Replies

http://home.att.net/~scott.lisa.sutherland/evolution.htm

ROFL!!!

Thanks for providing us with yet another example of anti-evolutionists revealing that they're complete idiots on the subject they attempt to "critique" or "disprove".

Clue for the clueless (that would be you): Your link contains the idiot ramblings of an anti-evolutionist masturbating with a calculator, producing calculations which DO NOT ACTUALLY MODEL THE PROCESSES HE SEEKS TO 'DISPROVE'. What a moron! Yes, he shows that the production of an exact replica of a modern protein VIA RANDOM SHUFFLING is unlikely to occur. Well good for him. Unfortunately for Mister Stupid, no biologist has ever been ignorant enough to postulate that it *did* happen by that imbecilic method. HE'S CALCULATING THE WRONG THING.

Even if it *had* been an accurate model of protein formation (and it's laughably wrong), the author ALSO bone-headedly "forgets" to factor in the fact that achieving an "exact match" for a particular sequence (which is what this anti-evolution dipwad was calculating the odds of, albeit by the wrong process) is not required. It's as if he tried to calculate the odds of winning a hand of poker, by stupidly calculating ONLY the odds of being dealt a Royal Flush of hearts while his opponent was dealt a nine-high spade flush... Instead, just as there are a vast number of ways to win a hand at poker, the size of effective sequence space for biologically active proteins is mindbogglingly huge:

However, an analysis by Ekland suggests that in the sequence space of 220 nucleotide long RNA sequences, a staggering 2.5 x 10^112 sequences are efficent ligases [12]. Not bad for a compound previously thought to be only structural. Going back to our primitive ocean of 1 x 10^24 litres and assuming a nucleotide concentration of 1 x 10^-7 M [23], then there are roughly 1 x 10^49 potential nucleotide chains, so that a fair number of efficent RNA ligases (about 1 x 10^34) could be produced in a year, let alone a million years. The potential number of RNA polymerases is high also; about 1 in every 10^20 sequences is an RNA polymerase [12]. Similar considerations apply for ribosomal acyl transferases (about 1 in every 10^15 sequences), and ribozymal nucleotide synthesis [1, 6, 13].
Similarly, of the 1 x 10^130 possible 100 unit proteins, 3.8 x 10^61 represent cytochrome C alone! [29] There's lots of functional enyzmes in the peptide/nucleotide search space, so it would seem likely that a functioning ensemble of enzymes could be brewed up in an early Earth's prebiotic soup.

Yet again, the "anti-evolution calculations" fail to calculate anything resembling the actual situation, due to the anti-evolutionists' stupendous degree of ignorance on the topic they're attempting to "teach" us something about.

This is *typical* of the stupid "mathematical proofs" put forth by anti-evolutionists. They don't have the first clue how biochemistry works, so all they do is "model" the most simple-minded, laughably inaccurate cartoon method of biochemical synthesis that pops into their ignorant little heads.

You guys keep me rolling on the floor, this is better than the Comedy Channel!

Here, try to learn something for once: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations. Sample excerpt:

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.
Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont [8] and Woese calls a progenote [4]), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms [2, 5, 10, 15, 28]. An illustration comparing a hypothetical protobiont and a modern bacteria is given below.

The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group [7, 17], or the self replicating hexanucleotide [10], or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself [12].

Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle [3, 5, 15, 26, 28]. An example is the SunY three subunit self-replicator [24]. These catalytic cycles could be limited in a small pond or lagoon, or be a catalytic complex adsorbed to either clay or lipid material on clay. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides (see below) it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed.
These two models are not mutually exclusive. The Ghadiri peptide can mutate and form catalytic cycles [9].
No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, this model is nothing like Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard making a 747". Just to hammer this home, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis.

Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap [4, 10, 15, 28].
Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803! [8]
Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further? Because there are some fundamental problems in statistics and biochemistry that turn up in these mistaken "refutations".

Why don't you guys come back and try again when you have the first clue for a change, m'kay?