Liar Liar

On Jun 18, 12:05 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

< snip >

It isn't very far about systems
that can and do evolve rapidly at the level of a few hundred
residues. I'm also not asking you to start from scratch, but from any
system that is already in the gene pool.

Liar. For cytochrome c, which is your ONLY real example, your own
math shows that you think that *evolution* must assemble it from
random aa's or a maximally distant sequence. Every other sequence you
talk about is merely a scaling up of the bogus cytochrome c math.

You are the liar here - deliberately so. The minimum size requirement
is not the same as the likely gap distance and my calculations reflect
that. Your notion that the minimum likely distance stays at the
minimum possible distance of 1 regardless of the level of functional
complexity is what is utterly contrary to the available facts at
hand. This notion of yours is utterly ridiculous. You have no
statistical or observational evidence to support this concept
whatsoever. Yet, you continually spout it off as if it was reality.
It's nothing of the sort.

< snip >

You with your maximally distant notions again. How many times do I
have to explain to you that the likely gap size

So now it is "likely" gap size rather than "average" gap size? How do
you calculate the "likely" gap size again?

As I've explained to you dozens of times now, the minimum likely gap
size is related to the average gap size along a Poisson distribution.
What's wrong with your "collective" memory? Hmmmmm?

is neither the maximum
possible or your assumption of the minimum possible distance of one?

The minimum possible number of mutations needed to produce a modified
or new function is always one or none. Regardless of the size of the
starting or ending system. That is a mathematical fact.

Oh, I know. The problem is that the minimum possible distance doesn't
stay the *likely* minimum distance as the level of complexity
increases higher and higher. The odds that the minimum possible
distance will be the actual minimum distance drop precipitously along
a Poisson distribution.

The likely minimum gap distance grows in a linear manner with
increasing minimum structural threshold requirements. It does not
stay at one like you suggest.

The minimum number of mutational steps is all that matters. The first
one to find that minimum pathway wins the lottery. But again, I am
telling you that evolution works by modifying pre-existing sequences
and the sequences that happen to be closest to the goal (wrt number of
mutational steps) will be the likely "winner".

Absolutely true. It is just that the odds that any sequence will be
close enough to "win" this side of trillions of years of time drop to
practically zero when you are talking about functional systems that
require a minimum number of specifically arranged amino acids to work
that is greater than 1000.

Actually, it is being discovered that the key differences between
humans and apes is not in the genes, but in the non-coding regions of
the genome - quite a bit of which is unique to either humans or
chimps.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html#Key

Micro RNAs (note that "micro") are genes, just not protein coding
genes. So, what this article tells us is that *most* micro (very
small) RNA sequences in humans are conserved in other organisms (all
but 1%) *except* in the brain, where the frequency of uniquely human
very short RNA sequences increases all the way up to 8%. And since
these are *micro* (very short) RNAs and don't form large structures,
my guess is that they don't meet your 3000 nt criteria. But my test
wasn't about new proteins, although it is nice of you to admit that
one can evolve humans without having to generate that which you claim
is impossible. It was about the rate of change in genomes. Are there
any of these new micro RNAs that could not be generated in only a few
mutational steps?

It is not so much the genetic information, but the minimum structural
requirements of the resulting system.

To be honest, I don't think we enough yet about the functional
differences between humans and apes to tell if there is an uncrossable
statistical gap or not. I certainly don't have this information as of
yet. But, I do have enough information for systems that we do know
much more about.

It's a simple challenge Howard. Evolution happens quickly and
commonly when no more than a few hundred specified residues are
required at minimum.

Evolution happens quickly *when* there is a selective pressure against
the current w.t. system and a pre-existing system that can be modified
in a few mutational steps to generate a function that is better at
responding to that selective pressure than the present w.t. organism
is.

That's right . . . and these conditions are met only when the new
function in question requires less than 1000aa at minimum. These
requirements have never been observed to be met beyond the 1000aa
threshold.

< snip >

It doesn't happen at all in observable time when
more than 1000aa - not even close. There isn't one single example of
a novel system of function being produced at this level in all of
scientific literature - not one. Why not?

Because you have ready excuses for all the examples that have been put
forth. Either the protein is not big enough or the change was a minor
modification or the pre-existing sequence already had that use.

Starting with a sequence that already has the function in question
isn't the evolution of a novel function. Hello! Up regulation or
down regulation of a pre-existing functional system is simple. That's
no problem at all. Getting a new type of function that wasn't there
before, and that doesn't require that some other functional system be
lost or turned off, is the issue here.

As far as the size requirement, that's always been the point.
Evolution works very well and very quickly below the 1000aa size
threshold, but not beyond it.

That's a simple question.
It isn't difficult and the terms are well defined.

No they aren't.

What don't you understand about the minimum size requirement Howard?
What don't you understand about the likely gap distance as it relates
to the average gap distance as it relates to the minimum structural
size requirements for a system? Hmmmm? They aren't the same thing.
I know you are easily confused, but these concepts really aren't that
difficult.

< snip >

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Relationship of Gaps to Thresholds
    ... other than a fair degree of sequence similarity. ... Your MATH explicitly says that the size of the gap needed to be ... is roughly 30% of the total size of the end protein. ... start at some average distance away (that distance being a function of ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Liar Liar
    ... random aa's or a maximally distant sequence. ... Define "likely gap distance" for cytochrome c and how you calculate ... completely random substitution in a protein in which none of those ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Experimental basis for the Non-Beneficial Gap Problem
    ... unless you think evolution starts from some random sequence maximally ... distance is always smaller than the minimum structural threshold ... The maximum gap size for a 100aa system is 100aa differences. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Most valuable poster
    ... nylonase or lactase evolution examples. ... sequence within an entire genome, one or two, will be within striking ... within striking distance of very low-level functions. ... The gap distance is always much smaller than the size of the next ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Experimental basis for the Non-Beneficial Gap Problem
    ... unless you think evolution starts from some random sequence maximally ... It is never at the maximum possible distance - ... greater, on average, compared to a collection of smaller proteins." ... If an amino acid is entirely free to vary, it doesn't contribute to any gap size. ...
    (talk.origins)