Amino acid probability

[Gman]

As we all know there are only two possibilities for the existence of life:

1. Chance assembly of life from chemicals
2. There is a Creator who designed biological systems

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

Therefore, a question is, what is the likelihood that the proteins needed to carry out essential life functions could form through random assembly of amino acids? The building blocks of life...

Quote from Origins of Life: "Chemists Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen have rigorously addressed this problem. They argue that in the absence of any chemical competition with non-amino acids and nonbiologically relevant amino acids (the best-case scenario), the probability of getting the right amino acid in a specific position in a protein molecule is 1.25 percent. (There is a 50 percent chance of natural processes randomly selecting a left-handed amino acid, a 50 percent chance of joining the two amino acids in the appropriate chemical bond, and roughly a 5 percent chance of selecting the right amino acid.) The probability of undirected processes assembling a protein one hundred amino acids long, therefore, becomes roughly one chance in 10-191.

This probability still falls short of the real objective. Proteins in the cell typically consist of several hundred amino acids. This means that the likelihood of random chemical processes generating most proteins is far more remote.

In effect, there is no chance that even a relatively small protein made up of a specified sequence could ever form by undirected processes. In the words of Bradley and Thaxton,

If we assume that all carbon on earth exists in the form of amino acids and that the amino acids are allowed to chemically react at the maximum possible rate of 10-12/s for one billion years (the greatest possible time between the cooling of the earth and the appearance of life), we must still conclude that it is incredibly improbable (~10-65) that even one functional protein would be made." (p. 138)

[angel]

That estimate is (scientific) rubbish.

I already discussed a number of times that one cannot use probabilities that way. It is just a way of dressing with nonsensical numbers the argument which goes like
abiogenesis is too odd to occur.
Nothing more, nothingh less.

see http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=2837
see http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 3622#43622


Thanks for the quotation by Hugh Ross.
He is not new to these nonsensical arguments.

BTW according to similar argument I can prove that I cannot be the son of my mother. Wanna see?

[Gman]

Thought you didn't want to talk with me anymore... Looks like you have changed again...

That estimate is (scientific) rubbish.

How do you know? Tell me... Do you have a Ph.D. in chemistry??

I already discussed a number of times that one cannot use probabilities that way. It is just a way of dressing with nonsensical numbers the argument which goes like
abiogenesis is too odd to occur.
Nothing more, nothingh less.

LOL... Probabilities are used all the time in science... Remember you worship a God of chance and chaos... It's all you have... Nothing more, nothing less... You are going to have to eat it... Sorry.

Thanks for the quotation by Hugh Ross.
He is not new to these nonsensical arguments.

Oh, so you are being biased against him then because he believes in ID?

And I'm not done with this yet because all of this brings up the protein library probability... Another hurdle to jump...

Quote from Origins of Life: "Biochemists working in the unrelated field of protein design run into the same problems that origin-of-life researchers face as they try to account for the emergence of bioinformation molecules like proteins. Their goal is to produce new "designer" proteins.

These designer molecules have specially tailored biological properties with potential use in biomedical applications. Because the researchers lack a full understanding of the relationship between amino acid sequence and protein structure-hence function-they face significant hurdles. This problem makes developing a designer protein from scratch extremely difficult, if not impossible. Some biochemists suggest a possible way around this obstacle. Instead of building designer proteins from the ground up, they propose the synthesis of a large number of proteins with random but varied amino acid sequences (a protein "library"). Once in place, protein libraries can be searched for a protein with the desired properties. Conceptually, this procedure closely resembles the random chemical processes that would have operated in the hypothetical prebiotic soup to produce proteins with biologically useful properties.

The use of random-sequence libraries to discover necessary proteins faces an inherent problem that affects all its practical implementation. Researchers from Brandeis University and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, for example, point out that to find a protein with a specified sequence one hundred amino acids in length from a fully randomized collection of proteins is impossible. There are about 10-130 potential sequences. If a library of all these random-sequence proteins were created, a library with a mass equivalent to that of Earth's (about 15 trillion trillion pounds) would contain only about 10-47 of those possible proteins. A library with the mass equivalent of the entire observable universe still would be 10-54 times too small.

This finding has dire consequences for the naturalistic paradigm. Even if the entire primordial earth were comprised of nothing but the twenty amino acids used by the cell to produce proteins, and if those amino acids reacted to produce proteins all 100 amino acids in length, there would still be only one chance in 10-83 that the desired amino acid sequence would be formed. Physicists consider any probability smaller than one chance in 10-50 as equivalent to impossible."

Next up function by chance...

[BGoodForGoodSake]

ROFL!

Just forget it Angel, some people just don't understand what probabilities are.

[godslanguage]

ROFL!

Just forget it Angel, some people just don't understand what probabilities are.

"
# a measure of how likely it is that some event will occur; a number expressing the ratio of favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible; "the probability that an unbiased coin will fall with the head up is 0.5"
# the quality of being probable; a probable event or the most probable event; "for a while mutiny seemed a probability"; "going by past experience there was a high probability that the visitors were lost"
"

[August]

ROFL!

Just forget it Angel, some people just don't understand what probabilities are.

Yup, it's just the dumb ol' Chrushchians again...they dunno anyfink.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

ROFL!

Just forget it Angel, some people just don't understand what probabilities are.

"
# a measure of how likely it is that some event will occur; a number expressing the ratio of favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible; "the probability that an unbiased coin will fall with the head up is 0.5"
# the quality of being probable; a probable event or the most probable event; "for a while mutiny seemed a probability"; "going by past experience there was a high probability that the visitors were lost"
"

Yes basically you are right but then application of this knowledge is the key.

For instance lets say I had a box pennies, and I randomly pick out a coin and keep it if it's tails and replace it if it's heads.

After repeating this a number of times I will have a box with may more heads than tails.

The probability that a whole class room of boxes have mostly heads within are close to 0. However when you add in selection over time, removing only tails, the probability is remarkably 1!

So to conclude.
Misuse of probability. I am not typing this response, the probability of the molcules in my body being in the exact position they are in my body for me to live are 1 in 10^657.

Correct use of probability. I am typing this response, the probability is 1.
As you can see a probability can be calculated, but it is not taking into account, improbable combinations. And in many cases it does not even properly address the issue.

The probability of a swirl of interstellar dust stirred around randomly to form this solar system is close to 0. But the probability of interstellar dust forming a star under the force of gravity is much higher.

Does this mean that our solar system could never have formed? You cannot calculate a series of events as a single mathmatical equation, it will lead to practical imposibilities everytime. We should know this! lol

For example I have two roads, I can choose between the two every day.
Lets say I travel one of these roads for 6 months.
There are roughly 180 days in this span so I made this choice 180 times.
What are the chances I made these exact set of decisions?
Well 1 in 2^180 or roughly 10^55. Which according to Gman is impossible.

Physicists consider any probability smaller than one chance in 10-50 as equivalent to impossible."

Well as we can easily see here, the definition of imposibility cannot be used if there is a series of events lead to a result can it? Otherwise everything is impossible as everything can be defined as a long series of events. And you only need a series of 166 binary events to hit the "imposibility" definition.

There are laws in the universe. Is it absurd to think that the matter in this universe will be forced to conform to these laws?

Another parallel to the amino acid bank would be a library.
And stating that a book would be impossible because the probability of choosing the right 100 letter sequence would be one in 26^100.

Obviously writing a book is not exaclty a random event, some combinations are precluded.

So no one is suggesting that evolution of proteins was a random event, except those who come up with these absurd probabilities.
If evolution were that, then why not call it the randomization of life? Why a new word?
ROFL.

AND AUGUST!

Just forget it Angel, some people just don't understand what probabilities are.

Yup, it's just the dumb ol' Chrushchians again...they dunno anyfink.

Some people does not mean Christians!
How DARE you try to polarize the readers by painting me as anti-Christian. If you agree with GMan then say so. You can explain to me how he knows what the desired amino acid sequence is.
This isn't politics, it's an intellectual discussion, there is no need to use tactics like this.
This whole us vs them nonsence you've got... I rather enjoy our discussions, I hope I am over reacting and you are merely joking.

We can continue this in pm godslanguage, August.

[Gman]

For instance lets say I had a box pennies, and I randomly pick out a coin and keep it if it's tails and replace it if it's heads.

Let's say you don't have any pennies... Because technically you don't... You never have..

And noone is suggesting that evolution of proteins was a random event.
If evolution were that, then why not call it the randomization of life? Why a new word?
ROFL.

Are you kidding me??? In Origin of Species, Darwin himself calls descent with modification "accidental." Let me quote from his chapter on instinct: "Any amount of modification in structure can be effected by the accumulation of numerous, slight, and as we must call them accidental, variations..."

If anything all you have is the accident of life... A meaningless accidental life...

ROFL...

[August]

AND AUGUST!

Just forget it Angel, some people just don't understand what probabilities are.

Yup, it's just the dumb ol' Chrushchians again...they dunno anyfink.

Some people does not mean Christians!
How DARE you try to polarize the readers by painting me as anti-Christian. If you agree with GMan then say so. You can explain to me how he knows what the desired amino acid sequence is.
This isn't politics, it's an intellectual discussion, there is no need to use tactics like this.
This whole us vs them nonsence you've got... I rather enjoy our discussions, I hope I am over reacting and you are merely joking.

We can continue this in pm godslanguage, August.

I had a long response typed up for you, but then decided it was going to be useless to enter into any "you said, I said" discussion.

It's only an intellectual discussion as long as everyone agrees with you and Angel. Otherwise it's ignorance and "nonsensical arguments".

You did seem to paint with a rather broad brush here. I don't think you are categorically, publicly and angrily anti-Christian, and that was not the intent of my statement.

I'll leave you guys to it. I won't be back.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

August,

I am sorry I took offense to what you had written, and in truth I was mocking Gman.

So admitedly it was not intellectual discourse on my part in responding to Gmans post.

But since you joined the discussion I expected such, and I apologize to you for this assumption, seeing as I was the first to mock anyone.

If you would like to continue this discussion in private then I will be pleased to do so.

[Gman]

August,

I am sorry I took offense to what you had written, and in truth I was mocking Gman.

So admitedly it was not intellectual discourse on my part in responding to Gmans post.

You are mocking the works of Christians like Hugh Ross, and chemists Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen... ROFL..

[angel]

How do you know? Tell me... Do you have a Ph.D. in chemistry??

Well, I have one in math which I believe authorizes me to discuss when probabilities are used properly and when they are not.

(If you want to play that game...) What about you?

probabilities are used all the time in science... Remember you worship a God of chance and chaos... It's all you have... Nothing more, nothing less... You are going to have to eat it... Sorry.

LOL. No comment to add.

so you are being biased against him then because he believes in ID?

I am biased against him (as well as against Dawkin) because his argument (not his conclusions) are nonsensical.

It's only an intellectual discussion as long as everyone agrees with you and Angel. Otherwise it's ignorance and "nonsensical arguments".

Believe me GMan. It is not that I am bias against you. It is just that you clearly don't know what basic scientific notions are. It is not your fault. You probably are a wonderful person, probably you know much more literature and poetry than I do. Probably you know the bible much better than I do.
Unfortunately you hardly know what science is, and you have problems with reading others posts.


godslanguage. May I suggest to take the definition of probability from a maths book (possibly not for primary schools) instead of a dictionary?

[Gman]

Well, I have one in math which I believe authorizes me to discuss when probabilities are used properly and when they are not.

Math is a very small part of the equation here.. What is really needed here is the knowledge of chemistry and how it functions in generating proteins...

(If you want to play that game...) What about you?

I don't have any degrees in chemical science, only in computer science... But I would like to see you debate chemists Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen sometime in their science.. I'm sure you wouldn't have any problems with it as you claim to have. If you want to play that game....

LOL. No comment to add.

If you have a problem with these probabilities in my quotes, then that is your own opinion... But nonetheless, if you take ID out of the equation here then all you have is probabilities, random chance, or accidental variations... I don't see how to escape this even with your god of natural selection at the helm...

I am biased against him (as well as against Dawkin) because his argument (not his conclusions) are nonsensical.

You are a liar Angel... You know very well that Dawkins is trying to explain the existence of life through naturalistic means.. A life without any type of creator.. You are very much opposed to the case of ID and will fight it tooth and nail when given the chance even though all of us have clearly shown you otherwise. That is very evident...

Believe me GMan. It is not that I am bias against you. It is just that you clearly don't know what basic scientific notions are. It is not your fault. You probably are a wonderful person, probably you know much more literature and poetry than I do. Probably you know the bible much better than I do.
Unfortunately you hardly know what science is, and you have problems with reading others posts.

Well if this isn't the most sugar coated ad hominem I have ever seen.. Yah, you are a real pro Angel, a real scientist in the making.. We have repeatedly shown you the cases against Darwinian evolution to no avail... And as for reading other people's posts, half my time is spent here reminding you what you have written before..

And like August and godslanguage and the others, I too am growing tired of it...

[angel]

Well if this isn't the most sugar coated ad hominem I have ever seen..

I suppose more or less as

You are a liar Angel...

These are not ad hominem. It is just what I think and what you think.
I accept your opinions. I expect you accept mine. People can go back and see if you spend half of your time reminding me what I posted. In particular they can check if your reminds are based on my misremenberings or on your misunderstandings.
I leave that to them.

Math is a very small part of the equation here.. What is really needed here is the knowledge of chemistry and how it functions in generating proteins...

You don't know what you are talking about, GMan.
The feagures you quoted (just dropping a the factor 4.9 in front of it) are from a purely combinatorial argument which has very little to do with chemistry.
It is simply the value of 0.0125^100. I.E the probability of getting a predetermined sequence of amminoacids 100 sites long.
Anything a high school student with no knowledge of chemistry cannot compute by himself by using any computer algebra system. Just a one line command with Maple or Mathematica.

One should remark (and you did not) the estimate is very vague. There is an uncertanty on the length of the shortest protein relevant for life. To be fair one should remark that an uncertainty of 20% (0.2) on that length of the protein produces an uncertainty of **76** (a factor 10^76) orders of magitude on that probability!

Said that that is the probability of assembling THAT given protein by chance. Any student in maths, physics, chemistry, biology or ancient history knows that such probability has nothing to do with the probability of abiogenesis.
By an identical argument the probability of getting my genome out of my mother's one by random mutations is quite small as well. Which, following the lines of your quote, proves that I cannot be the son of my mother.
[The number of mutations per generation is about 100. The probability of getting exactly those mutations in exactly those positions (our genome is about 3billions bases long) is approx:
p=(1/3*1/(3*10^9))^100*100! = 10^-838.
One could do better estimate using the correct probability distribution, but changing less than 76 orders o0f magnitudes! )
Anyone could tell that what I am computing is not the probability that I am the son of my mother, but the probability that my mother has another son identical to me, not being my twin.]

In the same way they are not computing the probability for abiogenesis. For that they should know how big is the set of self replicators in the space of genomes. While we still have problems in recognizing if a particular genome is a self replicator.

In any event, there is nothing dealing with chemistry. The argument is pure probability theory.
And that is a solid FACT, not a matter of opinions.

You are a liar Angel... You know very well that Dawkins is trying to explain the existence of life through naturalistic means.. A life without any type of creator.. You are very much opposed to the case of ID and will fight it tooth and nail when given the chance even though all of us have clearly shown you otherwise. That is very evident...

As you wish GMan.
The others can have a look here:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/po ... html#42262

BTW: Knowledge: It is not expected that you should be thoroughly educated on an issue before commenting about it. At the same token, it is impossible for us to know everything. So if a topic is new to you or you don't know much about it, then it is good to spend some time researching to increase your knowledge before writing.

[Gman]

I suppose more or less as

Very cute... More like heavy on the more...

These are not ad hominem. It is just what I think and what you think.
I accept your opinions. I expect you accept mine. People can go back and see if you spend half of your time reminding me what I posted. In particular they can check if your reminds are based on my misremenberings or on your misunderstandings.
I leave that to them.

Angel, all you leave is a paper trail of lies, deceit, and chaos... You vehemently oppose the case for ID in practically every message you post even calling it garbage.. Which raises the question. Why are you here if you refuse to read what this Christian panel has given you? What are you trying to push here??

You don't know what you are talking about, GMan.

You don't know what you are writing about.. Again there are only TWO possibilities for the existence of life.. Is this a hard concept for you to understand?

1. Chance assembly of life from chemicals
2. There is a Creator who designed biological systems

As the owner of this website and forum says:

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

I know that this is hard for you but I will be here to help you understand this... You see it's not your fault, it is just perhaps a mental block.

The feagures you quoted (just dropping a the factor 4.9 in front of it) are from a purely combinatorial argument which has very little to do with chemistry.
It is simply the value of 0.0125^100. I.E the probability of getting a predetermined sequence of amminoacids 100 sites long.
Anything a high school student with no knowledge of chemistry cannot compute by himself by using any computer algebra system. Just a one line command with Maple or Mathematica.

One should remark (and you did not) the estimate is very vague. There is an uncertanty on the length of the shortest protein relevant for life. To be fair one should remark that an uncertainty of 20% (0.2) on that length of the protein produces an uncertainty of **76** (a factor 10^76) orders of magitude on that probability!

Said that that is the probability of assembling THAT given protein by chance. Any student in maths, physics, chemistry, biology or ancient history knows that such probability has nothing to do with the probability of abiogenesis.
By an identical argument the probability of getting my genome out of my mother's one by random mutations is quite small as well. Which, following the lines of your quote, proves that I cannot be the son of my mother.
[The number of mutations per generation is about 100. The probability of getting exactly those mutations in exactly those positions (our genome is about 3billions bases long) is approx:
p=(1/3*1/(3*10^9))^100*100! = 10^-838.
One could do better estimate using the correct probability distribution, but changing less than 76 orders o0f magnitudes! Surprised)
Anyone could tell that what I am computing is not the probability that I am the son of my mother, but the probability that my mother has another son identical to me, not being my twin.

LOL.. This is complete (scientific) rubbish!!! You say that the original estimate is very vague so now you are simply trying to throw mathematical monkey wrenches (or other factors) into the equation to try to make this probability for amino acids an improbable absurdity.. Again you cannot accept that fact that life without ID is based on chance so you can only spread lies to the panel to prove that it is a mathematically absurdity to come up with such probabilities..

Again if you want to say that this probability is absurd then that's fine by me.. But if you take ID out of the equation here then all you have is probabilities, random chance, or accidental variations how absurd they may be.. This is my whole point...

I grow tried of having to remind you... These probabilities came from chemists Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen... Your battle is with them.. But since you worship probabilities, evolutionists Brandon Carter, John Barrow, and Frank Tipler (in their quest to determine the likelihood that other intelligent species exist in the universe) "determined that for an advanced species as technically capable as humanity to arise from a suite of bacterial species in 10 billion years or less, the probability is 10^24,000,000. Again, the probability for the natural generation of the human species from bacteria or other possible simple life-forms is indistinguishable from zero."

As Hugh states... . "At the same time, however, they demonstrate the extremely remote probability that humans would exist at all, if nature is wholly responsible.."

Hugh also states from his book... "Famed evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala, an advocate for the assumption that natural selection and mutations can efficiently generate distinctly different species, nevertheless describes the probability that humans (or a similar advanced species capable of developing a high-tech civilization) arose from single-celled organisms as a possibility so small (10^1,000,000) that it might as well be zero (roughly the equivalent to the likelihood of winning the California lottery 150,000 consecutive times with the purchase of just one ticket each time)."

As you wish GMan.
The others can have a look here:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/po ... html#42262

LOL... You don't fool me... And how do I know?? Because I use to believe in Darwinian evolution myself... I know the tactics.. Yours are just craftier than mine..

BTW: Knowledge: It is not expected that you should be thoroughly educated on an issue before commenting about it. At the same token, it is impossible for us to know everything.

Angel... Why do I have to keep reminding you of my stance??? I never said that I know everything.. But if you say that my belief in ID is garbage and your Darwinian evolution factual, then I'm going to keep coming after you....

So if a topic is new to you or you don't know much about it, then it is good to spend some time researching to increase your knowledge before writing.

Oh another ad hominem... What's the matter? Have you run out of something constructive to say?