Re: Experimental basis for the Non-Beneficial Gap Problem

On Jul 9, 7:47 am, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 8, 4:53 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

And, what that means is that the average number of
mutations needed to cross the gap increases exponentially.

And where, exactly, have you actually calculated an "average" anything
from actual data? To do that, you would first have to show, in
systems that *did* evolve, that there was some sort of correlation
between the size of the end product and the number of mutational steps
from functionally useful precursors. You have never shown such a
correlation from actual data from actual systems that have evolved.
You have merely *assumed* without evidence that there is such a
correlation. But you *still* have not calculated an "average" gap
size anywhere. You sometimes pull some number out of yer arse into
existence and claim that that number is a 'good' estimate. But that
is not an "average" anything.

But the minimum number, which is what defines the most likely path, does
not.

The minimum number is related to the average number along a Poisson
distribution.  The odds that the minimum number will stay at the
minimum possible number of 1, as those like Howard Hershey suggest,
drop dramatically along a Poisson distribution as the average number
increases exponentially.

As the "average" gap size increases, assuming you could actually
calculate "average gap size* form total size, the probability that the
minimum *available* pathway at any one time involves a single step
would decrease. But the minimum *possible* pathway will still be one,
regardless of the size of the end result. But what those odds are
depends on what the starting system contains and not on the size of
the end product. Unless, of course, you can actually calculate an
"average gap size" with real data involving things you accept as
having 'evolved' and show us the correlation between total size and
'mutational gap size' without invoking the idea of a maximally distant
starting point and complete randomness.

You may not comprehend the significance of this argument given that
you didn't understand the coded nature of genetic information, but
this argument does in fact fundamentally undermine the proposed
mechanism behind the ToE - i.e., random mutation and natural
selection.

I understand the argument. You are making a statistical argument based
on a flawed model of evolution to show that that which has been directly
observed can not happen.

Where has the evolution of any novel beneficial system of function
that requires a minimum of at least 1000 specifically arranged amino
acid residues ever been "directly observed"?  If you know of even one
such case, by all means present it.  I'd be most interested.

If anyone considered that the likelihood of 1000aa protein systems
arising without precursors was an argument in favor of evolution, you
may have a point. But no-one does, so you are simply attacking a straw man.

I never said that one had to start without precursors.  

That is what your numerology proclaims while you deny that it does so.

Start with
whatever precursor you want in an organism that never had the novel
function in question to begin with.  

Like Lenski did? Like nylonase?

There are always starting points
that are closer to a potentially beneficial functional system than the
maximum possible distance.  However, the gap that remains is still too
large to cross when it comes to systems with minimum part requirements
beyond 1000aa.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Repost: Ken Millers presentation
    ... Kenneth Miller's argument that 40 of the 50 or so proteins can be ... evolve so rapidly while those that require a few hundred evolve much ... This discussion concerned the minimum gap distance. ... of mutations required because it was a single step selection and at ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Repost: Ken Millers presentation
    ... structural threshold requirements of just a few amino acid residues ... mutations needed to produce a new function. ... This discussion concerned the minimum gap distance. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ron Okimoto and the Gap Problem
    ... about the gap bogousity than you aren't talking about anything ... some existing protein changing to something else. ... billions of individuals that is dozens of mutations wide. ... true regardless of the minimum structural threshold requirements under ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Most valuable poster
    ... than one or two thousand specifically arranged residues. ... the job based solely on sequence comparisons. ... You don't understand that the likely minimum gap size isn't measured by ... A gap of over one or two hundred residues changes/random mutations ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall . . .
    ... on disrupting or breaking functional systems that already exists. ... In other words, in order to cross the 3-step gap, two of the needed ... mutations had to be intelligently manipulated. ... this small gap is quite difficult to cross in observable time. ...
    (talk.origins)