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

originally posted by: whereislogic
... And their treatment of what they refer to as "methodological naturalism" as "the scientific method", which basically boils down to always looking to force-fit a purely naturalistic explanation for these topics (OOL, origin of the universe, origin of earth, etc.), i.e. trying to force-fit 'nature did it' ("the dialogue of chance and necessity"), and then arguing that concluding that a creator/engineer did it, is not following "the scientific method"; a ridiculous argument, since, unlike their philosophies and philosophical bias, that conclusion is based on inductive reasoning, which is at the heart of any proper, historically proven effective, objective method to discover previously unknown facts, new science/knowledge. Or "any proper scientific method" for short.

Phillip Johnson (from the Discovery Institute) describes the behaviour as follows in his book The Wedge of Truth:

I have had many conversations with leading scientists, journalists and other intellectuals who are committed to evolutionary naturalism, as well as with theological modernists who express fundamentally naturalistic ideas in theistic language. When I refuse to accept naturalistic assumptions some are overtly hostile, some are patronizing, and some try their best to be polite. All are uncomprehending. To them naturalism and science are virtually the same thing, and they think that to depart from science is to depart from reason.

The last part really should have said: "and they think that to depart from naturalism is to depart from science and reason." You can also add "(the pseudoscience of)" in front of naturalism as a reminder.

originally posted by: cooperton
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.

I am very impressed you got 21 flags and 19 stars for expressing this nonsensical creationist argument. Just as you have claimed abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible with no evidence to back it up but based your entire premise on a single scientific paper that doesn't support your claim at all and was written by a chemistry professor who was a well known anti-creationist and debunked creationism whenever he had the chance.

You need to read the papers you link and you are not doing the most basic: reading!

You keep misinterpreting scientific research papers inventing the conclusions that were never made by the author(s) in the first place.

There is nothing in the paper you linked arguing there is not enough time for mutations to create new proteins. This is a conclusion created out of nowhere to reinforce your belief in the intelligent design scenario.

Reality and science proves you wrong for once more.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

There is nothing in the paper you linked arguing there is not enough time for mutations to create new proteins. This is a conclusion created out of nowhere to reinforce your belief in the intelligent design scenario.

Where was I incorrect in my math then? You can't just make these claims without pointing to the error you are specifically referring to. I used well-known estimates of the number of bacteria present on earth, their estimated mutation rate, and the known generational span. Tell me specifically where I was wrong and we can go from there.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

There is nothing in the paper you linked arguing there is not enough time for mutations to create new proteins. This is a conclusion created out of nowhere to reinforce your belief in the intelligent design scenario.

Where was I incorrect in my math then? You can't just make these claims without pointing to the error you are specifically referring to. I used well-known estimates of the number of bacteria present on earth, their estimated mutation rate, and the known generational span. Tell me specifically where I was wrong and we can go from there.

The conclusion you made isn't derived from the paper but you misinterpreted it (as usual to push your worldview and creationism). It's you who can't make these claims and then ask others to disprove you. Can you show me how did you get to your conclusion? Because you have come up with a range of conclusions that are demonstrably false.

originally posted by: cooperton
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.

And the type of 'science' you argue which doesn't derive from the paper you linked is nothing more than a copy paste from a Reddit Page that anyone can have access and is here.
www.reddit.com...

Let's see what it says! Should we?

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: 5e30mutation rate per generation: .003generation 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

Copy paste word by word without any link for us to see the original text by another creationist online who came to the conclusion:

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

Which is exactly your conclusion word by word. What are the chances every word is the same?!

The entire paper can be found here

www.sciencedirect.com...

(the one you linked has only the abstract)

Nowhere there is a conclusion that justifies the conclusion made by the person who has written the thread on Reddit and you seem to have copied word by word.

a reply to: cooperton


Unless of course the Reddit Thread was written by you but again there is nothing there which derives from the paper and I can't find where all these calculations/estimations have come from

The entire pair on science-direct

www.sciencedirect.com...

a reply to: Venkuish1

Really big numbers make things seem really impossible if you try.

I suspect this is from Stephen Meyers book. But his book is blasphemous. He calls The Cambrian an "information explosion", and also cites the big bang as further evidence.

The greatest part, is the person that wrote this creationist go to acknowledges the age of the universe.

He's as blasphemous as Georges Lemaître, who also acknowledged the 13.5 billion year timescale.

I actually don't mind his book. I don't agree the Cambrian was an intelligent explosion. I think it was oxygenation related. Once predation was achieved, the arms race began, but at least he's trying to make it inclusive for theists who don't see blasphemy in evolution and physics.

The most successful recent "God created the universe to evolve" publication.

Defining Theistic Evolution | Stephen C. Meyer

This theory affirms that all known living organisms are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past.

At least he acknowledges LUCA.

I wish all the people that use his ideas did as well.

originally posted by: cooperton
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.

Your math is based on blind chance and equal circumstance, but that's not the way things work. Evolution involves the operation of non-random physical laws (selection) upon random events. You can't just apply the same math to all types of bacteria inhabiting all types of biomes/ecosystems. It's not consistent at all, and that's just here on Earth. The level of variation in both the habitat and inhabitants are apparent and significantly different across the planet...

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

originally posted by: cooperton
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.

Your math is based on blind chance and equal circumstance, but that's not the way things work. Evolution involves the operation of non-random physical laws (selection) upon random events. You can't just apply the same math to all types of bacteria inhabiting all types of biomes/ecosystems. It's not consistent at all, and that's just here on Earth. The level of variation in both the habitat and inhabitants are apparent and significantly different across the planet...

The poster doesn't often understand what he links and his posts often don't make sense as he copy pastes unrelated paragraphs from the internet.

Although in this case what he did is to link this paper:

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

and then 'come to a conclusion' that was nothing more than a copy paste from a Reddit thread here:

www.reddit.com...

and then argue the power itself made the conclusion reflected on the title of his thread. I wonder why anyone hasn't checked online and with a simple search it can be immediately seen the author of the paper never made these estimations but they have originated on reddit and in turn probably copy pasted from somewhere else.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Venkuish1

Really big numbers make things seem really impossible if you try.

I suspect this is from Stephen Meyers book. But his book is blasphemous. He calls The Cambrian an "information explosion", and also cites the big bang as further evidence.

The greatest part, is the person that wrote this creationist go to acknowledges the age of the universe.

He's as blasphemous as Georges Lemaître, who also acknowledged the 13.5 billion year timescale.

I actually don't mind his book. I don't agree the Cambrian was an intelligent explosion. I think it was oxygenation related. Once predation was achieved, the arms race began, but at least he's trying to make it inclusive for theists who don't see blasphemy in evolution and physics.

The most successful recent "God created the universe to evolve" publication.

Defining Theistic Evolution | Stephen C. Meyer

This theory affirms that all known living organisms are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past.

At least he acknowledges LUCA.

I wish all the people that use his ideas did as well.

en.wikipedia.org...

Stephen C. Meyer (/ˈmaɪ.ər/; born 1958) is an American author and former educator. He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design and helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI) which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement. Before joining the DI, Meyer was a professor at Whitworth College. Meyer is a senior fellow of the DI and director of the CSC.

Stephen Mayer and the pseudoscience of intelligent design. It all seems to make sense now...

I wonder why there was no challenge in the many pages of this thread that show the poster linking a paper and falsely claim his author has come to the conclusion described in the OP using the bogus math he used after he copy pasted from that reddit link. A very disingenuous and deceptive way to push misinformation online.

a reply to: Venkuish1

Yeah that is my reddit account lol. You'll notice I post all my articles there too.

But you still never said where I got my math wrong. I used the probability of an active site evolving on a protein, 1 in 10^77 as said in the paper, and then compared it with the known mutation rate. Show me where I miscalculated and we can go from there.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

Your math is based on blind chance and equal circumstance, but that's not the way things work. Evolution involves the operation of non-random physical laws (selection) upon random events. You can't just apply the same math to all types of bacteria inhabiting all types of biomes/ecosystems. It's not consistent at all, and that's just here on Earth. The level of variation in both the habitat and inhabitants are apparent and significantly different across the planet...

Thank you for a rebuttal that has substance to it. But the 1 in 10^77 probability that they are referring to is the odds of random mutations creating the linear sequence that would allow a new active site on a protein to be made. This is the step before it can either be naturally selected or not.

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah that is my reddit account lol. .

So you are posting here, yet using your own accounts elsewhere as 'references' and 'evidence' to somehow try to support your position here? Like you are some kind of expert elsewhere to be quoted? That's deceitful.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
So you are posting here, yet using your own accounts elsewhere as 'references' and 'evidence' to somehow try to support your position here? Like you are some kind of expert elsewhere to be quoted? That's deceitful.

No I post the same exact article on two different websites. I am not citing the reddit source for the data, I cited a journal article that refers to the odds of a functional group emerging through random chance.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah that is my reddit account lol. .

So you are posting here, yet using your own accounts elsewhere as 'references' and 'evidence' to somehow try to support your position here? Like you are some kind of expert elsewhere to be quoted? That's deceitful.

Like I mentioned above what he did is to use a scientific paper to argue his claim with the conclusion and 'math' made by him and not the author himself. The author never claimed what the poster claimed in this thread. It's deceitful and absolute misinformation. He didn't even link the entire paper but just the abstract so posters would not have been unable to see what the author of the paper said and what the poster claimed he said. I have linked the entire paper a few times in other posts. He copy pasted the abstract from the paper and then copy pasted the his own ideas and presented it as being part of the paper.

a reply to: Venkuish1

I'm not sure that I followed all that, but you might want to check the Terms and Conditions for rule breaking/reporting of rule breaking.

Terms and Conditions

15). Posting: You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

15c.) Intellectual Property: You will not Post any copyrighted material owned by others, material belonging to another person, material previously Posted by you on another website, or link to any copyrighted material without providing proper attribution*, as defined by TAN, to its original source.

15d.) Cross-Posting: You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive advance written permission from TAN or their agents).

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Like I mentioned above what he did is to use a scientific paper to argue his claim with the conclusion and 'math' made by him and not the author himself.

I used their probability for creating a novel beneficial functional group on a protein, and used that estimate to see how long it would take for all the bacteria on earth to create such a mutation. That's how I got the estimate. The reason it is so difficult to randomly mutate a worth-while active site onto a protein is due to how specific amino acid sequences must be in order to create a proper function. It is much like a 3D printer where the data has to be precise in order for the part to fit a function.

The author never claimed what the poster claimed in this thread. It's deceitful and absolute misinformation.

I never mis-represented the paper, I used their conclusion for the estimated probability of randomly mutating a working active site on a protein and then factored that into the time it would take all the bacteria on earth given the known mutation rate.

You are free to debate the math, but I used all peer-reviewed data and well-known mutation rates and estimates for the number of bacteria present on earth.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

15d.) Cross-Posting: You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive advance written permission from TAN or their agents).

I was the one who wrote it on the other site as well. I give myself permission to post it here

originally posted by: cooperton

Thank you for a rebuttal that has substance to it. But the 1 in 10^77 probability that they are referring to is the odds of random mutations creating the linear sequence that would allow a new active site on a protein to be made. This is the step before it can either be naturally selected or not.

The 1 in 10^77 probability is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of protein selection. In this scenario proteins are selected by function not structure, different structures have been shown to sometimes give the same function. When proteins are selected by function rather than known specific structures, the number of proteins available from random generation is many orders of magnitude greater than the 1 in 10^77 you're going on. Your math relies on protein functions being the result of unique protein structures, but that’s not true. There are many protein structures we have yet to discover and there are also proteins with no structure that still function- "Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) and intrinsically disordered protein regions (IDPRs) are functional proteins or regions that do not have unique 3D structures under functional conditions. "

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


www.nature.com...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Like I mentioned above what he did is to use a scientific paper to argue his claim with the conclusion and 'math' made by him and not the author himself.

I used their probability for creating a novel beneficial functional group on a protein, and used that estimate to see how long it would take for all the bacteria on earth to create such a mutation. That's how I got the estimate. The reason it is so difficult to randomly mutate a worth-while active site onto a protein is due to how specific amino acid sequences must be in order to create a proper function. It is much like a 3D printer where the data has to be precise in order for the part to fit a function.

The author never claimed what the poster claimed in this thread. It's deceitful and absolute misinformation.

I never mis-represented the paper, I used their conclusion for the estimated probability of randomly mutating a working active site on a protein and then factored that into the time it would take all the bacteria on earth given the known mutation rate.

You are free to debate the math, but I used all peer-reviewed data and well-known mutation rates and estimates for the number of bacteria present on earth.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

15d.) Cross-Posting: You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive advance written permission from TAN or their agents).

I was the one who wrote it on the other site as well. I give myself permission to post it here

I admire this someone who gave you a star for your post perhaps because they don't read or know what has happened in this thread and other thread you made so far.

You used the number given in the paper which could be much higher (author said it could as low as 1 in 10^77) to argue like it is now a fact and then you copy pasted your reddit article with your 'math' sticking it together with the abstract of the scientific paper and giving the impression the conclusion has come from the author himself when in fact it has come from you and your reddit thread

1) Nowhere in your OP you identified which part comes from the paper and which part is yours and you didn't event mention the conclusion of yours has come from your reddit thread and it's not the conclusion of the author. You didn't mention at all you had a reddit account where you created similar threads.

2) You have only linked the abstract of the scientific paper and not the whole article which you can easily find online (from sciencedirect). This way the reader couldn't find out what the paper is about and the conclusions of the author.

3) In another post of yours you even made a statement of how is it possible this scientific paper allowed to be published giving the impression again it shouldn't have been published under normal circumstances as it comes to the conclusion there is not enough time in the world for mutations to have created new proteins. This is a complete misrepresentation of what the author has said.

4) We don't know whether the 'math' produced and the article is yours or has come from someone else in your reddit thread given this thread is a copy paste of your thread in reddit.

5) You have presented the figure given by the author as being a fact although it is an estimation (that's a key point). You base your entire thread on misrepresenting just one scientific paper.

So the conclusion is easy to make. Given the facts and that you wanted a predetermined conclusion you found a paper which could give a very low estimate 1 in 10^77 (it could be much higher) to completely misrepresent the author as if he was coming to a conclusion where the intelligent design was favoured - but the paper talks about something very different and we can all see it in the link I have provided

www.sciencedirect.com...

From the paper that you forgot to include because you only linked the abstract (see second part)

The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with 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 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.

How might the other difficulties be avoided? A recent study of the requirements for chorismate mutase function in vivo demonstrates a promising approach.Chorismate mutase gene libraries prepared in that work were constrained to preserve all active-site residues and the sequential arrangement of hydrophobic and hydrophilic side-chains present in a natural version of the enzyme. Within these constraints, though, specific residue assignments were essentially random, resulting in numerous disruptive changes throughout the encoded proteins. This is an example of the reverse approach, in that it uses a natural sequence as a starting point but, because the produced variants carry extensive disruption throughout the structure rather than just local disruption, they provide reliable information on the stringency of functional requirements. The prevalence of functional chorismate mutases among sequences carrying the specified hydropathic pattern was estimated to be just one in 10^24

originally posted by: Venkuish1

1) Nowhere in your OP you identified which part comes from the paper

lol what? it's even in their abstract:

"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."

I use the 10e77 and multiply it by other known factors

I admire this someone who gave you a star

considering you got 8 stars for saying that density and weight are interchangeable, I think the star system has lost its purpose

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

The 1 in 10^77 probability is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of protein selection. In this scenario proteins are selected by function not structure, different structures have been shown to sometimes give the same function.

They said in the paper the odds of making any functional group is 1 in 10^64. So there's not even enough time in the universe to have made one functional group, regardless of function