i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.
there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.
there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.
3 - DNA sequences vary in a pattern that exactly corresponds to the relationships previously identified by evolution.
Life’s hierarchical pattern was recognized by creationist scientists PREVIOUS to modern evolutionary theory. The fact that cytochrome c sequences conform to this same pattern does not mean that evolution is the only option.
i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.
there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.
there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.
Hooby you really don't understand it do you?
There are three possibilities.
With 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c functional sequences there are only “three possibilities”?
Talk origins and other evolutionists here imply that Its either “random” sequences or its evolution!
You imply that if it’s not “random” sequences or “identical” sequences, then it must be evolution!
Why do Evolutionists like to present the argument in ways that are so favorable to evolution?
i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.
there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.
there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.
Related to what I wrote earlier on this page, I want to point out something commonly found in these arguments. That is the evolutionists implicit claim that we SHOULD EXPECT a creator to use RANDOM sequences for different created organisms.
From the talkorigins article:
“Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, . . .”
“For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.”
“In terms of a scientific statistical analysis, the "null hypothesis" is that the identity of non-essential amino acids in the cytochrome c proteins from human and chimpanzee SHOULD BE RANDOM with respect to one another.”
What is the evidence for this claim? This is actually a subtle theological claim. It’s an implicit claim that a creator “should” use “random” sequences. Other Evolutionists here have made basically the same statement, or even adding that if evolution is not true that we “should not” see any patterns of relatedness in the cytochrome c sequences for different species!
No justification is ever given for the “should” and “should not” . There mere fact that there are a lot of hypothetical functional sequences does not necessarily mean that a creator therefore “should” use random sequences in each created kind, or that a creator “should not” form a pattern.
Evolutionists like to use evidence against random chance to make evolution “look” scientific. Even if it means making implicit theological claims about what a creator “should” or “should not” do.
i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.
there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.
there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.
That said creatures that are similar morphologically will also be similar in terms of cytochrome c. The nested patterns of both will tend be in agreement. This could not be a result of chance, but that does not mean that evidence against chance is evidence for evolution.
There are two books that I would recommend on life’s overall pattern morphologically and genetic.
“The Biotic Message” by Walter ReMine
”Evolution a Theory in Crisis” by Michael Denton (especially chapters 5, 6, and 12).
Dont be dissuaded by negative evolutionist “reviews”. There is a lot of decent info in these 2.
i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.
there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.
there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.
“The evolutionist “protein functional redundancy” argument is built on the assumption that the only options for cytochrome c similarities are random chance or common descent.”
Note: The above comment was referring specifically to the “Confirmation” section of the “talk origins” article on this subject which states:
“Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. . . In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10^93 (1 out of 10^93).”
i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.
there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.
there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.
“Comparative genetics DOES NOT depend on an assumption of common ancestry it proves common ancestry.”
The first part of this is correct. Comparative genetics does not depend on an assumption of common ancestry. The mere fact of sequence similarity and dissimilarity does not prove common ancestry any more than software sequence comparison proves that iOS software versions arose by random mutation via hypothetical common ancestors.
i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.
there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.
there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.
Yes, there are a very large number of calculated possible functional cytochrome c sequences. (2.3 x 10 93rd power). Therefore the random chance occurrence of a high degree of similarity between any life forms would be remote (more remote than the number of estimated atoms in the universe).
This is strong evidence against RANDOM chance as an explanation for cytochrome c similarities in living things.
However, evidence against random chance does NOT equate to evidence for “common descent” between creatures.
For example all the possible hypothetical software sequences making up iPhone iOS software would be a much larger number than the above figures for cytochrome c. Yet the similarities between various generations of iOS are not evidence for “common descent” via naturalistic mutational processes, but instead due to being the product of a common intelligent design source.
The evolutionist “protein functional redundancy” argument is built on the assumption that the only options for cytochrome c similarities are random chance or common descent.
The evolutionists are using “evidence” against one naturalistic scenario as “evidence” for another.
i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.
there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.
there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.
The brief point about something in the OP that I made today was simple and factually accurate.
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/4950233519751168/evolution-fact-1-protein-functional-redundancy?page=18#6215033349472256
There is nothing difficult to understand, nor does it misunderstand the topic.
i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.
there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.
there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.
Cofty, to my first post today you replied:
“I literally have not got a clue what you mean . . .”
So did you understand it or not?
i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.
there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.
there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.
I literally have not got a clue what you mean and I suspect you don't either.
So you can’t understand the point that I was making in the 3 paragraphs?
I don’t think it’s that difficult.
