Optimized amino acids

[lee_merrill]

Well, they know enough of the probability to say it's not a random generation of amino acid sets. Which means natural selection had to be involved, but this is difficult, because changing (not just adding) amino acids affects a basic part of the machinery of life.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Evolution produces the optimal set by the process of natural selection as is the case throughout the history of life.

No, evolution does not always produce an optimal set.

First, the paper you cite and I believe the evidence supports, and I, support the hypothesis that laws of nature and natural processes resulted the abiogenesis of microorganisms with the set of twenty amino acids through natural processes. They do not consider it 'highly' optimal beyond the capability.

And no, abiogenesis could not have generated this set of amino acids, because they conclude that the amino acid set we have was probably not randomly generated. We can deduce that from the abstract, which makes that point clearly.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

No, evolution does not always produce an optimal set.

Evolution produces the optimal set sufficient to the survival and reproduction of life, This is a fact of the nature of evolution throughout the history of life on earth.

And no, abiogenesis could not have generated this set of amino acids, because they conclude that the amino acid set we have was probably not randomly generated. We can deduce that from the abstract, which makes that point clearly.

Actually no, you cannot deduce this from the abstract. The point of the abstract and the science of abiogenesis and evolution is that randomness is not a causitive factor nor does it produce anything. The abstract proposes a natural hypothesis to explain the set of twenty amino acids.

You are egregiously and dishonestly misrepresenting the article, and to add you have failed to produce the whole article.

[TheLurch]

Well, they know enough of the probability to say it's not a random generation of amino acid sets. Which means natural selection had to be involved, but this is difficult, because changing (not just adding) amino acids affects a basic part of the machinery of life.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

I also don't understand how you've confidently made proclamations about probabilities while apparently not knowing any of this stuff. What gives you that level of misguided confidence?

[shunyadragon]

No, evolution does not always produce an optimal set.

I thought I would add a comment here. Yes, evolution did not always produce an optimal set. In fact other sets of amino acids are known to exist.

[Roy]

I don't understand what you're saying here.

I also don't understand how you've confidently made proclamations about probabilities while apparently not knowing any of this stuff. What gives you that level of misguided confidence?

The Dunning-Krueger-Hanlon-Benford law-razor-effect of controversy.

[lee_merrill]

Well, they know enough of the probability to say it's not a random generation of amino acid sets. Which means natural selection had to be involved, but this is difficult, because changing (not just adding) amino acids affects a basic part of the machinery of life.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

If natural selection is involved in generating amino acid sets, this involves changing a basic part of the machinery of life, which would be difficult.

I also don't understand how you've confidently made proclamations about probabilities while apparently not knowing any of this stuff. What gives you that level of misguided confidence?

Well, I'm willing to learn, one reason to post here is to do just that. And I try and stay in the bounds of what is reasonable, in my statements.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

I thought I would add a comment here. Yes, evolution did not always produce an optimal set. In fact other sets of amino acids are known to exist.

Indeed, evolution is not expected to generate an optimal set, but what other sets of amino acids exist?

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Indeed, evolution is not expected to generate an optimal set, but what other sets of amino acids exist?

Blessings,
Lee

Careful of your manipulative wording. From the scientific perspective the sets of 20 amino acids evolved for the best 'optimal' suited to reproduce and survive best. You no natural selection. Have you read the scientific references provide?

Beginning with; 'Did you read post #14 by Roy, and TheLurch post #19.' When may go over this again and again with your cut and paste selective use of science, and incomplete references. Your response to these posts was inadequate to put it mildly.

The variation in the set of amino acids would have existed before the set of 20 dominated as the most successful.

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1431706/

One is the standard 'alphabet' of 20 encoded amino acids, shared by organisms that diverged as early as Escherichia coli and human beings. But numerous lines of evidence, from abiotic chemistry to protein engineering, combine to indicate that this alphabet could potentially have consisted of fewer, more, or just plain different amino acids.

. . .

Could alternative alphabets have been encoded?

In seeking a justification for the 20 amino acids we have, we imply that other alphabets were possible. Is this really the case? Early explanations for the size and content of the standard alphabet worked from the very premise that what we see today was somehow an inevitable outcome (see [24] for a review). But as scientific progress undermined these flawed ideas, only one argument against alternative alphabets retained its plausibility. This was the general evolutionary observation that as organisms evolve an increasing complexity, emerging characters can easily become 'locked in' by subsequent evolutionary innovations that are adaptive only in relation to these early characters. Perhaps, then, the first amino acids to enter the code, for whatever reason, were frozen into evolutionary history by a proteome (and hence metabolism) built from them?

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Yet the paper in reference 2 concludes that the current set of amino acids did not come about by chance.


But I'm not sure what you are saying here, are you saying there are no random causes?

Blessings,
Lee

I may have missed this, but yes randomness nor chance do cause anything. The Laws of Nature are the cause. Randomness, Chance and Chaos Theory are simply descriptive of the variation of the outcomes of cause and effect events.

[shunyadragon]

Evolution should pick the first set that works, which would be unlikely to be this highly optimized set.

Blessings,
Lee

Evolution has never worked this way. This is the deluded Intelligent Design argument that we were Created as is from a package God's Betty Crocker Instant dinner boxed package. Just add water heat and stir.

By the evidence evolution functions over millions of years, and best 'optimal' result survives.

[TheLurch]

If natural selection is involved in generating amino acid sets, this involves changing a basic part of the machinery of life, which would be difficult.

What do you base that on? Again, you're making a probability statement without presenting any indication of what the probability is based on.

Well, I'm willing to learn, one reason to post here is to do just that. And I try and stay in the bounds of what is reasonable, in my statements.

2 things:
Wouldn't it be better to ask questions and learn first, before making these statements?
I see no indication you're learning, given you've just repeated the same mistake i'm complaining about.

[Roy]

Indeed, evolution is not expected to generate an optimal set, but what other sets of amino acids exist?

If you were interested in an answer, you'd already know.

[Roy]

Well, I'm willing to learn, ...

People who are willing to learn discard errors once corrected, they don't repeat them almost immediately.

Except for Dory.

Just keep swimming Lee, just keep swimming, swimming, swimming.

[lee_merrill]

Careful of your manipulative wording. From the scientific perspective the sets of 20 amino acids evolved for the best 'optimal' suited to reproduce and survive best. You no natural selection. Have you read the scientific references provide?

Beginning with; 'Did you read post #14 by Roy, and TheLurch post #19.' When may go over this again and again with your cut and paste selective use of science, and incomplete references. Your response to these posts was inadequate to put it mildly.

The variation in the set of amino acids would have existed before the set of 20 dominated as the most successful.

But I was asking what other sets exist today, which is what seemed to be being claimed.

By the evidence evolution functions over millions of years, and best 'optimal' result survives.

The best local optimum in the fitness landscape survives, not the best overall optimal solution.

Blessings,
Lee