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.

 

The Odds of a Beneficial Mutation is 1 in 10 Vigintillion -astronomically low-

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: DAVG1980
a reply to: Smigg
You think one species just evolves into the other, like one day the wake up with wings that weren't there. It takes 100s of thousands of years to rid myself of those pesky six digits I used to have

Yeah, the completely ignore time and can't conceptualize how long it takes for things to change. They think it just happens over night. The human mind can't conceptualize how long 1 million years is in terms of time and how many iterations and evolutions a species could go through in that time frame.

Creationists can't conceptualise the vast span of time RNA and DNA has been perfecting it's processes is because their world is less than 10,000 years old. And they're serious about that.

For these zealots, the worst kind of Christian, the text of the bible is the literal truth - every phrase, every sentence, every word. I'd get lost just picking which version of the bible to fight over!



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVG1980
a reply to: TzarChasm

I once watched a BBC documentary where they opened up a cave that had never seen light and they found this pool with fish like tadpoles that didn't have eyes because they didn't require them, there was no light. But when they were exposed to light they developed eyes.


That is probably not correct. Some cave populations have entirely lost their eyes (or perhaps more correctly, a 'flap' has grown to completely cover them), others have only lost partial sight. Maybe the discussion you saw was about the partially sighted ones.

Wikipedia: Mexican Tetra

Experiments have shown that keeping these fish in bright aquarium set-ups has no effect on the development of the skin flap that forms over their eyes as they grow.


The blind 'varieties' are not considered to be a separate species from their sighted relatives because the populations can still interbreed and produce fertile young. This implies (to me) that the populations have simply not been separated long enough, even if some of their physical characteristics have diverged.



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa
Cool man

Tbh I can't argue, I don't Remember enough, I Remember for sure this cave had never seen light, the almost translucent tadpole like fish with no eyes developed eyes upon being exposed to light.

Cheers



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVG1980
a reply to: cooperton
Humans are evolving

It can be seen in every thing

Do you know how long it took for someone to break the 4 minute mile
Records go all the time, that's physical evolution

There are millions painters alive now that are better than DaVinci or any of the greats
People can paint photorealistic now
Evolution in perception.
Humans are gettin taller and brains are growing and so are the craniums

Jesus was a midget



1.There are more people now. Next to that Davinci was the most known at the time which does not in anyway mean that he had no equal. There where less people and on top of that less means of connectivity between people, regional, national and globally then today. Or do you really think he had no equal anywhere around the globe?

2. My parents have pencil antique pencil drawings. One which is made up of dots that every single person that sees them mistake them for black and white photos. I myself as a kid always thought that they were photos until i was 13 and found out that they were not. Photorealistic art has existed for a very long time already. Today people also have technology behind them.

3. People are growing. Hormones in our food is the reason. Otherwise body forms are also changing because , once again, technology, bodybuilders and other athletes use chemicals and other cocktails in order to achieve that, on top of all the hormones in our food everywhere. In other words again, technology. A bigger brain (a organ which is fed by said food of today) does not in anyway point to higher intelligence.


edit on America/ChicagovAmerica/ChicagoSat, 30 Oct 2021 09:02:20 -050021202110America/Chicago by everyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: everyone

Fair enough I agree with the technology side, glossier paints etc, but have you ever seen the 3d drawings of a coke can where if you look at it from a certain angle it looks like you can go and pick it up, that level of depth in drawing I have only seen in modern work



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVG1980
a reply to: everyone

Fair enough I agree with the technology side, glossier paints etc, but have you ever seen the 3d drawings of a coke can where if you look at it from a certain angle it looks like you can go and pick it up, that level of depth in drawing I have only seen in modern work





Well yes of course i have and the are amazing. much like those 3d Tattoos. They are stunning but those are made by using math. Humans have been learning no doubt, but that shows no correlation to natural evolution. Human brains have been working at the same capacities over time relative to the accumulated knowledge but IQ's have not risen above or beyond that.



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Archivalist
1 in 10 vigintillion odds for something that occurs 10 vigintillion times every millisecond doesn't seem crazy.


No because you only get 1 chance per generation to pass on anything that may have mutated in the meiotic gametes. It's not like in bacteria where you have many generations in a relatively quick amount of time. 25 year generations make it so you have to wait for each new generation to potentially get any beneficial mutations, which is 1 in 10 vigintillion lol.



originally posted by: TerraLiga

Creationists can't conceptualise the vast span of time RNA and DNA has been perfecting it's processes


lol what does this even mean? RNA and DNA monomers don't even self-polymerize in an aqueous solution, so there's no way for DNA chains to form in water and therefor abiogenesis is a myth. Your wishful thinking is unfounded in science. Your hatred for people who think differently than you is also troubling
edit on 30-10-2021 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: everyone

You don't believe in evolution

Neither do pandas

Good luck



posted on Oct, 30 2021 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
lol what does this even mean? RNA and DNA monomers don't even self-polymerize in an aqueous solution, so there's no way for DNA chains to form in water and therefor abiogenesis is a myth. Your wishful thinking is unfounded in science. Your hatred for people who think differently than you is also troubling

But they do in acids, which is what the early Earth oceans were. This fact is founded in science, Genesis is not.



posted on Oct, 31 2021 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga
But they do in acids, which is what the early Earth oceans were. This fact is founded in science, Genesis is not.


High acidity denatures a proteins tertiary structure though, meaning they can't function properly. So no there's really no feasible way for complex proteins to have been generated by random chance.
edit on 31-10-2021 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2021 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

There's also no way a space wizard did it unless you can point to a credible culprit willing to subject themselves to examination.



posted on Nov, 1 2021 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

There's also no way a space wizard did it unless you can point to a credible culprit willing to subject themselves to examination.


The world goes according to intelligible laws. It's far more likely (and in my mind definitive) that such a construct was made by intelligence, rather than unintelligence
edit on 1-11-2021 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2021 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVG1980
a reply to: everyone

You don't believe in evolution

Neither do pandas

Good luck



I think it is questionable as their are a lot of holes in the theory of evolution. It is in the name.

Panda's also dont believe in a covid vaccine. What is the point you are trying to make with that?



posted on Nov, 2 2021 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: DAVG1980
a reply to: everyone

You don't believe in evolution

Neither do pandas

Good luck



I think it is questionable as their are a lot of holes in the theory of evolution. It is in the name.

Panda's also dont believe in a covid vaccine. What is the point you are trying to make with that?


Any theory can be incomplete and have holes, but the general concept could still be a sound one with evidence backing up that concept.

Many people who don't believe in evolution are people who can't grasp the immense timescales over which these (very slow) processes are happening.

Sure, ancient people from 5000 years ago are, for the most part, anatomically and intellectually identical to people today -- but 5000 years is barley a heartbeat in the 4 million years span of early-hominid-to-human evolution. And that's not even a blink of an eye compared to the billions of years life on earth has had to evolve more and more complex processes. Processes that, once they emerge, are passed along to future generations as a foundation to build upon, over millions and billions of years.

This evolution of the past 4 billion years or so wasn't consistent -- it had some stagnant periods, likely cause by environmental conditions being either more or less favorable to life diversification -- but we are still talking billions and hundreds of millions of years spans for evolution to do its very slow thing.


edit on 2/11/2021 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2021 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Part of the genetic code is used to make proteins for various biological functions. These protein-coding sequences are highly regulated and efficient. Evolutionary theory supposes that these sequences came to be through random mutations, yet research shows that this is simply not a realistic solution.

this paper found that the odds of generating one functional domain from a random mutation are 1 in 10 vigintillion (1 in 10^64 exponent)

or:

1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

For comparison, the odds of winning the lottery are about

1 in 14,000,000

This 1 in 10 vigintillion chance doesn't even mean you will get a totally functional protein! it is simply referring to a sub-region of a portion of a protein.



This above is a protein. Do you notice the abundance of folds that it has? This 1 in 10 vigintillion is referring to just one of the many folds required for a normal protein to function. So in order to get a fully novel functioning protein, you would need to hit this 1 in 10 vigintillion chance over and over again. As you can see the odds of this are unimaginably low. Then multiply this with the fact that humans have between 20,000-25,000 proteins coded in their genome, you realize the multitude of miracles that would be required for such a complex coding system to occur through random chance.


Evolution is dead. Leave the sinking ship behind lol


I agree, evolution is dead. These numbers are just mind boggling.



posted on Nov, 5 2021 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Yes, they are astounding, but it did take at least half a billion years.



posted on Nov, 5 2021 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

Any theory can be incomplete and have holes, but the general concept could still be a sound one with evidence backing up that concept.

Many people who don't believe in evolution are people who can't grasp the immense timescales over which these (very slow) processes are happening.

Sure, ancient people from 5000 years ago are, for the most part, anatomically and intellectually identical to people today -- but 5000 years is barley a heartbeat in the 4 million years span of early-hominid-to-human evolution. And that's not even a blink of an eye compared to the billions of years life on earth has had to evolve more and more complex processes. Processes that, once they emerge, are passed along to future generations as a foundation to build upon, over millions and billions of years.

This evolution of the past 4 billion years or so wasn't consistent -- it had some stagnant periods, likely cause by environmental conditions being either more or less favorable to life diversification -- but we are still talking billions and hundreds of millions of years spans for evolution to do its very slow thing.



1 in 10^67 is so low that even if 1,000 quadrillion (q x 10^15) chances at mutation were happening per second, it would still take 10^44 years to get one successful protein domain mutation.

It's not that I can't fathom the amount of theorized time, it's that evolutionists can't fathom the intricacies of biological mechanisms, and the difficulty that random chance would have in creating even the most rudimentary protein-coding sequence change to an organism.


originally posted by: Romeopsi

I agree, evolution is dead. These numbers are just mind boggling.


Yeah 1 in 10^67 is unimaginably low odds. For perspective, a billion is only 1^9
edit on 5-11-2021 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2021 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
...
No because you only get 1 chance per generation to pass on anything that may have mutated in the meiotic gametes. It's not like in bacteria where you have many generations in a relatively quick amount of time. 25 year generations make it so you have to wait for each new generation to potentially get any beneficial mutations, which is 1 in 10 vigintillion lol.
...


Sorry but don't understand why a parent with a mutated, or 'favorably-mutated' gene only gets one chance to pass that down ?
When we were young : multiple families in the area had 10, 14, 16 kids etc...
One of my ex-lovers was the 18th of 18.

What about the Ocean Sunfish ?
It produces up-to 300 million eggs per year, over a mating career of 5-8, ?? years ?
What's that : 1.5 to 2 billion ?

Why would each egg not have a chance of forwarding a specific gene ?

Also :

God did it.
Evolution did it.

Both three word sentences, eh ?

We use the tools of science to dig deep into the evolutionary possibilities, and probabilities.
Scrutinizing the smallest, most minute details, to find a condition that can cast doubt on the theory.

But do we scrutinize the Divine-Creation aspect with such a fine comb, and dig into every single detail, to make sure there can be no possible doubt ?

Just my musings. Don't wish to upset anyone, nor argue. Peace.




posted on Nov, 9 2021 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVG1980




Humans are evolving


Into what super duper man?



posted on Nov, 9 2021 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TerraLiga

I'll fix this for you.



Creationists can't conceptualize the vast span of time RNA and DNA has been perfecting it's processes. Because it
had to have happened thru the cataclysm that scientists say took out the dinosaurs.


Don't you people question anything when getting fed lies about our Creator?
edit on 9-11-2021 by Randyvine2 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join