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, you claim that the pattern of sequence variation in Cytochrome C between species is “exactly the way evolution predicts”.
My point regarding the mathematical problem is that if purely naturalistic evolutionary processes cannot likely produce a Cytochrome C molecule, then they cannot therefore predict any pattern of Cytochrome C sequence variation.
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.
From the OP, 'The number of possible amino acid sequences that would result in a functional Cytochrome C protein molecule has been calculated to be a billion times larger than all the atoms in the known universe'Yes, but the number of possible sequences of the same length that would NOT result in a functional Cytochrome C protein molecule is trillions of times larger than this number. Yockey calculated both numbers.
Evolutionists focus on one and ignore the other far LARGER number.
So much larger that has any evolutionist shown that it’s likely?
If you actually want to understand more about the evolution of the electron transport chain, read 'The Vital Question' by Nick Lane. It answers your question very specifically.
Did he deal with the mathematical problem of obtaining a functional Cytochrome C molecule that Yockey alluded to?
every living thing descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.
this is the central fact that the theory of evolution explains.
house sparrows and tree sparrows only need to go back relatively few generations to find their common ancestor, while trout and tigers must search much closer to the roots of the tree for theirs.. darwin sketched this idea of common ancestry along with the words "i think" in one of his notebooks.
“Absolutely EVERYTHING we know about biology is predicated on evolution.”
Evolutionists like to make statements to that effect. But dogmatic statements aren’t evidence.
every living thing descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.
this is the central fact that the theory of evolution explains.
house sparrows and tree sparrows only need to go back relatively few generations to find their common ancestor, while trout and tigers must search much closer to the roots of the tree for theirs.. darwin sketched this idea of common ancestry along with the words "i think" in one of his notebooks.
Hooby - I really wish you would try to learn the basics of biology before you attempt to demolish it.
Nothing in what I written attempts to demolish “biology”.
every living thing descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.
this is the central fact that the theory of evolution explains.
house sparrows and tree sparrows only need to go back relatively few generations to find their common ancestor, while trout and tigers must search much closer to the roots of the tree for theirs.. darwin sketched this idea of common ancestry along with the words "i think" in one of his notebooks.
All 3 creatures have hands and fingers (or the remnants of them). All 3 have very different wing structures. Surely one way of creating a wing is superior to all others. So why would a creator create three completely different ways? Further, why would a creator use the fundamental bone structure of a hand, each time? Evolution provides an obvious explanation for each of these questions.
The book “The Biotic Message” deals with these points.
http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
The author argues that:
1. Life was created to show that it is the result of a single designer. Hence, “The similarity of these three organisms cannot be denied. They are variations on a theme, possessing a common body plan. This sends the unifying message.”
2. Life was designed to resist all other explanations. Hence, the organisms are “systematically placed (regarding all other organisms) so their common possession of wings cannot be explained by common descent.” “Evolutionists are left to account for the evolution of wings (and flight!) separately for each case.”
Biotic Message p. 354
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 answer to your question is that natural selection is NOT random. But we have covered that many many times.
How does differential survival and reproduction, even if not random, solve the mathematical problem of finding even one functional cytochrome c molecule?
You claim “in the case of finding an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life the results are already in. Unguided evolution is a fact.”
So therefore how was one of the functional sequences obtained given the probability issue?
Cytochrome c is just one component of the electron transport chain, so why would a molecule of it be worth anything to be selected ?
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.
For those who wanted sources:
What Cofty said:
"The number of possible amino acid sequences that would result in a functional Cytochrome C protein molecule has been calculated to be a billion times larger than all the atoms in the known universe."
The source:
Yockey, H. P. (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology. New York, Cambridge University Press.
The above is from page 16 of this thread.
The number of different possible functional versions of cyctochrome c sequences calculted by Yockey is staggering (2.3 x 10 93 ).
However, Yockeys calculations also show that when compared to the number of random possible sequences of the same length as cyctochrome c (110 amino acid length = 1.15 x 10 137 possible sequences) that functional cyctochrome c sequences are exceedingly rare.
The odds of obtaining even one of these by chance is 2.0 x 10 -44
Has any evolutionist demonstrated enough likely trials and time available on the Earth to likely obtain one functional cytochrome c sequence?
jehovah's witnesses,is jesus christ, jehovah god?
(not the father, but equal to the father)what if the watchtower told you about god in a false way, and yet the bible taught you about god in his true character, how would you respond?could it be true, that the watchtower have been leading you up the garden path, describing god in a way that the bible does not describe?
please watch my latest video to help you to see how the bible describes the lord jesus christ, and also within my video, i explain from the new world translation how the bible which the jws use, also describes jesus as jehovah god.
That’s a good description of your posting on this thread.“I have nothing to substantiate.
I have made a claim . . .”
jehovah's witnesses,is jesus christ, jehovah god?
(not the father, but equal to the father)what if the watchtower told you about god in a false way, and yet the bible taught you about god in his true character, how would you respond?could it be true, that the watchtower have been leading you up the garden path, describing god in a way that the bible does not describe?
please watch my latest video to help you to see how the bible describes the lord jesus christ, and also within my video, i explain from the new world translation how the bible which the jws use, also describes jesus as jehovah god.
There is nothing enjoyable about bumping heads with intellectually dishonest people.
True.
jehovah's witnesses,is jesus christ, jehovah god?
(not the father, but equal to the father)what if the watchtower told you about god in a false way, and yet the bible taught you about god in his true character, how would you respond?could it be true, that the watchtower have been leading you up the garden path, describing god in a way that the bible does not describe?
please watch my latest video to help you to see how the bible describes the lord jesus christ, and also within my video, i explain from the new world translation how the bible which the jws use, also describes jesus as jehovah god.
- Your inability to simply state the cornerstone of your faith is duly noted Hooby.
Your refusal to admit that your initial anti-trinitarian argument on this thread was dealt with, and your failure to substantiate your assertive claims regarding the Trinity doctrine are duly noted.
