 |
Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism, alt.atheism, talk.origins, alt.bible
From: Howard Hershey <hersh...@indiana.edu>
Date: 2 Jan 2001 15:09:18 -0500
Local: Tues, Jan 2 2001 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: The cell is not too complex to have evolved naturally
Gort wrote: What makes you think that they must be precise sequence (other than > Rather than be part of the diatribes happening here, I will attept to > The simplest protein molecule contains at least 100 amino acids (there your ignorance about how enzymes work)? If you look at a particular protein (say, cytochrome c) you will find literally thousands of sequence variants in nature that function extremely well as cytochrome c's and many more thousands of sequence variants that have partial function (from near normal to barely detectable). I know that you want to proscribe a precise sequence in order to make your nonsense statistic seem reasonable, but nature, fortunately, is not required to make the same assumptions you do. > In a two-string Actually they would attack your silly assumption that only a single > combination for example, AB would work, but BA would not. Since there > are two components in this string, there are two possible ways for > them to combine. This is expressed as 1x2 or factorial 2. As the > number of components increases, the number of possible combinations > also increases exponentially. A string of three, such as ABC, can form > six possible combinations. This is 1x2x3 or factorial 3. By the time > we reach 100 components, we have 1x2x3x4x5x6 etc., up to 100. This > factorial 100 works out to 10 to the 158th power, or 10 with 158 > zeroes after it. In fact the probability of producing a human cell by > chance is 10119,000 to 1, or 10 with 119,000 zero's after it, a number > we cannot even comprehend. To obtain this Dr James Coppedgr Ph.D. > Director for Probability Research in Biology in California simple > probability to the complex task of making one human cell by chance. To > illustrate the enormity of this imagine 4 Billion people counting 24 > Hours a day for 5 thousand years, yet evolutionist would have us > believe that things vastly more complex than this happen every day. sequence can be functional as an enzyme. > Is it really that set and structured? ^^^ > The shape and overall properties of a protein are dependent upon its > constituent amino acids. In some proteins, a change in just one amino > acid in the polymer chain, out of a total of perhaps 250 amino acids, > or even a change in its position, can cause the protein to become There is a difference between saying that a change in a single amino acid *can* (sometimes) result in complete loss of function (which is true) and saying that a change in *any* single amino acid *must* result in complete loss of function (which is false, but is the assumption you are making). > nonfunctional, if it is an ENZYME, or to perform its function To present more realistic numbers, based on evidence rather than > differently, if it is not an enzyme. Chemists are currently trying to > relate the role of each of these amino acids to the way in which the > protein works. > In addition to the 20 common amino acids, others occur in proteins. > Analysis of many proteins from plant and animal sources has shown that > all are made up of about 25 to 30 amino acids. In addition, more than > 50 amino acids, not combined in proteins, have been found in plants. > The mathematical probability of life beginning by random chance is 10 calculations based on false assumptions: Random syntheses of 50 nucleotide long RNAs generates certain specific selectable functional ribozyme (RNA enzyme) activities relevant to biological functions that would be needed for an ur-organism (RNA ligases, terminal transferases, etc.) in the range of once every 10^14-10^17 molecules (a mole of molecules is about 10^23, so it is a virtual certainty that you will have a number of molecules with the needed activities in a millimole of such randomly generated RNA (you would certainly be able to hold this in a thimble). Moreover, ALL these activities would be present in the SAME millimole of RNA. Enzymatic activies were also consistently found in proteinoids formed abiogenically. According to your argument, neither the randomly generated ribozyme You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||