News2 mins ago
Does It Require More Faith [I] Not [I] To Believe In A Creator Than To Believe In One?
93 Answers
The scientific, mathematical facts, seem to say so;
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Theland, be realistic. The dam isn’t going to cause the Nile to dry up rendering Egypt a wasteland devoid of all life.
A couple of days ago I responded to one of your posts here:
https:/
Any chance of an answer?
A couple of days ago I responded to one of your posts here:
https:/
Any chance of an answer?
Statistics are rarely wrong. The flaw is in the premises and interpretations attached to them. But it is completely mistaken to be suspicious of numbers in themselves.
In this case, the starting point was wrong -- I haven't bothered to check if the figures are also wrong, but once you begin with the wrong idea it hardly matters anyway. If the youtube video had started by asserting that protein configurations were purely random and finished by concluding that their spontaneous formation wasn't that unlikely after all it would still have been meaningless.
In this case, the starting point was wrong -- I haven't bothered to check if the figures are also wrong, but once you begin with the wrong idea it hardly matters anyway. If the youtube video had started by asserting that protein configurations were purely random and finished by concluding that their spontaneous formation wasn't that unlikely after all it would still have been meaningless.
Do you not yourself ever get the feeling that our exchange of opinions attracts some who have nothing to contribute, but feel the need to comment anyway, without actually engaging?
"Oh Gawd, 'ere we go again, etc etc etc."
Some will post for the sake of posting, with no thought or substance to the post.
Like the crowds watching the guillotine during the Terror, knitting needles and odd comments.
Beneath contempt.
Not nasty.
"Oh Gawd, 'ere we go again, etc etc etc."
Some will post for the sake of posting, with no thought or substance to the post.
Like the crowds watching the guillotine during the Terror, knitting needles and odd comments.
Beneath contempt.
Not nasty.
Hmm.
I don't want to go too far in explaining things because anyway protein formation is not my forte, but all I mean is that it is irrational to treat amino acids as, say, cards in a pack. When you shuffle the cards, you end up with some random order, and -- assuming it's a fair deck and a fair shuffle -- then there is no reason to expect one shuffled deck to be more likely than another. Therefore all outcomes -- all orders of the cards -- are, to all intents and purposes, equally likely.
Compare this with proteins. If you assume that the amino acids are cards, and can be arranged ("shuffled") in any order, then you end up with a phenomenally large number of possible proteins, possible arrangements, etc etc. The argument of the video rests on this premise, ie that there's no reason to prefer one arrangement to another.
I claim that this premise is false. The reason is quite simple, in one sense: the amino acids are not the same as the cards, because they actually *do* interact with each other. They care about each other's chemical properties. The arrangements that form, or twist into weird shapes, will have different properties, such as the amount of stored energy.
It doesn't matter too much about the details: the only point is that you can't treat amino acids as independent of each other when they form proteins. As a result, the "card model" that's used in the video is simply inadequate.
Does this make sense?
I don't want to go too far in explaining things because anyway protein formation is not my forte, but all I mean is that it is irrational to treat amino acids as, say, cards in a pack. When you shuffle the cards, you end up with some random order, and -- assuming it's a fair deck and a fair shuffle -- then there is no reason to expect one shuffled deck to be more likely than another. Therefore all outcomes -- all orders of the cards -- are, to all intents and purposes, equally likely.
Compare this with proteins. If you assume that the amino acids are cards, and can be arranged ("shuffled") in any order, then you end up with a phenomenally large number of possible proteins, possible arrangements, etc etc. The argument of the video rests on this premise, ie that there's no reason to prefer one arrangement to another.
I claim that this premise is false. The reason is quite simple, in one sense: the amino acids are not the same as the cards, because they actually *do* interact with each other. They care about each other's chemical properties. The arrangements that form, or twist into weird shapes, will have different properties, such as the amount of stored energy.
It doesn't matter too much about the details: the only point is that you can't treat amino acids as independent of each other when they form proteins. As a result, the "card model" that's used in the video is simply inadequate.
Does this make sense?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.