It was aliens I tell you..........LOL
Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability
by pomegranate 145 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
expatbrit
First, the essay uses WRONG starting numbers. An elementary mistake right from the beginning. First, the essay uses WRONG starting numbers. An elementary mistake right from the beginning.
Second, how is it that probabilty math is usable in the infinite complexities of atomic quantum mechanics AND BE GOOD AND USEFUL, and of no use to the SIMPLE NUMBERS of connecting biological elements into CHAINS of life? Of course evolution has to try and release itself from probability math, because the numbers show IMPOSSIBILTY.
You're missing the point again. You do not know whether the essay uses wrong starting numbers. You have made assumptions to come up with your probability figure which you cannot prove. This is the point: that too many assumptions must be made in any probability calculation for that calculation to be valid.
Your question on quantum mechanics is just confusing the issue. I may as well ask: how come a hockey stick is really great on an ice-rink, but totally sucks on a tennis court?
The numbers don't show impossibility. They don't show possibility either. The numbers don't show a damn thing!
Expatbrit
-
pomegranate
a) your calculation is irrelevant because no one is talking about a 300 amino acid long protein.
Excuse me, but that was the very topic of the article presented.
very short polypeptides have already enzymatic activity.
Your point?
b) there are transitional forms. take archeopterix as the most prominent example. there are many many others. however transitional forms are of course rare since species stay in more or less the same form for most of their existence. transitional forms gain importance only if environmental changes occur that allow the adaptaion to a new niche.
If evolution were true, there would be BILLIONS of transitions in the fossil record. There would be species NOW in the transitional MODE. Both are NOT TRUE.
c) if you would have a scientific mind then you would try to come up with an alternative scientific explaination instead of refering to God who somehow and miracously put everything here (despite a gigantic pile of evidence against that idea)
Why sidestep the truth? Again, more claims of EVIDENCE and facts wirth NONE presented. Staus Quo.
d) just on the side: biological evolution does NOT depend on how the first cell formed.
It surely does, because without that first cell, there is NO LIFE AT ALL.
e) here is an abstract from a rather new review about peptide formation:
Peptides and the origin of life. Rode BM.
Department of Theoretical Chemistry, Institute for General, Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Innsbruck, Austria. [email protected]
Considering the state-of-the-art views of the geochemical conditions of the primitive earth, it seems most likely that peptides were produced ahead of all other oligomer precursors of biomolecules. Among all the reactions proposed so far for the formation of peptides under primordial earth conditions, the salt-induced peptide formation reaction in connection with adsorption processes on clay minerals would appear to be the simplest and most universal mechanism known to date. The properties of this reaction greatly favor the formation of biologically relevant peptides within a wide variation of environmental conditions such as temperature, pH, and the presence of inorganic compounds. The reaction-inherent preferences of certain peptide linkages make the argument of 'statistical impossibility' of the evolutionary formation of the 'right' peptides and proteins rather insignificant. Indeed, the fact that these sequences are reflected in the preferential sequences of membrane proteins of archaebacteria and prokaryonta distinctly indicates the relevance of this reaction for chemical peptide evolution. On the basis of these results and the recent findings of self-replicating peptides, some ideas have been developed as to the first steps leading to life on earth.How in the hell does a salt induced peptide formation undermine the statistical impossibility of evolution using the RIGHT peptides and proteins? It doesn't.
Edited by - pomegranate on 18 October 2002 17:42:20
-
pomegranate
You're missing the point again. You do not know whether the essay uses wrong starting numbers.
Yes I do. He says WHERE HE GOT HIS STARTING NUMBERS and one of them IS WRONG.
-
expatbrit
Btw Pomegranate, if you ever visit Toronto, let me know. You've no idea how entertaining this type of conversation can be after half a dozen beers. Believe me, I know!
Expatbrit
-
Realist
it is pointless to calculate probabilities as long as one doesn't know the mechanism!!!
for instance as the quoted review shows there are molecular mechanisms which cause certain amino acids to form peptide bonds with higher frequency.
zach ...i read creationists scientific arguments...all of them can be refuted. if you have new ones let me know!
-
pomegranate
Your question on quantum mechanics is just confusing the issue. I may as well ask: how come a hockey stick is really great on an ice-rink, but totally sucks on a tennis court?
Ridiculous analogy. Probability math is used in ALL the sciences, engineering, insurance...ANYWHERE dead nuts probabilty is needed. You've proven you don't have a clue.
-
pomegranate
it is pointless to calculate probabilities as long as one doesn't know the mechanism!!!
We know the mechanism. It's broken down into millions of molecular parts. The mechanism is YOU.
for instance as the quoted review shows there are molecular mechanisms which cause certain amino acids to form peptide bonds with higher frequency.
Which has nothing to do with evolution.
-
expatbrit
The point is: the right tool for the right job.
The mechanism is YOU.
LOLOL. The topic under discussion is abiogenesis. Unless you're really trying to imply that evolutionary theory states that a human leapt fully formed from the primeval goop.
Expatbrit
-
Realist
pom,
>>>b) there are transitional forms. take archeopterix as the most prominent example. there are many many others. however transitional forms are of course rare since species stay in more or less the same form for most of their existence. transitional forms gain importance only if environmental changes occur that allow the adaptaion to a new niche.
If evolution were true, there would be BILLIONS of transitions in the fossil record. There would be species NOW in the transitional MODE. Both are NOT TRUE. <<<
you have obviously NO idea about evolution! you simply don't know how it works. READ A BOOK ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU ARGUE! a new species developes if environmental conditions change!!! because only then new niches open! once a species is adapted to the new conditions further changes reduce its fitness again...therefore they develop a form that is perfect for the environment...take the dingos in australia for instance.
by the way ...there are many transitional forms observable today. birds, mice etc.etc.
again GET A SCIENCE BOOK MAN!!!!
the point was that you don't need 300 amino acids to get a selfreplicating enzyme...or any enzyme to that effect.