-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Question about probabilities and the conditions of life
- Thread starter xdisciplex
- Start date
- Status
We'll get to the abiogenesis when I can get you to admit you mistakes on the simple probability calculation.
SO far, you have presented nothing but lies.
If you are willing to admit defeat on the probability issue, then we can move on.
Otherwise, this needs to be run to ground first.
You calculate odds that are hundreds of orders of magnitude different than what is found in nature.
You calculate the odds and lie badly about how they are being calculated.
This needs to be settled first.
SO far, you have presented nothing but lies.
If you are willing to admit defeat on the probability issue, then we can move on.
Otherwise, this needs to be run to ground first.
You calculate odds that are hundreds of orders of magnitude different than what is found in nature.
You calculate the odds and lie badly about how they are being calculated.
This needs to be settled first.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Let's review the many-twisted turns of UTEOTW's argument on probability.
#1. He claims that probability science predicts that shuffling a deck of 52 cards and dealing them is "impossible" -- statistcally impossible!! He does this by EQUIVOCATING between the probability of PREDICTING the sequence of a 52 card shuffle (knowing what it is not possible to know) VS being ABLE to pick up a deck of cards and shuffle them!!
And of course - he "claims" that his cadre of believers in atheist darwinism swallow that line of thinking hook-line-and-sinker.
#2. UTEOTW also attacks Emile Borel the nobel winning Mathmatician for his 1:10-50th power limit on "What is possible in all of time" -- AS IF UTEOTW had a better grasp of math than Borel when in fact his 52 card blunder SHOWS that he does not!!
#3. When I point out this blunder - I SHOW that in the case of abiogenesis NOT ONLY can it NOT come up with the 52 card sequence that IS shown to be possible TO HAVE (at least we DO know for certain that ALL sequences for the 52 card shuffle ARE possible just not predictable) -- Abiogenesis has an IMPOSSIBLE result to GET let alone predict.
Like pouring a handfull of sand on the beach and instead of merely having to predict one pattern sequence out of a zillion zillion possible arrangements for each grain of sand that falls - abiogenesis must predict a COMBINATION with the beach sand that results in an exact replica of the Disney Castle!! I.e. A totally IMPOSSIBLE result GREATER than the sum of the parts!
Impossible to GET let alone PREDICT!
UTEOTW then argues that he has MORE than one possible solution for a single given enzyme pre-selected.
AS IF getting ONE simple enzyme IS the WHOLE ABIOGENESIS project!!
This is like saying that for any ONE given shuffle "result" of shuffling the deck of cards there are MORE than one shuffle "sequence of events" that will result in that same sequence of cards in the deck!
That does not solve the problem of PREDICTING the resulting sequence since THAT is what was determined by statistics to be "impossible". Multiple pathways to the SAME sequence IMPOSSIBLE to predict is STILL a sequence IMPOSSIBLE to predict!!
#1. He claims that probability science predicts that shuffling a deck of 52 cards and dealing them is "impossible" -- statistcally impossible!! He does this by EQUIVOCATING between the probability of PREDICTING the sequence of a 52 card shuffle (knowing what it is not possible to know) VS being ABLE to pick up a deck of cards and shuffle them!!
And of course - he "claims" that his cadre of believers in atheist darwinism swallow that line of thinking hook-line-and-sinker.
#2. UTEOTW also attacks Emile Borel the nobel winning Mathmatician for his 1:10-50th power limit on "What is possible in all of time" -- AS IF UTEOTW had a better grasp of math than Borel when in fact his 52 card blunder SHOWS that he does not!!
#3. When I point out this blunder - I SHOW that in the case of abiogenesis NOT ONLY can it NOT come up with the 52 card sequence that IS shown to be possible TO HAVE (at least we DO know for certain that ALL sequences for the 52 card shuffle ARE possible just not predictable) -- Abiogenesis has an IMPOSSIBLE result to GET let alone predict.
Like pouring a handfull of sand on the beach and instead of merely having to predict one pattern sequence out of a zillion zillion possible arrangements for each grain of sand that falls - abiogenesis must predict a COMBINATION with the beach sand that results in an exact replica of the Disney Castle!! I.e. A totally IMPOSSIBLE result GREATER than the sum of the parts!
Impossible to GET let alone PREDICT!
UTEOTW then argues that he has MORE than one possible solution for a single given enzyme pre-selected.
AS IF getting ONE simple enzyme IS the WHOLE ABIOGENESIS project!!
This is like saying that for any ONE given shuffle "result" of shuffling the deck of cards there are MORE than one shuffle "sequence of events" that will result in that same sequence of cards in the deck!
That does not solve the problem of PREDICTING the resulting sequence since THAT is what was determined by statistics to be "impossible". Multiple pathways to the SAME sequence IMPOSSIBLE to predict is STILL a sequence IMPOSSIBLE to predict!!
I went on what you posted.
You posted one description of how to do the calculations and then you gave results that did something completely different.
That is misleading and dishonest.
It was either your fault for pasting together things that should not have been combined or it was your sources fault for being a liar.
Either way, you are caught.
You posted one description of how to do the calculations and then you gave results that did something completely different.
That is misleading and dishonest.
It was either your fault for pasting together things that should not have been combined or it was your sources fault for being a liar.
Either way, you are caught.
I don't need to read a link when the part you quote says that it will caclulate odds one way and then does just the opposite.
Either it is lying, in which case it does not deserve the traffic.
Or you mangled the quote to make it appear that they were lying. In which case you are exposed.
If you will tell me that you are the one who made it look like they lied by mangling the quote, then I might reconsider.
Did you make such a blunder?
Either it is lying, in which case it does not deserve the traffic.
Or you mangled the quote to make it appear that they were lying. In which case you are exposed.
If you will tell me that you are the one who made it look like they lied by mangling the quote, then I might reconsider.
Did you make such a blunder?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
UTEOTW said:
The fact that you think you do not need to read to understand in detail - speaks volumes!!
The link is consistent - the facts are plain. They have been presented here so ALL can understand and the link given so that those interested in DETAILS can see the summation integral equation provided.
Next.
Bob
It has been shown that you will not even read posts. So there is much irony in your suggesting a problem that I will not follow your link.
As you posted it, they lied through their teeth. If that was because you mangled the quote, let us know.
Otherwise there is no reason to associate with such a deceitful group.
It has been shown that you will not even read posts. So there is much irony in your suggesting a problem that I will not follow your link.
As you posted it, they lied through their teeth. If that was because you mangled the quote, let us know.
Otherwise there is no reason to associate with such a deceitful group.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
UTEOTW - your endless misdirection failed to respond substantively to this post given WEEKS ago!! (By that I mean July 16,2006)
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...4&postcount=72
Looking at it another way, let us suppose that substitution is freely allowed in nine-tenths of the loci or positions in the chain. That is, such a tremendous degree of variation is permissible that in a chain of 400, only 40 need be correct and the others can be anything. This would be a similar situation whether one considers a protein chain, or a gene of 400 codons. It is like an exam where all that matters is that you get 40 out of 400 right.
With this extreme amount of variability, the odds against success in a chance arrival at a usable set of either genes or proteins are still fantastic. This is true even at the speed postulated and using all the atoms of the universe in the attempt. Let’s consider the length of time in which just one-half of the required set of genes (or of proteins) might occur by random alignment. We will again measure that time by the number of complete universes the ameba can transport across the diameter of the universe one atom at a time at the unbelievably slow speed described a bit earlier. That number of universes is so large that if all the atoms of the universe were people counting steadily, it would take them 5,000 years just to count those universes which the ameba could carry during the average waiting time for one-half of a minimum gene or protein set to align in usable sequence.
The Single Law of Chance
Émile Borel, a distinguished French expert on probability, stated what he called “the single law of chance,” or merely “the law of chance,” in these words: “Events whose probability is extremely small never occur”29 He calculated that probabilities smaller than 1/1015 were negligible on the terrestrial scale, and, he said:
Quote:
“ We may be led to set at 10-50 the value of negligible probabilities on the cosmic scale. When the probability of an event is below this limit, the opposite event may be expected to occur with certainty, whatever the number of occasions presenting themselves in the entire universe.”
Émile Borel, Probabilities and Life (New York: Dover Publications, 1962), p. 28.
Regarding Borel’s use of the minus exponent, the reader may recall that this means the same as writing the number as a fraction with the figure 1 on top. 10-50 is the same as 1/1050 or 1 chance in a figure with 50 zeroes.
By “opposite event,” he means no event, or failure to occur. Under the single law of chance, therefore, even a single gene would never be arranged in any usable order in the entire universe, if we apply this statement by the eminent mathematician. One need only to compare the probability of one gene (10-236) with Borel’s 10-50 which he said is the limit of meaningful probabilities on the cosmic scale. What would he say to the figure we got for the minimum set for smallest life, namely, a probability of 10-57800? The ameba’s journeys have made it clear that our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10-236). By the single law of chance, it will never occur.
http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...4&postcount=72
Looking at it another way, let us suppose that substitution is freely allowed in nine-tenths of the loci or positions in the chain. That is, such a tremendous degree of variation is permissible that in a chain of 400, only 40 need be correct and the others can be anything. This would be a similar situation whether one considers a protein chain, or a gene of 400 codons. It is like an exam where all that matters is that you get 40 out of 400 right.
With this extreme amount of variability, the odds against success in a chance arrival at a usable set of either genes or proteins are still fantastic. This is true even at the speed postulated and using all the atoms of the universe in the attempt. Let’s consider the length of time in which just one-half of the required set of genes (or of proteins) might occur by random alignment. We will again measure that time by the number of complete universes the ameba can transport across the diameter of the universe one atom at a time at the unbelievably slow speed described a bit earlier. That number of universes is so large that if all the atoms of the universe were people counting steadily, it would take them 5,000 years just to count those universes which the ameba could carry during the average waiting time for one-half of a minimum gene or protein set to align in usable sequence.
The Single Law of Chance
Émile Borel, a distinguished French expert on probability, stated what he called “the single law of chance,” or merely “the law of chance,” in these words: “Events whose probability is extremely small never occur”29 He calculated that probabilities smaller than 1/1015 were negligible on the terrestrial scale, and, he said:
Could Chance Arrange the Code for One Gene?
Quote:
“ We may be led to set at 10-50 the value of negligible probabilities on the cosmic scale. When the probability of an event is below this limit, the opposite event may be expected to occur with certainty, whatever the number of occasions presenting themselves in the entire universe.”
Émile Borel, Probabilities and Life (New York: Dover Publications, 1962), p. 28.
Regarding Borel’s use of the minus exponent, the reader may recall that this means the same as writing the number as a fraction with the figure 1 on top. 10-50 is the same as 1/1050 or 1 chance in a figure with 50 zeroes.
By “opposite event,” he means no event, or failure to occur. Under the single law of chance, therefore, even a single gene would never be arranged in any usable order in the entire universe, if we apply this statement by the eminent mathematician. One need only to compare the probability of one gene (10-236) with Borel’s 10-50 which he said is the limit of meaningful probabilities on the cosmic scale. What would he say to the figure we got for the minimum set for smallest life, namely, a probability of 10-57800? The ameba’s journeys have made it clear that our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10-236). By the single law of chance, it will never occur.
http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Let's review the many-twisted turns of UTEOTW's argument on probability.
#1. He claims that probability science predicts that shuffling a deck of 52 cards and dealing them is "impossible" -- statistcally impossible!! He does this by EQUIVOCATING between the probability of PREDICTING the sequence of a 52 card shuffle (knowing what it is not possible to know) VS being ABLE to pick up a deck of cards and shuffle them!!
And of course - he "claims" that his cadre of believers in atheist darwinism swallow that line of thinking hook-line-and-sinker.
#2. UTEOTW also attacks Emile Borel the nobel winning Mathmatician for his 1:10-50th power limit on "What is possible in all of time" -- AS IF UTEOTW had a better grasp of math than Borel when in fact his 52 card blunder SHOWS that he does not!!
#3. When I point out this blunder - I SHOW that in the case of abiogenesis NOT ONLY can it NOT come up with the 52 card sequence that IS shown to be possible TO HAVE (at least we DO know for certain that ALL sequences for the 52 card shuffle ARE possible just not predictable) -- Abiogenesis has an IMPOSSIBLE result to GET let alone predict.
Like pouring a handfull of sand on the beach and instead of merely having to predict one pattern sequence out of a zillion zillion possible arrangements for each grain of sand that falls - abiogenesis must predict a COMBINATION with the beach sand that results in an exact replica of the Disney Castle!! I.e. A totally IMPOSSIBLE result GREATER than the sum of the parts!
Impossible to GET let alone PREDICT!
UTEOTW then argues that he has MORE than one possible solution for a single given enzyme pre-selected.
AS IF getting ONE simple enzyme IS the WHOLE ABIOGENESIS project!!
This is like saying that for any ONE given shuffle "result" of shuffling the deck of cards there are MORE than one shuffle "sequence of events" that will result in that same sequence of cards in the deck!
That does not solve the problem of PREDICTING the resulting sequence since THAT is what was determined by statistics to be "impossible". Multiple pathways to the SAME sequence IMPOSSIBLE to predict is STILL a sequence IMPOSSIBLE to predict!!
#1. He claims that probability science predicts that shuffling a deck of 52 cards and dealing them is "impossible" -- statistcally impossible!! He does this by EQUIVOCATING between the probability of PREDICTING the sequence of a 52 card shuffle (knowing what it is not possible to know) VS being ABLE to pick up a deck of cards and shuffle them!!
And of course - he "claims" that his cadre of believers in atheist darwinism swallow that line of thinking hook-line-and-sinker.
#2. UTEOTW also attacks Emile Borel the nobel winning Mathmatician for his 1:10-50th power limit on "What is possible in all of time" -- AS IF UTEOTW had a better grasp of math than Borel when in fact his 52 card blunder SHOWS that he does not!!
#3. When I point out this blunder - I SHOW that in the case of abiogenesis NOT ONLY can it NOT come up with the 52 card sequence that IS shown to be possible TO HAVE (at least we DO know for certain that ALL sequences for the 52 card shuffle ARE possible just not predictable) -- Abiogenesis has an IMPOSSIBLE result to GET let alone predict.
Like pouring a handfull of sand on the beach and instead of merely having to predict one pattern sequence out of a zillion zillion possible arrangements for each grain of sand that falls - abiogenesis must predict a COMBINATION with the beach sand that results in an exact replica of the Disney Castle!! I.e. A totally IMPOSSIBLE result GREATER than the sum of the parts!
Impossible to GET let alone PREDICT!
UTEOTW then argues that he has MORE than one possible solution for a single given enzyme pre-selected.
AS IF getting ONE simple enzyme IS the WHOLE ABIOGENESIS project!!
This is like saying that for any ONE given shuffle "result" of shuffling the deck of cards there are MORE than one shuffle "sequence of events" that will result in that same sequence of cards in the deck!
That does not solve the problem of PREDICTING the resulting sequence since THAT is what was determined by statistics to be "impossible". Multiple pathways to the SAME sequence IMPOSSIBLE to predict is STILL a sequence IMPOSSIBLE to predict!!
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
And for UTEOTW's latest trick we see "Whining that a summary quote does not contain the DETAIL that the LINK IN THE QUOTE clearly shows"
Is there no end to UTEOTW's attempts to swap "antics for facts" ??
Your "I don't need to read your link" speaks volumes about your methods UTEOTW!!!
Is there no end to UTEOTW's attempts to swap "antics for facts" ??
Your "I don't need to read your link" speaks volumes about your methods UTEOTW!!!
No whining.
You posted that you were going to calculate one way and then the actual number given is from another method.
The fault is yours. You either misled us or you did a poor job of summarizing the original argument. In any case, the problem is yours.
And oh, the precious irony of you complaining about me not reading links when you don't even read posts before replying.
You posted that you were going to calculate one way and then the actual number given is from another method.
The fault is yours. You either misled us or you did a poor job of summarizing the original argument. In any case, the problem is yours.
And oh, the precious irony of you complaining about me not reading links when you don't even read posts before replying.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
In that quote I refer to this post in THIS thread AS WELL as the source quote for the Codon problem --
http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html
Chirality deals with the condition of a molecule. See, molecules can be compared to your hands. They are the exact same things...except opposite.
? Chiral molecules are often referred to as "left" or "right-handed" (hence the hand comparison...+ chiral means hand). So if these molecules are exactly the same, how can they be opposite? The two forms of the chiral molecule are called enantiomers or optical isomers. The defining characteristic is the direction they rotate plane-polarized light. Left or right. Not everything is chiral (achiral), but all amino acids and many sugars exhibit these types of properties. Almost all biological polymers must be homochiral (same chirality). All amino acids in proteins are left-handed while all sugars in DNA and RNA are right-handed. Now, when amino acids are created, they always occur in racemic proportions. Racemic means a 50/50 ratio of left-handed to right-handed. What is even more interesting is that the two enantiomers must be in equilibrium with each other to exist and equilibrium only occurs in a racemic mixture. Remember what was stated above?
In order for life to arise, all of the left-handed molecules would have to gather on one side of the lagoon and all the right on the other. The problem is, this can't happen because they will be out of equilibrium with each other and the homochiral mixtures will begin to convert into their optical isomers trying to recreate a racemic environment. So how do we get the two opposites to break up? Introduce a new substance. Because the isomers are essentially the same, they will bond to it the same. Now the two chiral particles are no longer dependant on each other. So now we know that the two can separate, but that still leaves the question of how. What mechanism would cause these particles, identical in nature, to separate? There is no known mechanism for doing this. What irks scientists even more are the odds. The probability of a protein being homochiral (all left handed in our case) is 2-N where N equals the number of amino acids in the protein. A short protein uses about 100 amino acids so the odds of this forming is 2-100 or 10-30. Now, you should know that this is just the odds of any homochiral protein forming at all. Many homochiral amino combinations produce inactive proteins (useless) so the odds drop rather dramatically when this is taken into consideration. Then you consider the number of different kinds of homochiral polypeptides required for life and you have outrageous odds.
http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html
Chirality deals with the condition of a molecule. See, molecules can be compared to your hands. They are the exact same things...except opposite.
? Chiral molecules are often referred to as "left" or "right-handed" (hence the hand comparison...+ chiral means hand). So if these molecules are exactly the same, how can they be opposite? The two forms of the chiral molecule are called enantiomers or optical isomers. The defining characteristic is the direction they rotate plane-polarized light. Left or right. Not everything is chiral (achiral), but all amino acids and many sugars exhibit these types of properties. Almost all biological polymers must be homochiral (same chirality). All amino acids in proteins are left-handed while all sugars in DNA and RNA are right-handed. Now, when amino acids are created, they always occur in racemic proportions. Racemic means a 50/50 ratio of left-handed to right-handed. What is even more interesting is that the two enantiomers must be in equilibrium with each other to exist and equilibrium only occurs in a racemic mixture. Remember what was stated above? In order for life to arise, all of the left-handed molecules would have to gather on one side of the lagoon and all the right on the other. The problem is, this can't happen because they will be out of equilibrium with each other and the homochiral mixtures will begin to convert into their optical isomers trying to recreate a racemic environment. So how do we get the two opposites to break up? Introduce a new substance. Because the isomers are essentially the same, they will bond to it the same. Now the two chiral particles are no longer dependant on each other. So now we know that the two can separate, but that still leaves the question of how. What mechanism would cause these particles, identical in nature, to separate? There is no known mechanism for doing this. What irks scientists even more are the odds. The probability of a protein being homochiral (all left handed in our case) is 2-N where N equals the number of amino acids in the protein. A short protein uses about 100 amino acids so the odds of this forming is 2-100 or 10-30. Now, you should know that this is just the odds of any homochiral protein forming at all. Many homochiral amino combinations produce inactive proteins (useless) so the odds drop rather dramatically when this is taken into consideration. Then you consider the number of different kinds of homochiral polypeptides required for life and you have outrageous odds.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
And when we GO TO THAT LINK on this thread we find it followed by this --
As mentioned in the preceding discussions, evidence is accumulating that these seeming duplicates may serve the vital purpose of regulating the synthesis of proteins. If that turns out to be true, then there would be no useless duplicates among the 64 codons, and the total real sequences would be the 10722 figure.
Since research is not yet final on that point, however, let’s again give chance the benefit of the doubt and figure it as if all the duplicates were useless extras.
There are only twenty-one different possible primary outcomes for each codon position. Those potential outcomes which are signalled by codons are the twenty amino acids plus “end of chain.” We will therefore figure on the basis of twenty-one kinds, for a chain 400 amino acids long. The figure 21400 is approximately 10528. If we allow one substitution per chain (without limiting it to the active site—another boost for chance), then the equivalent total of different sequences is 10524.
Using again the formula obtained from the alphabet analogy, it can be assumed that 1/10240 is the proportion of orders that might be usable somewhere. Since 10240 is less than 10524, the probability of getting a usable gene on any one try is 1/10240 for the first gene. Allowing for one substitution has the effect of reducing the figure to 1/10236.
The total orders produced in a year by all the nucleotide sets from the entire cosmos was 1089, as seen on page 159. (in the link posted repeatedly on this thread) The probability of getting a usable gene in a year is therefore 1089/10236, which is 1/10147. With all the concessions given, one could expect a usable gene in 10147 years, from the tremendously rapid efforts of all the nucleotide sets of all the atoms of the universe.
As mentioned in the preceding discussions, evidence is accumulating that these seeming duplicates may serve the vital purpose of regulating the synthesis of proteins. If that turns out to be true, then there would be no useless duplicates among the 64 codons, and the total real sequences would be the 10722 figure.
Since research is not yet final on that point, however, let’s again give chance the benefit of the doubt and figure it as if all the duplicates were useless extras.
There are only twenty-one different possible primary outcomes for each codon position. Those potential outcomes which are signalled by codons are the twenty amino acids plus “end of chain.” We will therefore figure on the basis of twenty-one kinds, for a chain 400 amino acids long. The figure 21400 is approximately 10528. If we allow one substitution per chain (without limiting it to the active site—another boost for chance), then the equivalent total of different sequences is 10524.
Using again the formula obtained from the alphabet analogy, it can be assumed that 1/10240 is the proportion of orders that might be usable somewhere. Since 10240 is less than 10524, the probability of getting a usable gene on any one try is 1/10240 for the first gene. Allowing for one substitution has the effect of reducing the figure to 1/10236.
The total orders produced in a year by all the nucleotide sets from the entire cosmos was 1089, as seen on page 159. (in the link posted repeatedly on this thread) The probability of getting a usable gene in a year is therefore 1089/10236, which is 1/10147. With all the concessions given, one could expect a usable gene in 10147 years, from the tremendously rapid efforts of all the nucleotide sets of all the atoms of the universe.
It would really be nice if you would check the formatting before you spam us with stuff from that website.
As you have posted it, it seems that the odds are only about 10^4 not the 10^236 that you claimed earlier.
It is also intersting to note that there is some undescribed "alphabet analogy" in there as well.
No actual data far you, ever, is there. An anology to the alphabet. How laughable.
As you have posted it, it seems that the odds are only about 10^4 not the 10^236 that you claimed earlier.
It is also intersting to note that there is some undescribed "alphabet analogy" in there as well.
No actual data far you, ever, is there. An anology to the alphabet. How laughable.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Using All the Atoms in the Universe
From the calculations in previous chapters, it could be guessed that to obtain a gene would be at least as difficult as to obtain a protein molecule. Instead of using all the atoms on earth, therefore, this time let us assume that all the atoms of the entire cosmos have been made into sets of nucleotides, and that these are activated, ready for linkup. (Nucleotides are made of atoms of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, and phosphorus.)
It will be presumed that each chain will polymerize or link up at the swiftest speed of atomic processes (of which the limit is said to be around 1016 per second as noted earlier).
<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f10">10
With each nucleotide being added at such a speed, the number of complete chains (genes) per second is 8.3 x 1012 in any one set. In a year, a set of nucleotides would produce 2.6 x 1020 genes, which we will round off to 1021.
Chance is trying for the first gene in the universe, so there is no pattern strand of DNA or RNA existing. The four different nucleotides will occur only in random order in the chain. If just one side of the ladder or double helix is obtained, it will be considered sufficient, in the thought that if one is obtained, the other side might form by base pairing.
<A name=ec10f12x> From standard estimates of the cosmic abundance of the elements,<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f11">11 it can be found that phosphorus is the limiting element in forming activated nucleotides. There are estimated to be 1.5 x 1072 phosphorus atoms in the universe.12 Three atoms of phosphorus are needed for each activated nucleotide. This will make 1068 sets, so that one copy of each of the four kinds of nucleotides is present at each point of the 1,200-unit chain being formed.
<A name=ec10f13x> If each set is producing 1021 sequences per year, that will be a total of 1089 different chains annually, using all of the appropriate atoms of the universe. As in the case of proteins, it is assumed that each chain will be dismantled immediately and another one built until there is a usable gene. This is done at the prodigious speed of eight trillion chains per second.
<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f13">13
The Number of Possible Orders in a Gene
There are three different ways to determine the number of possible sequences in a DNA chain. The general formula, it may be recalled, is: the number of kinds to the power of the number of units in the chain. If each order is equally likely, the probability of a particular sequence will then be one in the total of possible orders.
With four kinds of nucleotides, and a chain 1,200 long, the total of possible arrangements would be 41200, which is approximately 10722. The letters of a gene, however, are read in triplet codons (comprising sixty-four kinds of triplets) of which there are 400 in this size chain. If computed in this way, there would be a total of 64400 possible orders, and this turns out to be the same as when figured by individual letters, namely 10722.
<A name=ec10f15x><A name=ec10f16x> The reader may recall, however, that many of the twenty amino acids are coded by more than one triplet. The duplicate codons are thought by some to be “a historical accident,” Others believe they may be “perhaps a regulatory factor in some cases,”
<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f14">14 since nature is “seldom redundant” for very long.15 As mentioned in the preceding chapter, evidence is accumulating that these seeming duplicates may serve the vital purpose of regulating16 the synthesis of proteins. If that turns out to be true, then there would be no useless duplicates among the 64 codons,
<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f17">17 and the total real sequences would be the 10722 figure.
From the calculations in previous chapters, it could be guessed that to obtain a gene would be at least as difficult as to obtain a protein molecule. Instead of using all the atoms on earth, therefore, this time let us assume that all the atoms of the entire cosmos have been made into sets of nucleotides, and that these are activated, ready for linkup. (Nucleotides are made of atoms of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, and phosphorus.)
It will be presumed that each chain will polymerize or link up at the swiftest speed of atomic processes (of which the limit is said to be around 1016 per second as noted earlier).
<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f10">10
With each nucleotide being added at such a speed, the number of complete chains (genes) per second is 8.3 x 1012 in any one set. In a year, a set of nucleotides would produce 2.6 x 1020 genes, which we will round off to 1021.
Chance is trying for the first gene in the universe, so there is no pattern strand of DNA or RNA existing. The four different nucleotides will occur only in random order in the chain. If just one side of the ladder or double helix is obtained, it will be considered sufficient, in the thought that if one is obtained, the other side might form by base pairing.
<A name=ec10f12x> From standard estimates of the cosmic abundance of the elements,<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f11">11 it can be found that phosphorus is the limiting element in forming activated nucleotides. There are estimated to be 1.5 x 1072 phosphorus atoms in the universe.12 Three atoms of phosphorus are needed for each activated nucleotide. This will make 1068 sets, so that one copy of each of the four kinds of nucleotides is present at each point of the 1,200-unit chain being formed.
<A name=ec10f13x> If each set is producing 1021 sequences per year, that will be a total of 1089 different chains annually, using all of the appropriate atoms of the universe. As in the case of proteins, it is assumed that each chain will be dismantled immediately and another one built until there is a usable gene. This is done at the prodigious speed of eight trillion chains per second.
<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f13">13
The Number of Possible Orders in a Gene
There are three different ways to determine the number of possible sequences in a DNA chain. The general formula, it may be recalled, is: the number of kinds to the power of the number of units in the chain. If each order is equally likely, the probability of a particular sequence will then be one in the total of possible orders.
With four kinds of nucleotides, and a chain 1,200 long, the total of possible arrangements would be 41200, which is approximately 10722. The letters of a gene, however, are read in triplet codons (comprising sixty-four kinds of triplets) of which there are 400 in this size chain. If computed in this way, there would be a total of 64400 possible orders, and this turns out to be the same as when figured by individual letters, namely 10722.
<A name=ec10f15x><A name=ec10f16x> The reader may recall, however, that many of the twenty amino acids are coded by more than one triplet. The duplicate codons are thought by some to be “a historical accident,” Others believe they may be “perhaps a regulatory factor in some cases,”
<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f14">14 since nature is “seldom redundant” for very long.15 As mentioned in the preceding chapter, evidence is accumulating that these seeming duplicates may serve the vital purpose of regulating16 the synthesis of proteins. If that turns out to be true, then there would be no useless duplicates among the 64 codons,
<A href="http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm#ec10f17">17 and the total real sequences would be the 10722 figure.
- Status