Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

by cofty 291 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  Yes, there are a very large number of calculated possible functional cytochrome c sequences. (2.3 x 10 93rd power). Therefore the random chance occurrence of a high degree of similarity between any life forms would be remote (more remote than the number of estimated atoms in the universe).

  This is strong evidence against RANDOM chance as an explanation for cytochrome c similarities in living things.

  However, evidence against random chance does NOT equate to evidence for “common descent” between creatures.

  For example all the possible hypothetical software sequences making up iPhone iOS software would be a much larger number than the above figures for cytochrome c. Yet the similarities between various generations of iOS are not evidence for “common descent” via naturalistic mutational processes, but instead due to being the product of a common intelligent design source.

  The evolutionist “protein functional redundancy” argument is built on the assumption that the only options for cytochrome c similarities are random chance or common descent.

  The evolutionists are using “evidence” against one naturalistic scenario as “evidence” for another.
• 

  hooberus

  “Comparative genetics DOES NOT depend on an assumption of common ancestry it proves common ancestry.”

  The first part of this is correct. Comparative genetics does not depend on an assumption of common ancestry. The mere fact of sequence similarity and dissimilarity does not prove common ancestry any more than software sequence comparison proves that iOS software versions arose by random mutation via hypothetical common ancestors.

  
  
• 

  hooberus

  “The evolutionist “protein functional redundancy” argument is built on the assumption that the only options for cytochrome c similarities are random chance or common descent.”

  Note: The above comment was referring specifically to the “Confirmation” section of the “talk origins” article on this subject which states:

  “Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. . . In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10^93 (1 out of 10^93).”
• 

  hooberus

  That said creatures that are similar morphologically will also be similar in terms of cytochrome c. The nested patterns of both will tend be in agreement. This could not be a result of chance, but that does not mean that evidence against chance is evidence for evolution.

  There are two books that I would recommend on life’s overall pattern morphologically and genetic.

  “The Biotic Message” by Walter ReMine

  ”Evolution a Theory in Crisis” by Michael Denton (especially chapters 5, 6, and 12).

  Dont be dissuaded by negative evolutionist “reviews”. There is a lot of decent info in these 2.
• 

  cofty

  creatures that are similar morphologically will also be similar in terms of cytochrome c

  There is no possible explanation for that apart from evolution by unguided natural selection from a common ancestor.

  All your bluster only illustrates how much you don't understand your problem.

  QUESTION - Why should a chimp and a human have DNA sequences of Cytochrome C that are almost the same but very different from the sequence of yeast even though the function is IDENTICAL? So identical that they can be swapped in the lab.

  Do you understand that the ONLY thing that matters is the physical shape of protein and that the shape can be be obtained in trillions of different ways? Do you get what an enzyme is and how it works and how it is constructed from amino acids?

  I get the feeling that this is like playing chess with somebody who doesn't know how the pieces move.
  
  
• 

  cofty

  There are two books that I would recommend

  So specifically, in your own words and without copy-paste, what points do you find interesting about these books?

  Why do you think the scientific criticisms of these books are invalid?
  
  
  
• 

  cofty

  Bumping these questions in case hooby missed my replies.
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  Another apologist running away with their tail between their legs?
• 

  cofty

  Usual hit-and-run I think.

  I wouldn't criticise creationists and advocates of Intelligent Design (same thing) unless I first understood their position. It's a pity they never return the favour.
• 

  hooberus

  Related to what I wrote earlier on this page, I want to point out something commonly found in these arguments. That is the evolutionists implicit claim that we SHOULD EXPECT a creator to use RANDOM sequences for different created organisms.

  From the talkorigins article:

  “Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, . . .”

  “For perspective, the number 1093 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.”

  What is the evidence for this claim? This is actually a subtle theological claim. It’s an implicit claim that a creator “should” use “random” sequences. Other Evolutionists here have made basically the same statement, or even adding that if evolution is not true that we “should not” see any patterns of relatedness in the cytochrome c sequences for different species!

  No justification is ever given for the “should” and “should not” . There mere fact that there are a lot of hypothetical functional sequences does not necessarily mean that a creator therefore “should” use random sequences in each created kind, or that a creator “should not” form a pattern.

  Evolutionists like to use evidence against random chance to make evolution “look” scientific. Even if it means making implicit theological claims about what a creator “should” or “should not” do.