Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: The Insuperable Statistics of Polypeptide Synthesis - Hemoglobin

  1. #21
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Last Seen
    07-18-18 @ 09:08 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    328

    Re: The Insuperable Statistics of Polypeptide Synthesis - Hemoglobin

    Quote Originally Posted by Grand Mal View Post
    Wait a minute. Are you saying God did this?
    I am assuring readers that random mutations, i.e. naturalism DID NOT.
    You may not agree. Please propose, then, how this fantasmagoric impossibility took place, with folding of the protein at each appropriate step.

    Bear in mind that statistics don't change just because events happen slowly, or quickly. Toss a coin every second or once every 10,000 years, it's still 50/50 for heads, isn't it.

    Moreover, the pretension of LOTS OF REPEATS OVER AND OVER AGAIN SOLVES "impossibility" can be seen with this thought experiment.

    10 to the 50th grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. If a man in a space suit could pick out ONE SINGLE UNIQUE grain of sand, in 10 to the 15 spheres full of sand the size of our solar system, out to Pluto, on his FIRST AND ONLY TRY, that would qualify as an impossible feat.

    He doesn't get "infinity" or "millions of years to keep *selecting and selecting and selecting*. He gets ONE TRY and ONE TRY ONLY. THAT is "one try in 10 to the 50th power."
    THAT is the definition, not forever trying until he finds it.

    Precision - it's so lacking in Darwinism, everywhere you look. It's essential to science and rational thinking.
    Send me. I'll go. - Isaiah 6:8

    Let him who hath no sword sell his garment and buy one. - Luke 22:36
    Swords are not used for plowing.

  2. #22
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:18 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,968

    Re: The Insuperable Statistics of Polypeptide Synthesis - Hemoglobin

    Quote Originally Posted by MrWonderful View Post
    Gladly. I will begin by noting that when I transferred my writings to here, all exponential notation, such as 10 to the 40th power, was transposed to the far smaller value 1040.
    Someone wasn't paying attention, then... Not only to your own post, but to Dawkins's claim. Again: Cumulative selection turns that process from "not enough time in the lifespan of the universe" to "30 minutes with a typical computer."


    Now any highly competent chemist, much less biochemist, recognizes the profound difficulty in synthesizing complex organic compounds in a modern laboratory. How much MORE difficult would it be to synthesize useful proteins from random mutations, even IF they are *magically selected* by the Magic Wand of Selection.
    When you're dealing with trillions of organisms over billions of years, it isn't difficult at all.


    Compound that impossibility by the fact that amino acids can be left-handed or right-handed, so which one did naturalism use and why?
    Either it used the one that was most efficient; or, if neither one confers an advantage, it was random.


    At hundreds of different steps, the chain has to be precisely folded. Who knew, and how? Where is it folded?
    No one "knew." That's not how evolution works. It's a result of a mind-bogglingly large number of iterations and mutations and accidents over billions of years.


    According to *selection*, step by painstaking step, there must be ADVANTAGES CONFERRED by this temporary polypeptide. What is the newest use for it? What does it do?
    As in... you want us to explain to you how amino acids work?


    Scientific minds want to know.
    If that's the case, then you should bother to act like a scientist, and start reading -- not flail about on a web forum dedicated to politics. For example, there is already quite a bit of literature on the evolution of hemoglobin. How much of it have you read?


    Darwinists simply giggle, say "selection, selection, selection" and "quote mine, FAIL".
    When you quote a scientist out of context, and make other massive errors, it makes sense to point out that a) you're quote mining and b) you've failed.
    "Everyone should listen to me all the time about everything."
    - Rosa Diaz

  3. #23
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:18 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,968

    Re: The Insuperable Statistics of Polypeptide Synthesis - Hemoglobin

    Quote Originally Posted by MrWonderful View Post
    I am assuring readers that random mutations, i.e. naturalism DID NOT.
    You may not agree. Please propose, then, how this fantasmagoric impossibility took place, with folding of the protein at each appropriate step.
    LMGTFY

    There's quite a bit of literature on the evolution of hemoglobin. I recommend you read some of it.


    Bear in mind that statistics don't change just because events happen slowly, or quickly. Toss a coin every second or once every 10,000 years, it's still 50/50 for heads, isn't it.
    lol

    I am not surprised that you fail to understand the Gambler's Fallacy. While it is true that each iteration of a coin toss is 50/50, it is also still true that over time the sequence will tend towards 50% heads, 50% tails. It is not guaranteed, but the more iterations you have, the more likely it is to result in the expected odds. The fallacy is when you assume that a specific iteration is likely to occur based on past results. E.g. if you get 15 tails in a row, the universe does not "owe" you 15 heads, and the next toss is still 50% likely to be tails. That does not change the fact that if you do 100 flips, it is still very likely that approximately 50 will be tails, and approximately 50 will be heads.

    I.e. if you have one and only one shot to go from invertebrate globins to modern human hemoglobins, it is virtually impossible to do so. If you're going to make that transition over 1 billion years, with 10^22 organisms, making incremental steps that reward efficiency and happen in tandem with speciation? Not a problem.


    10 to the 50th grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. If a man in a space suit could pick out ONE SINGLE UNIQUE grain of sand, in 10 to the 15 spheres full of sand the size of our solar system, out to Pluto, on his FIRST AND ONLY TRY, that would qualify as an impossible feat.

    He doesn't get "infinity" or "millions of years to keep *selecting and selecting and selecting*. He gets ONE TRY and ONE TRY ONLY. THAT is "one try in 10 to the 50th power."
    lol

    No, that's not how evolution works. No one posits that a fish gave birth to a modern human. Every single time that an organism reproduces, the offspring includes variations -- however tiny -- that impact its ability to survive in a specific environment. Over billions of years and quadrillions of births, the accumulated changes are substantial, and explain incredibly complex proteins like hemoglobin.
    "Everyone should listen to me all the time about everything."
    - Rosa Diaz

  4. #24
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Last Seen
    07-18-18 @ 09:08 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    328

    Re: The Insuperable Statistics of Polypeptide Synthesis - Hemoglobin

    You don't understand the difference between adaptation and extrapolating adaptation almost infinitely.

    Your Magic Wand of Selection is Zombie Science. You claim that it accomplishes exactly what you want it to accomplish, all the time.

    IF the original synthesis of a complex protein has been explained, then you would have provided a link to such evidence. But as usual, all you do is make a snide reference to it.

    That's irrational and not remotely scientific. But I repeat myself.
    Send me. I'll go. - Isaiah 6:8

    Let him who hath no sword sell his garment and buy one. - Luke 22:36
    Swords are not used for plowing.

  5. #25
    Proud member of the 'ilk'

    Threegoofs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The birthplace of Italian Beef
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,079

    Re: The Insuperable Statistics of Polypeptide Synthesis - Hemoglobin

    Quote Originally Posted by MrWonderful View Post
    You don't understand the difference between adaptation and extrapolating adaptation almost infinitely.

    Your Magic Wand of Selection is Zombie Science. You claim that it accomplishes exactly what you want it to accomplish, all the time.

    IF the original synthesis of a complex protein has been explained, then you would have provided a link to such evidence. But as usual, all you do is make a snide reference to it.

    That's irrational and not remotely scientific. But I repeat myself.
    Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

  6. #26
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    14,774

    Re: The Insuperable Statistics of Polypeptide Synthesis - Hemoglobin

    I thought this was a thread about science, then I saw it was about religion. Why are you posting in the science forum?

  7. #27
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:18 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,968

    Re: The Insuperable Statistics of Polypeptide Synthesis - Hemoglobin

    Quote Originally Posted by MrWonderful View Post
    You don't understand the difference between adaptation and extrapolating adaptation almost infinitely.
    You talkin' to me?

    I hate to break this to you, but yes, adaptation is "almost infinite." It is not a directed process. No one controls it. Evolution did not start with the intention of making the Perfect Human. Natural selection, mutation and adaptation are continuous processes. As long as organisms exist, and wherever they exist, there will be evolution, mutation, adaptation and natural selection.


    Your Magic Wand of Selection is Zombie Science. You claim that it accomplishes exactly what you want it to accomplish, all the time.
    What are you talking about?

    Natural selection doesn't "accomplish" anything. It's a description of the pressures on organisms. What it does is provide a framework to explain why something like hemoglobin is what it is, does what it does, and is present in such a huge variety of organisms.


    IF the original synthesis of a complex protein has been explained, then you would have provided a link to such evidence.
    Did you miss the part where I linked -- twice! -- to papers and articles on the evolution of hemoglobin? How about a wall of links on the topic?

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543078/
    https://www.americanscientist.org/is...-of-hemoglobin
    http://bioquest.org/summer2006/The_E...Hemoglobin.pdf
    http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5...erhill1965.pdf
    http://biology.hunter.cuny.edu/molec...s%20review.pdf

    And again, no one assumes that hemoglobin in modern humans popped out of thin air and into the human bloodstream. That's a process that took billions of years and quadrillions of iterations and mutations.
    "Everyone should listen to me all the time about everything."
    - Rosa Diaz

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •