Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

I'm sorry, if you understood what you were talking about I wouldn't be patronizing.

The number of possible strands of DNA is irrelevant. Especially considering the length of what the originals would have to be.

And if something is only true if you were there to watch it be made that would disprove God rather quickly.

I'm trying to find the sense in this post.

Part 1: Well done.

Part 2: Yes it is irrelevant. Read my posts again.

Part 3: What? I suppose that's true, but what relevance does it have to anything?

 If you consider the number of different planets and the number of different universes (if you believe in the sting theory). then there would almost have to be at least one universe where life started. if life didn't come into existence we would not notice since we would not notice since we wouldn't exist. I also agree with raist that the number of ways  you can make a DNA strand is not a direct correlation to the chance of life coming into existence.

You all know what what said about DNA was irrelevant, right?


Also, the the thing about life: If protein had 200 amino acids (a normal-ish number for proteins) the odds of that is about 1 in 10^260, more then there are atoms in the universe.

You all know what what said about DNA was irrelevant, right?


Also, the the thing about life: If protein had 200 amino acids (a normal-ish number for proteins) the odds of that is about 1 in 10^260, more atoms then there are in the universe.

The authors show that a 32-amino-acid peptide, folded into an alpha-helix
and having a structure based on a region of
the yeast transcription factor GCN4, can autocatalyse its own synthesis by
accelerating the amino-bond condensation of
15- and 17-amino-acid fragments in solution

Source:http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0014.html

So why do we need a 200 amino-acid sequence?

Quote from: Eddy Baby on April 01, 2009, 12:52:54 PM

You all know what what said about DNA was irrelevant, right?


Also, the the thing about life: If protein had 200 amino acids (a normal-ish number for proteins) the odds of that is about 1 in 10^260, more atoms then there are in the universe.

Quote

The authors show that a 32-amino-acid peptide, folded into an alpha-helix
and having a structure based on a region of
the yeast transcription factor GCN4, can autocatalyse its own synthesis by
accelerating the amino-bond condensation of
15- and 17-amino-acid fragments in solution

Source:http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0014.html

So why do we need a 200 amino-acid sequence?

To create different proteins?

You all know what what said about DNA was irrelevant, right?


Also, the the thing about life: If protein had 200 amino acids (a normal-ish number for proteins) the odds of that is about 1 in 10^260, more then there are atoms in the universe.

But it doesn't assemble from atoms. Amino acids form naturally and combine to form proteins.

Seriously. Stop trying.

Quote from: EnigmaZV on April 01, 2009, 01:04:59 PM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on April 01, 2009, 12:52:54 PM

You all know what what said about DNA was irrelevant, right?


Also, the the thing about life: If protein had 200 amino acids (a normal-ish number for proteins) the odds of that is about 1 in 10^260, more atoms then there are in the universe.

Quote

The authors show that a 32-amino-acid peptide, folded into an alpha-helix
and having a structure based on a region of
the yeast transcription factor GCN4, can autocatalyse its own synthesis by
accelerating the amino-bond condensation of
15- and 17-amino-acid fragments in solution

Source:http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0014.html

So why do we need a 200 amino-acid sequence?

To create different proteins?

Did you understand what I found and posted for you?
If so, why do you think that this is/isn't significant or relevant?

Quote from: Eddy Baby on April 01, 2009, 12:52:54 PM

You all know what what said about DNA was irrelevant, right?


Also, the the thing about life: If protein had 200 amino acids (a normal-ish number for proteins) the odds of that is about 1 in 10^260, more then there are atoms in the universe.

But it doesn't assemble from atoms. Amino acids form naturally and combine to form proteins.

Seriously. Stop trying.

You really can't seem to understand what I'm saying.
I'll let you read it again, and you can see if you can understand it this time.

And also,

But it doesn't assemble from atoms.

Amino Acids aren't made from atoms? That's a new one....

I said it doesn't assemble from. Not it is not comprised of.

Also it does not need to be a specific protein first of all, just a self replicating one. Second of all proteins have certain rules about how they can assemble, or else there would be 10^260 different proteins of average length. Another point, the first self replicating proteins were probably smaller. Then you have to take into account the limited number of amino acids, and the fact that it does not matter which protein was produced. As long as a self replicating protein is eventually produced it is fine. You are listing the odds to make a specific protein from infinite quantities of each amino acid if order did not matter. The odds you gave are meaningless in this context.

Are you done trolling yet?

Raist is saying  that amino acids don't come out of a random creation of atoms they come from a a different molecule acting as almost a set of instructions.(yes raist I know that it is not designed to tell something what to do but it functions as one in the way it makes the amino acid form in a certain way) the set of instructions has other rules governing how it can be created. Correct me if I am wrong raist.

I said it doesn't assemble from. Not it is not comprised of.

Also it does not need to be a specific protein first of all, just a self replicating one. Second of all proteins have certain rules about how they can assemble, or else there would be 10^260 different proteins of average length. Another point, the first self replicating proteins were probably smaller. Then you have to take into account the limited number of amino acids, and the fact that it does not matter which protein was produced. As long as a self replicating protein is eventually produced it is fine. You are listing the odds to make a specific protein from infinite quantities of each amino acid if order did not matter. The odds you gave are meaningless in this context.

Are you done trolling yet?

I might stop trying to explain it to you in a bit. You don't seem to be able to grasp it.....

The Chances of Amino Acids forming a functioning, average length protein from scratch is approximately 1 in 10^260. On another note, this number is more than the number of atoms in the universe.


No opinions, nothing but straight fact. Nothing to argue with.

you are assuming that a protein needs 200 amino acids to be able to self replicate. you showed the total number of ways a amino acid could form. you then assumed that there was only one amino acid that can be functioning. at least that is what I got from what you were saying.

He was saying there is a one in whatever chance it would form a specific protein. Again, a pointless number.

He was saying there is a one in whatever chance it would form a specific protein. Again, a pointless number.

Well it was relevant a page or so ago.

you are assuming that a protein needs 200 amino acids to be able to self replicate. you showed the total number of ways a amino acid could form. you also assumed that there was only one amino acid that can be functioning. at least that is what I got from what you were saying.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm just saying that, to make a 200 amino long chain that functioned, that's the chance it would be.

Hang on got it. That's the chance to form any particular 200 amino long protein.

Back on to the videos, I like the fact that it brings to light scientific theists. Too many people don't realise there's middle ground.

Hang on got it. That's the chance to form any particular 200 amino long protein.

What are the conditions?  What was the concentration of amino acids used, what was the acidity/salinity?  Were there surfactants in the solution?  Lipids?  Do they take into account that many amino acids are substitutable?

Or does this number just assume that they need 200 amino acids in a specific order and assume that the way they interact is random?

Quote from: Raist on April 01, 2009, 02:20:27 PM

He was saying there is a one in whatever chance it would form a specific protein. Again, a pointless number.

Well it was relevant a page or so ago.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on April 01, 2009, 02:19:36 PM

you are assuming that a protein needs 200 amino acids to be able to self replicate. you showed the total number of ways a amino acid could form. you also assumed that there was only one amino acid that can be functioning. at least that is what I got from what you were saying.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm just saying that, to make a 200 amino long chain that functioned, that's the chance it would be.

Hang on got it. That's the chance to form any particular 200 amino long protein.

Back on to the videos, I like the fact that it brings to light scientific theists. Too many people don't realise there's middle ground.

Here is an example of a 32 amino acid peptide reproducing. Go fuck yourself.

The Chances of Amino Acids forming a functioning, average length protein from scratch is approximately 1 in 10^260. On another note, this number is more than the number of atoms in the universe.

No opinions, nothing but straight fact. Nothing to argue with.

I think that you will find that statement to be in 100% agreement with evolution, abiogenesis, chemistry and mathematics.  What you are doing incorrectly is assuming that an amino chain needed to be put together by chance in present form.  No one is saying that.  No one.  It started smaller and worked it's way up.  This is not a proof against evolution, it's a proof of your misunderstanding of evolution.

Quote from: Eddy Baby on April 01, 2009, 02:08:50 PM

The Chances of Amino Acids forming a functioning, average length protein from scratch is approximately 1 in 10^260. On another note, this number is more than the number of atoms in the universe.

No opinions, nothing but straight fact. Nothing to argue with.

I think that you will find that statement to be in 100% agreement with evolution, abiogenesis, chemistry and mathematics.  What you are doing incorrectly is assuming that an amino chain needed to be put together by chance in present form.  No one is saying that.  No one.  It started smaller and worked it's way up.  This is not a proof against evolution, it's a proof of your misunderstanding of evolution.

I believe in Evolution, obviously. It's pretty much indisputable.

Also, it is a valid theory, held by a reasonable amount of people. I really don't care either way, I was just putting into the debate, but I got flamed because somebody spied someone they could ridicule over the internet.

Here is an example of a 32 amino acid peptide reproducing. Go fuck yourself.

Stop posting irrelevant things.

I put A view forward, for people to consider, and got a very very childish reply. It's funny how you still can't seem to understand what I'm saying. Please, please, please, make sure you do before you post again.


Don't make things personal attacks for no reason, it's pathetic.

You claimed something completely incorrect based simply on meaningless numbers. I post how your numbers are wrong and you start bawwing. If you would have checked your own facts say by googling "self replicating protein" then I wouldn't have had to look it up for you.

Now shut up.

You claimed something completely incorrect based simply on meaningless numbers. I post how your numbers are wrong and you start bawwing. If you would have checked your own facts say by googling "self replicating protein" then I wouldn't have had to look it up for you.

Now shut up.

Nothing to do with self replicating proteins.

I quit this thread, I can't get through to you.

 


You gave the odds of randomly forming any single 200 amino acid protein.

It was a meaningless number.

You gave the odds of randomly forming any single 200 amino acid protein.

It was a meaningless number.

I unquit this thread.

What do you mean by that?

How does a number 'mean ' something?

The purpose of a number is to convey a magnitude with symbols. So always.

And it didn't?

No it didn't it convened how many combination you could have. It didn't say the likeliness of any of those combination being able to replicate.

I don't know....functioning...

huh?

Well in this instance, for a protein to function, it has to replicate.

Second you didn't demonstrate evidence that you need 200+ amino acids in order to self replicate. yes most proteins have over 200 but do you need that many for them to be able to replicate?

Second you didn't demonstrate evidence that you need 200+ amino acids in order to self replicate. yes most proteins have over 200 but do you need that many for them to be able to replicate?

No but it's an average-sized protein..