first- you need 3 parts: a hole, a can and your finger.
secondly- do you think it can evolve by a random combination?
third- do you think it can evolve into something more complex like a video camera?
first- you need 3 parts: a hole, a can and your finger.
secondly- do you think it can evolve by a random combination?
third- do you think it can evolve into something more complex like a video camera?
But all those things exist. So itâs just a matter of putting them together. Behold!
It doesnât âevolve by a random combinationâ. It evolves through natural selection.
Of course. I just need to co-opt more parts. Please let me know when you understand evolution and you know what ârepurposed internal organellesâ means. Until then youâre not going to make sense of this subject.
first its not true that those parts are exactly identical. for example: about 10 proteins from the ttss system shared homologous with the flagellum genes. but they not identical. just similar. now lets say they they are indeed identical. what is the chance to combine 3 different parts togheter to form a minimal camera? the number of different parts in the world is more then one milion. so the sequence space of 3 different parts is about 1000000^3. how many of them form a camera?
Well stated. The behavior you observed is so consistent that I consistently look for more informative commenters who have a knowledge of the science and who can either teach me more about that science or can demonstrate better ways to explain it to novices. I tired of Eddieâs complaints and attention-seeking remarks long ago. Now I only see them when other commenters quote from them.
@dcscccc, you clearly have no idea what you read. That explains why your reasoning makes no sense. As to your math, as presented, itâs unclear what you are trying to say.
This will keep happening until you take the time to learn the basics of what evolution is and how it operates.
Again, this shows you do not understand evolution, and donât know what ârepurposed internal organellesâ means.
can you falsified my argument or not? from your answer i guess not.
It has already been explained to you that your argument is illogical.
So what? No one said they are identical.
This doesnât make any sense. Again, it just shows you donât understand evolution. Youâre treating this as if itâs all totally random and as if there are more than one million parts in the equation. There arenât. Your math here just isnât even relevant.
first- we talk about a random combination of 3 parts. so its indeed random.
secondly- there is about 100,000 different proteins in human body. and about more parts that are consider as junk. so the number is very close to one milion different parts that we can combine togheter.
No weâre not talking about a random combination of three parts. This shows you donât understand evolution, which is not a random process.
Irrelevant. They canât all combine in every single imaginable combination.
so how a camera will evolve step wise then? by starting with one part? how the camera will work with one part? even your pinhole camera need about 3 parts.
Yes by starting with one part. If you had read about the evolution of the eye, you would know this. It is well documented.
Because the one part is a photosensitive cluster of proteins. Thatâs it.
your video actually claiming exactly my claim! they start with an eyespot from the euglena. again- this structure have about 200 proteins. any protein is one part (read about proteins). so even in the starting point you need at least 200 different parts. this is your step wise evolution? its like to start with a camera that contain 200 parts.
No it isnât. It is demonstrating how the eye evolved in steps. You claim the opposite; that the eye could never evolve in steps.
As I have already said, 200 proteins is not â200 partsâ. A protein is not a âpartâ. An eye made from 200 proteins is not the same as a camera with 200 parts. There are eyes made from 200 proteins which have only one part.
from wiki:
âproteins are large biomolecules, or macromolecules, consisting of one or more long chains of amino acid residuesâ
âProteins differ from one another primarily in their sequence of amino acids, which is dictated by the nucleotide sequence of their genes, and which usually results in protein folding into a specific three-dimensional structure that determines its activity.â
but if you dont have any problem with a starting point of 200 proteins its fine. do you think that scientists also believe that a structure that contain 200 proteins can evolve in one step?
And? It doesnât say anything relevant to your claim.
I think what you need to do is find out for yourself what scientists actually believe. In order to argue against evolution, you must first understand it.
[quote=âJonathan_Burke, post:57, topic:4605â]
I think what you need to do is find out for yourself what scientists actually believe.
[/quote
i already did. and they are doesnt accept your position. here is a paper that show that one in about 10^70 protein sequence will be functional:
and this is only for one protein. so are you still believe that there is no problem to evolve 200 proteins in one step?
if so- why doesnt believe that the first cell evolve by chance? its only need about less then 200 proteins.
You do not understand this paper. Where does it say that the eye could not evolve? You do not understand evolution.
are you kidding me? its clearly that you dont understand the paper .the paper show that a functional enzyme will evolve once in about 10^64 dififerent sequences. or in its own words:
" The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain."
so the chance to get one functional protein is about one in 10^64. and for a 200 proteins do the math.
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.