Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 6:23 PM
24 online now:
edge, Faith, jar, JonF, ooh-child, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,882 Year: 11,918/19,786 Month: 1,699/2,641 Week: 208/708 Day: 35/40 Hour: 4/13


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456Next
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 1 of 293 (803478)
03-31-2017 3:26 AM


All bio-structures are built of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur(CHNOPS), and differ only in number and spatial arrangements of these elements. Hence, if we start with the simple self-replicating molecule(evolution's starting point), then the only way to find new proteins, molecular machines, organs or organ systems is by re-arrangement of CHNOPS.

The idea of evolution is based on two fundamental premises. The first one says that mutations cause variations or re-arrangements of CHNOPS. The second one says that the certain variations will be selectively preserved in response to environment. For example, when functional protein exists, and it is beneficial in the current environment, then - it will be selected. That's fine.

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

Edited by Admin, : Add paragraph breaks and turn the references into links.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2017 7:47 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 03-31-2017 8:10 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-31-2017 11:25 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Astrophile, posted 03-31-2017 12:31 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2017 2:42 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 03-31-2017 5:00 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 36 by herebedragons, posted 04-02-2017 11:33 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 139 by bluegenes, posted 04-09-2017 8:45 AM forexhr has responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 5 of 293 (803483)
03-31-2017 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
03-31-2017 7:47 AM


This argument is not about the origin of the first replicators. It is about the origin of 'evolutionary-selectable' arrangements of CHNOPS(de novo proteins, molecular machines, organs or organ systems) in the context of the resources available to evolution and all the possible ways in which CHNOPS comprising bio-structures can be arranged.

Hence, the question is how does the theory of evolution explains the problem of arrival to the 'evolutionary-selectable state'? 'Evolutionary-selectable state' in the evolution of some biological system or structure is such an arrangement of CHNOPS, or nucleotides in the DNA, which contains information necessary to build functional system or structure that offers a selectable benefit to an organism. If something offers selectable benefit then, of course, it will be selected. But, before selection happens, we have one huge problem.

There are virtually infinite number of ways in which CHNOPS comprising bio-structures can be arranged. For e.g. if we take CHNOPS in the form of 4 nucleotides, only 1,000 of them can be arranged into 10e602 combinations.
Or, let us consider nucleotide arrangements needed to build a human heart.
If we assume that only 8.2 percent of human DNA is functional(1), and given the ratio between the heart-weight and body-weight in humans, there is approximately 1,230,000 nucleotides representing the information to build a human heart. This nucleotides can be arranged into 10e740,000 possible combinations.

Given the Reidhaar-Olson&Sauer ratio of protein functionality, where for a protein 92 AA long, with 10e122 possible AA combinatios, there is only 1 in every 10e63 functional sequence, that means that only 1 in every 10e382,000 combination contains information for a functional human heart.

Using fast mutation rates, total number of organisms that have ever lived on Earth, length of genomes and so forth... published extreme upper limit estimates puts the maximum number of mutations at 10e43. Now, even if all mutational resources were spent on search for functional heart, the probability to find the information to build a human heart is 1/10e381,950. This is like winning the lottery jackpot 54,560 times in a row. Now, we now that in everyday life, if a person believes that it is possible to win the jackpot 'only' 10 times in a row, this person would be called crazy.

So, by what process did evolution arrived to the selectability states and find functional(evolutionary-selectable) arrangement of CHNOPS in the space of 10e382,000 junk combinations with only 10e43 resources available?

(1) http://www.sci-news.com/...2-human-dna-functional-02083.html

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2017 7:47 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2017 9:14 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 6 of 293 (803484)
03-31-2017 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
03-31-2017 8:10 AM


Re: the math is not the mountain
I am not talking about models but physical resources available to evolution and virtually infinite number of ways in which CHNOPS comprising bio-structures can be arranged. Your personal description of my argument and rationalisation from the TalkOrigins has nothing to do with that.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 03-31-2017 8:10 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 03-31-2017 3:42 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 13 of 293 (803491)
03-31-2017 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Coyote
03-31-2017 9:56 AM


I constructed an argument so simple that it cannot be misrepresented.

Premise 1: All bio-structures are built from the same six essential elemental ingredients: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur (CHNOPS).

Premise 2: In order to find functional bio-structures - lungs, heart, blood vessels, stomach, liver, kidneys, muscles, brain, nerves, skin, hair, ovaries, uterus, testes, prostate, penis, bones, ligaments..., it is necessary to change spatial arrangements of CHNOPS.

Premise 3: In order to change spatial arrangements of CHNOPS we need resources.

Premise 4: There were 10e43 resources(mutations) available in the whole evolution process.

Premise 5: There are 10e63 junk(non-selectable) arrangements of CHNOPS in just one simple bio-structure (protein).

Premise 6: All evolutionary resources were insufficient to find just one selectable state(functional bio-structure) for evolution to preserve, let alone all protein folds, organs and organ systems that we observe in biology.

Conclusion: Evolution didn't happen.

Hence, you can either show that premises in this argument are not true or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. But, you cannot disprove an argument by appeals to things that make you laugh.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Coyote, posted 03-31-2017 9:56 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 03-31-2017 11:58 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 15 by jar, posted 03-31-2017 12:03 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-31-2017 12:13 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2017 1:22 PM forexhr has responded
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 04-04-2017 6:02 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 19 of 293 (803498)
03-31-2017 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by PaulK
03-31-2017 1:22 PM


Your objections are irrelevant to the problem in question since clusters of CHNOPS in the form of cells can also be arranged into virtually infinite number of junk configurations.

A heart valve for example is comprised of many millions of cells. Given the poly-3D enumeration mathematics, just a thousand cells can be arrangement into approximately 8.37x10e3,271 different combinations - 2e(n−7)ne(n−9) (n−4)(8ne8−128ne7+828ne6−2930ne5+7404ne4−17523ne3+41527ne2−114302n+204960)/6.

Hence, just for a heart valve you have a combinatorial space that is 8.37x10e3,271 in size. On the other hand, you have just 10e43 resources to scan through this space which means that evolution is physically impossible.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2017 1:22 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2017 2:45 PM forexhr has responded
 Message 27 by caffeine, posted 04-01-2017 7:51 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 22 of 293 (803501)
03-31-2017 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
03-31-2017 2:45 PM


The DNA codes for spatial arrangements of cells in the form of functional bio-structures. A heart valve is one such arrangement, while the ear is another. In between you have a nearly infinite number of junk arrangements. You can't just wave a magic wand of mutations and jump from one bio-functional arrangement of cells to another, and than claim - natural selection did it!

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2017 2:45 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2017 3:10 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-31-2017 6:36 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 28 of 293 (803562)
04-02-2017 4:45 AM


Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei once said: "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."

And that's the beauty of my argument: it is easy to understand.

That is why people in this thread, who a priori believe in evolution, keep saying things that have nothing to do with my argument - they describe it, they put it in the categories, they ask questions irelevant to it, etc. But the fact is that nobody can argue against it because it's entirely based on three simple observaions:

A) All possible arrangements of building blocks(atoms, molecules, compounds or cells) for ordinary collections of matter are inconveniently large(for e.g. given the poly-3D enumeration mathematics, only a thousand building blocks can be arrangement into approximately 8.37x10e3,271 different spatial arrangements.)

B) Most collections of matter are junk with regards to anything meaningful in biology.(e.g. in a collection of just 90 molecules(amino acids) only 1 in 10e63 arrangements are biologically meaningful.

C) In a time span of around 4.5 billion years there have been only 10e43 resources available to search for these biologically meaningful collections of matter. In other words, the total number of resources available to evolution was insufficient to find only one simple bio-functional collection of matter composed of just 90 building blocks(amino acids), let alone bio-structures composed of billions and billions of building blocks.

These three simple observations will not change if we start to argue whether or not my argument is mathematical model, whether evolution is a fact or a theory, whether CHNOPS arrangements are spatial, physical or chemical, whether or not all proteins are equal, whether or not environment(besides mutations) can also affect spatial arrangement of matter, etc.

I am not here to engage in endless debates about about evolution and creation or intelligent design, but to suggest people to stop thinking in terms of concepts created in human minds and start thinking in terms of physicochemical reality. The theory of evolution is just a concept created in a human mind, or more specifically - a classification system that classifies living things according to similarity - nothing more nothing less. This concept has absolutely nothing to do with physicochemical reality of matter and its inconveniently large potential for non-biological manifestations. That is why I am not responding to most of the posts on this threat - they are simply irrelevant to physicochemical reality of matter but instead, they are instances of concepts.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2017 5:14 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 35 by caffeine, posted 04-02-2017 12:00 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 30 of 293 (803578)
04-02-2017 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by PaulK
04-02-2017 5:14 AM


It is really unfortunate that you view this as a pissing contest. I simply stated three facts from which it follows logically that evolution didn't happen. Which of those three facts do you deny: possible spatial arrangements for ordinary collections of matter, share of bio-functionality in these arrangements or the resources available to search for this bio-functionality?

Regarding the taxonomy this is just another word for the concept of evolution since mechanisms by which life is modified over time are physicochemical and not conceptual. In other words, life is modified the same way as any collection of matter in our universe - particles or clusters of particles are interacting and changing their spatial arrangements on the basis of four fundamental forces of nature - gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Just because people created a concept that describes bio-similarity and just because clasters of particles in the form of molecules(or cells) are capable to change their spatial positions due to mutations for e.g., it does not follow that bacteria like arrangement of particles will become heart like arrangement of particles. The reason for that is simple - even if every proton in the observable universe were an organism, reproducing at the highest speed physically possible(10e43/sec - which is inverse of Planck time), from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when protons no longer exist), they would still need need a ridiculously longer time - more than two thousand orders of magnitude longer - to explore all possible spatial arrangements of just a thousand particles. The probability to find highly isolated clusters of bio-functionality(useful in terms of natural selection) in these arrangements is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event. No human concept can change that.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2017 5:14 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2017 8:29 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 32 by jar, posted 04-02-2017 8:34 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2017 8:39 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 04-02-2017 10:03 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 37 of 293 (803654)
04-03-2017 4:58 AM


I am genuinely stunned with the ability of the people in this thread to ignore the essence of my argument. This argument simply expresses the lack of the resources necessary to extract bio-functionality from organic matter, while most of the responses are just personal rationalizations of a priori belief in evolution. Only the last two posts are actually more or less direct responses, but are unfortunately flawed. Here is why.

caffeine writes:

This observation is false, as I pointed out in the post immediately prior to where you wrote this.


You pointed out that available evolutionary resources should be many orders of magnitude larger then 10e43. But, given the size of the combinatorial space (where for e.g. only a 1,000 nucleotides can be arranged into 10e602 different combinations), even if we use all the resources available in the universe from the Big Bang until now(10e80 atoms, 10e43 events per atom per sec for 10e25 sec => 10e148 resources), they are still not even remotely close to explore this space. Hence, your response is pure red herring.

herebedragons writes:

It seems to me that you didn't actually read these papers that you referenced. The way you are using the information you cite from them is basically dishonest.The paper "Functionally acceptable substitutions in two alpha-helical regions of lambda repressor. " does state that 1063 figure, but it is in reference to the gamma-repressor folds, not all functional sequences in general. Your statement is that there are only 1 in 1063 functional proteins - meaning with any function. But that is not what the paper claims.


So here you argue against the share of bio-functionality in organic matter composed of 92 amino acids, by suggesting that my statement about 1 functional in 10e63 protein sequences is 'dishonest'. Well, here is the fact - all 'functional sequences in general', as you put it, cannot neither perform concrete biological functions, nor fill specific environmental niches. The "gamma repressor fold" is an example of specific biological function. In the context of evolution, if an environmental niche exists that is filled with "gamma repressor fold", then obviously, first you need to extract this specific 'fold' from organic matter. 'Functional sequences in general' are irrelevant in that regard. Once specific 'fold' is extracted, the new allele will enter the gene pool and be subject to natural selection(allele frequency will either remain constant, increase or decrease.) But, as the paper claims, "the gamma repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 in 10e63 of the total number of possible 92-residue sequences". So, I am correct, you don't have enough resources to extract bio-functionality from organic matter. And this is just for one small protein composed of 92 building blocks. Now imagine a structure that is built from millions and millions of building blocks, like heart or kidney. The probability to extract bio-functionality from such a big number of building blocks is obviously zero.
Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Pressie, posted 04-03-2017 7:13 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2017 9:20 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2017 9:28 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 46 by herebedragons, posted 04-03-2017 2:06 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 04-03-2017 2:21 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 41 of 293 (803667)
04-03-2017 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
04-03-2017 9:28 AM


Re: star dust and the origin of life
I am well aware of just so stories that people use in order to rationalize their beliefs in evolution and you can use them in any way you like. But unfortunately, these are just unfalsifiable narrative explanations totally unrelated to the topic in question. This topic is about share of bio-functionality in organic matter and resources necessary to extract this bio-functionality. Better luck next time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2017 9:28 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2017 11:02 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2017 11:44 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 04-03-2017 11:49 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 48 of 293 (803726)
04-04-2017 3:14 AM


All the responses made after my last post are boiling down to one hidden assumption, and that is that evolution jumps from one bio-functional solution to another. Well, here's the news. This hidden assumption is deeply flawed and it doesn't have any basis in reality because bio-structures exist as tiny clusters of bio-functionality in a vast empty space of non-functionality. This tiny clusters are like islands where mutations can explore the same qualitative type of bio-function to at least some selectable advantage - along the edges of the islands are arrangements that are marginally beneficial, while in the center of the islands are arrangements that are strongly beneficial for the particular type of bio-function in question - gamma repressor fold for e.g. In this scenario, it is very easy to move the population rapidly up the slopes of the island to the very peak of the island. Hence, improving bio-functionality of a given type on a particular island isn’t a problem for evolution.

But the problem arises when one tries to leave the island in order to find(extract bio-functionality) other islands(new protein folds or new organs), and find itself in a vast empty space of non-functionality - in an ocean. Here, evolutionists presuppose the existence of a nice little paths of closely spaced sequentially selectable steppingstones. Unfortunately, these paths are just mental fantasies that are not grounded in reality. Once you start messing up with the information on how to build a specific organ or a protein fold you won't end up with another functional organ or protein fold, but probably with cancer and junk sequence of amino acids that is unable to fold into a specific tertiary structure. Magic jumps from one bio-functional solution to another do not exist. Hence, when one tries to leave the island of bio-functionality he will end up in the vast ocean of non-functionality. Once in the ocean, there is a lack of resources to reach another island(like I already explained). In other words, there are only two options: either natural selection will simply reverse the random walk back onto the original island from which it started or the walk will end in a death.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by vimesey, posted 04-04-2017 4:28 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2017 8:37 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-04-2017 10:27 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 04-04-2017 12:28 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 56 of 293 (803811)
04-05-2017 7:27 AM


I would like to remind that this thread is not about just so stories, evolutionary models, hypotheses and ad hoc hypotheses, fictional explanations... but about the physical reality of matter, or more specifically, about the share of bio-functionality in it. Matter is composed of particles. The more particles there are, the more different 3D structures can be created. With 2 particles we can create 1 3D structure, with 3 particles 2 different 3D structures, with 5 particles 12, with 15 particles 3426576, with 28 particles 153511100594603 and with 1000 particles we can create 8.37x10e3271 differnet 3D structures.(1)

Hence, this is the physical reality of matter - with small number of particles you can create inconveniently large number of different 3D material structures. Or, to put it another way, all the resources in the universe, from its birth to its hypothetical death are insufficient to arrange only 1000 particles into all possible 3D structures. Given the fact that a heart for e.g. is also a 3D structure composed of particles(cells) and given the fact that there are billions of these particles, no evolutionary model, hypotheses or fictional explanation can change the fact that 10e43 evolutionary changes in spatial arrangemants of particles(mutations) are insufficient to extract functional, pump like structure from these particles.

So please, stop spamming my thread with abstract claims like: "beneficial mutations can improve the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce", with arguments like: "you are wrong, here is the link, therefore you are wrong", with apeals to Dawkins' articles, with models about relationship between genotypes and reproductive success... because these things have nothing to do with neither physical reality of matter not share of bio-functionality in it.

http://kevingong.com/Polyominoes/Enumeration.html


Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Pressie, posted 04-05-2017 7:41 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2017 7:56 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 59 by Pressie, posted 04-05-2017 8:26 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 66 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 9:42 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 60 of 293 (803825)
04-05-2017 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Pressie
04-05-2017 7:41 AM


Pressie writes:

Yes, I know, Lead 6+ will never fit into a tetrahedal crystal structure. The chances are zero, no matter how much creationists tell untruths about it and call those assumptions. So, what's your point?


My point is that evolutionary resources are millions and millions orders of magnitude insufficient to extract functional, pump like structure from billions of particles(cells). And what's your point?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Pressie, posted 04-05-2017 7:41 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 61 of 293 (803826)
04-05-2017 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by PaulK
04-05-2017 7:56 AM


Re: Back to the same mistake
PaulK writes:

10^43 random rearrangements wouldn't be enough. Evolution doesn't work by random rearrangements.


It is irrelevant how evolution works. Evolution is just a name for a human mental construct. What is relevant is to refute my claim that evolutionary resources are insufficient to extract functional bio-structures from clusters of particles.
quote:
Now do you actually have an argument that takes account of the actual processes involved or are you going to go on wasting your time repeating the same error again and again?

This is actually you job. You have to provide an argument that takes account of the actual evolutionary processes and show how these processes overcome infinite potential of matter for non-biological manifestation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2017 7:56 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2017 8:46 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2017 8:47 AM forexhr has responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 64 of 293 (803834)
04-05-2017 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by PaulK
04-05-2017 8:47 AM


Re: Back to the same mistake
Sorry Paul, but you cannot refute an argument by saying: your argument is based on a ridiculous false assumption. You need to explain why the assumption is false. And in order to do that you have to provide an argument that shows how evolutionary processes can overcome infinite potential of matter for non-biological manifestation. You can start with my practical example - gamma repressor fold. The result of the experiment has shown that ..."the gamma repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 in 10e63 of the total number of possible 92-residue sequences".

So let's take one textbook example of evolution. Imagine that we have an environmental area that is inhabited by some organisms. Sources of food in this area are drying up and organisms are in danger of extinction. But, there is a plenty of other energy rich substances as food replacements. The only problem is that genes for metabolic pathway to convert this substance into usable energy do not exist in a gene pool of that population. Metabolic pathway that can convert this energy rich substances into useable energy consists of 3 enzymes. Hence, the information on how to bulid these enzymes is not present in the DNA, just like the information on how to bulid heart was not present in the genetic material of the first self-replicating organism. So, here evolution needs to find a solution to this problem which means, evolution needs to find the right combination of nucleotides in the DNA so that cell can produce functional enzymes with the ability to convert energy rich substances into usable energy.

If we suppose the same level of functionality as in the gamma repressor fold can you please explain how evolutionary processes can overcome the exceedingly small fraction of enzyme functionality in all possible enzyme sequences.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2017 8:47 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 9:56 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2017 11:10 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
1
23456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019