Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Designer enzymes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    What's the probability that evolution can produce novel proteins? 1.
    What's the probability that evolution can generate protein interactions? 1.
    What's the probability that evolution can generate structures with multiple interacting parts? 1.
    Oh, but I asked for your calculations...

    You're clearly making the case that there is evidence for a designer in the origin of the interactome. That is in no way equivalent to saying "nobody's talking about its evolution."
    Sorry I misspoke, I should have said as far as James Tour knows, nobody is talking about evolution of the interactome.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
      With a feedback process like evolution there is nothing improbable at all about evolving complexity when evolving complexity is rewarded by a greater chance of reproductive success.
      But this is not a scientific argument (to echo TheLurch).

      There's also the big problem for the IDiots none of them have the ability to calculate any accurate probabilities for anything in biological life. They count on people's erroneous "gut feel" that since any specific outcome of evolutionary processes is improbable that means getting any result at all must be too improbable to happen naturally.
      Well, do you have any probability calculations? And there are calculations of the probability of the random formation of the first biomolecules.

      Blessings,
      Lee
      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by rossum View Post
        So, your complex designer was not itself designed. Hence falsifying ID; the designer is an example of a complex entity that was not designed.
        But the argument is that complex entities in nature are designed.

        If one complex entity can exist without being designed, then it is in principle possible for other complex entities to also not be designed. How do we distinguish between a designed complex entity and an undesigned complex entity?
        An undesigned complex entity would be one that can be generated by natural processes.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          But this is not a scientific argument (to echo TheLurch).
          It wasn't offered as a scientific argument, just pointing out the failure of your regurgitated "it's too improbable" IDiot claims.

          Well, do you have any probability calculations?
          Evolutionary theory doesn't depend on bogus made up probabilities like ID does. Evolutionary theory has more than sufficient other positive evidence.

          And there are calculations of the probability of the random formation of the first biomolecules.
          Provide them and justify the assumptions you make.

          Why did I know you wouldn't be embarrassed by regurgitating such a lame discredited IDiot argument?

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
            Provide them and justify the assumptions you make.
            This reference proposes a ribozyme as part of the answer, with 97 nucleotides, which has a probability of 1 in 2.5 x 1058 of forming randomly. If multiple ribozymes are needed, say three, that's about 1 in 1.5 x 10175. To put this in perspective, there are about 1080 atoms in the universe.

            Blessings,
            Lee
            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              This reference proposes a ribozyme as part of the answer, with 97 nucleotides, which has a probability of 1 in 2.5 x 1058 of forming randomly. If multiple ribozymes are needed, say three, that's about 1 in 1.5 x 10175. To put this in perspective, there are about 1080 atoms in the universe.

              Blessings,
              Lee
              Here is the 2001 paper

              RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension

              The paper contains no probability calculations at all, certainly not the crap you are claiming. That's a rather dishonest attempt at a literature bluff isn't it Lee? I thought Christians like you were supposed to be honest.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                The paper contains no probability calculations at all...
                But you asked for my calculations, not for someone else's calculations.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  But you asked for my calculations, not for someone else's calculations.
                  You claimed there are calculations of the probability of the random formation of the first biomolecules. You didn't provide any calculations at all, just pulled a number out of your *** with no connection to reality. Then you dishonestly tried to hide your failure behind a paper which had nothing to do with your claim.

                  You're doing a fine job making Jesus proud of you Lee.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    But you asked for my calculations, not for someone else's calculations.

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    These calculations of probability are not valid.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      These calculations of probability are not valid.
                      Well, why so?

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        Well, why so?
                        For one thing you didn't provide any actual calculations, just spouted off an "it's too improbable!" number, then tried to bluff your way out of it.

                        Jesus doesn't like liars Lee.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          Well, why so?

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          First, you do not show your calculations. Second, like those ENRON bookkeepers at Discovery Institute with the same agenda as yours, and you are calculating the probability based on the whole sequence of cause and effect events as if the whole process is random without consideration of other factors that control the sequence of the events. Third, this problem has been addressed in detail in previous threads with references that probability ONLY applies to individual cause and effect outcomes. By definition randomness ONLY applies to the timing of individual events.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            This reference proposes a ribozyme as part of the answer, with 97 nucleotides, which has a probability of 1 in 2.5 x 1058 of forming randomly. If multiple ribozymes are needed, say three, that's about 1 in 1.5 x 10175. To put this in perspective, there are about 1080 atoms in the universe.
                            So 2.5 x 1058 is 497. And 1.5 x 10175 is (497)3, 4 being the number of nucleotides.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              So 2.5 x 1058 is 497. And 1.5 x 10175 is (497)3, 4 being the number of nucleotides.
                              More stupid squid ink from Lee. You forgot the evidence the ribozyme could only form by having all the constituent nucleotides fall together all at once randomly. Something that no one in science says or thinks happened.

                              You've only been corrected on this blunder about a dozen times Dory.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Second, like those ENRON bookkeepers at Discovery Institute with the same agenda as yours, and you are calculating the probability based on the whole sequence of cause and effect events as if the whole process is random without consideration of other factors that control the sequence of the events.
                                So what factors have I missed?

                                Third, this problem has been addressed in detail in previous threads with references that probability ONLY applies to individual cause and effect outcomes. By definition randomness ONLY applies to the timing of individual events.
                                Yet we can speak of the probability of car accidents, insurance companies do that.

                                Blessings,
                                Lee
                                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X