Two scientific papers against the evolution theory


(Dcscccc) #1

the first paper show that for one functional protein we will need more then 10^70 mutations:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624

evolutionists claim that this protein may evolve from a simpler one. but here is another paper that show that we need most of the protein sequence for its minimal function:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC211289/

so there is a minimal sequence that the protein need for a minimal function.

now, lets say that there is another functional proteins in the sequence space. lets say even 10^30 (something like milion times the number of sand grains on the earth). its still mean that we will need 10^40 mutations for a minimal function. and most of the biological systems need several proteins and not just one. a big problem for evolution.


(George Brooks) #2

@dcscccc

You are really just disputing against the Atheist Evolutionists here.

Old Earth Christian Theistic Evolutionists would have no trouble accepting that God would
intervene to solve the protein mutation issue.

George Brooks


(Patrick ) #3

Dcscccc,
You keep pushing the same two papers that don’t say what you say they say.


(George Brooks) #4

Here’s a quote right in the abstract of the article:
“Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds.”

"Although the immense number of sequence combinations makes wholly random sampling unfeasible, two key simplifications may provide a solution.

First, given the importance of hydrophobic interactions to protein folding, it seems likely that the sample space can be restricted to sequences carrying the hydropathic signature of a known fold.

Second, because folds are stabilized by the cooperative action of many local interactions distributed throughout the structure, the overall problem of fold stabilization may be viewed reasonably as a collection of coupled local problems."

But as I’ve posted already - - proving that God is needed at various stages of evolution along the way to Primates (or Humans specifically) is completely consistent with many views of Theistic Evolution.

Sincerely,

George Brooks


(Dcscccc) #5

hi george. so or so- its prove that natural evolution cant explain what we see in nature.


#6

It doesn’t say anything about how many mutations we will need for anything, much less a functional protein.

[quote=“dcscccc, post:1, topic:3249”]
here is another paper that show that we need most of the protein sequence for its minimal function:
[/quote]It doesn’t say anything about “most of the protein sequence,” as it only tested deletion mutants.


(George Brooks) #7

@dcscccc

I’m not following your brief post very well.

My point is that arguing about these points may be helpful when disputing with Atheists.
But the point of BioLogos is to defend the idea that God did get involved in the
evolution of Humanity . . . and those evolutionary steps that pure randomness
might have struggled with.

What is indisputable is that God’s plan unfolded over millions and millions of years.

Sincerely,

George Brooks


(Patrick ) #8

I think you want to say “billions and billions” like Carl Sagan.


#9

I’m not thinking that word means what you think it means. That is exactly the matter in dispute over and over again, including this very thread.


(George Brooks) #10

Which word do you mean, my dear sir?

George Brooks


(sy_garte) #11

There has been quite a lot of discussion of the idea of protein folds being part of an enormous sequence space, that could not possibly be explored by natural selection at the early stages of life. Here is a link to one such paper.

To summarize, the very large figures of possible protein sequence space are generally derived from an assumption of 20 amino acids making 100 amino acid size proteins. What the paper linked above says is that it is entirely possible that early protein (or polypeptide) catalysts likely used far fewer amino acids, possibly as few as 8 or less, and that the size of functional peptides can be much smaller. Using these values, the size of early protein sequence space is greatly reduced to levels that very likely could be explored during evolution. Once larger proteins evolved, we know that sequence variations could easily lead to functional related folds, without needing to start from scratch testing all of the 10^130 possible sequences.

This entire idea, btw, is quite old, I remember hearing about it, when I first read Meyer and Dembski. I dont believe it forms a major part of the ID argument any more.


(GJDS) #12

My reading of this paper leaves me with a different impression Sy - it seems that the conventional view would support Gould’s contention that if the tape of evolution (as he understood it) were re-run, a different outcome would occur, because of the astronomical numbers involved in this matter. The paper uses numerous assumptions and simplifications to try and provide an alternative (convergence, and a simpler primordial mix). I cannot detect any scientific data based on any relevant experiment to support any assumption. I guess my point is that a lot of discussion amounts to a lot of speculation with very little scientific data in support of such discussions. If I have missed something perhaps you would point it out for the sake of a balanced approach.


(Dcscccc) #13

sy garte. not realy. because of 3 reasons:

1)they claim that protein can function with only about 2 kind of amino acid. but a lot of proteins use more then that.
2) they claim that we can start with a simpler protein (about 50 amino acid or less). but the fact is that an average protein is about 250-300 amino acid long. so the sequence space is about no less then 2^300.
3)there is no step wise from a simple protein to a more complex. like i showed in the second paper.

those 3 points making this paper irrelevant.


(Dcscccc) #14

joao. you said:

“It doesn’t say anything about how many mutations we will need for anything, much less a functional protein”

here:

“Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077”

so every 10^77 mutations we will get a functional protein.

“t doesn’t say anything about “most of the protein sequence,” as it only tested deletion mutants.”-

again- they show that 310 amino acid need for a minimal function of the flagellin protein.


#15

It doesn’t say that at all. You’re not even close. Those are not the same units.

[quote=“dcscccc, post:14, topic:3249”]
again- they show that 310 amino acid need for a minimal function of the flagellin protein.
[/quote]These things aren’t reducible to single numbers. They found two domains that are essential for function.


(Dcscccc) #16

2 domains that contain togheter 310 amino acid. so yes, evolution cant start with a simple version of this protein.

“It doesn’t say that at all. You’re not even close. Those are not the same units”

what? this paper says that a functional sequence appear one in about 10^77 different sequences. so this is mean that we need 10^77 mutations.


(George Brooks) #17

This is a dispute between a Creationist and Non-Theist evolutionist, correct?

George Brooks


#18

No, that’s not what it means. You don’t know what you are talking about.


(sy_garte) #19

I dont know about Joao, but I am a Christian, and an evolutionist.


(sy_garte) #20

@dcscccc

The point I was making (and that is made in the paper I linked is that while you are correct about modern proteins, ancient proteins near the origin of life were very likely much simpler. That is one possibility. The other possibility is that in the earliest form of life we already had close to the modern complement of proteins, genetic code etc, that we have now. In that case, you are right, and that would be overwhelming evidence of a special creation. Whichever is correct, none of this pertains to evolution past the LUCA, since from that time on, new proteins did not arise from random searching through sequence space, but from modification of existing proteins.

@GJDS Yes, the paper is not evidence rich, it is based on calculations and assumptions, much like the arguments it is reacting to. While the Axe paper does include experimentation, the conclusions of that paper are also based on extrapolations and assumptions. As far as convergence goes, there is a very large body of evidence in favor of it, and another thread in this forum discusses the work of Conway Morris and others on it.