There's not enough time in the world for mutations to create new proteins

In the theory of evolution it is assumed that there was enough time for genetic mutations to culminate in the diversity of life exhibited today. Most people know beneficial mutations are rare, but exactly how rare are they?

It is relatively common for single mutations to occur, but a single mutation is not enough to create a new functioning part of a protein. To make a new functional fold in a protein is what would allow a new function for a protein to emerge. Given the precision of mutations that would need to occur, as well as the length required to make a functioning span of protein, it has been estimated that the probability of a new relevant functional protein fold emerging through mutating the DNA strand is approximately 1 in 10e77, which is:

1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...
...000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

"the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10e77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences."
source

To make sense of this, imagine a string which has different widths and different magnetic attraction as you go along the string. The electrostatic attraction and varying widths in the string cause this string to fold in on itself in a very particular way. When the string folds in upon itself it begins to create a 3D structure. This 3D structure has a very specific shape, with very specific electrostatic attractions to allow chemical reactions to be catalyzed. This is the nature of how proteins are created:



These sequences and foldings are specific enough that they create functional microbots (cellular machinery) that serve purposes in the cell:



What the paper is referring to be extremely improbably (1 in 10e77), is the odds of mutations being able to make specific changes to the DNA that would allow new code to create something that is able to perform a new function. With this data we can estimate exactly how long it would take for mutations to be able to create a new functioning portion on a protein. In order to make this estimation, we will take into consideration all the bacteria on the planet, and the average mutation rate to determine how many total bacterial mutations occur per year. Also note, "e" simply means exponent. So 5e30 means 5,000,000...(with 30 total 0's) :

total number of bacteria on earth: 5e30
mutation rate per generation: .003
generation span: 12 hrs on average

First we have to determine how many mutations happen per bacterial line in a year. There are 8760 hrs in 1 year. Therefore 8760 hrs in a year divided by the 12 hrs in a bacterial generation = 730 mutations per year per bacterial generational line.

To determine the total number of mutations of all the bacteria on earth per year we simply multiply the number of bacteria by the number of mutations per bacterial line per year:

5e30 x 730 =3.65e33

Given that the odds of a beneficial mutation to an enzyme fold are approximately 1 in 1e77, This global mutation rate is clearly not enough to satisfy even one successful enzyme fold change even over trillions upon trillions of year

The reason an enzyme fold is so difficult to mutate is because it requires a long sequence of specific DNA changes that must be able to create an electrochemical function capable of performing a specific task. This is the operable part of proteins and enzymes that allow them to do anything at all, so it is absolutely necessary to know how something like this could emerge by simple genetic mutations. And the probabilities are unimaginably low.

Now going back to the 3.65e33 mutations per year for all bacterial life on the planet. If the odds are 1e77, then that means it would take 2.7e43 years just to make ONE successful mutation to an enzyme fold.

That means it would take:

27,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years

...to make one functional change to an enzyme fold through mutations to the genetic code. Given that the known universe is theorized to have existed for only around 14,000,000,000 years, we see how insufficient this amount of time is to create proteins through mutating genomes.

Keep in mind that ATP synthase for example has multiple enzyme folds throughout, and that the electron transport chain itself has a multitude of proteins. All of which need to be in place and function properly for metabolism to be possible!

So we are quite clearly seeing that even in the billions of years that have been ascribed to our universe, that would be vastly insufficient for allowing this probability to hit even once.

a reply to: cooperton

I'm just trying to get a handle on this and it appears there are different types of mutations and different ways of estimating rates of mutations.

Estimating Rates of Mutation

Many direct and indirect methods have been developed to help estimate rates of different types of mutations in various organisms. The main difficulty in estimating rates of mutation involves the fact that DNA changes are extremely rare events and can only be detected on a background of identical DNA. Because biological systems are usually influenced by many factors, direct estimates of mutation rates are desirable. Direct estimates typically involve use of a known pedigree in which all descendants inherited a well-defined DNA sequence. To measure mutation rates using this method, one first needs to sequence many base pairs within this region of DNA from many individuals in the pedigree, counting all the observed mutations. These observations are then combined with the number of generations that connect these individuals to compute the overall mutation rate (Haag-Liautard et al., 2007). Such direct estimates should not be confused with substitution rates estimated over phylogenetic time spans.

www.nature.com...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: cooperton

You can make up whatever numbers you want about the chance or the odds of something happening, but get this...it did happen.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: cooperton

I'm just trying to get a handle on this and it appears there are different types of mutations and different ways of estimating rates of mutations.


Estimating Rates of Mutation

Many direct and indirect methods have been developed to help estimate rates of different types of mutations in various organisms. The main difficulty in estimating rates of mutation involves the fact that DNA changes are extremely rare events and can only be detected on a background of identical DNA. Because biological systems are usually influenced by many factors, direct estimates of mutation rates are desirable. Direct estimates typically involve use of a known pedigree in which all descendants inherited a well-defined DNA sequence. To measure mutation rates using this method, one first needs to sequence many base pairs within this region of DNA from many individuals in the pedigree, counting all the observed mutations. These observations are then combined with the number of generations that connect these individuals to compute the overall mutation rate (Haag-Liautard et al., 2007). Such direct estimates should not be confused with substitution rates estimated over phylogenetic time spans.

www.nature.com...

Mutations aren't the rare part, the rare part described as 1 in 10e77 is mutations adding up in sequence to be able to code for a functional part on a protein. Many mutations are required to be able to make, for example, an active site on an enzyme. Around 250-500 amino acids comprise the active zone on an enzyme which allows the enzyme to perform its function. 250-500 amino acids which need to be ordered properly by the changes in the DNA code that gets translated into the protein. One wrong piece and the whole thing could be ruined.

The added difficulty is that even if you manage to mutate this many in a row (which the authors deemed 1 in 10e64), it is still a remarkably low probability that this active site does anything relevant for the organism. That's what decreases the probability to 1 in 10e77. And these are the odds to make a small fraction of a protein, the remainder of the protein is also an added difficulty, not to mention the other proteins that this protein would be dependent upon and vice versa, all would need to be established in synchrony.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: cooperton

You can make up whatever numbers you want about the chance or the odds of something happening, but get this...it did happen.

From the makers of "God did it", bring you "evolution did it". Oh the irony of dogma and its many forms. Regardless, These aren't my numbers, it's from a published article in the reputable journal: J Mol Biol, and other estimations by other scientists.

a reply to: cooperton

Obviously with certain types of flies your theory does not apply.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: cooperton

The chances of us, having this conversation, sequencing together these symbols, with our hands, that are connected to our brains through an intricate jumble of biological wiring, is just as low in the whole grand scale of the universe as to what you're proposing.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: cooperton

Obviously with certain types of flies your theory does not apply.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Again that is merely estimating individual mutations. it is popularly believed that there is 1 mutation and all of a sudden a squirrel can have wings and the necessary neural circuitry and musculature to use them, but it would take multitudes of mutations to be able to exhibit a functional change even on the microscopic level.

The most basic functional change is a change in a protein's functional fold. This is what was estimated to be a probability of 1 in 10e77. This is where you would be able to create a new function, such as an active site on an enzyme that is able to catalyze a necessary reaction, or kinesin being able to walk along the skeleton of the cell:

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: cooperton

The chances of us, having this conversation, sequencing together these symbols, with our hands, that are connected to our brains through an intricate jumble of biological wiring, is just as low in the whole grand scale of the universe as to what you're proposing.

A Designer that is not limited to time or space would be remarkably better at generating genetic code than natural forces which are not thermodynamically favored to create life from non-life

a reply to: cooperton

Humans invented the code to understand how it works... naturally without human organization and categorization the concept of a code wouldn't exist.

It's just a way for us to interpret how that specific aspect of the universe works.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: cooperton

Humans invented the code to understand how it works... naturally without human organization and categorization the concept of a code wouldn't exist.

It's just a way for us to interpret how that specific aspect of the universe works.

That was the name we gave it because that is what it resembles most. DNA is like quaternary code that indicates a sequence of amino acids to be made in a particular order to be able to be further assembled into a functioning little microbot



These are called codons. For every 3 DNA units, it codes for an amino acid. It is truly organic chemical code. In what is equated to approximately 750MB, the human genetic code contains all the information necessary to make all the proteins necessary in the body as well as other modulating factors that allow our organic bi-pedal supercomputer body to be able to have a seamless conscious interface.

a reply to: cooperton

Yea, that's how it works, and it's how we and many other things are "alive". What's your point?

All youre doing is making the "eye is too complex" argument in a really overly complicated manner. Our genetics and DNA are not perfect, it has lots of flaws, but it works to get us to this point in time and is still changing.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: cooperton

Yea, that's how it works, and it's how we and many other things are "alive". What's your point?

All youre doing is making the "eye is too complex" argument in a really overly complicated manner. Our genetics and DNA are not perfect, it has lots of flaws, but it works to get us to this point in time and is still changing.

So your stance is the same as Darwin's?

He created his theories because as an atheist, he need desperately to find a way to get out of life's accountability. This OP proves he still lost.

DNA is obviously designed by a very amazing designer, and a few minor flaws built right in on purpose. Guess what that purpose is.
Hint: Stop letting self pride be your guide.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: cooperton

Yea, that's how it works, and it's how we and many other things are "alive". What's your point?

All youre doing is making the "eye is too complex" argument in a really overly complicated manner. Our genetics and DNA are not perfect, it has lots of flaws, but it works to get us to this point in time and is still changing.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

DNA is obviously designed by a very amazing designer, and a few minor flaws built right in on purpose. Guess what that purpose is.

I think the flaws would be from the fallen state of humankind. Mostly every major culture talks about a golden age where humans were just remarkably better. Think of the Titans, Annunanki, Nephilim, Early biblical patriarchs, etc. It starts to not so much be myth anymore when there are multiple corroborating historical accounts.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: cooperton

Humans invented the code to understand how it works... naturally without human organization and categorization the concept of a code wouldn't exist.

It's just a way for us to interpret how that specific aspect of the universe works.

And remember we always limit ourselves within our observations as there are many unanswered questions where conventional ways and means just don't jive with the truth of the reality observed.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Darwin knew absolutely nothing about the human genome or DNA in general...

His works are about natural selection and natural diversity on planet earth.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Darwin knew absolutely nothing about the human genome or DNA in general...

His works are about natural selection and natural diversity on planet earth.

He did know, and suspected things he could not document because of the limitations of the times. Many of his theories embraced pure speculation showing a pattern that identifies his own human shortcomings. Things he never admitted.

DNA discovered 1860's
Darwin lived until the 1880's
Ignorance is starred these days.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Darwin knew absolutely nothing about the human genome or DNA in general...

His works are about natural selection and natural diversity on planet earth.

Yeah if he knew about DNA he probably wouldn't believe his own theory:



They didn't even have microbiology nearly to the extent we have it today back then, so they were unaware that the microscopic level is actually an immense factory-like machine. Trillions of them working in synchrony. So many parts of the body from the micro to the macro level are dependent on other parts, which was one of Darwin's classifications for nullifying his own theory.

a reply to: cooperton

Yeah, that often happens when people like Darwin use feelz and pride to refute that which were things they didn't "want" to exist or be real, to create a rationale escaping judgement. He may not of died still believing his theory. In 1860's when DNA was discovered, it was big news, so he surely knew about it. They also had plenty of microscopes. Microscopes invented 1590. A couple hundred and more years later they were getting even better.

It's very common for the most modern people like today, to believe that hundreds of years ago, no one knew a damn thing compared to NOW. Except it just isn't true.
Unflagged for pompousness.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: cooperton

Yeah, that often happens when people like Darwin use feelz and pride to refute that which were things they didn't "want" to exist or be real, to create a rationale escaping judgement. He may not of died still believing his theory.

Everyone has an opinion on this, even geneticists.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...#:~:text=Thus%2C%20DNA%20evidence%20confirms%20Darwin's,necessarily%20at%20a%20constant%20rate).

originally posted by: quintessentone

Everyone has an opinion on this, even geneticists.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...#:~:text=Thus%2C%20DNA%20evidence%20confirms%20Darwin's,necessarily%20at%20a%20constant%20rate)

They conveniently don't mention epigenetics, which has essentially become one of the main explanations for adaptive mechanisms. Epigenetics is when your genome increases or decreases certain genes to adapt to various environments or stressors. These components are interdependent, meaning the DNA, RNA, and proteins all act together and communicate with eachother. These components all must be in place simultaneously, otherwise the whole becomes erroneous. For example there are modulators that give feedback to the genes to turn up or down. Without this type of modulation the gene would be out of control and drastically harmful to the cell.

...so which came first, the gene, or the components that modulate the gene? There's so many components involved and they all are necessary to have a functional organism. This is what defies Darwin, these interdependent parts that could not have come to be without eachother.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

It was discovered in 1869, Darwin spent his entire life working up to the Origin of species which was published in 1859, and then spent pretty much the rest of his life defending his thesis.

He probably heard of DNA and knew of it, but that wasn't his field, he was still an old school naturalist.

Anyway... this thread isn't about Darwin, and what he observed.