Image: RecA prepared by Kirk Durston using MacPyMOL.
Posted on 07/30/2015 7:05:28 AM PDT by fishtank
Computing the "Best Case" Probability of Proteins from Actual Data, and Falsifying a Prediction of Darwinism
Kirk Durston
July 28, 2015 4:52 PM
Biological life requires thousands of different protein families, about 70 percent of which are "globular" proteins, with a three-dimensional shape that is unique to each family of proteins. An illustration is shown in the picture at the top of this post. This 3D shape is necessary for a particular biological function and is determined by the sequence of the different amino acids that make up that protein. In other words, it is not biology that determines the shape, but physics. Sequences that produce stable, functional 3D structures are so rare that scientists today do not attempt to find them using random sequence libraries. Instead, they use information they have obtained from reverse-engineering biological proteins to intelligently design artificial proteins.
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
Image: RecA prepared by Kirk Durston using MacPyMOL.
Full title:
Computing the “Best Case” Probability of Proteins from Actual Data, and Falsifying a Prediction of Darwinism
Kirk Durston
July 28, 2015 4:52 PM
Such faith evolutionists have! They’ve never come close to creating a single protein via random processes. Such stupendous complexity has been likened to having a solar system full of blind men all simultaneously solving the Rubik’s Cube. And the most “simple” stupendously complex cell requires dozens of such proteins, a selectively permeable cell membrane, cytoplasm, organelles and the most complex code in the universe: DNA. Irreducible complexity indeed.
Poor life science guys, probability theory just won’t go away. It has always amazed me that the understanding of odds that are based on probability that make Vegas money hand over fist, can’t be understood by very smart people when applied to the complexity of the DNA molecule.
Darwin based assumptions on a simple cell, we now know better. When will the life science guys finally admit the mathematicians have them boxed in?
I work in a big science outfit,
and several years ago, an atheist co-worker printed out a journal article to show me a “proof” of evolution.
The article measured genetic mutation and transmission of information over several generations of a bacteria.
The guy was VERY excited about the article, so I asked him one question:
“The article presupposes the existence of a living, REPRODUCING organism. Is that correct?”
He said sheepishly, “Yes.”
The conversation ended right there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.