Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total)
53 online now:
nwr, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 50 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,376 Year: 1,022/14,102 Month: 14/411 Week: 35/168 Day: 14/21 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
Member (Idle past 891 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 25 of 293 (803507)
03-31-2017 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by forexhr
03-31-2017 3:26 AM

finite 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.

Insufficient numbers, and empirically problematic to boot.

1) Not all proteins are equal
2) Whether something is functional, selectable, useful or beneficial depends on the entity it is functioning for. You are looking at specific protein for a highly evolved organism this is not comparable to a primitive life form that has no evolutionary history. What is functional for a bacterophage such as the lambda receptor, is likely useless for an early life form. And vice versa
3) You need to do more than use those numbers anyway - you need to establish how many functional proteins are clustered together in the context of the environment.

The problem you are trying to tackle is much more complex than merely comparing two numbers therefore your argument is insufficient to establish your conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 3:26 AM forexhr has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021