falsifying Natural Selection

[Feck]

[Quote spinonit 66] W H A T D O Y O U M E A N I A L W A Y S Q U O T E L I K E T H I S [quote ]

[JimC]

W H A T D O Y O U M E A N I A L W A Y S Q U O T E L I K E T H I S

[spinoza99]

And your assumptions still don't take ribozymal activity into account, ribozymes that make polypeptides and oligonucleotides

I've taken them into account and Ribosomes in the E Coli are made of 22 proteins, that's 10^150^22 Now of course there are more than one way to form a ribosom, let's say there are a trillion ways, that makes the odds around 10^138^22 (I think, but I'm not sure)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10094780

About the quoting button, I don't like it anymore than you do. I copy the quote onto word because the box is too small, but sometimes stuff on the web has a space between it. I'm working on the problem and I'll get it resolved. Ok, time for bed. Thanks again, Genes, for the great book, I'm reading it and I really enjoy it.

[JimC]

And your assumptions still don't take ribozymal activity into account, ribozymes that make polypeptides and oligonucleotides

I've taken them into account and Ribosomes in the E Coli are made of 22 proteins, that's 10^150 raised to the 22nd power, so the odds of forming a ribosome are one in ten raised to ten followed by 47 zeroes. No of course there are more than one way to form a ribosom, let's say there a trillion ways, that makes the odds one in ten raised to ten followed by about 46 zeroes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10094780

Excellent, you have learned to quote properly!

Now you need to understand why the raw odds you are quoting are meaningless when considering the incremental effects of ratcheting selection, operating over billions of years in a massively parallel way...

[Feck]

Have you thought that the odds of life are 1/1 because we are alive ? (well I am, you might be a recording )

[spinoza99]

the incremental effects of ratcheting selection, operating over billions of years in a massively parallel way...

You'll have to explain what ratcheting selection is.

I've already pointed out that even if all the atoms of the universe 10^80 made a selection for every nanosecond in the history of our universe 10^26 and if we lived in one of 10^22 universes in a multiverse, then the odds are still way above one in 10^70.

[Feck]

Again the Random chance you know this is not true ,if that's all you got

[hackenslash]

I think we ought to point the Blue Wingéd One at this thread, just for lulz...

[Feck]

I think we ought to point the Blue Wingéd One at this thread, just for lulz...

No need GFL has the bomb already

[JimC]

the incremental effects of ratcheting selection, operating over billions of years in a massively parallel way...

You'll have to explain what ratcheting selection is.

I've already pointed out that even if all the atoms of the universe 10^80 made a selection for every nanosecond in the history of our universe 10^26 and if we lived in one of 10^22 universes in a multiverse, then the odds are still way above one in 10^70.

The ratcheting is because, everytime there is a slight survival addvantage conferred by a different protein structure (and early in the history of life, they were much less efficient nano machines than now...), the genetic variant that produces it will increase in the population. The next round of mutation and recombination does not have to go back to square one, which is what a naive view of the odds might suppose...

It may be a stochastic "drunkards walk" through "protein space" in one sense, but the consistent pruning of natural selection imposes a vital bias, building on past incremental improvements in relative functionality...

[GenesForLife]

selection is not random because differential survival is correlated with phenes and the genes that produce them, and phenes include proteins.
Go back to the PLoS paper, read the graph, and again, and again, then notice how the presence of mutations increases fitness, it is obvious that when you have competition for the same resources those better equipped, aka fitter, would win, and do not raise the canard until that sinks in.

You also forgot to note that the presence and absence of substances can be governed by environmental conditions, including the presence of other atoms and the fact that atoms seek out the most stable configurations to be in, the formation of substances isn't random, them meeting each other is random only to a particular extent since there are processes such as diffusion and dispersion, and adsorption, which are all well defined, testable, natural processes.

I second Hackenslash's idea that we signal for the Blue Butterfly, the impervity to evidence is strong in this one.

[Psi Wavefunction]

Is spinoza99 for real? *cracks knuckles* professional biologist at your service!

[GenesForLife]

I already took a few potshots, Psi, you are welcome to join in.

[Psi Wavefunction]

So they are for real? Meh rather do real science. Maybe if I'm in a fighting mood tomorrow... (kinda late here...or early, or something...)

[Clinton Huxley]

It's good to see the professionals weighing in here with that thing, what's it called.....I remember, "Evidence". Some excellent posts to counter the wearisome "It's random!" posturings of Spinoza but, if I may interject a small note of caution, I would avoid straying into the "I'm a trained biologist, I have x degrees" type comments. Argument from authority fallacy and all that.

Otherwise, carry on!