Bob
Do you ever read posts for comprehension? We have shown previously that you often respond to posts without having read them at all!
Let’s try this again.
Your protein sequence calculation fails to be valid because you assume a particular sequence as your outcome. You ignore evidence that shows that many sequences will fit the bill.
I would have thought you would understand that by now, considering I have explained to you that this was the purpose of the card sequence material, but you are doing your typical dancing around the issue.
If you cannot refute my data, why don’t you just say so instead of playing games?
Anyhow, since I have not done it this year, I am going to put those references so devastating to your odds calculation back into play.
I can safely bet that you will ignore them, but maybe someone is still reading who can see how you never argue actual facts.
Now, remember, the issue I am addressing is your calculations for getting a particular sequence. You claimed that the odds were so long as to be “impossible.”
First reference. Ekland EH, and Bartel DP, RNA-catalysed RNA polymerization using nucleoside triphosphates. Nature, 383: 192, 1996
Ekland found that there are 2.5 * 10^112 different 220 amino acid long sequences that will function effectively as a ligase.
It should not be too hard to understand how far off you probability calculation would be if you considered only a single sequence and ignored the other 25 thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion combinations that would work.
But that is just what your calculation does.
Or try this reference. Yockey HP, On the information content of cytochrome c. J Theor Biol, 67: 345-76, 1977.
There are 3.8 * 10^61 different one hundred amino acid long sequences that will function effectively as cyctochrome C.
I could continue.
Unrau PJ, and Bartel DP, RNA-catalysed nucleotide synthesis. Nature, 395: 260-3, 1998.
Wiegand TW, Janssen RC, and Eaton BE, Selection of RNA amide synthases. Chem Biol, 4: 675-83, 1997.
Lohse PA, and Szostak JW, Ribozyme-catalysed amino-acid transfer reactions. Nature, 381: 442-4, 1996.
I can continue showing how big of a mistake you are making by assuming only a single sequence will do.
Every time your assertions are put to the test, they are found to be severely wanting. You must build up strawmen to continue some arguments as you cannot defeat my assertions on the facts.
Then we have issues like the banded iron where your bluff has been called and you are shown to be completely without argument. You will not even try to support yourself there.
Then we can even go so far as your post on reptile genetics where you posted information supportive of evolution because you lack even a basic understanding of what you are criticizing. Your lack of even a rudimentary defense there, on the thread you asked for, shows that even you understand the magnitude of your gaff.
