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.
Yeast, insect, a fish, a bird, and a mammal all have approximately the same number of Cytochrome C differences relative to a bacteria. Is there a pre-existing evolutionary publication predicting this?
My chart would not upload correctly. I will try to post one to illustrate.
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.
Comparison of Cytochrome C sequences PRECISELY confirms the evolutionary history of all species, from humans to yeast, EXACTLY as predicted by pre-existing models.
Biochemical sequence data from a chart in Denton’s book compiled from Dayhoff shows that when compared to bacteria that yeast , wheat, a silk moth, tuna, pigeon, and horse are all virtually the same distance when it comes to Cytochrome C
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.
Earlier I brought up two general points in a response.
1. The assertion by evolutionists that a creator would not have created life the way that it exists.
2. The assertion by evolutionists that evolution makes specific predictions about life, and that these predictions are fulfilled.
My previous recent posts dealt with point number 1. Since there is no specific response (other than a dismissive comment) I will move on to the other assertion.
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.
In 1993 Walter ReMine published an important work titled “The Biotic Message” in which he introduced “Message Theory”.
The basics of Message Theory is that:
1. Life was created to show that it was the work of a single designer.
2. Life was also designed to resist all other explanations.
ReMine focuses on life’s overall pattern of theme and variation and why a creator would choose to use it to unite life as the work of one designer (and to resist other explanations including multiple designers acting independently and numerous evolutionary scenarios).
A pattern of theme and variation is used to identify unknown works of art as the product of a single artist.
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.
In 1985 an Australian molecular biologist wrote a book titled “Evolution A Theory In Crisis”. This book gives a well laid out explanation of life’s overall pattern of “groups within groups” (a pattern of theme and variation) according to shared characteristics. This is found in chapters 5 and 6.
He points out the difficulties of the specific evolutionary scenario of descent with modification from common ancestry of explaining life’s pattern.
He also documents in a later chapter how the pattern of Cytochrome C matches the predictions of the pre-Darwinian typological model of nature almost perfectly (of groups within groups with each group Isolated and equidistant when compared with other groups).
So regardless of evolution the predictions match another model almost precisely. So why could a creator have not done this? Especially since he would have already have created according to the same model?
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 will take more than one post to respond to the above 2 posts. I won’t consider responding to anything “new” until I’m done.
General:
The style of argumentation is similar to what other evolutionists use (see ReMine 1993) and can be broken down to two basic assertions of evolutionists.
1. The assertion by evolutionists that a creator would not have created life the way that it exists.
2. The assertion by evolutionists that evolution makes specific predictions about life, and that these predictions are fulfilled.
The assertion by evolutionists that a creator would not have created life the way that it exists, is a convienent assertion. Cofty’s argument assumes that a creator could not (or at least would not) have created Cytochrome C in the pattern that it exists in. (Instead, according to him a creator would have been limited to creating it totally identically or totally random.)
Thats several assertions about a creator with little or no substantiation.
We are told by evolutionists that “just because we can’t imagine out how evolution did it doesn’t mean that a creator did it” - Perhaps evolutionists should consider that “just because we can’t imagine why a creator would do something in a certain way doesn’t mean that evolution did it”
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.
Even taking the existence of Cytochrome C as a given, that evolutionary processes “predict” life’s pattern is a stretch.
Evolutionary theory is highly flexible. Evolutionists “adapt” evolution to try to fit any data.
If Cytochrome C sequences (beyond a limited number of shared amino acids required to form the protein) were totally random between species, then Evolutionists would ‘explain’ the random pattern as a result of ‘neutral mutation’. After all they believe that ‘random’ mutation is the source of genetic variation. (They would tell us that a creator would not have done it this way and that it is evidence of random naturalistic processes instead).
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.
