The cell doesn't have to model anything. It take enormous computer power to model turbulent flow in stream of water -- but actual streams of water manage to do it daily without any memory, circuits, or programming at all. The folding of proteins comes about by chemistry and physics. A mutation that alters the sequence of amino acids will alter the folding. Multiple mutations among a reproducing population of many individuals will result in multiple, parallel trial and error until a mutation produces a useful variant of protein. Note that asking how long it takes to get a particular, predetermined sequence is asking the wrong question, like calculating the odds of a winning hand at poker as if the only possible winning hand was the particular full house you drew. We see the proteins (and other evolutionary solutions) that actually happened; we don't see the myriad possibilities that would have worked as well but never turned up.
Richard
May 5th, 2012 09:32
Your argument that if there are enough mutations around for long enough, something useful will appear... is faulty reasoning. Mutations are usually, nearly always harmful. A protein that doesn't fold correctly is usually harmful. The other problem you need to sort out is the origin of the protein folding mechanism, which works billions of times without a hitch through your lifetime. You would not be able to write skeptical comments if some of that folding went wrong - you'd be dead, or so crippled you'd need life support in a hospital.
It may seem like a lottery, when you consider the odds of a folding sequence being useful. As an analogy it works from the perspective of the ODDS of getting it right each time. If just one step in the folding of a protein went wrong you could have (a) something deadly to the whole organism, or, (b) a deficiency, or, (c) a mutation. Evolutionists have the alarming capacity of ignoring the obvious, and reaching for the unattainable. They see how impossible it is for a protein to fold correctly through sheer luck, yet they reach for their quick-fix Darwinian solve-all and make up a new theory to fit the problem.
Ask yourself this question: Is it not rather suspicious that the TOE is so flexible it has INFINITE application to every possible problem, yet without any good science in the here and now to back it up?
Steven J. Thompson
May 5th, 2012 16:57
Actually, mutations are usually neutral. You'd be more convincing pontificating on evolution if you could get a few details about it right.
Natural selection does not depend on "getting it right each time." It depends on getting right once in a great while; the myriad mutant copies that get it wrong simply die off without passing on their mutations.
And you don't need to get the protein folding mechanism right. There is no protein folding mechanism; there is only the physics of strings of amino acids. Get the sequence right, and the folding will take care of itself. Modeling how a particular sequence will fold is a problem for scientists, not for evolution.
Richard
May 6th, 2012 09:25
I try not to pontificate. I am just a lay person, with a little common sense and a Bible.
As to your comment about mutations, it sounds accurate. If all mutations were deadly most living things would have become extinct by now. But the increase in mutations in the human genome must indicate a downhill direction, and as this slowly increasing accumulation of mutations grows, the human race's extinction can be predicted to within a certain general time span. The fact that mutations are increasing also indicates a time when we had none.
You think natural selection will solve the problem? What does natural selection do? Ir selects. What from? Available information. It never generates new information. For example, if I have a box of pencils, I can select one of seven colours, but I can never select an eighth colour because it isn't there.
Natural selection is good at producing variants, but it never produces anything new.
Further Opinions
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Comments