The Odds of a Beneficial Mutation is 1 in 10 Vigintillion -astronomically low-

a reply to: Nothin

Good call I didn't factor in multiple kids.

But Even if you make it exponential offspring, it still comes nowhere close to 10 vigintillion. For these odds to hit, there would need to have been 10 vigintillion (divided by 3.2 billion [number of DNA sequences]) transitional hominids throughout history. 10 vigintillion is an unimaginably large number, and it's merely the odds to get ONE successful alteration to a sub-portion of a protein. Not even a whole new protein. A whole new protein would require that 10 vigintillion to hit many times.

10 vigintillion is 5x larger than the radius of the observable universe lol

a reply to: Randyvine2
I didn't say all humans

Don't forget about the folding machine. You're not going to get many types of functional proteins that can properly function within a living cell without the folding machine; which is often overlooked by those who speculate and theorize about proteins folding sterically into functional* proteins just based on their sequence, speculating and theorizing about how different sequences would fold sterically and which sequences would be functional, often without testing it in practice in a living cell if the protein actually would have a useful function that contributes to the operations in the cell in a beneficial way in terms of the operations involving the perpetuation of life (*: again, functional as used in this sentence is referring to functional in a living cell, working as intended, not screwing up the operations of the cell because it has only folded sterically based on its sequence of amino acids, but not folded properly into its final configuration form by the folding machine in the cell, perhaps functioning less efficiently and causing problems in the long run, such as causing aggregation of misfolded proteins, diseases for the organism and even cell death; see last 2 videos for details).

Context:

Protein synthesis (DNA transcription, translation and folding)

Details about the need for a folding machine to get many types of properly folded proteins that are not merely folded sterically based on their sequence (which with many types of proteins could cause the earlier mentioned problems in living cells and organisms when there is a problem with the folding steps and folding machine; the aggregation of misfolded proteins is discussed from 5:18 onwards, the associated diseases are discussed at the end, point 5 if you watch the introduction):


Also note what he discusses after 19:57 about the effects of any type of mutation to the sequence of a protein on the inside of the folding machine itself, it won't work properly anymore then, having disastrous effects on the living cell (coming back to a non-functioning folding machine or not properly functioning folding machine causing aggregation of other misfolded proteins). The sensitivity of this particular protein on the inside of the folding machine to any sort of mutation gives us an important clue if there are any set of accumulative mutations that could lead to the right sequence for constructing the folding machine and in particular this protein (as per the evolutionary myth that this happened by a chance accumulation of mutations supposedly 'selected' for by so-called "natural selection", for which the article in the OP gives us an odds number for just 1 supposedly 'functional' part of any sort of functional protein, already giving the myth so much leeway*); which is already so crucial to the proper folding of so many other proteins that are part of protein complexes known as enzymes (molecular machines).

*: you gotta wonder what they consider "one functional domain", functional in what sense? It still needs the rest of the protein, it still needs to be folded into its final confirmation form by the folding machine in most cases (when talking properly working enzymes), and then it still needs to work properly in a living cell within all the other mechanical systems, not screwing up the works, also not in the long run causing a disadvantage. So how do you determin what "one functional domain" is? If the organism that has that mutated protein survives and doesn't show any immediate issues? The proteins incorporated on the inside of the folding machine already aren't flexible to any sort of mutation, so I guess we're not looking for a mutation causing "one functional domain" to appear in that protein. Useful to keep in mind when reading something that talks about proteins as if they are all equally flexible to mutations leading to biologically functional results(/proteins), having the same odds of producing such results.

a reply to: cooperton

So ya Coop I have a question and you're notably more astute than
myself regarding these matters. Regarding science, micro and macro
evolution. Seems like a very simple question so please forgive me if
I've missed something.

But doesn't science put mans evolution back thru the micro evolutionary
period? And from that time till now doesn't science claim billions of
years have passed? That evolution has had billions of years to
bring homo sapiens to the man walking the earth today. Maybe my
math is off but science having a penchant for large amounts of time.
Does put the dinosaurs walking the earth only 165 million years ago?

Science also claims a meteor strike brought the dinosaurs to extinction.
So the question is obvious. Who protected man in what ever state of
evolution he was in at the time from this ELE? Or I'll ask another way.

How does man evolve for say 1 billion years conservatively and not
live with the dinosaurs? But nor did man go extinct with the dinosaurs?

Did man live in a different dimension on the same earth as the dinosaurs?

Frankly I think scientists are completely wacked even suggesting they
know the first thing about 1 billion years ago.

I guess I'm having trouble with the chronological floooow as science seems to
portray it. Can you make any sense of it my good member?

a reply to: Randyvine2

This question is a great example of why creationists don't understand science or evolution; they are way too wrapped up in the bible and its chronology to accept even the possibility of anything else.

I'm looking forward to your response Coop.

a reply to: TerraLiga


They have no room for growth or change, massive change is coming people with no room for change will not do well

a reply to: TerraLiga

I'm looking forward to your response Coop.

My good member I have to wonder why you didn't answer the question?
It is an open forum you know? And wouldn't it go so much further than
just getting so triggered.

Lets pretend I asked you the same question shall we?

a reply to: Randyvine2

The entire chronology is all theoretical. They are then assuming the theory is true and skewing observable data to fit that narrative.

Take for example radioactive dating. In order to do radioactive dating on a radioactive compound, you need to know the initial concentration of the compound, otherwise you cannot know the time elapsed. This is clearly impossible to know, but scientists assume it is 100-0% parent-child ratio in order for the current readings to be maximized on time. But in reality there is never a 100% pure compound, they are drastically assuming the most extreme speculation to fit their narrative. Even zircon crystals you cannot know the initial concentration within the Crystal, and for these they also assume 0% contamination which is absurd.

So since the time line is up in the air, you assess the fact that humans have countless depictions of dinosaurs and undoubtedly lived together:

here's a writeup I did on the subject

dinosaur bones still contain soft tissue, and this soft tissue was carbon dated to less than 40,000 years old. Carbon dating is an interesting exception to the fallibility mentioned about radioactive dating. With carbon dating you can get an approximation of the initial concentration because we can somewhat assume radioactive carbon levels in the atmosphere have remained constant over time. They've even carbon dated coal to being in the thousands of years range. Its still not totally accurate because we can't know initial concentration for sure, but it is enough to show that this stuff is not millions of years old.

There's also countless artifacts found in supposed "hundred million year old strata", proving these narratives are baseless.

Rapid deposition of dissolved minerals have been shown to be the norm, this is proven by polystrate fossils, which are upright tree fossils that surpass multiple geological strata. This means the deposition process was rapid, because clearly a dead tree cannot just persist for millions of years sticking half way out of the ground. Instead it proves rapid deposition.

This is only a summary of the abundance of evidence that shows the mainstream scientism timeline is flat out wrong and baseless. For any blog that supports the science timeline, simply ask "how do they know that date?", and often times you find nothing but speculation. It is trickier when it's a peer reviewed journal because you need to be scientifically astute yo realize their bs.. I was blown away when I realized geologists just assumed whatever initial concentration for radioactive elements that would maintain their narrative.

In terms of astronomical distances, the simple fact that "the big bang happened everywhere at once" shows that the popular misguided idea of a single point explosion is not a reliable way to measure time elapsed

It's a house of cards. I hope this was helpful, always good hearing from you brotha

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: TerraLiga

I'm looking forward to your response Coop.

My good member I have to wonder why you didn't answer the question?
It is an open forum you know? And wouldn't it go so much further than
just getting so triggered.

Lets pretend I asked you the same question shall we?

You asked Cooperton. I was just saying I'm as excited as you are to hear the response.

Let's assume your god made everything and biblical creation is true. The Earth would be less than 10,000 years old. Science, in particular geologists, disputes this statement with evidence. Radiometric dating (geochronology) estimates the Earth at about 4.5 billion years old. The Radioactive Decay Law is so universally accepted that it is accurately applied not just in geology, but in many aspects of nuclear physics. Some things cannot be done without this Law being fact. Cooperton will always use Carbon-14 dating to age old things, even though it is only accurate for dating up to 40-50,000 years old. It is utterly useless for dating dinosaur bones or rocks. Even then, some items are dated at 40,000 years or more. Simple maths will tell you that this is more than 10,000.

I wouldn't know where to start with aging the genealogy of DNA, but I'd be talking to deaf ears anyway.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

You asked Cooperton. I was just saying I'm as excited as you are to hear the response.

Let's assume your god made everything and biblical creation is true. The Earth would be less than 10,000 years old. Science, in particular geologists, disputes this statement with evidence. Radiometric dating (geochronology) estimates the Earth at about 4.5 billion years old. The Radioactive Decay Law is so universally accepted that it is accurately applied not just in geology, but in many aspects of nuclear physics. Some things cannot be done without this Law being fact. Cooperton will always use Carbon-14 dating to age old things, even though it is only accurate for dating up to 40-50,000 years old. It is utterly useless for dating dinosaur bones or rocks. Even then, some items are dated at 40,000 years or more. Simple maths will tell you that this is more than 10,000.

I wouldn't know where to start with aging the genealogy of DNA, but I'd be talking to deaf ears anyway.

I am not arguing radiometric decay, I am explaining how you cannot know the initial concentration of these radiometric samples. In uranium-lead dating, you cannot know the initial concentration. Therefore you can't solve the half-life equation for the amount of time elapsed.

It is utterly useless for dating dinosaur bones or rocks.

If there was no C14 left in the sample, the results would say so. But all results indicate there is still radioactive carbon present, meaning the soft tissue is young, as you would expect since it's soft tissue. Soft tissue doesn't persist for hundreds of millions of years

a reply to: TerraLiga

This is total garbage and a fallacy no person of science should make.
You are taking what man has said and shoring up your disbelief in your
Creator.

The Earth would be less than 10,000 years old.

Total bullsh1t. That is not scripture!


And what's this supposed to mean ?

wouldn't know where to start with aging the genealogy of DNA, but I'd be talking to deaf ears anyway.

Sheese mon give a guy a chance at least?

I'm just asking how did mans evolution not expire in an ELE? Basically.

Seems tough to get an answer.

a reply to: Randyvine2

The most straight-forward indication I can point to is a protein in mostly all biological organisms called AT synthase. ATP synthase is like an electrogenic hydrogen fuel cell that generates energy from an electrical gradient. It took a lot of time for intelligent humans to be able to discover and invent the hydrogen fuel cell. We would never expect such a meticulous invention to ever come to be by random chance.

An engineer would laugh at you if you said all you need to do is wait long enough and a hydrogen fuel cell will randomly be generated.

It is clear that ATP synthase was designed, because it not only is like a hydrogen fuel cell, but it is also self-replicable through the genome blueprint. Another facet that an engineer would say is flat-out impossible. This proves a Hyper-Intelligent Being as our Creator... there's no way around it

a reply to: cooperton


Sorry Coop I missed your post that speaks to the question Thanks

So much for that theory. Because it sucks in the most inept way.

It's a house of cards. I hope this was helpful, always good hearing from you brotha

Your knowledge of these matters has expanded vastly since the early days.
And it's so good to see. Stay with us Coop.

a reply to: TerraLiga

Let's assume your god made everything and biblical creation is true. The Earth would be less than 10,000 years old. Science, in particular geologists, disputes this statement with evidence. Radiometric dating (geochronology) estimates the Earth at about 4.5 billion years old.

The earth is most likely billions of years old, Genesis 1:1 has no definitive time line, the total creation of the universe is linked to the creation of the earth within the same statement. If science says the universe is about 13-15 billion years old I don't dispute that, we can't know 100% for sure, but I have no reason to say it's wrong, so I can agree with that.
Young earth creationists are going against science and logic. And God never had to adhere to 24 hour periods, as defined by our earth rotation around our sun.
Old earth creationists are on the correct path to the right timeline of things which we just can't know.

a reply to: Archivalist


Your maths may need a little more assessment. It has nothing to do with how often your cells might mutate and much more to do with how many hhuman eggs a women drops in her life time and conception rate. This is the resolution of change. You also need to understand that the sum of the parts is not equal to the whole. One single deviation counts for nothing. You need to make a workable protein. That you can work out in possible combinations.

so to have three correct protein folds in order you would need.. a magnitude of attempts..

1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 x 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 x
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

So how many folds in a protein. You work out the chances your the math professor.

and maths is the language of the divine.,

originally posted by: purplemer

So how many folds in a protein. You work out the chances your the math professor.

and maths is the language of the divine.,

Exactly. Imagine needing a specific gear shape for a machine, and hoping it comes to be by random chance. Absurdly impossible (or approximately 1 in 10 vigintillion). What's so beautiful is that our genes code for these proteins similar to how a 3D printer has codes to form specific shapes that serve a very precise function.

The problem is we have our whole population that was raised in an education system that insists this vast network of coding came to be by random chance. It will take some time before it is realized that indeed the language of the divine is encoded in our DNA.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: DAVG1980

More accurately, it typically requires dozens of generations of reproduction to diverge into a new species.

yes, look how long it took T Rex to turn into a chicken so i could get a bucket of KFC.