Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
Wicknight wrote:I''m not quite sure why you would have a problem with infinate looping time when your own beliefs throw up so many paradoxes of their own. For example, what did God do for the eternity before He created anything? If He existed forever then their was an infinate amount of time when he just existed forever, doing nothing?
I personally think time was created @ the time of Big Bang
So, word infinite or before He created anything make no sense to our minds, cos time wasn't defined/created therefore it is meaningless to ask what was before creation of time? See, now there is no infinite loop, is there?
The thing is that Almighty God is not limited by anything and certainly not by time. Time is simply a mystery.
BTW, I was asking for the Big Bang trigger, what is it and what/who pulled it? Be my guests.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Scofllaw
all we have really been doing with the numbers here is producing big numbers to show how easy it is.
Proteins are not generated randomly in the way that we have been calculating
You have been doing much more than ‘mathematical doodling’ – and YOU KNOW IT, Scofflaw!!
….and Evolutionists DO believe that proteins are indeed generated in the way that you have been calculating.
Can I take you back to your very well thought-out mathematical exercise based upon the latest understanding of how new protein chains are formed by evolutionary processes within DNA.
Quote Scofflaw page 173 #3456
“1. Proteins are not generated by randomly adding amino acids to an existing protein. Quite aside from anything else, mutations do not occur in proteins.
2. Three base pairs (or nucleotides) per codon, one codon per amino acid. Our DNA sequence for your putative protein is 300 nucleotides long.
3. There are only four possibilities for the nucleotides in DNA - adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T).
4. The number of possible combinations along this 300-nucleotide stretch is therefore 4 to the power of 300 (4.15e+180). We can reduce this very slightly, because most amino acids are coded for by 2-5 combinations of nucleotides - call it about 1e+180 instead.
5. Let us now stipulate a specific 100-acid protein (any specific sequence), and see how hard it will be to generate...
6. Take 1 kilo of soil. It contains roughly 100 billion bacteria.
7. Say that these bacteria reproduce on average every day, and each one picks up a mutation in their genome in that time.
8. The average bacterial genome is a couple of million nucleotides, so the chance of the mutation being in the relevant stretch of DNA is 0.00015. From our point of view, then, there are 0.00015 mutations per generation in the DNA stretch we are interested in.
9. Each generation of bacteria in the kilo of soil therefore generates (0.00015*100,000,000,000 bacteria)=15,000,000 mutations of interest per day.”
I answered
……all reasonable assumptions and correct calculations so far.
Then I addressed the last two points in your original posting:-
Quote Scofflaw
“10. Let's give them a month.
11. There have been 1.9e+215 mutational events in the stretches of DNA of interest, in one kilo of soil, in a month.”
I answered :-
“You are assuming at point 9 that 30 generations of bacteria occur in a month (i.e. 1 generation per day for 30 days).
Your calculation of the POTENTIAL number of bacterial mutations produced in 30 generations starting off with 15 million mutations from 100 billion bacteria is CORRECT at 1.9 E+215 - if we assume no resource limitations.
However, such a population explosion (and consequent explosion of mutations) is IMPOSSIBLE – there are only 10 E+82 electrons in the entire Big Bang Universe and only about 10E+31 electrons in 1 kilo of soil - so a kilo of soil CANNOT produce over 1.9 E+215 bacteria or bacterial mutations due to resource limitations.
In a resource constrained kilo of soil you will have a STABLE population of bacteria - with roughly the same bacterial population at the end of the 30 days as at the start i.e. 100 billion.
Because of resource constraints there will be a population of 100 billion in EACH generation and therefore the actual number of mutations EXPRESSED for NS to directionally select would be only 450 million (15 million in each generation x 30 generations). This number is only 4.5E+8 – which is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein.
If resource limitations were to be removed to the extent that the entire Big Bang Universe were to be made up of bacteria and each bacterium was only the size of an electron the population of bacteria would only be 10+82. In 30 generations you would only produce 4.5E+80 mutations (10E+82*0.00015*30).
If we factored in a generation time of 8 hours or three generations per day for a billion years the entire Universe would still only GENERATE 4.93+92 mutations - which is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein.”
So what IS wrong with either the logic of YOUR posting at items 1-9 or my reply to items 10 and 11??”
Originally posted by Wicknight
It is not 4E+24 x 3.15E+16, it is 4E+24 to the power of 3.15E+16
Question by J C
Now that I am in ‘learning mode’, please show me HOW you derived THIS figure ?
Reply by Wicknight
I already did. I suggest you read my first post on the matter.
I have read your first post but the figure 4E+24 to the power of 3.15E+16 seems to be ‘plucked out of the air'.
.......Please show me how you derived the figure.
Wicknight
The number of actual out comes is irrelivent. They could get it "right" the very first time. The thing that matters is the odds that they will.
Attempts / Odds = Probability.
The number of attempts that are possible, divided by the odds of the event occurring, measures the probability that it will occur.
The number of attempts (or 'actual outcomes') that are possible is therefore VERY important in assessing the likelihood of it occurring.
For example, 1.10E+98 possible bacterial DNA swap outcome attempts divided by the odds of 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides means that the probability of a sequence for a specific 100 chain protein occurring by undirected mutation is 1.10E-82, which is a statistical IMPOSSIBILITY
Wicknight
read up on evolution. Natural selection is not an undirected process.
Read my previous postings in which I agree that NS is not an undirected process.
The problem doesn’t lie with Natural Selection – which IS capable of direction in sympathy with environmental conditions.
The problem lies with the mutation mechanism that supposedly produces the material for NS to select.
The mutation mechanism IS by definition, an undirected / random process.
For example, if a specific 100 chain Amino Acid sequence is required for a specific useful protein that NS would select if it were present – the 10 E+130 possible combinations of 100 amino acids means that such a specific useful protein cannot be reasonable expected to be generated by undirected mutations/DNA shuffling.
The mathematical Law of Big Numbers confirms that on average 10E+130 combinations must be EXPRESSED for a specific combination to be expressed where the odds of such a specific combination (as measured by the number of alternative combinations) are 10E+130.
The problem just get worse with larger proteins and at higher levels within living systems/organisms.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
J C wrote:Scofflaw wrote:all we have really been doing with the numbers here is producing big numbers to show how easy it is.
Proteins are not generated randomly in the way that we have been calculating
You have been doing much more than ‘mathematical doodling’ – and YOU KNOW IT, Scofflaw!!
….and Evolutionists DO believe that proteins are indeed generated in the way that you have been calculating.
Can I take you back to your very well thought-out mathematical exercise based upon the latest understanding of how new protein chains are formed by evolutionary processes within DNA.
Well, I'm glad you enjoyed the arithmetic, but you'll notice it is entirely devoid of claims to be "latest understanding of how new protein chains are formed by evolutionary processes within DNA" - something which it bears no resemblance to at all. It really genuinely is just a number-generating exercise.J C wrote:So what IS wrong with either the logic of YOUR posting at items 1-9 or my reply to items 10 and 11??”
The simple fact that my calculations are not a realistic "model" of any kind of living process - they're just numbers, as yours are. The point of the exercise is just to show how easy it is to generate very large numbers in statistics.
All we're doing here is inventing processes that generate large numbers, and comparing them. Proteins don't form by randomised assembly of amino acids, so none of these numbers are related to reality in any way.
Having said that, I think my calculations may bear some resemblance to how you might calculate the possible permutations if you were going to do it correctly.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
No, that is the odds of it happening ... didn't you just say Attempts/Odds=probability :rolleyes:J C wrote:For example, 1.10E+98 possible bacterial DNA swap outcome attempts divided by the odds of 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides means that the probability of a sequence for a specific 100 chain protein occurring by undirected mutation is 1.10E-82, which is a statistical IMPOSSIBILITY
As myself and Scofflaw has pointed out to you this is just pointless my number is bigger than your number doodling. Evolution has never suggested that Proteins form from the random combination of molecules, so whether they can or not is rather irrelivent, don't you think.
Proteins are built. And the process the evolved to build these protien evolved just like everything else because of natural selection. It took approx 2.5 billion years for self replicating molecules to get to the stage where simple protiens were forming. And they didn't spend that 2.5 billion years randomly shoving molecules together trying to get a 100 chain protein :rolleyes:
Then why are we having this discussion? And why do you keep banging on about the odds of a protein forming due to random undirected process?J C wrote:Read my previous postings in which I agree that NS is not an undirected process.
And natural selection isn't.J C wrote:The mutation mechanism IS by definition, an undirected / random process.J C wrote:For example, if a specific 100 chain Amino Acid sequence is required for a specific useful protein that NS would select if it were present
That isn't how it works. Life was not simply banging together molecules until it found the one it wanted.
Protiens are built by the system itself. The protiens didn't evolve, the system that builds them evolved. A mistake in the replication of the system will produce a system that builds a different form of protien. If that protien is of value then the system is selected by natural selection.
Say you start of with a system that builds protiens, or the precursors to protiens 2 billion years ago, with a 5 chain amino acid sequence (just a example). Along comes a random error in the replication system and you now have a system that builds a 6 chain amino acid sequence. Is that of any use to the system? If yes that this new system does well and produces more children that make the same 6 chain protein.
The protein itself didn't just change from 5 to 6 chains (though this can happen), the system that builds them did0 -
-
-
-
Scofflaw
because I thought you asked a really stupid question in response to Wicknight's original question, you are now claiming I said Wicknight's question was stupid?
There is a certain ‘train’ of logic operating here, and I hope that you have deciphered it by now!!!!:eek:
Scofflaw
There does actually come a point where arguing with an idiot just makes you look stupid.
I know how you feel, Scofflaw!!!:eek:
Originally Posted by J C
Wicknight has suggested that there are 40 trillion cells on Earth. If his figure is true, then the number of possible cell divisions outcomes for each of the 40 trillion or so cells on Earth assuming every cell replicates once every second for a year is 1.26 E+27
Wicknight
No it isn't.
The number of possible cell divisions, assuming a cell divides every 8 hours, is 4e+13 to the power of 1095 (number of divisions in a year).
Which breaks my calculator, but it is a lot larger than 1.26e+27.
The actual number of cells will remain close to 40 trillion through out the year
Look JC you clearly don't understand probability..
….and you clearly can’t do basic calculations!!!
You are trying to estimate the number of possible individual cell divisions where 40 trillion cells divide three times per day for 365 days in a resource constrained environment where the two cells produced by each replication are matched by two cells dying-off, thereby maintaining a stable population.
In such a scenario the calculation for the number of cell divisions in a year is a simple multiplication of 40E+18 x 3 x 365, which equals 4.38E+22.
Could I gently point out that 4.38E+22 had little effect on my spreadsheet and it bears little resemblance to your figure of 4E+13 to the power of 1095.
Once again I am asking you HOW you derived the figure of 4E+13 to the power of 1095 from your stated assumptions?
Wicknight
JC hasn't shown that it is mathematically impossible for a protein to form by completely random chemical formations, he has shown that the odds of the specific protien forming are very small. But they are actually well with in the number of possible combinations of say cellular life over a space of a year.
I presume that you are referring to YOUR figure of 4E+13 to the power of 1095. Once again I am asking you HOW you derived this figure from your stated assumptions?
Wicknight
Its pretty easy for JC to disprove "evolution" when he first make up nonsense and state that that is what "evolution" is. It is not hard to disprove his own invented nonsense.
But on this issue I am accepting ALL of Scofflaws post # 3456 on page 173, except his calculations in his last point in this posting.
Indeed, I am prepared to accept his last point if he can ‘stand up’ his calculation.
I am also prepared to accept your figure of 4E+13 to the power of 1095 IF you can show HOW you derived it, based on your stated valid earlier assumptions?
Wicknight
The Lotto is only ever won by one single 6 digit number. But the different ways that final set of numbers can be combined are in the millions. That is what makes it really hard to win.
The number of combinations in the Irish National Lottery are 5,245,786.
The Law of Big Numbers predicts that the Lotto will be won on average every time about 5 million tickets are sold – and so it happens.
Scofflaw has correctly said that the number of possible combinations along a 300-nucleotide stretch is 4 to the power of 300 (or 4.15e+180) which he refined to 1E+180.
The Law of Big Numbers predicts that a specific 100 protein sequence will therefore be formed on average every time about 1E+180 combinations are generated by muitation / replication errors – and as 1E+180 is an effectively infinitely greater number than the number of electrons in the postulated Big Bang Universe – this is an impossibility.
“However”, I hear you say, “there ARE functional proteins with vastly longer protein chain lengths than 100 amino acids – so HOW did they arise?”
My answer is that because it is clearly impossible to generate such tightly specified functional proteins 'from scratch' using undirected mutations and replication errors – they MUST have been Intelligently Designed.
Intelligence is the only know ‘force’ that can directionally PRODUCE the tightly specified functional proteins that we observe in living systems.
Once all of these amazing functional proteins are PRODUCED and coherently assembled into a viable organism (by an Intelligent Agent), NS can then possibly select between the organisms with the ‘best’ combination of these proteins at any point in time for a particular environment. However, NS is a 'passive agent' in all of this - as it is confined to selecting whatever random chance mutations or 'intelligently designed' bimolecules 'comes its way'!!!!:D :cool:
Wicknight
Do you not understand the difference between the two rather simple English words "generative" and "regenerative"? (the hint is in the "re" bit) ………..
No one has EVER suggested (not myself or anyone else) that evolution regenerates or repairs diseased or damaged cells
Indeed, Evolution via undirected mutation / recombination is NEITHER capable of (the relatively simple act of) re-generating diseased cells NOR the much greater feat of generating cells ‘from scratch’.
The ‘hint’ is ACTUALLY in the “generation” bit!!!!:D
If you doubt me on the relative SIMPLICITY of ‘re-generation’ versus the difficulties of ‘generation’ - could I point out that 're-generating' diseased cells is a ‘feat’ performed ROUTINELY by intelligent Human Doctors – but 'generating' cells ‘from scratch’ is a feat that has eluded them to date.
Now, why do you accept Wicknight, that non-intelligent Evolution CANNOT perform the relatively SIMPLE task of re-generation, yet you maintain that Evolution DID perform the infinitely MORE difficult task of generating cells ‘from scratch’.
The fact that neither ‘re-generation’ or ‘generation’ of cells by Evolution has ever been observed is very strong SCIENTIFIC evidence that it is incapable of either process!!!
:eek: 0 -
-
That doesn't give you the number of possible cell division combination, it gives you the number of actual cell divisions, which as already explained is irrelivent.J C wrote:In such a scenario the calculation for the number of cell divisions in a year is a simple multiplication of 40E+18 x 3 x 365, which equals 4.38E+22.
You only ever end up with one result, just like there is only ever one set of 6 digit numbers that wins the Lotto each week. The number of actual winning Lotto number each week is 6. That doesn't mean you have a 1 in 6 chance of winning the Lotto :rolleyes:
That is number of possible outcomes. There are 4E+13 ^ 1095 ways that bucket of bateria can end up. They will of course only end up one of these ways.J C wrote:Once again I am asking you HOW you derived the figure of 4E+13 to the power of 1095 from your stated assumptions?
There will only be one actual outcome, just like there will only be one actual 100 amino acid string. But you were not originally talking about the number of actual outcomes, you were talking about the different ways that the 100 amino acid string can be combined, and then saying that the number is very large as to make any single outcome quite unlikely.
Its not my fault if you suddenly wish to switch mid-argument from possible outcomes to actual outcomes JC.
You seem to have this rather ridiculous idea that to arrive at a 100 amino acid chain protien, even using your random formation theory, that it is necessary to actuall generate all possible outcomes as actual outcomes.
Myself and Scofflaw have done our best to show you that this is not the case. Even something like a bucket of bateria replicating for a year will produce a specific outcome that is very very unlikely, but still happens by virtue of the fact that you must still have a single outcome, even if the odds of that specific outcome are very small.
You mentioned the probability aspect on page 1 of this thread JC.J C wrote:But on this issue I am accepting ALL of Scofflaws post # 3456 on page 173, except his calculations in his last point in this posting.
Scofflaw was simply pointing out that it is actually quite easy to get outcomes that in isolation are highly improbable.J C wrote:Scofflaw has correctly said that the number of possible combinations along a 300-nucleotide stretch is 4 to the power of 300 (or 4.15e+180) which he refined to 1E+180.
The Law of Big Numbers predicts that a specific 100 protein sequence will therefore be formed on average every time about 1E+180 combinations are generated by muitation / replication errors
Ok firstly the law of "big" numbers is an economic term that means it is harder to make profit in companies that are already very profitable.
Secondly the law of large numbers states that the likelyhood that the average in a sampling group will be close to the actual average of the whole population increases the large the sampling group gets.
Neither of these are relivent to what you are talking about, so can we leave out the "law of big numbers bit" please.
What you are talking about is the basis of statistics, the idea being that the likelyhood that a specific outcome will be found in a population base increases by the number of outcomes in that base.
If all possible Lotto tickets have been sold the likelyhood that a specific lotto number, any specific number, will be pressent in that population group is 1 (ie it will be in that population group).J C wrote:– and as 1E+180 is an effectively infinitely greater number than the number of electrons in the postulated Big Bang Universe – this is an impossibility.
It is impossible to generate all possible outcomes of the 100 chain protein. But why would you want to?
How do you make the leap from saying that it is not possible to generate all possible protein combinations to saying that it is therefore not possible to generate any of the possible protein combinations.
That is like saying that unless I buy all possible Lotto tickets it is impossible to just buy one, or two, or a hundred.
It isn't impossible. It is impossible to generate all possible proteins, but then why would you want or need to?J C wrote:My answer is that because it is clearly impossible to generate such tightly specified functional proteins 'from scratch' using undirected mutations and replication errors
Do you think natural selecton had to some how "try out" every single possible protein combination, and then go back and pick the specific one it wanted, like someone trying on shoes in a sport store?
This is nonsense JCJ C wrote:Indeed, Evolution via undirected mutation / recombination is NEITHER capable of (the relatively simple act of) re-generating diseased cells NOR the much greater feat of generating cells ‘from scratch’.
Mutation isn't able, nor does it attempt, to re-generating cells. No one ever claimed it was except for you.
So do you now agree you were talking out your back side when you stated that evolutionary theory does claim that mutation can re-generate cells?
I think you have been watching your Star Trek too much there JC.J C wrote:could I point out that 're-generating' diseased cells is a ‘feat’ performed ROUTINELY by intelligent Human Doctors – but 'generating' cells ‘from scratch’ is a feat that has eluded them to date.
Human doctors cannot re-generate diseased or damaged cells. If we could we would be able to deep freeze a person and then unfreeze them year later, repairing the broken cell walls caused by the freezing process. This is still in the realm of science fiction.
The body simply gets rid of badly dieased cells and makes new cells. That is what puss is.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't understand how medicine or the bodies immune system works. Which isn't really surprising since you don't understand the theory of evolution, probability, or most scientific subjects for that matter. But it does make discussing this with you rather tiresome.
Groan :rolleyes:J C wrote:Now, why do you accept Wicknight, that non-intelligent Evolution CANNOT perform the relatively SIMPLE task of re-generation, yet you maintain that Evolution DID perform the infinitely MORE difficult task of generating cells ‘from scratch’.
"Non-intelligent" evolution can and did develop systems for a cell to repair and regenerate damage that has happened to it, within certain (quite limited) limits. The evolution of these repair systems develops through mutation of the child cell during replication.
But mutation itself has nothing to do with actually re-generating the cell. If you understood what mutation actually was you would know this.
For a start the mutation takes place at the formation of the new child cell. The cell will not mutate again in its life time. It might (will) suffer damage though, and the systems in place in the cell will deal with this damage.
It is getting increasingly hard to discuss this with you JC when it is clear that you know very little about evolution or mutation or how either works.
It is like trying to explain economics to someone who thinks we are discussing Chinese history.
Please take some time to read up on evolutionary theory, what is states. Then take some time to read up on what mutations actually hard, how they effect the cell and what they do and do not do.
Then come back to us.J C wrote:The fact that neither ‘re-generation’ or ‘generation’ of cells by Evolution has ever been observed is very strong evidence that it is incapable of either process!!!
:eek:
Re-generation of cells is observed all the time. Generation of new cells is observed all the time. Mutation of cells during generation is observed all the time.
All of these things are observed routinely every day in millions of biology labs around the world JC :rolleyes:0 -
Scofflaw
I'm glad you enjoyed the arithmetic, but you'll notice it is entirely devoid of claims to be "latest understanding of how new protein chains are formed by evolutionary processes within DNA" - something which it bears no resemblance to at all. It really genuinely is just a number-generating exercise.
Why all this bashful modesty about your excellent posting, Scofflaw???!!!
Your posting #3456 on page 173 was indeed a very well thought-out mathematical exercise based upon the latest understanding of how new protein chains are formed by evolutionary processes within DNA.
The fact that you arrived on the point of PROVING the mathematical invalidity of Evolution at the end of your exercise, may have been ‘somewhere’ that you didn’t want to be – but it doesn’t invalidate what you ‘discovered’ nonetheless!!!!
Your posting #3456 on page 173 is “really genuinely” A MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE INVALIDITY OF EVOLUTION!!
In any other area of science, the discovery of the mathematical invalidity of an important theory of the status of macro-Evolution would be a cause of celebration on the part of the scientists concerned – and would almost certainly guarantee them a Nobel Prize. Why does this not occur with Evolution?
Quote Scofflaw page 173 # 3456
“1. Proteins are not generated by randomly adding amino acids to an existing protein. Quite aside from anything else, mutations do not occur in proteins.
2. Three base pairs (or nucleotides) per codon, one codon per amino acid. Our DNA sequence for your putative protein is 300 nucleotides long.
3. There are only four possibilities for the nucleotides in DNA - adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T).
4. The number of possible combinations along this 300-nucleotide stretch is therefore 4 to the power of 300 (4.15e+180). We can reduce this very slightly, because most amino acids are coded for by 2-5 combinations of nucleotides - call it about 1e+180 instead.
5. Let us now stipulate a specific 100-acid protein (any specific sequence), and see how hard it will be to generate...
6. Take 1 kilo of soil. It contains roughly 100 billion bacteria.
7. Say that these bacteria reproduce on average every day, and each one picks up a mutation in their genome in that time.
8. The average bacterial genome is a couple of million nucleotides, so the chance of the mutation being in the relevant stretch of DNA is 0.00015. From our point of view, then, there are 0.00015 mutations per generation in the DNA stretch we are interested in.
9. Each generation of bacteria in the kilo of soil therefore generates (0.00015*100,000,000,000 bacteria)=15,000,000 mutations of interest per day.”
I answered
……all reasonable assumptions and correct calculations so far.
Then I addressed the last two points in your original posting:-
Quote Scofflaw
“10. Let's give them a month.
11. There have been 1.9e+215 mutational events in the stretches of DNA of interest, in one kilo of soil, in a month.”
I answered :-
“You are assuming at point 9 that 30 generations of bacteria occur in a month (i.e. 1 generation per day for 30 days).
Your calculation of the POTENTIAL number of bacterial mutations produced in 30 generations starting off with 15 million mutations from 100 billion bacteria is CORRECT at 1.9 E+215 - if we assume no resource limitations.
However, such a population explosion (and consequent explosion of mutations) is IMPOSSIBLE – there are only 10 E+82 electrons in the entire Big Bang Universe and only about 10E+31 electrons in 1 kilo of soil - so a kilo of soil CANNOT produce over 1.9 E+215 bacteria or bacterial mutations due to resource limitations.
In a resource constrained kilo of soil you will have a STABLE population of bacteria - with roughly the same bacterial population at the end of the 30 days as at the start i.e. 100 billion.
Because of resource constraints there will be a population of 100 billion in EACH generation and therefore the actual number of mutations EXPRESSED for NS to directionally select would be only 450 million (15 million in each generation x 30 generations). This number is only 4.5E+8 – which is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein.
If resource limitations were to be removed to the extent that the entire Big Bang Universe were to be made up of bacteria and each bacterium was only the size of an electron the population of bacteria would only be 10+82. In 30 generations you would only produce 4.5E+80 mutations (10E+82*0.00015*30).
If we factored in a generation time of 8 hours or three generations per day for a billion years the entire Universe would still only GENERATE 4.93+92 mutations - which is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein.”
QUESTION :- So what IS wrong with either the logic of YOUR posting page 173 # 3456 items 1-10 or my reply??”
Answer :- NOTHING - so Materialistic Evolution is thereby mathematically proven to be INVALID.:eek:
Scofflaw
I think my calculations may bear some resemblance to how you might calculate the possible permutations if you were going to do it correctly.
The logic of your calculations is indeed how you might approach the problem of DECIDING if Materialistic Evolution is mathematically viable.
When you got to the end, using your OWN figures and logic, the result came in that Materialistic Evolution is indeed mathematically IMPOSSIBLE.
So I ask you AGAIN, what IS wrong with either the logic of YOUR posting page 173 # 3456 items 1-10 or my reply??:eek:
Wicknight
As myself and Scofflaw has pointed out to you this is just pointless my number is bigger than your number doodling. Evolution has never suggested that Proteins form from the random combination of molecules, so whether they can or not is rather irrelivent, don't you think.
See above, or better still ‘stand up’ your figure of 4E+13 to the power of 1095!!!!:eek:
Wicknight
The proteins didn't evolve, the system that builds them evolved. A mistake in the replication of the system will produce a system that builds a different form of protien. If that protien is of value then the system is selected by natural selection.
You are correct, but that is ACTUALLY built-into Scofflaw’s posting #3456 on page 173 points 1-5.:eek: 0 -
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:Why all this bashful modesty about your excellent posting, Scofflaw???!!!
Probably because you seem to think Scofflaw was attempting to show how proteins can develop. He wasn't, and he said he wasn't from the start.
The bateria in a bucket was purely an excersise to show how easy it is using a natural process to get very large numbers.J C wrote:Your posting #3456 on page 173 is “really genuinely” A MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE INVALIDITY OF EVOLUTION!!
No it isn't, it is a mathematical demonstration at how unlikely a specific outcome of bateria replicating in a bucket is, and yet you will always get a specific outcome.
You statement that because a specific outcome is very unlikely it is therefore impossible is therefore totally invalid. The odds that the bateria would come out of the bucket at the specific way it eventually does is very small, much smaller than your 100 chain protien, yet it does come out of the bucket one of these ways, and no one bats an eyelid.
Scofflaw and myself have simply been showing you that having a big number is largely meaningless. It is even more meaningless by the fact that proteins don't develop the way you have stated they do anyway.J C wrote:This number is only 4.5E+8 – which is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein.
You have failed to explain why it is necessary to generate all 1E+180 permutations of a nucleotides before you can generate and use 1 permutation of nucleotides.
Why is it necessary for evolution to generate all specific outcomes of the 1E+180 permutations?
Again that is like saying that to buy a Lotto ticket I must first buy all Lotto tickets.J C wrote:See above, or better still ‘stand up’ your figure of 4E+13 to the power of 1095!!!!:eek:
40 trillion cells on Earth, replicating for a year once every 8 hours (1095) replications.
Assuming a replication can alter the nature of the cell, there is therefore 4E+13^1095 different ways that bucket can end up after a year.J C wrote:You are correct, but that is ACTUALLY built-into Scofflaw’s posting #3456 on page 173 points 1-5.:eek:
You mean the part where he says "Proteins don't evolve" at the start?
JC I can understand your mistake, you mistakenly thought his post was attempting to show how bateria could evolve a protein. He wasn't, and he did state this. He was simply showing how it is possible to generate really big numbers. Mathematical doodling as he called it.0 -
-
J C wrote:Scofflaw wrote:I'm glad you enjoyed the arithmetic, but you'll notice it is entirely devoid of claims to be "latest understanding of how new protein chains are formed by evolutionary processes within DNA" - something which it bears no resemblance to at all. It really genuinely is just a number-generating exercise.
Why all this bashful modesty about your excellent posting, Scofflaw???!!!
For the following simple reason: evolution does not attempt to produce any specific protein.
You keep asking - what is the chance of them having generated this particular protein?
At no point did evolution set out to generate that particular protein.
Therefore all these calculations are pointless, because they relate to trying to generate a specific protein.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
-
Sangre wrote:Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience.
....I too feel your pain!!!!:D
.......The version I actually heard was :-
"Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level and then beat you with evolution!"
.0 -
-
Originally Posted by J C
In such a scenario the calculation for the number of cell divisions in a year is a simple multiplication of 40E+18 x 3 x 365, which equals 4.38E+22.
Wicknight
That doesn't give you the number of possible cell division combination, it gives you the number of actual cell divisions, which as already explained is irrelivent.
But the number of ACTUAL cell divisions are the ‘raw material’ upon which recombination, errors or mutations act to provide the ‘variety’ for NS to select – and so they are VERY relevant.
……and at 4.38E+22 they are an infinitesimally small percentage of the 1E+180 combinations which must be produced IF we are to have any reasonable probability of producing a SPECIFIC functional 100 chain protein.
Scofflaw’s posting on page 173 # 3456 is based on the well publicised Evolutionist argument that, even though the chances of any aspect of life occurring spontaneously is EXCEEDINGLY SMALL, the VASTLY GREATER SIZE of the Universe would still ensure that life would emerge via the Law of Large Numbers due to the 'much greater' size of the Universe relative to the ‘smallness’ of the chances of producing life.
However, when Scofflaw actually MEASURED how infinitesimally SMALL the chances of even a simple functional protein emerging were (1 to 1E+180) and compared this figure with the fact that the ‘Enormous Universe’ only contains 10E+82 electrons, he should have known that his mathematical exercise was showing Materialistic Evolution to be impossible.
Basically, the problem is that although living systems have the POTENTIAL to more than match the permutations required to ensure the emergence of specific bio chemicals – they lack the resources to EXPRESS these permutations (even if they were able to harness all of the matter in the Universe).
Wicknight
the law of "big" numbers is an economic term that means it is harder to make profit in companies that are already very profitable.
Secondly the law of large numbers states that the likelyhood that the average in a sampling group will be close to the actual average of the whole population increases the large the sampling group gets.
Neither of these are relivent to what you are talking about, so can we leave out the "law of big numbers bit" please.
The Law of Big (or Large) Numbers applies to ALL statistics involving large number probabilities whether economic or otherwise.
Wicknight
It is impossible to generate all possible outcomes of the 100 chain protein. But why would you want to?
How do you make the leap from saying that it is not possible to generate all possible protein combinations to saying that it is therefore not possible to generate any of the possible protein combinations.
That is like saying that unless I buy all possible Lotto tickets it is impossible to just buy one, or two, or a hundred.
There are 5,245,786 possible combinations of six numbers within the ‘combinatorial space' of the National Lottery.
One of the reasons people take part in the Lotto is to win the jackpot – and on average, every time about 5 million tickets are sold, the statistical Law of Big Numbers means that the jackpot is ‘won’.
There are 1E+180 possible combinations of nucleotides in the 300-nucleotide stretch of DNA that codes for a 100 chain protein.
If this was a Lottery NOBODY would play it, because NOBODY could win it in an effective infinity of time and ‘draws’ – because the statistical Law of Big Numbers would means that it could only be ‘won’ on average every time 1E+180 tickets are sold.
So, how could Evolution ‘win’ this particular ‘lottery’ and produce a useful functional protein?
1. It could do so if the number of ‘possible attempts’ more than matched the possible combinations – thereby generating all of the possible protein sequences for NS to select the functional ones. This is the intuitive belief held by Evolutionists that even though the chances of any aspect of life occurring spontaneously is exceedingly small, the vastly greater size of the Universe would still ensure that life would emerge via the Law of Big numbers. As you have discovered, the odds of 1E+180 for even a small protein are beyond all ‘possible attempts’ – even if all of the matter and time in the universe were used – so this mechanism is impossible.
2. It could do so if the process wasn’t actually random – but was ‘chemically pre-determined’ insome way to select functional proteins or could otherwise efficiently select functional protein sequences from amongst the effectively infinite useless ‘combinatorial space’ that is 1E+180. Again this is observed to not be the case – the four nucleotide base combinations of DNA can chemically join up in any sequence to produce any amino acid sequence, thereby ruling out any ‘chemically pre-determined’ result.
NS is DEPENDENT on essentially random mutations / replication errors and therefore because NS is dependent upon on the random sequences that random mutation errors provide it is an essentially a random system, with effectively random results because of the infinite useless ‘combinatorial space’ that is available.
3. It could also do so if practically all combinations of Amino Acids produced ‘useful functional proteins’ – but this is also NOT the case. There are an only an estimated 50,000 'functional proteins' in a Human Being, with chain lengths up to 27,000 amino acids in very tightly specified sequences.
There are very limited combinations of Critical Amino Acid Sequences that produce useful proteins – and even one “wrong” Amino Acid along a Critical Sequence can utterly change the three dimensional shape of the protein – making it functionally USELESS.
Even if we accept, for the sake of argument that ALL sequences COULD potentially produce a 'functional protein', it would be impossible for an undirected system to 'discover' for example, a 'functional protein' for blood clotting because by definition nearly 1E +180 of the protein sequences 'out there' are in the 'useless combinatorial space' for blood clotting - so 'finding' the ACTUAL proten sequence to incorporate into the blood clotting cascade would defeat any 'blind' system like Macro-Evolution.
It would be like a spare parts company, randomly searching it's enormous warehouse of 1E+180 spare parts for a particular spare part for your car. You would end up with a pile of supplied spare parts the size of the Universe - and still no statistical chance of ever getting the spark plug that you ordered!!!
Equally, it is observed that ALL functional proteins are tightly specified and in turn they perform highly specific tasks in a closely co-ordinated and tightly integrated manner with other proteins and bio-molecules within the living organism concerned – so there is a hierarchy of multiple layers of tightly specified complexity within which proteins perform their useful functions – and without which they would be functionally useless.
This logically indicates that functional proteins COULDN’T have ANY functionality until ALL of the critical sequence is formed and it is fully integrated within the organism and perfectly co-ordinated within for example, whatever cascade it is catalysing.
There are therefore enormous amounts of ‘useless combinatorial space’ between useful functional proteins and this ‘useless combinatorial space’ is so enormous (even in very short 100 chain proteins) that it would defeat all of the time and resources of the Universe to ‘cross’ it using undirected processes such as mutation and replications errors.
However, intelligence can easily ‘cross’ this ‘space’ by possessing the power to logically specify sequences to meet pre-determined, co-ordinated and fully integrated functional objectives.
DNA is basically a ‘chemical language’ that instructs the cellular machinery on how to construct the living organism and keep it alive. Like all languages it logically must have an intelligent source – because all languages (including DNA) are observed to have tightly specified unambiguously unique sequences in the midst of an effectively infinite amount of surrounding ‘useless combinatorial space’.
To illustrate, the 59 letters in the statement that “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” occupy a total potential ‘combinatorial space’ of 3.04E+83 i.e. (1/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 ………….59 times)
This happens to be also greater than the number of electrons in the Universe.
In practice, it would therefore be impossible for a random computer programme to EVER combine the 26 letters of the alphabet into this statement using undirected processes.
However, by applying very basic Human Intelligence to specifying the exact sequence of the letters, we easily overcome the effectively infinite ‘useless combinatorial’ space surrounding this unique, tightly specified and functionally understandable sequence of letters.
An example of the ‘useless combinatorial space’ within these 59 letters would be “SGFVXY BHESKGDFW BJJGDSDUPWDSBN NHGDFJKK JJHNSMDOOERYNNDK GYUWOQ”
- and a further approximately 10E+83 of similarly ‘functionally useless’ sets of '59 letter gobbledygook’.!!!!
If a short meaningful sentence in the English language cannot be generated by random processes – then a meaningful DNA stretch for a functional protein also cannot be generated by random processes – and Materialistic Macro-Mutation is an essentially random process.
Quote :- Dr Stephen C Meyer, Director of The Discovery Institute Centre for Science & Culture, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington Vol 117 no 2 pp 213-219 2004.
“Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks – almost by definition – are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality – with purposeful intelligence……….
For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa.”0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement