ChemEngineer writes:
YOU said "occur through abiogenesis," I did not.
You implied abiogenesis here:
"Only Levorotary (left-handed) amino acids were used, not Dextrorotary (right-handed) amino acids, so 1 in 10 to the 49,618th power has to be multiplied by 1/2 to the 38,138th power or 1 in 10 to the 11,480th power. One more time for all consecutive peptide bonds, which are equally probable as the random formation of non-peptide bonds, thus 1/2 to the 38,138th power."
This would only apply to abiogenesis since the pathways that build amino acids in life have no problem with only producing left handed amino acids, nor do they have a problem with repeatedly linking amino acids through peptide bonds in the same order over and over and over.
Or do you think each and every protein in the human body is the product of some supernatural miracle? Do you reject the known and well understood process of protein translation?
I said "Original synthesis." As in the first human who had titin in their muscles.
Titin was already present in the common ancestor of all vertebrates.
ChemEngineerMBA: "handful of sequences." Does that come terribly close to 10 to the 79,000 in number of possible sequences?
Ahh, we finally come to the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You are painting the bulls eye around the bullet hole.
The handful of sequences repeated over and over is exactly what titin is. You can look for yourself here:
titin [Homo sapiens] - Protein - NCBI
Look at all of the domains listed. Notice how they are all related to Ig? That's immunoglobulin. It's just a bunch of repeats of immunoglobulin motifs with some fibronectin motifs thrown in.
Ten to the minus 50 is "impossible."
I can show you a simple experiment that disproves your claim.
Get a deck of playing cards. Shuffle them. Lay out the cards one by one face up, and record the order of the cards. The order of cards you just produced has a 1 in 52! chance of occuring, or 1 in 8x10^67 chance of occurring. And yet, you did it on the very first try.
Impossible? Hardly. Events with those types of probabilities happen every nanosecond on Earth.
You're trying to compensate for that with a "handful."
You are committing the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
I have read several of Dawkins' books and critiqued them, and sent my critiques to his publisher. The best Dawkins could do was call me names and ignore my valid critiques. Same thing occurred with Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan.
They are valid why? Because you say so?
You think monetary wealth is a measure of fitness? If so, I can understand why scientists would laugh at you.
Many thousands of scientists around the world have published papers and books refuting your Darwinian religion.
I find it hilarious when religionists try to discredit the theory of evolution by calling it a religion. Hoisting and petards come to mind.
If you are going to argue that evolution is false because it resembles your own beliefs then perhaps you should rethink your argument.