Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

by cofty 291 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  In response to my point that “The calculations by Yockey were not just for optimum sequences but for all possible functional sequences.” Cofty replied:

  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

  On the bottom of page 16 of this thread and on the top of page 17 it was pointed out by another evolutionist here, and Cofty, that talkorigins was a source used. (Or that it was a source used by a source used).

  The talkorigins article on “protein functional redundancy” cites Yockey’s 1992

  “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, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe.”

  Note the words “possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences”
• 

  hooberus

  The talkorigins article uses the phrase “possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences.”, in an article on “functional” redundancy.

  ”functional” being the key word in both.

  “functional” does not necessarily refer to just ‘optimal’, but would also include any others that would ‘work’.

  Thus, even the sourced talkorigins article shows that Yockey was referring to “functional” not ‘optimal’ for the calculated figure.

  On the previous page Cofty wrote:

  ”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.”

  I haven’t seen any separate calculations for “optimum versions”.

  
  
• 

  hooberus

  If you have a source that provides a separate calculation for the “sequences that result in the optimum version”,

  “Please provide a specific reference and quotation with context”
• 

  cofty

  Hooby - I asked you to give me a reference for Yokey. I can't respond to your comments until you do.

  I need to see exactly what Yokey said in context. Do you have a copy of the source you are talking about? Your obfuscation is tedious.

  All of this is a distraction from the main point of the thread. Only evolution can account for the phylogeny of ubiquitous proteins such as cytochrome c.

  
  
• 

  cofty

  I just read the Talk Origins article. Yokey's study utterly refutes the creationist case.
• 

  hooberus

  In response to my point that: “The calculations by Yockey were not just for optimum sequences but for all possible functional sequences.” Cofty replied: “No it wasn’t.”

  He simply asserted that I was wrong on this without providing any evidence whatsoever to substantiate his claim.

  So Cofty do you have anything to back up your statement? You demand references from others, so where is yours?
• 

  2+2=5

  Just stop, you’ve embarrassed yourself enough already.
• 

  cofty

  Hooby - Page 28 and you have still not responded the challenge of the OP.

  The following makes no sense from the perspective of creationism. You refusal to address this is embarrassing. Trying to assert that evolution can't account for the existence of any functional proteins is not an answer.

  >>

  
  
• 

  cofty

  Hooby - Clicking 'dislike' is also not an answer.

  Have you got time to stay online for an hour or two (while doing other stuff is fine) and engage in an actual conversation? It's impossible when you wait for days, ignore my comments and repost the same 'objection'.

  Let me know when you have time and see if we can make any progress. Its 6:30 pm UK time so if you are free in the next few hours let me know.
• 

  hooberus

  In response to my point that: “The calculations by Yockey were not just for optimum sequences but for all possible functional sequences.” Cofty replied: “No it wasn’t.”

  He simply asserted that I was wrong on this without providing any evidence whatsoever to substantiate his claim.

  So Cofty do you have anything to back up your statement? You demand references from others, so where is yours?

  Undocumented dogmatic assertions are one of Coftys common tactics here. Often he simply asserts whatever he wants, and we are all supposed to just believe it.