Article <ga5n5jhd6abu9pel4jk2b3ubop1qaqvg67@4ax.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<ga5n5jhd6abu9pel4jk2b3ubop1qaqvg67@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!news.misty.com!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Wistar Symposium "Mathematical Challenge to Neo-Darwinism".
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 18:34:01 -0400
Organization: What are you looking for?
Lines: 260
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <ga5n5jhd6abu9pel4jk2b3ubop1qaqvg67@4ax.com>
References: <MUn6O.847$W2K4.435@fx38.iad> <v3d6nf$2bmpj$1@dont-email.me> <LTK6O.5077$gn%7.4967@fx12.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="1409"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Bytes: 12899

On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:45:47 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 31/05/2024 18:36, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>
>>> How the biologist responded to these "problems"? I've found nothing =
on=20
>>> the net. I found a book on Amazon for $300, but I'm not buying it.=20
>>> This symposium took place in 1966, so it's possible that the
>>> challenges have been met in the intervening years since then.
>>=20
>> At 10% of that price there is=20
>> =
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-Mathematical-Anti-Evolutionism-Jason-Ro=
senhouse/dp/1108820441=20
>>=20
>After I check the local library I'll look into this.
>>=20
>> The summary for chapter 4 is "We discuss the famous Wistar conference=20
>> from 1966, in which high-level mathematical challenges to evolutionary=
=20
>> theory were presented. We refute these challenges and discuss the=20
>> historical significance of the conference in shaping modern =
mathematical=20
>> anti-evolutionism."
> >
>Where there is mathematics involved, how is the math challenged? If not=20
>the math then what?
>I don't think it's fair to call someone an anti-evolutionist. This is a=20
>disparagement meant to discredit an opposition without a hearing. It's=20
>like a court where the prosecutor presents his case, but  a defense is=20
>not allowed. But a fair decision is expected.


Since you mention it, I would say baselessly calling someone an
anti-evolutionist is as fair as baselessly calling someone an atheist.
I bet even you recall who does that, and so diminishes its impact.


>But you cannot challenge the mathematics. What is the chance of a single=
=20
>functional protein can form through unguided, random and aimless=20
>processes? For example, in the pre-biotic earth the first protein of say=
=20
>150 (the average number amino acids in a protein is 500-400) amino acids=
=20
>in a specific order is needed. Even in an ocean of amino acids and 4.5=20
>billion years. It's said  it would be less chance than the number atoms=20
>in the known universe. As you know in the pre-biotic universe there is=20
>no natural selection.
>"......we can calculate the probability of building our very modest=20
>protein."
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DW1_KEVaCyaAfunctional protein to be 1 =
in=20
>10^164.
>Remember, this is only one protein, and life requires hundreds of =
proteins".
>
>https://www.str.org/w/building-a-protein-by-chance


If by "challenge the mathematics" you mean by analogy whether 2+2=3D4,
you would be right.  But that's not what is being challenged. Instead,
the challenge is whether 2+2=3D4 is even relevant to the question being
raised.

In fact, the argument you present above is a PRATT.  Google "tornado
in a junkyard".  I know you know amino acids and proteins
self-assemble.  I know you know self-replicating molecules exist.  Why
continue to pretend that anybody identified the one and only very
first amino acid sequence?


>I think this is where intelligence comes into play, there is no more=20
>simpler explanation!
>Where is Ocham's razor?


Indeed where?  Since you assert such skepticism about a string of
amino acids self-assembling, not sure how you continue to accept
without question the existence of a purposeful designer capable of
doing what you claim it did.


>>> However, I know of several challenges that so far as I know have not=20
>>> been answered.
>>> The questions=C2=A0 are: There are over 500 amino acids found in =
nature,=20
>>> 50% left-handed, but if blind, aimless, unguided natural processes=20
>>> selected the 20 or 22 amino acids that used by all life what are
>>> the chances of these particular particular 20 left-handed amino acids=
=20
>>> being selected?=C2=A0 I realize there are theories offered to explain=
 why=20
>>> only left-handed amino acids were selected, but what about the 20? Or=
=20
>>> is it possible that any other set of amino acids would have worked=20
>>> just as well?
>>=20
>> The last time you made this claim I tracked down the source of the 500=
=20
>> number, and found that this was 500 different amino acids which occur =
in=20
>> living organisms. I asked you to consider how many of these amino =
acids=20
>> existed in meaningful quantities (if at all) on the pre-biotic earth. =
I=20
>> presume that you haven't done so.
> >
>I question the source. Who can know how many amino acids were present at=
=20
>that time. Amino acids have been found in space rocks, meteors. The=20
>Urey-Miller experment, in conditions representing early earth atmosphere=
=20
>and electric discharges representing lightning produced several amino =
acids.
>And later duplication of the Miller excrement produces even more than=20
>Millers did.
>So, who knows how many amino acids existed on the pre-biotic earth.


Since you asked, apparently not you, which verifies Ernest Major's
presumption expressed above.


>> I've also brought to you attention that 20/22 amino acids used by all=20
>> life is an oversimplification. All variants of the genetic code encode=
=20
>> 20 proteinogenic amino acids, so those are used by all life. Some=20
>> prokaryotes have genetic codes that also encode a 21st amino acid, =
i.e.=20
>> pyrolysine. Wikipedia reports that the current consensus is that this=20
>> originated in stem-archaeans, and has subsequently been horizontally=20
>> transferred into some bacterial groups. A 22nd amino acid,=20
>> selenocysteine, is also incorporated into proteins from the genetic =
code=20
>> using a kludge. This is also not present in all organisms.
> >
>I did not address anything except the common used 20 or 22 amino acids.=20
>Technically, you are right, I can accept that, but it does not undermine=
=20
>the concept I offered.
>>=20
>> However other amino acids are incorporated in proteins by=20
>> post-translation modifications. I've previously brought to your=20
>> attention that there's more hydroxyproline in human proteins than=20
>> several canonical amino acids.
>>=20
>> Other amino acids play a role in biochemical metabolism.
>>=20
>> They you get into the weeds with amino acids such as canavanine (one =
of=20
>> your 500). This is produced by some leguminous plants as an=20
>> anti-herbivore toxin. It mimics arginine (a proteinogenic amino acid),=
=20
>> from which it differs from by replacing a methylene bridge by an =
oxygen=20
>> atom, resulting in it being incorporated into the herbivore's proteins=
=20
>> to the detriment to their function. Specialist herbivores get round =
this=20
>> either by having means of metabolising the canavanine before it gets=20
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========