Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

by cofty 291 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  Nothing that I have written here (in context) shows an error regarding ‘ontological’ and ‘methodological’ naturalism.

  The context of my statements refer specifically to the practice of evolutionists attempting to redefine ‘science’ to be a search for “naturalistic explanations.” Such a ‘definition’ preemptively excludes creation as a possible scientific explanation.

  It is irrelevant if the evolutionist is also a proponent of ‘ontological naturalism’, or if they are just a proponent of the more limited ‘methodological naturalism’. The end result is the same as far as their philosophy of science goes.

  To both, ‘science’ is the search for “naturalistic” explanations. Period.
• 

  cofty

  To both, ‘science’ is the search for “naturalistic” explanation

  YES!

  How could a scientist possibly seek a supernatural one?

  'God-did-it, let's go to the pub'.

  The most committed christians who work in every field of science seek naturalistic answers. It is this approach that dragged us out of the Dark Ages and transformed the world.

  Feel free to join us.
• 

  cofty

  Such a ‘definition’ preemptively excludes creation as a possible scientific explanation.

  Not at all. If science had failed to find a naturalistic answer then the possibility would remain that god-did-it.

  But in the case of finding an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life the results are already in. Unguided evolution is a fact.

  If you want to hang on to a personal belief that god used evolution to make the world then carry on but it adds nothing to our knowledge of reality.
  
  
• 

  cofty

  Clicking ''Dislike' is not equivalent to defending your argument Hooby.
• 

  jonahstourguide

  Have to say, I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion and the associated 'squirming'.

  I'm off to the pub anyway but am going with a perpetual smile. Thank you cofty.

  jtg,,,,

  beers are on me mate.

  
  
• 

  hooberus

  For those who wanted sources:
  What Cofty said:
  "The number of possible amino acid sequences that would result in a functional Cytochrome C protein molecule has been calculated to be a billion times larger than all the atoms in the known universe."
  The source:
  Yockey, H. P. (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology. New York, Cambridge University Press.

  The above is from page 16 of this thread.

  The number of different possible functional versions of cyctochrome c sequences calculted by Yockey is staggering (2.3 x 10 93 ).

  However, Yockeys calculations also show that when compared to the number of random possible sequences of the same length as cyctochrome c (110 amino acid length = 1.15 x 10 137 possible sequences) that functional cyctochrome c sequences are exceedingly rare.

  The odds of obtaining even one of these by chance is 2.0 x 10 -44
  

  Has any evolutionist demonstrated enough likely trials and time available on the Earth to likely obtain one functional cytochrome c sequence?
• 

  Rattigan350

  How does that DNA one day think that it is better for a segment of the population to have penises while the rest have vaginas and ovaries and then have babies. Then how will those babies feed with no teeth. The DNA thought that the mothers need to develop a way to feed them by changing the DNA to develop breasts with milk.
  
• 

  cofty

  FFS really Rattigan?

  Does your random questions have anything to do with this thread?

  I'm busy decorating but I will respond later.

  The odds of obtaining even one of these by chance is 2.0 x 10 -44 - Hooby

  The answer to your question is that natural selection is NOT random. But we have covered that many many times.

  You are still ignoring the point of the thread which is proof of the common ancestry of all living things.

  
  
• 

  hooberus

  The answer to your question is that natural selection is NOT random. But we have covered that many many times.

  How does differential survival and reproduction, even if not random, solve the mathematical problem of finding even one functional cytochrome c molecule?

  You claim “in the case of finding an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life the results are already in. Unguided evolution is a fact.”

  So therefore how was one of the functional sequences obtained given the probability issue?

  Cytochrome c is just one component of the electron transport chain, so why would a molecule of it be worth anything to be selected ?

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_transport_chain
  
• 

  never a jw

  "The odds of this happening can not even be calculated"

  I assume you are an ex JW. How come you left the cult but still repeat stuff others say without even thinking about it. Mutations over billions of years, trillions of times definitely create the diversity that you know today. The odds are 100%.