Sure Bsharp right after you explain to my why a chance of 10 to hte 350’th plus power is concider all that is needed for trillions of ever increasingly complex mutational advances? When you do that then we’ll discuss what you like-The Wistar Symposium laid it out just fine- go and seek ye the truth. It was NOT a symposium of ID proponents, it was NOT a symposium of anti-evolutionists- it was a symposium of the toip scientists coming ot hte very logical conclusion that descent with modification is entirely impossible- As I said- NO- I’ve supplied you and others with thel inks many many itmes in the past, and All I get for hte efforts are foot stomping insistances that ‘it could happen because it isn’t absolutely impossible’ and get the same lame demands from folk like you time and itme again when new threads pop up- Not this time JS- You can belittle and malign all you like- it does NOTHING to make Macroevolution either a biological possibility OR a mathematical possibility.
Google wistar or don’t- I don’t care
Although those calculations have already been debunked by mathematicians and biologists, who by the way, understand the nature of biology much better than mathematicians, I'll take a quick stab anyway.
From the discussion of WISTAR on this site:
"*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years.
The math is probably accurate depending on the size of the genes being calculated but it has nothing to do with reality or biology. It is based on irrelevant assumptions.
No genes were produced by random chance. No evolutionary biologist claims they were. This by itself debunks this 'proof'.
Chemistry is deterministic, not random.
Mutation varies, selection directs.
Many more than one protein is capable of performing the same job.
"He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance.
If evolution had to start with E. coli, and could not rely on the determinism of chemistry, the guidance of selection, and the tendency of simple processes passed through multiple iterations to result in complex structures, then he might have a point. However, that isn't the case, life began from much simpler molecules and through the process of imperfect replication (just as happens now in DNA/RNA) filtered through selection (just as happens today) and through multiple iterations of those two, has developed complexity. If you are interested in how iterated simplicity creates complexity look up Chaos Theory.
Since the author of this blurb is attacking a straw man of his own design, his point is not just wrong but irrelevant.
You know, if you are going to model naturally occurring processes that model should at least attempt to reflect nature and be based on observations.
He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!
Why in the world would anyone try to calculate the probability of alpha changing into beta when it hasn't been suggested that it happened that way. Why in the world would any change be limited to single nucleotides in the original gene? This makes no sense.
The standard understanding is that both Alpha and Beta have a common ancestor, which handled nitric oxide, not oxygen, and are the result of gene duplication and subsequent modification.
Had the author of this really made "extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin " he would have known this.
These probabilities you put so much faith in are nonsense, they do not reflect the level of understanding nor the reality of genetic change. Because of this they are worthless. Find some calculations where the numbers take into account reality and then we'll talk.
This is why I asked for you to exhibit your understanding. If you had a better understanding of the math and biology you would have recognized this work of WISTAR for the straw man beating it is.
Now, could you please tell me where to find this number 10350 you just threw out.
Whether the scientists at WISTAR, or any where else for that matter, are secular or rabidly theistic is irrelevant, what matters is the accuracy of the models they produce. What I have seen so far is the models, and the data used by WISTAR are extremely poor and have no link with reality what so ever.
I did not belittle you, unless you believe not having enough information, or having the wrong information, is a personal affront. I don't believe that. I consider it an opportunity to gain correct information.
Don't be impressed with big numbers (or extremely tiny ones either) without first understanding the relevance of those numbers to observations.