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

  • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    That's a good point, So let's say all the nucleotides are flexible, it's twice as probable that a given nucleotide will work, and calculate 297 cubed, which is 1 in 4 x 1087.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    No. This not the probability of the timing of a single event. There are literally untold millions of events to achieve the needed result according to the LAws of Nature. There are limited options on the outcome based on the chemistry.

    Did your calculations take into account the limited number of outcomes of each event determined by the chemistry?
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-21-2019, 05:16 PM.
    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
      That's a good point, So let's say all the nucleotides are flexible, it's twice as probable that a given nucleotide will work, and calculate 297 cubed, which is 1 in 4 x 1087.
      You're also assuming that only a single length will do, and only one structure can produce the enzymatic activity. Neither of those assumptions are justified.
      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        It's important to keep in mind the timeframe in which you view an event. If I roll snake-eyes, the probability of that, viewed in the timeframe before the event, is 1/36. Viewed after the event, it's 1. What people are generally interested in is the probability viewed in the timeframe before the event.
        The probability that you could roll snake eyes is 1 both before and after the roll.

        Remember how this all started. You're trying to claim that the evolution of the interactome is wildly improbable. But evolution produces protein interactions all the time. Given that there's a probability of 1 that proteins within a cell will interaction, i'm completely confused about the claim that any particular set of interactions is wildly improbable.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Right, it's a catalyst for replicating RNA, so the ribozyme doesn't replicate.
          Since ribozymes are RNA, it's a catalyst for replicating itself.

          Dory once again trips over his own ignorance.
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            The first ribozymes were described as simple with as little as only three conserved nucleotides.
            Well, three conserved nucleotides doesn't mean you can make a ribozyme out of three nucleotides! I picked a ribozyme that was proposed to be involved in the RNA world, do you have a different specific candidate?
            He gave you a specific candidate:

            "An example for a small ribozyme is the recently discovered aminoacylating ribozyme with three conserved nucleotides (Chumachenko et al., 2009); this ribozyme would have been a frequent guest in an RNA world."

            You ignored it.


            No, I'm not saying it's too improbable to evolve, I'm saying it's too improbable to form randomly.
            Source: Muller

            Low probabilities like these present a major hurdle for many ribozymes to appear in an RNA world.

            © Copyright Original Source

            Quote-mining again, Dory?

            Why don't you fail to explain why the probability that Muller gives in that same paragraph - once in 3*1018 - is 30 orders of magnitude higher than the probability you gave a couple of pages previously?

            And when you haven't done that, you can fail to explain why you calculated the probability of a specific ribozyme sequence and ignored not only the other ribozymes that could do the same job, but also the known sequence variability in that one.

            And when you haven't done that, you can fail to calculate the probability of the abovementioned aminoacylating ribozyme forming randomly.
            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Roy View Post
              Why don't you fail to explain why the probability that Muller gives in that same paragraph - once in 3*1018 - is 30 orders of magnitude higher than the probability you gave a couple of pages previously?
              There really is a trend here that every time someone checks the references Lee provides, they end up undercutting his argument.
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                You're also assuming that only a single length will do, and only one structure can produce the enzymatic activity. Neither of those assumptions are justified.
                Well, the length can vary, say +/- 10%, without affecting the number much, and I'm assuming any structure will do, so that's not an issue.

                The probability that you could roll snake eyes is 1 both before and after the roll.
                Not before the roll, no. That is why when you draw a full house you can say "Wow, that's improbable!"

                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 Roy View Post
                  Since ribozymes are RNA, it's a catalyst for replicating itself.
                  Some ribozymes are self-replicating, but not the one I selected.

                  "An example for a small ribozyme is the recently discovered aminoacylating ribozyme with three conserved nucleotides (Chumachenko et al., 2009); this ribozyme would have been a frequent guest in an RNA world."
                  I meant specific as in showing the nucleotide sequence.

                  Why don't you fail to explain why the probability that Muller gives in that same paragraph - once in 3*1018 - is 30 orders of magnitude higher than the probability you gave a couple of pages previously?
                  So this shows that even an drastically higher probability presents severe problems for the RNA world scenario.

                  And when you haven't done that, you can fail to explain why you calculated the probability of a specific ribozyme sequence and ignored not only the other ribozymes that could do the same job, but also the known sequence variability in that one.
                  I did do that, see above in my response to TheLurch.

                  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
                    Some ribozymes are self-replicating, but not the one I selected.
                    Not an adequate explanation. Why only select one?

                    I meant specific as in showing the nucleotide sequence.
                    Not meaningful in response to Roy's question.

                    So this shows that even an drastically higher probability presents severe problems for the RNA world scenario.
                    Only in your imagination. No, because your calculations have no relationship to the probability of the outcomes for the formation of RNA, because it does not take into consideration the fact that the formation of RNa is determined by the laws of nature, natural processes and the environment.
                    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
                      Well, the length can vary, say +/- 10%, without affecting the number much...
                      Do you know the minimum size of this ribozyme? If not, you've got no idea whether what you're saying is relevant or not.

                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      and I'm assuming any structure will do, so that's not an issue.
                      No, you're most certainly not. Every calculation you've done so far has been predicated on this particular ribozyme, which has a specific structure. If there are multiple other structures that can perform a similar function, then each of the vast families of molecules they represent need to be included in your calculation.

                      Do you ever get tired of the fact that others understand your arguments better than you do?

                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Not before the roll, no. That is why when you draw a full house you can say "Wow, that's improbable!"
                      Read what i wrote again, this time carefully. Now ponder why what i said was correct.
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        Why don't you fail to explain why the probability that Muller gives in that same paragraph - once in 3*1018 - is 30 orders of magnitude higher than the probability you gave a couple of pages previously?
                        So this shows that even an drastically higher probability presents severe problems for the RNA world scenario.
                        The correct response to this is "I apologizes that the numbers i've been wasting everybody's time with are completely contradicted by the peer reviewed literature. I'll read the reference more carefully and try to understand why i was so badly wrong."

                        Not "i'm going to be a poster child for Dunning-Kruger, and make yet another argument without bothering to understand anything."

                        In any case, I'm going to show you just how badly you don't understand things.

                        The average molecular weight of an RNA ribonucleotide/phosphate combo is 339.5 g/mol. This sequence is 98 bases long, so we get 33,271 g/mol. That means a mole of random 98-mers weighs about 33kg. But a mol is 6*10^23, which is five orders of magnitude higher than the probability here. So, adjusting for that brings us down to 0.33 grams of material to have a number of 98 base long molecules equivalent to the probability there.

                        A third of a gram. For those of you not fond of metric measurements, that's 0.000727 pounds.

                        In other words, it's nothing, much less a problem.

                        The other thing noteworthy here is that doing the calculations was also nothing - took me a couple of minutes, and most of that was finding the source of the average molecular weight. But Lee is so fond of the argument he wants to make that he'll make it without even bothering to try to find out whether it's in the least bit sensible.
                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          Since ribozymes are RNA, it's a catalyst for replicating itself.
                          Some ribozymes are self-replicating, but not the one I selected.
                          You said it was a catalyst for replicating RNA - which includes replicating itself.
                          I meant specific as in showing the nucleotide sequence.
                          I doubt that's what you meant, since your own specific example didn't include the nucleotide sequence. Anyway, if it only has three conserved nucleotides, it doesn't have a fixed nucleotide sequence.
                          So this shows that even an drastically higher probability presents severe problems for the RNA world scenario.
                          No it doesn't, since Muller goes on to give two alternative pathways for generating ribozymes - which your quote-mine omitted.
                          And when you haven't done that, you can fail to explain why you calculated the probability of a specific ribozyme sequence and ignored not only the other ribozymes that could do the same job, but also the known sequence variability in that one.
                          I did do that, see above in my response to TheLurch.
                          You mean the one that not only didn't say anything about alternative ribozymes or sequence variability (only length variability), but was posted after I said you'd ignored them?

                          If you weren't so incompetent I'd think you were lying.
                          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            The probability that you could roll snake eyes is 1 both before and after the roll.
                            Not before the roll, no. That is why when you draw a full house you can say "Wow, that's improbable!"
                            That's not what I would say if I rolled two dice and got a full house.
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                              Do you know the minimum size of this ribozyme?
                              No, but I can allow +/- 10% and still find it improbable.

                              Every calculation you've done so far has been predicated on this particular ribozyme, which has a specific structure. If there are multiple other structures that can perform a similar function, then each of the vast families of molecules they represent need to be included in your calculation.
                              Though allowing each nucleotide to vary, and the length as well, would seem to include multiple structures too.

                              Read what i wrote again, this time carefully. Now ponder why what i said was correct.
                              No, it's incorrect, I can reasonably speak of the probability of the hand I just drew, and it's not 1.

                              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 TheLurch View Post
                                So, adjusting for that brings us down to 0.33 grams of material to have a number of 98 base long molecules equivalent to the probability there.

                                A third of a gram. For those of you not fond of metric measurements, that's 0.000727 pounds.

                                In other words, it's nothing, much less a problem.
                                But I'm not sure how weighing up the product has a bearing on the probability of generating it, though.

                                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
                                136 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
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X