toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Alate_One
Well-known member
There is such a thing as codon preference in certain organisms. But codon preferences are only notably different between things like bacteria and mammals or dicot and monocot plants. However, even when there is preference, all codons are still used and there are still many, many possible DNA codes to produce one or a set of proteins that are functionally identical.
Nothing solves the problem of the redundancy of the genetic code.
Is this another one of those Stripe games where stripe pretends to know something he really doesn't? If not please spell it out.I do.
I suppose you'd have to believe that in order to keep your rejection of God's word intact. :think:
Not at all. I went and asked a few questions and got a few answers. Codon preference wasn't one of them, but that is interesting. Seems to me there are a few ways the difference might be affective. Not to forget that even if there is no difference your challenge is still laughable.
All the areas of evidence for evolution are small. Infinitesimally small.
What makes it so small is that you can't put much confidence in a process where the people who have a vested interest in a certain pattern are the same ones that weigh the factors that determine the pattern.
Don't worry, it isn't hard to realize what percentage 5.15 X 10^ 47 is of 4.15 X 10^180... it's much smaller than any filtering system could possibly support.
For those that want to realize just how small the chance is of getting a working sequence from the possibilities, every single integer above the "47" is 10 times greater. That means 5.15 X 10^ 47 is 10% of 5.15 X 10^ 48. And 5.15 X 10^ 47 is 1% of 5.15 X 10^ 49. And 5.15 X 10^ 47 is .1% of 5.15 X 10^ 50... starting to see the problem here? You are dealing with a system that goes up by 10's with each integer over 47?!?! when we have to go from 47 to 180!?!?!?!
And this is just one sequence. Even if you are lucky enough to get a sequence that works, it has to be in an organism that has a selective advantage before that new sequence will spread to the population. And we only have so much time before we just can't have enough generations born to provide enough sequence changes to get just this one little sequence fixed in each group.
OK. The possibilities are 4^15, the working possibilities are less than 4^10, but we'll give you up to 4^10 just to weigh things in your favor. The chances of getting a working sequence are.... well, they are so tiny it might as well be 1/google percent chance to get from a working sequence in one group to a working sequence in another group in the time we have available.
Seriously, 15 billion years is no where near enough time for evolution to work. And I'm granting you a generous history of the universe instead of just the time life has been here on earth.
You don't say anything in your previous posts where the people with a vested interest in a certain pattern don't weigh the factors used to get that pattern.
But can't you see that every time it doesn't work there is a cost? You don't have that much opportunity cost to spend. You don't have infinite generations.
Yes. And that selection process is working on a much better chance than 5.15 X 10^ 47 of 4.15 X 10^180. How much better? 100 times better? A trillion times better? No way, try more like trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions.... and many more trillions of times better. Why do you even put these two up as comparisons? Make a comparison that's apples to apples, not galaxies to apples! (not to overly extend galaxies, but those are the biggest common things before going on to the universe)
Here's a way to test that:
There are quite a number of different versions of cytochrome C. All organisms need this enzyme. Take one version and introduce it to the Krebs cycle from a species with a different version.
See if it works.
Oh wait. That's been done. It works.
Sorry about your theory.
Here's a hint; there are a few sites on cytochrome C that never vary in any organism. Guess why.
Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
It's not that he HAD to necessarily, but we know that the same function can be done in multiple ways since so many genes in animals have the exact same function. Why would He use the particular pattern that looks so much like evolution. And again this is only one small area of evidence.
Even many informed creationists admit otherwise. Kurt Wise, for example. Or Harold Coffin, who admitted under oath that if he only considered the evidence, he'd think his YE views were wrong.
So that's not at issue. Your guys have already acknowledged that the evidence is for evolution.
You're assuming that a new enzyme just poofs into position by all those mutations at once. But that's not how it happens. We see gradual changes over time.
And here, you're assuming only one mutation at a time in a population, but there are normally several for each individual, which means many millions of mutations per generation. Some are going to be useful and persist. So your numbers show a very poor understanding of the evidence.
And such a series of mutations has been observed to pruduce a new and useful enzyme, so it's a moot point.
It's not that he HAD to necessarily, but we know that the same function can be done in multiple ways since so many genes in animals have the exact same function. Why would He use the particular pattern that looks so much like evolution. And again this is only one small area of evidence.
Even many informed creationists admit otherwise. Kurt Wise, for example. Or Harold Coffin, who admitted under oath that if he only considered the evidence, he'd think his YE views were wrong.
So that's not at issue. Your guys have already acknowledged that the evidence is for evolution.
You're assuming that a new enzyme just poofs into position by all those mutations at once. But that's not how it happens. We see gradual changes over time.
And here, you're assuming only one mutation at a time in a population, but there are normally several for each individual, which means many millions of mutations per generation. Some are going to be useful and persist. So your numbers show a very poor understanding of the evidence.
And such a series of mutations has been observed to pruduce a new and useful enzyme, so it's a moot point.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Uhh no. I know how it works since I had to deal with it. I also know that you can take many genes that do the exact same thing and find vast differences between them. Pretending this isn't so is borne of ignorance.
In other words, you don't know but you're going to pretend you do. YOU are laughable.
Well, then. You should have no trouble telling us the other thing that synonymous codons might affect. :up:
And you'd be wrong - unless you believe that genes can only do one thing. And you know better than that so this little tirade is just another example of how dishonest you are.
Pretending it is so, when you know better, is borne of intolerance and deceit. I'm not that well versed when it comes to biology, though ignorant is a little unjustified. But you're a proven liar.
I'll take ignorance any day.
No, actually. I went and asked a few questions and got a couple of interesting responses. One of them was yours about codon preference. But there are others that were more interesting. I guarantee you know them. :up:
And no matter how long you argue, your challenge remains lame. Your challenge is for creationists to come up with a reason why God would use the same sequences to create similar creatures when He could have used different sequences. This challenge is easily answered with, "Why not?"
But it's fun learning about actual reasons why He did. :thumb:
Alate_One
Well-known member
No, I don't and as I said codon preference still doesn't save you since there are still thousands of possibilities for each gene. This is your big chance to show how much I don't know by explaining whatever it is you're talking about. I think you're blowing smoke again. If you can't tell us what they are I'm going to assume you don't actually know anything.
Because if God actually made the universe 6000 years ago, He did it in a way that makes it look EXACTLY like he actually did it 4.6 billion years ago through slow processes (And I'm not just talking about DNA). Why would He do that?
OK then. :idunno:
It took me all of five minutes to find a couple of answers. Perhaps you might learn something as well. :up:
He didn't. :idunno:
And even if He did .. there's your challenge refuted. :chuckle:
Alate_One
Well-known member
So you don't know. Chalk that up to another Stripe falsehood.
KINGOFKNGS
New member
I Googled the two codons stripe listed. The first hit was Stripe's question on physicsforum. The physicists' response was that they can influence protein folding differently. I'd like to hear Stripe explain how it happens.
taikoo
New member
you sure about that, wanting to hear more stripnonsense?
Alate_One
Well-known member
After you said this I looked as well and found a post on bio forums in addition to the physics one. I haven't seen papers on the possible protein folding mechanism (though the description on that site made sense to me) and I'd love to hear Stripe try to explain it in his own words.
That said, most of the responses revolved around codon bias, which I already brought up.However, in asking this question, Stripe is missing the forest for the trees. If he asked on either of those sites "Are there thousands (or more) possible DNA codes for a gene like cytochrome C that give the exact same function?" I can guarantee you the posters there would say yes.
There are special situations (and one of the posters used that exact phrase) where changing a synonymous codon might make a difference, but these are relatively few and rare. That means there will still be huge numbers of possible strings of As, Ts, Gs, and Cs, that code for the exact same thing. Instead of 10^47 possibilities you might have 10^30. I guess that means all the genes DO have to be identical! :noway: Or not . . . :chuckle:
Alate_One
Well-known member
Yes, albeit not directly from you. And my larger, original point still stands so . . .
Your "larger, original" point was to question why God would create creatures using similar DNA sequences when different DNA sequences produce the same amino acids. That challenge is easily defeated by answering, "Why not?"
But, as further investigation shows, there is more that a DNA sequence does than just code for amino acids. There are things that are affected even though the change will produce the same protein. Every time such a feature is discovered your silly challenge is further eroded.
The fact remains that your challenge would not be valid even if you knew for a fact that God could have designed humans and chimps in a less similar fashion. And you don't know that. You're arguing that our biological ignorance is an argument for evolution.
So, to sum up:
- Your challenge is laughable, and
- It's an 'evolution of the gaps' argument.
So .. did you have anything that might actually pose a problem for a YEC?
Alate_One
Well-known member
In YOUR opinion which doesn't actually count for much.
But that's the thing. On the one hand your sort love to say how theories are being overturned all the time. Then in the next breath you act like no one would dare overturn Evolution. Which is it? I say no matter what any "vested interest" if there were solid evidence against evolution, it would be dead already. Someone would have become famous out of upsetting the apple cart. As anyone else that has ever overturned a major scientific idea has done, Einstein, Copernicus, Watson and Crick, etc.
Except it isn't. If the numbers are what you are implying they are, everything would die an instant a mutation happened. We know that doesn't happen. We know that we can have major changes in form.
No it doesn't and you know better.
You can cover the genome of any organism with a population of a few thousand and a few generations given known mutation rates. This means every mutation WILL happen every few generations.
Your math argument is simply wrong and yes I have run these numbers for you before. Stop pretending you don't know this. Barbarian answered a lot of your objections already.
That's the thing if it doesn't work, there isn't necessarily a generation. Think about this. If you have say fish. A fish like a salmon can produce 35,000 eggs in a spawning run. That's a heck of a lot of dice rolls at once. And for much of the history of life on earth (and for most of the living organisms on earth) we are dealing with those kinds of numbers. Your thinking on this matter is incredibly limited.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Because to do it is to imply evolution unnecessarily. Evolution would remain a useful scientific explanation if every possible analysis showed it to be true, even if in actuality God had just made the entire world with just the illusion it is.
Eroded by a tiny amount. Ask on those forums the question I gave you. They'll tell you what I told you. There are still many thousands of possible ways to encode the same gene with the same function. We know this because many organism already contain the same genes with far more different DNA sequences that do the identical function. If you can take a human cytochrome C and put it into a yeast and it does the same thing, obviously there's no reason for it to be identical to a chimp's cytochrome C.
mingus
The Sweetness
Evolution... Science tries so hard to prove it and cannot in any way prove or recreate it in the lab, numerous tries have failed and are still failing, Math says its impossible. Why would anyone believe in Evolution ? Science, Paleontology, and Math are proving more and more the historical events recorded in the Bible are true. My theory on why people choose blindly to accept evolution with NO basis of any kind is that, the alternative would mean that they would have to accept the possibility of God and therefor be responsible to a higher power and calling.
- Status