I do understand the paper. I am familiar with it. It has been discussed widely. But you haven’t even read it. This article will help you understand what the paper is and is not saying. Here is the summary.
To summarize, the claims that have been and will be made by ID proponents regarding protein evolution are not supported by Axe’s work. As I show, it is not appropriate to use the numbers Axe obtains to make inferences about the evolution of proteins and enzymes. Thus, this study does not support the conclusion that functional sequences are extremely isolated in sequence space, or that the evolution of new protein function is an impossibility that is beyond the capacity of random mutation and natural selection.
nice try but no. this even not a scientific paper but an article from the panda thumb blog. even they admit:
"10^-10 → 10^-63 (or thereabout): this is the range of estimates of the density of functional sequences in sequence space that can be found in the scientific literature. "-
so on avarage about one in 10^35 sequence will give us a working protein. but wait- you claimed that a starting point of about 200 proteins its possible to start with. so even if we take their low number (one in 10^10 sequence will be functional) its give us a chance of about one in 10^2000 to get the first eye. impressive.
It’s an explanation of the paper by people who know what it is saying. That’s why you should read it.
That is not an “admission”. You don’t even know what it means. You are simply not reading what the article says, or the explanation. You have totally ignored their conclusion, and you haven’t even read the original paper.
This is the kind of behaviour which convinced me that Christians who oppose evolution simply do not know what they are talking about. It is a powerful argument in favour of evolution. And it’s the kind of behaviour which makes non-Christians think Christians are not simply fools, but actually dishonest.
lets be honest here. you doesnt understand this complex topic. are you? you even not adress my arguments but simply said again and again that im the one that doesnt understand the issue.
No matter what our individual backgrounds and worldviews, most of us who’ve bothered to educate ourselves on evolutionary biology eventually come to this conclusion. It’s pretty hard to miss.
Yes. The fact that the only “counter-arguments” [I use that term very loosely here.] are so mindlessly vacuous and constitute little more than empty mantras and propaganda slogans, they actually serve to remind us that the scientific debate ended long ago when the Theory of Evolution survived a century and a half of falsification testing without a single failure.
It is what one tends to find in any emotion-based debate which involves passionate protection of cherished traditions, not compelling contrary evidence: all of the remaining arguments are little more than noisy protests and nonsense static.
That is the truly sad outcome. I always appreciated Potholer54’s Golden Crocoduck Award for emphasizing not just the ignorance and illogical silliness of evolution-denial entrepreneurs. He directly identified and exposed the dishonesty of so much of the origins-ministry mega-industry of opportunistic flim-flam artists.
As I’ve said before: There may exist on the planet some knowledgeable and honest opponent of the Theory of Evolution who can make non-silly arguments based upon scientific evidence. Yet, I can only say that I have yet to meet such a person.
@dcscccc, you are projecting again. I know that you struggle with English comprehension. But you clearly have no idea what evolution is nor how evolutionary processes operate.
Your arguments are often incoherent . Dcscccc, you don’t understand the science enough to discuss the topics in a logical manner. That is why few are willing to engage you. The exchanges go in circles and we aren’t even sure that you are comprehending the English prose involved.
I recommend you choose very specific topics to discuss here so that you might thereby learn some of the basics of evolutionary biology. (As to the mathematics, I doubt that you have the background necessary for such a discussion. A lot of people don’t. Nothing shocking or shameful there.)
People who deny the Theory of Evolution are welcomed here. But what leads them to circular, unproductive exchanges is unfamiliarity with the science.
if you want to struggle with the eye then tell me why atheists argue it is designed with a flaw, e.g. having a blind spot because the nerves going out to the front of the retina then having to go through it to reach the brain arguing for a daft designer.
If you do think that God is a micromanager who sits by the riverbank making mud pie humans etc you have a struggle ahead. Just think that we will find out over time what really happened and keep an open mind how he did it.
However. that requires faith in God
Whoever points that out as daft without having evidence for a better design fulfilling the same functionality is scientifically inept, and indeed that is not the monopoly of atheists, but as they claim to be better in everything, I agree that in scientific ineptness they always show off that they are
That would be great, but is sort of incompatable with time, aging, and physics. Sort of like developing plastic that doesn’t get brittle in the sun. ( some cataracts have different causes of course, but I assume you are referring to typical senile cataracts)
thanks for that link. I actually had similar thoughts along the cells acting as a dark field attenuator. The odd thing is that the octopus has it the other way round but apparently o lower light sensitivity.
The problem with such claimsengineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina, to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called “blind spot”) to join the optic nerve (Dawkins 1986, p. 93, the blind watchmaker).
Dawkins claims that the problem is “light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion” but Dawkins admits the distortion is “probably not much” but “it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer!” (Dawkins 1986, p. 93)
It would more be a tiny minded engineer as a tidy minded engineer would look for evolutionary design as an inspiration for technical solutions and indeed find that it works better this way. I would actually think it to be a noise filter. but that is an engineering discussion.
hey marvin. indeed- dawkins was wrong about his prediction. its just prove that humans dont know much about nature design. and its not the first time. by the way- did you know that octopus is a color blind?
