|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Simplest Protein of Life | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
dwise1,
The common way evolutionists minimize the problems of forming a protein ex nihilo (I do not like this term but it seems you do) is to minimize the vastness of the very low probabilities. For example, the probability of drawing 19 royal flushes in a row.
From the wiki it clearly states: quote: Raise this to the 19th power you get 2.767195 e^110:1. Applying a little perspective, you get the following scenario. The universe is estimated to contain ~1080 atoms. To pick an exact single atom say that was labeled ahead of time (marked in some way) a single first choice would be 1080:1. However, the probability of your choice is ~ 10100:1, trillions and trillions of times less. So where is that atom? Is it in the computer screen in front of you or in one of the trillions of co-universes out there somewhere floating around an unnamed nebula? Secondly, you minimize the replacing of a single amino acid in a protein. Did you know that a protein exhibits four critical organizations… by changing a single amino acid you may not significantly change one organization but will certainly alter one of the other critical organizations. quote: You further assert….
But the fact that life does not favor the rest of the amino acids does not say that they will not form peptides and poly peptides even with the 20 present in life. Still they must be considered in a random chance for assembly. That would force the probability to take the form (1/500^n). Any calculation of a random forming poly peptide would start with (1/500)n. Unless you remove all the other naturally forming amino acids from the flask in the lab before you start you experiment. Wait that is an intervention by an intelligent being. It is late where I am at so I will redo your mistakes in calculations tomorrow. Good night my friend. P.S. we have not even discussed the limits established in very small probabilities…
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
(dwise1)
Poker probability by wiki…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability
Apparently, you are reading something into the thread that was not in the P.O.s originating statement. P.O. quote: Do you catch the phrase “living cell forming from chemicals”... I think a high school student can draw the conclusion that this participant is talking about the forming of a protein in a pre-biotic environment. Albeit poorly stated the alternate conclusion is not apropos a controversy.
In an uncontrolled environment, who is to say what natural amino-acids are floating around. My point is that you cannot pick out 22 or so and disregard the other possible candidates for forming a polypeptide (a protein). This is like stacking the deck prior to drawing the card. Now if you examined the Urey-Miller results there were as follows… quote: You do notice how many amino acids were formed. Besides probability, you must also calculate in the equilibrium constant for the appropriate reaction (unless an intelligent agent tips the equilibrium in one direction). You talk about how ignorant creationist arguments are. My good friend, look in the mirror before sticking your foot directly into your mouth. This argument is so one sided in the Creationists camp that I hardly believe I am wasting my time.
You may be but the P.O. is not. (A PROTEIN IS A POLYPEPTIDE)….
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Taq,
Maybe you do not understand probability; it must describe a predicted outcome. The five cards you chose followed a prediction or else you are not testing a probability, you are gathering data. Funny, it is like betting on a horse race after the race is over… I like those odds. Concerning proteins…
New findings show that a silent or synonymous mutation can and does change protein function even though it does not change amino acid sequence. quote: About the article in talkorigins…
Read the article. The premise here is cytochrome C and other proteins can suggest common ancestry by applying the molecular clock hypothesis. The author claims a molecular clock in some proteins can imply genealogical relationships. quote: This claim is contrary to facts. The problem is t hat there is no consistent way of mathematically producing an order between species and in particular dating their divergence by using molecular clocks in these ubiquitous genes. If you could, then producing a common linage of descent and dates between common ancestors would be no problem. To date success in this area is bleak to say the least. Theoretically, you could compare the cytochrome C in humans and that in yeast and using a uniform mutation rate you could determine how many years there are between divergence of the two organisms (Linus Pauling and Emile Zuckerkandl). Now if you also use other proteins in those same organisms and compare them there should be some agreement in those dates you derive. I like the idea that the author included hemoglobin and cytochrome C in the same article. Consider the following findings between carp and humans… quote: Further, quote from talkorigins: quote: Now throw in hemoglobin and the entire premise falls apart. However that is only consistent with all evolutions assumptions. As a matter of fact, recent research has found a great disparity in “molecular clocks”, especially when applied to proteins. I especially like the use of Hubert Yockey, I have used quotes by him many times in calculating the probability of abiogenesis.
Concerning Yockey...I think this guy is on my side… quote:
To bad Yockey’s position here is taken way out of context and that discoveries like silent mutations are not really silent followed the citations.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Percy,
Both of these “preferred outcomes” can be assigned probability. Predicting the specific probability of drawing certain cards out of a deck is not a fallacy.
There are problems with your statement here. First, you must have perfect knowledge of all the aspects of the protein fulfilling a specific role (my citation casts doubt on that possibility). If there is a fine-tuning of that protein to a specific role you are speaking of every amino acid in the polypeptide chain not only in order but if it was formed by a silent or synonymous mutation.
Please give me a direct citation of Yockey’s calculation in this regard, I can not find it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Coyote,
Watched the video, it was very interesting. Thanks for presenting it… I have done some electronic engineering so the electronic schematic particularly interested me. How he related it to the lecture made the entire exercise more meaningful. I would like to know what other participants concluded from this presentation. Are you familiar with Langton’s ant and how complex patterns can come out of a simple set of basic rules? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton's_ant You can plainly see that some very basic rules are built into the segment polarity network nodes. Maybe what the researchers are observing is the result of the basic rules built into the nodes and not so much reliant on the larger network. Someone might say that a null hypothesis could include the observation that the broader network was less significant than the composition of the nodes. What do think the professor meant when he said: “Robustness has to come before natural selection” Is he saying that evolution could not produce such a network? If so you do notice that the professor structured the nodes of the segment polarity network as those found in logical block diagram nodes. Intelligent design?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
I once had a professor, who had the privilege of teaching a truly brilliant student. I compliment my professor for recognizing this individual and understanding what the student’s gift was all about. My professor said that this student was able to break any complex problem down to its simplest terms and then tackle a seemingly impossible task in steps. This is not a trivial ability, but we lesser individuals can glean an important message from this insight.
Never apply more complication to an issue than is absolutely necessary. quote: In other words don’t blow a gasket.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Percy,
Percy, I have honestly tried decipher your logic. If I am correct, you are trying to place the cart before the horse. My point is that there must be a desired outcome prior to testing an outcome. Consider the following relation…. Singular Probability = Desired outcome/possible outcomes quote: Plainly, without a desired outcome you violate the basic formulation of a probability. Your desired outcome cannot come after testing the event. As to my comment on “simplicity” (not Occam’s razor). It is important not to confuse ourselves by obscuration.
I cannot deny the context of the used quotation because I do not have the actual material to form an objection to its use. That doesn’t stop me from having reservations about the enormous number cited for alternate functional cytochrome C. For instance this number is not only higher that the total number of atoms in the universe it also exceeds Borel’s limit (10^50) which basically sets a limit on the total number of chemical reactions that could have taken place since the Big Bang. So I am pointing out that since the possible number of chemical reactions in the universe was exceeded by 45 orders of magnitude there could never be 2.3 x 10^93 configurations. I simply need to read the citation. I am in the same boat as another participant here in that I do not have the book. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021