Mutation causes the varieties
Mutation causes FREAKS. Go do your lab experiments. Remember the fruit fly.
pomegranate
JoinedPosts by pomegranate
-
145
Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability
by pomegranate inany of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
-
-
pomegranate
-
145
Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability
by pomegranate inany of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
-
-
pomegranate
"Since life began, about 99 percent of the species that have evolved on Earth have died out." pg. 26
So where's the fossil record of evolutions transistionals? There is none. There is not one evolutionist that can explain the BANG of the Cambrian period. A blast of uncountable numbers of complex fully formed species all at once. They have no explaination, never have, never will. Where 's all your transitional species? THERE ARE NONE, where there should be INUMERABLE and UNCOUNTABLE proofs of this supposed truth.
ADDED: How does extinction support evolution, when nothing in the mass extinctions shows nothing but fully formed species?
------------------
i posted an abstract that shows that lab experiments demonstrate that d amino acids are excluded because of chemical interactions... was pom able to read and understand that text? was he able to argue against the experiment? NO ...the only thing he was able to do was to ignore the point made!
Go read my red reply after your cited text. Do you know how to read? I guess not...here, let me copy and paste for you:
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.
-----------------
But judging from your repetition of the same false info
And what "false info" is that?
Also, if you'd have actually read Morowitz's works instead of copying & pasting from creationist books/ websites, you'd have known that he was talking about environments that operated at thermal equilibrium in those calculations.
And that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which was HIS smallest THEORETICAL biological self replicating entity. The purpose it was quoted was to show that even evolutionists concur that even the smallest species (which my example given was Morowitz's THEORETICAL model) was a species of vast vast complexity. It doesn't make any differemce of how he got those THEORETICAL answers, because in the real world, there is NOTHING that small, regardless of the thermodynamic environment.
Since the earth is not, and has never been at thermal equilibrium, the stuff he writes about on that topic is irrelevant to our topic at hand.
BULL. If he wants to theorize about the smallest free living organism which does not exist, it can be used against him and you as it being an organism of monsterous complexties. Simple. The whole purpose of reducing the size of an organism, is to reduce it's complexity so as to make the impossible seem possible. But as science strides ahead, the complexities of even the smallest biological sub divisions make evolutionists look like chumps.
If you'd like to read about what Morowitz really thinks about the subject, perhaps you should read his book
The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex. He certainly does not agree with your views.
I wasn't quoting him to support my views, I was quoting him to give you evolutionists the benefit of the doubt and use your THEORETICAL smallest biological model as your own doom. Even though Morowitz tries to reduce the size in theory, even the smallest of species (even though theoretical) makes a fool of evolutionists by it's infinite complexity.
Just as extra info, Morowitz is a theistic evolutionist. So to paraphrase rem, he may believe God got it started, but it was evolution the rest of the way, baby
A faulty HYPOTHESIS it is.
Edited for ADDED and typos.
Edited by - pomegranate on 20 October 2002 9:53:10
-
145
Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability
by pomegranate inany of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
-
-
pomegranate
PS. crownboy, someone already plastered that article earlier in this thread. Before getting into a technical debate like this, why not READ the thread to find out where it's been instead of REPEATING info that has already been parsed.
-
145
Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability
by pomegranate inany of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
-
-
pomegranate
Basically, the first self replicators were alot simpler than you propose, so what you raised was a moot point.
All you guys seem to think this talkorigin site is the final word. Sorry, it is a site full of the hypothetical and theoretical of which it itself PLAINLY states. Yet guys like Jan mysteriously turn this site into a presentation of FACTS.
The man above raises talkorigin verbage on how "simple" the first self replicators were. Well, there has been very intense study in that regard.
Dr. Harold J. Morowitz* of Yale University has done extensive research for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to discover the theoretical limits for the simplest free-living thing which could duplicate itself, or, technically, the minimal biological entity capable of autonomous self-replication. From these important studies, the conclusion was that the smallest such theoretical entity would require 239 or more individual protein molecules. Which is not so simple an entity.
This data was published in the mid to late 60's and has not and is not refuted by any scientist. Please note, that the smallest known autonomous living organism, is the minuscule, bacteria-like Mycoplasma hominis H39. It has around 600 different kinds of proteins.
But theoretical postulation leaves it at 239 in the number of proteins that could MAYBE be the bare minimum.
*Harold J. Morowitz and Mark E. Tourtellotte, The Smallest Living Cells, The Living Cell, ed. Donald Kennedy [San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1965], pp. 31-39. Also: Harold J. Morowitz, Biological Self-Replicating Systems, Progress in Theoretical Biology, ed. Fred M. Snell, Vol. 1 [1967], pp. 52-57
-
145
Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability
by pomegranate inany of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
-
-
pomegranate
You are incorrect.
Peptide
Any compound consisting of two or more amino acids.
Proteins are polypeptides.
Edited by - pomegranate on 18 October 2002 21:10:54
-
145
Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability
by pomegranate inany of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
-
-
pomegranate
proteins are NOT self replicating.
-
145
Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability
by pomegranate inany of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
-
-
pomegranate
a selfreplicating enzyme
A self replicating ENZYME?
-
145
Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability
by pomegranate inany of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
-
-
pomegranate
Great replies.
-
145
Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability
by pomegranate inany of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
-
-
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.
-
145
Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability
by pomegranate inany of you evolutionists ever crunch the numbers?
-
-
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.