how quickly do proteins evolve ?

[ReinyDays]

You have a fundamental lack of understanding of what constitutes a random variable.

I can't help you.

You need to go back to school.

Match by your complete lack of knowledge of enzymes ... you only work two hours a day? ... or is today a National Middle School Half-day Day? ...

Your lack of knowledge justifies your strong opinions ...

 

[scruffy]

Match by your complete lack of knowledge of enzymes ... you only work two hours a day? ... or is today a National Middle School Half-day Day? ...

Your lack of knowledge justifies your strong opinions ...

lol

Not worried about your opinion either.

Enzymes? WTF?

I barely even talked about catalysts.

Nice try though.

 

[scruffy]

We're playing a game? ... I thought we had chaperons ... now what am I supposed to do with this phosphoglycerate kinase I've been collecting? ...

I don't know.

Maybe you can figure out something useful to do with it.

Why are you collecting it?

 

[Leo123]

Is your argument that we don't understand enough about the process of evolution ... so it must be wrong? ...

A scientific theory is a framework ... a set of assumptions we agree on ... from this framework, then, we create testable hypotheses ... and then test ... honest science will change the theory if the test fails ... so we write our scientific theories in pencil, and keep an eraser handy ... in case you missed the news, the Big Bang Theory has been all but completely re-written these past 25 years ...

The origin of life relies on a trick of the statistical arts ... it doesn't matter how tiny the odds are of an event occurring in any given year; the odds of this event occurring at least once approaches certainty as the years go by ... this "event" in evolution would be the spontaneous creation of a catalytic molecule ... which then fills all the world's oceans with whatever chemical that was catalyzed ... then we wait until the next step happens no matter how many years it takes ...

One thing we have in great abundance here is years ...

It's a theory, okay, we assume "once is enough" ... no better than assuming "In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth" ... I believe God wants us to use the Bible for guidance dealing with the homeless, but He's fine if the farmer uses ToE for better crop yields ... why He gifted us with His knowledge in the matter ...

Humans are semi-evolved hairless rodents whose only evolutionary advance is an unpalatable flesh and a stench to warn off the carnivores ... we're total hypocrites saying skunks smell bad ... and booze is required for reproduction because we're butt ugly ... that's what folks don't like about ToE ...

No, we know evolution of already existing cells does take place.

The years theory doesn’t hold water because spontaneous creation of a living cell has never been seen or accomplished since. To say to just wait is having faith just like a religion.

 

[ReinyDays]

No, we know evolution of already existing cells does take place.

The years theory doesn’t hold water because spontaneous creation of a living cell has never been seen or accomplished since. To say to just wait is having faith just like a religion.

Like I said ... we don't understand, so it must be wrong ...

Sounds like you agree with the usefulness of ToE ... today feeding the multitudes ... and usefulness is not proof, you are correct in that claim ... and really how it all began is a philosophical discussion with all the inherent problems with extrapolation ... I admit this is a numbers game, and I've stated it as assumption ... not fact ... and we have powerful telescopes in space hunting down this evidence that we're lacking ... no luck yet ...

I think evolution works really really well when it's used for the purpose it was designed for ... predicting breeding outcomes ... how else would humans domesticate cereal grains back 10,000 years ago? ... farmers know to save the seeds from their best plants for next season ... always improving their lineage ... just using simple Mendelian breeding ...

 

[Leo123]

Like I said ... we don't understand, so it must be wrong ...

Sounds like you agree with the usefulness of ToE ... today feeding the multitudes ... and usefulness is not proof, you are correct in that claim ... and really how it all began is a philosophical discussion with all the inherent problems with extrapolation ... I admit this is a numbers game, and I've stated it as assumption ... not fact ... and we have powerful telescopes in space hunting down this evidence that we're lacking ... no luck yet ...

I think evolution works really really well when it's used for the purpose it was designed for ... predicting breeding outcomes ... how else would humans domesticate cereal grains back 10,000 years ago? ... farmers know to save the seeds from their best plants for next season ... always improving their lineage ... just using simple Mendelian breeding ...

It's more like we DO understand evolution and it doesn't cause first life; it is, in fact, more likely the RESULT of the initial life force. The study of evolution has not brought us much closer to understanding the essential life that seems to permeate everything.

 

[ReinyDays]

It's more like we DO understand evolution and it doesn't cause first life; it is, in fact, more likely the RESULT of the initial life force. The study of evolution has not brought us much closer to understanding the essential life that seems to permeate everything.

Right ... it's just science ... and science doesn't answer all questions ...

 

[scruffy]

It's more like we DO understand evolution and it doesn't cause first life; it is, in fact, more likely the RESULT of the initial life force. The study of evolution has not brought us much closer to understanding the essential life that seems to permeate everything.

See, now THAT I can dialog with.

Creation is a valid scientific hypothesis. It's very difficult to test, but that's beside the point.

You (YOU) don't have to resort to handwaving and trolling and bogus math to make your point and talk about it.

Unlike the other clowns who feel they have something to prove by denigrating science.

Kudos to you, and a big thumbs up.

 

[scruffy]

Self organized criticality in protein evolution:

Evidence from the COVID virus

Synchronized attachment and the Darwinian evolution of coronaviruses CoV-1 and CoV-2

CoV2019 has evolved to be much more dangerous than CoV2003. Experiments suggest that structural rearrangements dramatically enhance CoV2019 activity. We identify a new first stage of infection that precedes structural rearrangements by using biomolecular ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[ding]

Self organized criticality in protein evolution

Does that seem random to you?

 

[scruffy]

Does that seem random to you?

Trolling again, ding dong?

Is that all you do?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Creation is a valid scientific hypothesis. It's very difficult to test, but that's beside the point.

Any hypothesis about the natural world cannot be said to be "scientific:" if it is predicated on the violation of conservation laws, it's the exact opposite, make believe fantasy masquerading as science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Any hypothesis about the natural world cannot be said to be "scientific:" if it is predicated on the violation of conservation laws, it's the exact opposite, make believe fantasy masquerading as science.

How ironic.

Your magical creation hypothesis relies 100% on breaking those laws.

But you think you get a pass, because you played the "magic" card.

Contrary to your obvious misunderstanding, "a universe from nothing" breaks no laws. That's kind of the entire point.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

How ironic.

Your magical creation hypothesis relies 100% on breaking those laws.

Of course, it does that because it's not a scientific explanation, a scientific explanation is untenable if conservation laws are to be violated.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course, it does that because it's not a scientific explanation, a scientific explanation is untenable if conservation laws are to be violated.

Which does not apply here.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Which does not apply here.

Yes it does, any purported explanation for the "creation" that claims to be scientific is untenable, a thing cannot serve as the explanation for itself in science. So we can't explain the existence of laws by attributing that to laws.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes it does, any purported explanation for the "creation" that claims to be scientific is untenable, a thing cannot serve as the explanation for itself in science

Wrong. A totally self consistent theory has now been formed for a universe for nothing.

You keep ignoring this. Which is probably because you know less than nothing about it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Wrong. A totally self consistent theory has now been formed for a universe for nothing.

You keep ignoring this. Which is probably because you know less than nothing about it.

Here's the first draft of that theory:

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Here's the first draft of that theory:

View attachment 1001755

Right, we get it, you know less than nothing about it.

Yet you have strong opinions on it anyway.

All you have accomplished is a fine demonstration of how faith handicaps the mind.

 

[ReinyDays]

My problem with Creation Science is the Bible is succinct ... God created Man once ... there's no laboratory experiment we can conduct today to verify this act ... and science requires repetition of results ...

If science could explain romance ... 95% of the world's literature would be obsolete ... I wouldn't want to live in such a Brave New World ...