Come on Hooby don't run away now.
First explain how creationism explains the table below, and then tell us why cytochrome C in prokaryotes are significantly different from all eukaryotes just as evolution predicts.
Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy
by cofty 291 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
hooberus
Let’s not forget that Cofty has the burden of proof here (though he tries to shift it).
Furthermore he has not shown that naturalistic processes can even overcome the hurdle of likely obtaining even a single Cytochrome C molecule. See my post on page 24 of this thread.
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 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?
If naturalistic processes cannot reasonably generate Cytochrome C, then they cannot generate a pattern of it.
-
hooberus
Cofty claims:
”Comparison of Cytochrome C sequences PRECISELY confirms the evolutionary history of all species, from humans to yeast, EXACTLY as predicted by pre-existing models.”
Yeast, insect, a fish, a bird, and a mammal all have approximately the same number of Cytochrome C differences relative to a bacteria.
Is there a pre-existing evolutionary publication predicting this?
-
Esse quam videri
" ...has been calculated to be a billion times larger than all the atoms in the known universe... '
That is one of the most incredible statements I have heard all day and that is saying something.
It beats:
- the kid next door, " Our house cost a bazillion dollars."
- Bert in accounting describing the new secretary, : "She's as thin as a toothpick."
- Grandma telling Grandpa, " Your walking slower than a snail."
A billion times larger than all the atoms in the known universe. All of them. It can't be hyperbole as it has been calculated. Very carefully I trust.
-
cofty
Yeast, insect, a fish, a bird, and a mammal all have approximately the same number of Cytochrome C differences relative to a bacteria. - Hooby
Yes of course they do. Even though I wrote this thread to describe the pattern of ubiquitous proteins in eukaryotes your point about prokaryotes adds to the evidence.
I have asked you FOUR times to have a go at answering your own question.
Why is the difference between prokaryote and eukaryote cytochrome c sequences exactly as evolution would predict?
I will give you a clue. Think about the time-scales.
We are on page 28 and you still haven't explained the facts in the OP from the perspective of creationism.
It's almost as if you don't understand your own question - or the topic, or anything at all about evolution.
.
-
cofty
The odds of obtaining even one of these by chance is 2.0 x 10 -44 - Hooby
This is a distraction from the topic but let's get it out the way.
There are perhaps 20,000 different proteins in human cells. The average number of amino acids in these proteins is around 400 or so. That makes Cytochrome C a relatively small molecule at just 104 amino acids. Not one of evolution's biggest achievements.
Your challenge seems to be that evolution could never come up with any protein because 'chance'.
The answer to your question is to be found in chapter one of every basic textbook on evolution. It was the great discovery of Charles Darwin. EVOLUTION is NOT ABOUT CHANCE.
Life doesn't have to wait for its lottery numbers to come up - natural selection is a chance accumulator.
The crucial thing about a protein is its physical shape. Amino acids join together in random ways like oddly shaped magnets combining to make larger shapes with all sorts of bumps and crevices. Something that is approximately the correct shape will give its host an advantage.
The number of sequences that will produce something 'good enough' is orders of magnitude greater than the - astonishingly massive - number of sequences that result in the optimum version.
It arrives at its final form as a result of natural selection that favours any small improvement. After that, any future changes will be selected for if and only if they don't negatively affect the efficiency of its function.
Artificial Intelligence and engineering are using versions of natural selection to optimise design.
-
hooberus
This is a distraction from the topic but let's get it out the way.
If naturalistic processes cannot likely produce something like Cytochrome C, then they cannot produce any pattern of sequences of it either.
The number of sequences that will produce something 'good enough' is orders of magnitude greater than the - astonishingly massive - number of sequences that result in the optimum version.
It arrives at its final form as a result of natural selection that favours any small improvement. After that, any future changes will be selected for if and only if they don't negatively affect the efficiency of its function.
The calculations by Yockey were not just for optimum sequences but for all possible functional sequences.
So unless you have another source demonstrating better odds the evolutionist problem is still there.
-
hooberus
Cofty claims:
”Comparison of Cytochrome C sequences PRECISELY confirms the evolutionary history of all species, from humans to yeast, EXACTLY as predicted by pre-existing models.”
Yeast, insect, a fish, a bird, and a mammal all have approximately the same number of Cytochrome C differences relative to a bacteria.
Is there a pre-existing evolutionary predicting this?
-
cofty
The calculations by Yockey were not just for optimum sequences but for all possible functional sequences.
No it wasn't. You can't even understand the creationist arguments AGAINST the science. How on earth are you going to understand the hard stuff?
Please provide a specific reference and quotation with context.
You have ignored every word of my detailed answer. Are you just trolling or are you trying to genuinely understand the science?
Is there a pre-existing evolutionary predicting this?
That isn't even a sentence.
Yeast, insect, a fish, a bird, and a mammal all have approximately the same number of Cytochrome C differences relative to a bacteria.
I have challenged you FIVE times to work out why this is exactly what evolution predicts.
1st clue - Think about the relative timescales involved.
2nd clue - CladogramsCome on you can do it.
-
cofty
You still have all your work to do to explain this from a creationist perspective...