong won't object if I refer you to his excellent probability page off his creationtheory.org website: Probability - (Entire article as one page) Please read this page Kaichos Man. There is quite a bit to absorb but there is a fun widget program to play that really brings home how series accumulation in probability helps evolution to home in on what appears to be impossible odds. It's easily the best and most easily understood treatise on the subject I have come across. Edited by Drosophilla, : last sentence added.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
There. Now the figures are correct. 2+2=4 ∴ you're and idiot. I hope this demonstrates once and for all that getting the arithmetic right does not imply agreement between a mathematical model and reality.
Show me how wrong I am. You've been shown any number of times. After the fact probabilities don't have partial values. It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say. Anon
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024