|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: TOE and the Reasons for Doubt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
We know exactly what the sequence needs to be. No, we know what the sequence happens to be. It does not *need* to be this sequence. Try again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
We know what the required sequence is. Therefore mutations are going to be "correct" or "incorrect" with regard to its construction. Wrong again You are fixated on the outcome, a classic probability mistake. You have to consider the space of all possible outcomes, of which the observed antenna is just one outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
Mr Jack writes: You can't treat the probabilities of an event that has already occured like that way; if you could no-one would ever win the lottery This last statement only makes sense if you believe in evolution. Nonsense. It makes complete sense because it is true, irrespective of your take on creation or evolution. Unless you think that probability theory is also an invention of the devil and not to be trusted
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
I assume you are making some oblique reference to synonymous codons. Not in the slightest - I am talking about your confusion between an observed outcome and the entire outcome probability space. This is mathematics, not genetics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
Let me get this straight. You can try...
You're saying that the probabilities of our new gene resulting in an antenna are improved by the fact that it might turn into something else? ...and fail. Of course I'm not saying this. The observed antenna is just one acceptable outcome. How big is the space of acceptable oucomes? I haven't a clue.
That's priceless! If you say so
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The outcome that produces a fruitfly's wing is a miniscule fraction of acceptable outcomes. If we're talking about outcomes over all creatures, then looking around at every creature upon the planet, I don't see many with fruitfly wings, so I can agree with you. If you are talking about a single generation, with some hypothetical wing-less proto-fruitfly population suddenly developing wings overnight, I'd also agree with you. Is this how you think fruitflies got their wings in an evolutionary scenario? Perhaps you need to define a bit more clearly exactly what you're trying to say?
The probability of a fruitfly's wing not being arrived at is 4^1000-1/4^1000. Err, you may want to rethink that number Seriously though, a fruitfly's wing not being arrived at from what? A fruitfly that doesn't have wings?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The outcome that produces a gene relating to a fruitfly's wing is a vanishingly small fraction of this. For a 1000 base pair gene it is 1/41000. No, what you mean is that *THE* gene, the observed gene, relating to a fruitfly's wing is a vanishingly small fraction of this. Question 1) How many possible genes would lead to a working wing? Question 2) Why do we even need a wing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
This argument about lunar regression and the time factor is another explosive issue that they are confronted with. Yeah, my coffee exploded all over my screen when I read your drivel Given that I utterly refuted your nonsense in a single post, do you think you could go back over there and acknowledge - thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
the toe that darwin coined is not the same theory we have today, yet we are expected to believe that he was spot on??? Who expects you to believe that Darwin was spot on? What a stupid thing to expect. Please state who did this so that we can laugh at them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
Modern biochemistry has revealed just how complex living things really are. Cells can only function if all the parts are complete and working properly. Or IOW, the first complex cell must have appeared instantaneously as a complete functioning unit. Peg, this is so easy, why are you not getting it? The first complex cells were produced from the last ever-so-slightly-less-than-complex cells. And the earlier not-quite-so-complex cells came from the ever-so-slightly-less-than-not-quite-so-complex cells. Ok, let's turn it around. Here's a possible scenario for the first cells - they were just 'bubbles' with a lipid membrane or wall and with sea water on the inside. Pure mineral. Free lipids in the sea would be drawn into the membrane and the 'bubble' would grow. Turbulence in the water would cause large bubbles to pinch off into two bubbles. This is the very start. How complex is this? These bubbles then become great containers for organic molecules, which pass in and out of the bubble. Some of these organic molecules can self-polymerise (form long chanins), and then become trapped inside the 'bubbles' as they are too large to migrate through the lipid membrane. Some of polymers could even duplicate themselves. But so far they don't "do" anything - they just sit inside their lipid containers. But some polymers could be produced that are useful - say they catalyse the formation of more lipids. Now, those bubbles with lipid-producing polymers will grow more, as they have more lipids, and will then split more readily because they are larger, spreading more lipid bubbles about with the lipid-making polymers inside. And so life begins... Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
so simple in fact that scientists should be able to reproduce that simple process in a lab, right? It's a work in progress What I wrote is based on Jack W. Szostak's ideas - who has just won the 2009 Nobel for Medicine - check his website here
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
what i meant is that a living cell could not develop unguided to become a living cell because the complete genetic code is a requirement for cell reproduction. Peg, in the scenario for abiogenesis I outlined for you, we saw proto-cells reproducing. How much protein and DNA did these proto-cells contain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I know you know a lot about rocks, Huh? Oh, the caving Believe me, as much as I love crawling through the tighest holes in rock, I am no geologist!
can i ask you if there is any evidence of these compounds left in the rocks? Unfortunately, there is far too much evidence! Because of the ubiquitous nature of life on Earth, there are organic compounds of every type, everywhere - and I mean everywhere! And the other problem is that we cannot see abiogenesis still occuring because even if conditions were again suitable, the existing microbial life would gobble up anything that half resembled a new proto-cell in the making. The deep ocean hydrothermal vents are the favourite location for where abiogensis may have occurred, but today these are teaming with life of every magnitude.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024