Conservative estimates are that the chances that the de novo gene T-urf13 blindly evolved are one in ten million. For all we know they are probably far worse. But are the estimates valid? Evolutionists have rejected them as flawed. One evolutionist called them "ridiculous" and another called them "unsupported," promising to reveal all at some later time. Many other evolutionists have ridiculed the entire idea as obviously in error while making all manner of ad hominem attacks.
But none have shared their wisdom on exactly why the estimates are so wrong. As usual, evolutionists attack the messenger rather then address the message.
The problem seems to be straightforward. Evolutionists have claimed T-urf13 as evidence that evolution creates new genes with ease. But it seems to be another unlikely just-so story that fills the evolutionary narrative. What are we missing? The silence is deafening.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You haven't presented your calculations explicitly, so you're just making assertions. What is there to criticize in detail? Lay it all out from start to finish, including population size -- which you somehow left out, an incredible, ridiculous, incompetent omission -- and you might get a detailed reply.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment, we've got hard sequence data, published in many peer-reviewed papers, which shows that Turf-13 descended from 2 chunks of noncoding DNA -- probably through multiple rounds of mutation and selection, which by itself invalidates your creationist "all at once random assembly" assumptions. And what have you got? Vague mentions of calculations, based on wild assumptions which you haven't even tried to give an argument for. In other words, we've got data, and you've got squat except psychological certainty that you can ignore the data.
It is hilarious that Nickm would ask you for explicit calculations. Where is their experimental proof that evolution is true.
ReplyDeleteWhy is evolution the only "science" that can make claims not based on experimental proof. Ask an evolutionist to actually prove their theory in a lab by generating a novel protein (forget a life form) and you get righteous indignation: "That's impossible so you shouldn't even ask!" Sounds like religious dogma to me.
Novel proteins with novel binding sites are evolved every day, inside the lab and outside of it:
ReplyDeletehttp://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/full-text-of-th.html
That's great. You're 1 billion of the way to having a proof. Now all you need to do is produce a novel life form in the lab and show how it could have evoluved in the wild. If this could be done then all that is needed is prove that all life forms for all of history evolved. If you do this then I will believe in evolution. Keep me posted.
ReplyDelete"You haven't presented your calculations explicitly, so you're just making assertions. What is there to criticize in detail? Lay it all out from start to finish, including population size -- which you somehow left out, an incredible, ridiculous, incompetent omission -- and you might get a detailed reply."
ReplyDeleteExcept that population size is irrelevant to the problem. The problem has to do with protein properties. I'll explain the problem a different way.
Peter -- way to move the goalposts. You lose. And cells don't require 1 billion genes, do they?
ReplyDeleteCornelius said: "Except that population size is irrelevant to the problem. The problem has to do with protein properties. I'll explain the problem a different way."
ReplyDeleteAre you going to provide that explanation? Perhaps put it in a new post?