 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
bart007
Little Goldfish
Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 50
Location: Rockland NY
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ana wrote: | | bart007 wrote: |
I gave full details in my full post on how the experiment was performed and what results were achieved. |
Yes, you sure did. Here is the result:
| Quote: | | His calculations revealed that an undirected search arriving at this a protein has a probability of occurrence of 1 in 10^65. |
| bart007 wrote: | | Nothing I wrote had to do with the Spontaneous generation of proteins. |
What does the above quote mean, then, Bart? There's obviously some confusion resulting in the poor grammar there. |
I thank you Ana for explaining why you agreed with P12 and FFT that I was addressing the Spontaneous Generation of Proteins. I understoood what I wrote, and I could not find anything that I did write that addresses the spontaneous genertation of proteins. Because you showed me the basis for their reasoning that led them to conclude that, I am now able to address why what they thought is not so. I appreciate the civility of your reply.
Basically, there are 20 proteinous amino acids that we find in life. A proteinous amino acids are 20 in number, for they are the 20 types of amino acids found in all living plants and animals. 19 of these 20 amino acids, when formed in nature, are 'racemic', which means that when they are formed in nature in equal quaintities of left handed and right handed amino acid molecules. (Excuse me if this is trivial to you, I write also for readers who may have little science background in Bio-Genetics).
In life on planet earth, only Left Handed amino acids are capable of forming a proteinous chain that is capable of being folded by the cells genetic folding machine. Small proteins may have less than a 100 amino acid chain. Huge proteins may consist of more than 1,000 left handed amino acids. Each amino acid location in any proteinous chain is called a loci.
What Hubert Yockey set out to find was the 'ambiguity' of a proteinous amino acid chain. Ambiguity is the ability of a protein to still perform its' function when an amino acid at a certain loci is replaced with another of the 20 known proteinous amino acids.
In 1978, science did not have the means of replacing the amino acids at each loci and reinsert the protein back into the cell to see if it still function. So Yockey worked with theoretical calculations based on the relevant State of The Art science pertaining thereto, and he used the protein Cytochrome C which was well studied at that time. At each loci of the Cytochrome C protein, Yockey 'theoretically' substituted each of the other 19 proteinous amino acids. From his efforts Hubert Yockey determined that out of every combination of amino acids that allowed the protein to still form its function, there were 10^65 substitutions that would not function. Thus ambiguity of the cytochrome C protein eas extremely miniscule.
Yockey's findings, published in 1978 and 1980 caused a great stir among biologists, in particular, geneticists, because such a small ambiguity was not just another powerful evidence against abiogenesis, but also was scientific evidence negatively effecting the ability of further evolution once life has already gotten started. They corectly perceived that Yockey's work did undermind The General Theory of Evolution.
This is because if evolution of all life must proceed from the simplest of self-replicating life form to, lets say, humans. Along the way, new classes of proteins must evolve into being, (in addition to many other biological changes) and they must come into being by a non-directed means of chance events that are rewarded by natural selection. But with an ambiguity of 1 in 10^65, the possibility of a non-directed search of events leading to new proteins (very specified info) is not a reasonable expectation.
So another theoritician came to save the day for evolution, Ken Dill, as cited in my intial post this thread. In that same posts I explained the work of MIT's team of scientists led by Robert Sauer, wherein they found a means to substitute the amino acids at each loci in two different protiens, the Lambda Repressor and I believe the other may have been Cytochrome C. This would be a Hard Science teast of Yockeys Theoretical Calculations versus Ken Dill's theoretical calcualtions. Sauers, Reid, et. al. Hard Science results confirmed Yockey's calculations for ambiguity, and falsified Ken Dill's theoretical calculations.
BTW, the normal mechanisms in the cell for folding a proteinous chain of amino acids into a protein was used for folding the chain of amino acids containing the amino acid substitutions.
As can be seen, the above discussion and probabilities have nothing to do with the spontaneous generation of proteins.
I originally posted my initial post this thread 10 years ago on Talk Origins, and I was attacked by evolutionary scientists, science students, and other evolutionists, (though not as badly as FFT and P12 atacked me here), And hubert Yockey came to post on that forum and defend his work and my post, though he made clear he was an evolutionists, He just wasn't the kind of evolutionists who swept the serious problems under the rug.
| Ana wrote: | Anyways, here's more on Yockey's work on cytochrome c:
Even within species, most amino acid mutations are functionally silent. For example, there are at least 250 different amino acid mutations known in human hemoglobin, carried by more than 3% of the world's population, that have no clinical manifestation in either heterozygotic or homozygotic individuals (Bunn and Forget 1986; Voet and Voet 1995, p. 235). The phenomenon of protein functional redundancy is very general, and is observed in all known proteins and genes.
With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein (Tanaka et. al 1988a; Tanaka et al. 1988b; Wallace and Tanaka 1994). In fact, the cytochrome c genes from tuna (fish), pigeon (bird), horse (mammal), Drosophila fly (insect), and rat (mammal) all function in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c (Clements et al. 1989; Hickey et al. 1991; Koshy et al. 1992; Scarpulla and Nye 1986). Furthermore, extensive genetic analysis of cytochrome c has demonstrated that the majority of the protein sequence is unnecessary for its function in vivo (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988). Only about a third of the 100 amino acids in cytochrome c are necessary to specify its function. Most of the amino acids in cytochrome c are hypervariable (i.e. they can be replaced by a large number of functionally similar amino acids) (Dickerson and Timkovich 1975). Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). For perspective, the number 10^93 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.
In terms of a scientific statistical analysis, the "null hypothesis" is that the identity of non-essential amino acids in the cytochrome c proteins from human and chimpanzee should be random with respect to one another. However, from the theory of common descent and our standard phylogenetic tree we know that humans and chimpanzees are quite closely related. We therefore predict, in spite of the odds, that human and chimpanzee cytochrome c sequences should be much more similar than, say, human and yeast cytochrome c - simply due to inheritance.
Confirmation:
Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10^-93 (1 out of 10^93). Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10^-29. The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this probability is less than 10^-25. |
You can read more about Yockey .... .
Also, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and suppose that you simply missed this with your continual glossing over the responses, rather than simply ignoring it, and I will post this in big letters so that hopefully you don't miss it:
Are you ever going to address the question P1234567890 posed about the K-T boundary?[/quote]
Yes, I am familiar with this, it is the other side of the coin. I discussed above 'Ambiguity' and how the minscule ambiguity is powerful evidence against the Theory of Evolution.
What Yockey is now discussing is called 'degeneracy', which I also referenced in my 1st post this thread. For instance, even though the ambiguity for the Lambda Repressor is a miniscule, only 1 out of every 10^63 amino acids combinations are capable of folding into a functional protein.
On the other hand, the degeneracy of the same protein (lambda Repressor) is 10^57. This means that with the existing functional protein, the lambda Repressor, nature can actually substitute particlular proteinous amino acids at particular loci in such a manner that 10^57 different chains of amino are allowable without the lambda repressor losing function.
Accidental amino acid substitution requires a a mutation that brings and installs the substitute amino acid at a loci. With the Lambda repressor, one loci allowed up to 15 amino acid substitutions without losing any functionality to the protein. These type of mutations do occur, and since they cause no harm, they are capable of being maintained in the genome. But there is no net evolutionary effect, no change in morphology of the creature. They are neutral mutations, they can not be a cause for evolution of new species.
I read the Richard Carrier's Article. I have debated him before. His naysaying of a prominent and well respected evolutionist (except among the dogmatic hardcore evolutionists) Hubert Yockey is unsporting of Carrier. If I decide to respond to my disagreements with his views, I will take it up on Talk origins, if he still writes there, or maybe on his blog. But it may be time for me to discontinue in this debate, my mental health and physical would probably limit me in a demanding debate with a dozen dogmatic evolutionists at once. By dogmatic, I'm inferring to those who have staked their life on it, many of whom go out of their way to censor any and all ideas or science opposing evolution.
The fact that Richard Carrier has written a book and actively opposes Yockey's and many scientific findings is good news to me. He merely confirms that real science obviously does provide a clear and present danger to the viability of the Theory of Evolution. When I was still debating on T.O. noone wanted to defend Musgraves "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations"
I did issue a reply to it and I have defended Borel's Law succesfully.
I thank you again for your concise and clear response, Ana.
Best Wishes and Happiness to You.
"To thine own self be true,
And it must follow as the night the day
Thou canst not then be false to any man." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are you just randomly cutting and pasting sentences? Was this post generated by a markov chain program?
And when are you going to address the problem with the K-T boundary? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | Are you just randomly cutting and pasting sentences? Was this post generated by a markov chain program?
And when are you going to address the problem with the K-T boundary? |
atoz: P123, if you wd just stop being so hateful of so many words,
you wd have the words to have the IMAGination to think by and why!
Can you imagine how that works: Love for words expanding imagination?
Go Giants!smile
In Love for all words and their images so that we have the greatest imagination--automatically & naturally, smile
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atoz wrote: |
atoz: P123, if you wd just stop being so hateful of so many words,
you wd have the words to have the IMAGination to think by and why! |
The anti-evolutionists are the hateful ones... They hate reason and fact! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | atoz wrote: |
atoz: P123, if you wd just stop being so hateful of so many words,
you wd have the words to have the IMAGination to think by and why! |
The anti-evolutionists are the hateful ones... They hate reason and fact! |
Atoz: You are getting it: Only anti-evolutionists who hate evolutionists are hateful.
So too evolutionists who hate masses of responses or liars or hypocrites or etc also are as hateful as anti-evolutionists.
See?
Evolutionists or anti-creationists who love all words are most loveful.
Creationists or anti-evolutionists who love all words are most loveful.
Please submit the above for peer-review and get back to me, will ya?smile
"If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us."
Hermann Hesse
with Love and r,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Barbarian
Hamster
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 85
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
If humans can use cytochrome C from yeast that differs by 40% from human cytochrome C, it should be a tip-off as to what is the problem with your interpretation of Yockey's findings.
There are many more ways things can go wrong than ways things can go right. Always true.
Now let's take a look at the real world. Suppose an organism is born with a lethal mutation in cytochrome C.
It dies. Probably never gets born. Never reproduces. So those changes never show up in the population. Suppose another is born with a mutation that does not change the function. It lives on, and perhaps that mutation will spread in the population over time.
And creationists will be dumfounded as to how it happened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
