Joined: July 2006
|Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,10:12)|
|And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000|
These were designed.
Bingo! Exactly as I predicted.
Your understanding of biology is woeful.
Your point is only valid if you assume that these proteins formed all at once.
What evidence do you have that is in fact the case?
|So, and I'm not sure why, but there are those on here repeatedly requesting that I calculate the CSI of an organism as if that is some big deal.|
Yet there is no list that says
Organism A has X CSI.
Organism B has Y CSI.
I wonder why.....
|In fact, many, including myself have accomplished this many times.|
So where is the list?
|The smallest known bacteria I’m aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.|
Your assumption that the first self-replicator resembled bacteria is unwarranted.
Unless, of course, you were there?
On what basis do you make this claim?
|The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power. |
Tell me, what biological process is this related to? When you say "assemble" what biological process is it that you refer to?
When you say "usable" what do you mean? Usable for what? If I have two proteins that differ only slightly is one more "usable" then the other? What for?
|Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.|
This is not a problem, the problem is that your examples are not related to biology. Biology does not "assemble" 50,000 chained amino acids all in one go.
|To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.|
Yes, and nobody disagrees with you. You are quite right. But at the same time you are "not even wrong".
This organism will "never form" by all it's component pieces coming together all at once. What biologist is actually making the claim this is how life originated?
You are simply ignorant about the claims of modern biology and I know this from a simple fact. You won't respond by relating your "The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000" example to actual biology.
Anyway, your IDiocy has been refuted in many places many times already. Nobody is fooled. In fact we're laughing at you.
|When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.|
Yet you have no problem "in reality" with a designer that hangs around for billions of years and behaves exactly as one would expect evolution to.
If the odds against a simplistic organism forming are 1:10^7400 then what are the odds of a designer forming that could create that organism? They must be higher? Yet that's what you believe happened!
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand