Disadvantageous Mutations: Figures

I wouldn't.I figure most of the deleterious mutations lead to non-viable offspring that we wouldn't expect to grow to a state to where they could become fossilized.Further, even if they were viable, but simply could not reproduce, you wouldn't be able to tell that by looking at a fossil.

I don't think those stats are correct for what you're trying to say. There's chemistry involved, so it's not going to be the same as like the odds of a purely-physical event happening, like coin flips or something. Like if there were electromagnetic forces involved in the coin flip, it might not be purely random anymore; the chemistry catalyzes certain reactions and not others, plus, the "space of all proteins" would include ones that aren't even realistic.But to go with the coin flip analogy, you're saying something like: There are two ways in which a coin can land on its side, heads or tails. But, there are a almost an infinite number of ways that the coin could land one of the many places along its edge. Therefore, it is practically impossible for a coin flip to land on heads or tails.

That's what I'm saying. When you wrote:

quote:

---

A major problem is that functional proteins appear to be exceedingly rare in the space of all proteins. Axe estimated it to be about 1/10^77.

---

The probability of getting most of the proteins in "the space of all proteins" is also infinitesimal, so you have the wrong statistical estimate there. There is not equal weight on those improbable proteins forming so you can't include them like that in the estimate of the functional proteins forming. If you did, it would be just like including all the places where a coin could land on its edge in the calculation of the odds of it landing on heads or tails. Then something has to be wrong, because functional proteins do form. The problem is that proteins don't form from random pieces randomly coming together and joining mechanically. There's chemistry involved and some reactions are catalyzed and some are practically impossible. To calculate the odds of one particular protein forming out of the space of all proteins is not the right calculation to determine the chances of a particular protein forming.In fact, some proteins could form inevitably.

Where by "machinery" you mean "chemicals doing chemistry"... That's what I said. But the calculation of a protein forming from the space of all proteins assumes they do randomly come together and join mechanically, so the calculation is the wrong one. And the same calculation done on the space of all coin landings shows us that coin flips landing on either the heads or tails side are exceedingly rare. The math is bad.

No, I meant what I wrote.Heads and tails are 2 out of a nearly infinite number of places that a coin flip can land, if you are included all the places along the edge. So, using that in your calculation of the odds of it landing on heads or tails will get you an almost impossible chance of it.Similiarly, that's why using the calculation in the space of "all possible proteins" is also erroneaous, for the reasons I've prevoiusly explained. Like what? Do you have an example?All biology can be boiled down to complex chemistry, just like all chemistry can be boiled down to complex physics.There are no exceptions that I am aware of. You? Wrong. It takes more than just setting the ingredients in the oven to get bread, but the bread is not made of more than the ingredients. That's still chemicals doing chemistry. That is based on bad math though, so it isn't true.Added by edit:From Message 67: No, this is completely wrong. Not all chemical reactions are the same. For example, some of them require catalysis while some of them are spontaneous.The incredibly complex chemical system know as "a frog" cannot be created by simply setting all of the ingredients next to each other.Salt water, on the other hand, yes - just mix them.Edited by New Cat's Eye, : see Added by Edit

Got a link to the paper?

Sort of, but not really. What are you thinking of?