It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Thats exactly it in a nutshell ... mathematical odds ... and there's no escaping them or bypassing them.
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
One acquaintance once told me he enjoys debunking Darwinism, when I asked him why?
He answered with "the math", what he was referring to is that math with biology can't support it.
One biological scientist once said the Darwin theory is so mathematically impossible it's odds of happening are like 1 out of the number that represents all the atoms in the universe. Nobody knows what that number actually is. But it's a hyperbole to make a point.
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by tauristercus
Looking at nothing but the mathematical odds logically defeats Darwinism quite handily as you continue to explain in this thread, that is if you are willing to explore, examine and inform yourself of them.
Denial is a fundamental trait that all humans display in all area's of life for various reasons.
The denial of factual math is quite sad to observe however. It's like saying 1+1 doesn't equal 2 because we don't want it to. It's an emotionally based perspective.
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Kailassa
Your comments are very debatable within the scientific community itself.
. . .
So yes lets have the dialog, but don't try and prove it, with statistical variables plugged into a math formula's that are suspect to begin with.
Originally posted by TheWill
You are still assuming that we HAD to have an insulin gene in the first place - we didn't.
Originally posted by TheWill
You are making the assumption that the insulin gene arose from non-coding DNA. It is just as possible that it arose from coding DNA, a series of bases already coding for a protein which, by a few substitutions or perhaps just a single deletion/insertion, or even just a fortuitously placed crossover event, would have changed the amino acid sequence produced by the gene.
Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
You clearly don't get how things work. You seem to think that mutations are a random insertion of a nucleotide somewhere?
You seem to think that mutations are a random insertion ...
Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
Without taking into account how many different ways mutations can be achieved, you should know that it is possible for entire chromosomes to be duplicated - Double the genome in the life span of a single celled organism, which can be down to a few minutes. So your way of looking at time is waaaaaaaaaaay off.
Mitosis is a type of cellular reproduction where a cell will produce an identical replica of itself with the same number and patterns of genes and chromosomes.
Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
During mitosis, it is estimated that a mutation occours 1 in 10.000.000 nucleotides with efficient DNA polymerases, while we are down to 1 to 1.000.000.000 in higher mammals, that have proof reading polymerases. That is *roughly* 3 mutations per germ cell in higher mammals, which is quite low.
That is *roughly* 3 mutations per germ cell in higher mammals, which is quite low.
Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
The citric acid cycle ... is a series of enzyme-catalysed chemical reactions, which is of central importance in all living cells that use oxygen as part of cellular respiration.
Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
The citric cycle is by no means perfect. It actually uses energy under some conditions, so again your argument is pointless.
Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
This also tells that you don't *get* evolution. Even if insulin magically sprang into existence, it would not have an effect. You would also need some way to regulate its expression, you would need a receptor it could target, and it would also need downstream effects from this receptor.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
It's so annoying when amateurs with no understanding whatsoever of genetics or microbiology in general make these ridiculous claims like the one you presented.
Just to show how little you know. You said:
And like the insulin process, the Citric Acid cycle MUST have come into existence very early in the evolutionary time scale as it is critical to, and used by all organisms that metabolize oxygen for respiration ... therefore giving nature very little time for trial and error.
This is just plain wrong. Ogygenic (oxygen generating) photosynthesis came about only about 2 billion years after life had started on our planet. Before that there was no oxygen that could act as terminal acceptor of electrons, and thus no citric acid cycle as it's today.
... which is of central importance in all living cells that use oxygen as part of cellular respiration.
Source: Citric Acid cycle
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by tauristercus
Ok, I can just barely, barely, barely accept that nature may just have some how fluked it with insulin ... but how do you explain nature doing it another 25,000 times ... and some of those proteins are longer than insulin which means the odds against the longer ones is beyond imagination.
If you would actually read the posts in this thread you would know that this has already been explained. Paper on the Evolution of Insulin.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
No it doesn't.
Look, I had game theory at uni as part of my MSc in Real Estate. If there's one thing I learned, it's that if something can happen, it eventually will happen. To give you an example, winning the lottery is highly unlikely. In fact, depending on the type of lottery, you might only be likely to win once in 256 MILLION years if you play once a week. Other lotteries are "easier" and you're likely to win once out of 120 million tries.
However, now look at how many people win the lottery every single week. It should be an incredibly rare event, yet it still happens.
Your chances of getting hit by lightning are approximately 2.5mil to 1, which is still a lot higher than you winning the lottery...yet people say getting hit by lightning is super rare.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by tauristercus
Please enlighten us how you came up with that figure. Why at the power of 90? Why 8x10?
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by tauristercus
Thats exactly it in a nutshell ... mathematical odds ... and there's no escaping them or bypassing them.
Good grief, man – still holding out?
What part of 'selection' don't you understand? Nature didn't have to roll the same four dice over and over again. She selected the combinations she 'wanted' in a cumulative process. Each roll of the dice increases the likelihood that the next roll will be the one she wants.
Evolution through natural selection isn't mathematically unlikely, it is inevitable.
Each roll of the dice increases the likelihood that the next roll will be the one she wants.
Originally posted by tauristercus
Astyanax
You're kidding me ? C'mon ... you've got to be !
Each roll of the dice increases the likelihood that the next roll will be the one she wants.
Each roll of the die is completely and utterly INDEPENDENT of any previous rolls if you're only interested in a single, one time outcome e.g. A or C or G or T and don't care about what came before or after.
But if you're looking at multiple outcomes such as A followed by T followed by G followed by C followed by C followed by A, etc, etc, etc then every previous outcome MUST be taken into account in the final overall probability calculation.
In the case of building the insulin gene from scratch, each and ever every roll of nature's 4 sided (A, C, G and T) die has exactly the same probability as any other roll ... but the CUMULATIVE probability is based on taking every previous outcome into consideration.
That probability is exactly one chance in 4 or if you prefer, P = 0.25.
It also makes no difference if somehow nature managed to get say, the 1st 15 nucleotides sequentially in place and then nothing further happened for 10 million years. The odds of adding the 16th nucleotide will still be
0.25^16 against or if you prefer, approximate chances of 1 in 10^9 against.
Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by tauristercus
On top of which, you're still only calculating the odds of it occurring if there was only a single system in which it could, which is not the same as calculating the odds of it occurring on this planet, which has countless billions, if not more, of systems, and has had countless billions more.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by tauristercus
Your argument seems to be that you don't believe that evolution happened because evolution happened too fast to have happened.
The soup was terrible, and there wasn't enough of it!
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
The point Astyanax is making is that the game is not "random." Evolution does not start from scratch. If it did, there would have been equal odds that your mother would have given birth to a giant sequoia instead of you.
The dice metaphor is a poor one - unless the dice are loaded, and the goal of rolling them is to pick out which dice are best loaded in your favor. Which is exactly what the case is.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by tauristercus
The probability of getting a phrase "Methinks it is like a weasel" randomly on the first time is 1 to 2,042,911,512,229,885,603,274,215,297,897,150,684,236,521,591,013,37.
Yet, we can evolve it in just a few hundred generations at worst.
This would be impossible according to your logic, but it is not, because evolution, as was already said, is cumulative.
Originally posted by Wertdagf
Its possible a great majority of the evolution could have occured on another planet. Panspermia is another theory as to genetic varriation and the origin of life on earth.
Im supprised you couldnt think of it yourself.
Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by tauristercus
thats a horribly ignorant respose to a great explination for your confusion as to how life become complex so fast.
But i guess do what you got to do to keep your pitifull little delusions.
Sorry, wrong answer.
....
which gives us a 1 in 3.5025714498220057526153130908058 x 10^32 chance of succeeding
For instance, using Weasel's 68-character alphabet (all upper- and lower-case letters, plus digits and some punctuation), there are 2,042,911,512,229,885,603,274,215,297,897,150,684,236,521,591,013,376 possible phrases of the same length as the phrase "Methinks it is like a weasel" (that's about 2 million billion billion billion billion billion phrases).
Really ???? The only way I could see that happening is by using a specifically written computer program utilizing millions of iterations per second ... and even then I wouldn't hold my breath.
Generation 264
Tries
Originally posted by tauristercus
In the case of building the insulin gene from scratch, each and ever every roll of nature's 4 sided (A, C, G and T) die has exactly the same probability as any other roll ... but the CUMULATIVE probability is based on taking every previous outcome into consideration.
That probability is exactly one chance in 4 or if you prefer, P = 0.25.
It also makes no difference if somehow nature managed to get say, the 1st 15 nucleotides sequentially in place and then nothing further happened for 10 million years. The odds of adding the 16th nucleotide will still be
0.25^16 against or if you prefer, approximate chances of 1 in 10^9 against.