Titin is a structural protein. Any given residue could be switched out with another without impacting the overall structure. There is literally no reason it has to have the sequence it does now. There are literally millions of alternative sequences that wouldn’t change a thing about its biological activity.
It is possibly the shittiest example you could have used, but you jumped onto it because you think big numbers will save you, but instead your own ignorance sank the ship before it left port.
Even if your math was right — don’t trust you — and it meant anything — it doesn’t — this is a bad example. You are bad at this.
I know and you know that OP doesn’t know shit.
The large-numbers-equal-impossible crowd never do. They don’t have a large enough number of neurons to realize that large numbers are not a problem for evolution they are a key component.
I have a degree in it. You’re a child who recently accessed a thesaurus but you can’t be arsed to proofread. Your every accusation a projection re: fastness and looseness.
No serious person is proposing the random synthesis of polypeptides *de novo* they iterate and evolve as others here have already told you. This is how I know you’re not a serious person. This is the stupidest drivel I have ever read in the most outlandish confidence. You’re on the left of the Dunning-Kruger Chart, baby.
Biochemists have established *experimentally* that 1 in 10 to the 12th have a *specific* function, not any function but one specific one.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4476321/
So on one hand we have one guy's purely theoretical calculation based on his own guesses, and on the other hand we have a direct experiment. Experiments beat theoretical calculations every time.
Wow, I thought the others were overstating the weird racism of that link. They were not.
If you can, in your own words, attempt to explain why one of my degrees is:
>Darwin's archaic tautology
I'd be curious to see if you could assemble a coherent statement
FYI, but some of us have been debating this subject for decades. We're well familiar with all the purported creationist arguments against evolution.
What would be nice if creationists availed themselves of those counterarguments and worked to put forth better arguments themselves, instead of regurgitating the same crap that was dealt with decades ago.
I have. You haven’t done the same if you’re advancing tired, trivially addressed arguments like those you’ve made.
You’re honestly like someone pointing to the horizon and claiming it’s evidence of a flat earth. Read a book man.
🙄 nobody but nobody who accepts evolution proposes that each protein was invented randomly. Just ridiculous. You should be ashamed that this is your counter-argument to evolution.
Titin is synthesized like most proteins are, through transcription and translation. Has anyone - apart from creationists - ever ever ever proposed that genes or proteins were first assembled by randomly selecting amino acids and stringing them together? What is the calculation of the odds of something that nobody ever proposed happened supposed to refute?
I have done that several times. Why are you ignoring it? I thought you were the one who wanted to debate? Now you are doing everything possible to avoid debate.
This reads very much as "I don't understand how proteins evolved, therefore it must be impossible."
Here's a thread with a bunch of information:
https://www.reddit.com?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1
We have directly observed new proteins with new functions evolving, from organisms we have confirmed genetically did not have that protein, and with step-by-step, mutation-by-mutation tracking of exactly how it evolved. So any claim that it is impossible is disproven by the simple fact that we have seen it happen.
You are the one doing the screaming. They obviously evolved as life is WAY too messy for anything competent to have designed it. IF you think that life is designed I hope you are NOT doing chemical engineering.
>I hope you are NOT doing chemical engineering
I mean, in the engineers’ defense, sometimes they’re excellent engineers and just really fucking stupid at everything else.
I have observed this phenomenon time and again where a STEM-educated person, but especially engineers, think that they suddenly have the expertise to opine on molecular biology just because their particular brain is good with certain kinds of numbers. It does not typically go well for them.
I forgot who said "Science and Engineering are cousins, not siblings" but yhat holds in these cases.
And the book the Things We Make and, more so, another onr which for the life of me I cant think of the name of covers this (starting with an explanation of how Masons build Cathedrals without understanding some of the science or physics behind architecture)
I mean, you haven't exactly argued a position well. I'll try fashion it a bit more coherently for you:
>Human bodies need Titin.
>Titin requires 38 138 amino acids in a specific order to function.
>For the origination of titin, it would have required for amino acids to be structuring.
>Once this structuring took place, it would have been a 1/20 to the 38138th power chance to assemble.
>This likelihood is so witheringly impossible, it is unreasonable to assume it assembled by chance.
I hope this accurately portrays your argument.
There are, however, a few problems with it.
1. Vanishingly unlikely things happen constantly. That is the nature of the universe. Every shuffle of a deck is exceedingly unlikely. But something must occur, so something does occur.
2. The entire notion of evolution is iterative steps. Titin is a muscle protein (primarily, it appears) it isn't required to exist apriori for humans to exist. Evolution could have iterated its way there.
3. It is a synthesised protein, our bodies make it, it doesn't assemble randomly.
Hope this answers your two assertions, the one spoken one (titin shows humans couldn't exist without a creator) and the unspoken(ish) one (people don't argue evolutionists, they do, your arguments are just shoddy as hell so people are likely rolling their eyes and moving on rather than engaging).
I suspect you'll find people more cordial if you are a bit more structured, a bit more reasonable, and a bit less... aggressive? Accusatory?
And no one ever said that this protein started out as this specific sequence out of billions. Your model of evolution is totally wrong. You're arguing against a position that literally no one believes.
If you want to argue against evolution, argue against the actual theory of evolution.
It's not a surprise that posts like this would get deleted, you aren't making an argument against evolution, you're demonstrating a misunderstanding that simply googling would clear up.
There are already other comments pointing out your mistake, but if you take anything away from this post: you aren't being oppressed. Your opinion isn't being suppressed. If you came to this community with an interesting point, your post would do well.
If you come here not knowing that you don't evolve large proteins in a single step, you will be made fun of and shot down.
Maybe learn the basics of evolution first, then start participating in this community instead of whinging.
Except that many of the people here have literal PhDs in both things. Myself included.
Your model is incorrect, therefore your numbers are incorrect.
Here's a better model (not perfect but closer):
Start with a vector of 1000 random heads-tails. This is a toy gene. The chances of all heads is 0.5^1000. basically impossible to have all heads.
Now create a population of these genes (say a population of 10k individuals). Simulate generations of mutation, and selection (every genereation some point on the genes randomly mutates. The genes with the most heads reproduce. The genes recombine).
You will get a population of all heads very very quickly.
Importantly, evolutionary algorthms *just like this* are used all the time in computer science, biochem, machine learning. It's just standard gradient descent.
If you don't believe this works, you basically don't know anything about how modern statistics, machine learning or engineering works. Let alone biology.
I used to be a creationist but I abandoned it many years ago, and a major reason for abandoning it was the realisation of the power of *accumulated* changes, like your analogy with the heads on coins.
Natural selection does not start from scratch every time, instead it starts from what has been already selected successfully, and it continues to improve on those successes.
It was Dawkins’ weasel that made me understand this.
I started my undergrad as a creationist (back in the 90s before the really good molecular modelling)
What convinced me was the nested cladogenesis, and gradual accumulation of derived traits across the entire tree of life. It's just impossible to imagine how you would get that from any other process than evolution.
No one is claiming that each amino acid is added one at a time. On the contrary, titin was made by duplicating existing sequences as a chunk over and over
>Whether you flip a coin once a second or once every thousand years, guess what? Probability of heads is 1/2.
Have you never played Yahtzee? You roll dice, but keep the ones that are useful.
You'd need 6^5 rolls of the dice to get 5 sixes*. You need about 7 rolls if you keep the sixes each turn.
You're looking at the big number and assuming that it happens all at once. It doesn't. Natural selection keeps the useful ones, and rolls on the rest.
* Actually, 6^5 / 2 for a 50% chance.
Yes. And you're ignoring the large literature on how functional proteins evolve. With experimental evidence.
Every artificial evolution experiment. Every whole genome sequence turns up more examples.of functional variants and intermediates.
Why are you ignoring empirical results instead of relying on your really awful cartoon models?
Would it be more likely for someone to flip 5 heads in a row if they only have 5 flips, or if you had 1000 flips?
Even that isn't a good analogy for evolution because evolution doesn't reset the odds with each flip/generation, it is a cumulative process.
I love when people just multiple and divide random numbers and go “see! It’s statistically impossible!” Like, this is not how statistics work, and it’s certainly not how science works.
You’re right, this isn’t really a debate forum the way you want it to be because evolution is an established fact. We’re just here to show how wrong creationist ideas are in the hopes that some people see the post and come around to reality.
Your reply to me was so toxic is already gone.
You are doing the whining and are not using science. Darwin is NOT the source of present day theory. You have not learned anything real about evolution by natural so here:
How evolution works
First step in the process.
Mutations happen - There are many kinds of them from single hit changes to the duplication of entire genomes, the last happens in plants not vertebrates. The most interesting kind is duplication of genes which allows one duplicate to do the old job and the new to change to take on a different job. There is ample evidence that this occurs and this is the main way that information is added to the genome. This can occur much more easily in sexually reproducing organisms due their having two copies of every gene in the first place.
Second step in the process, the one Creationist pretend doesn't happen when they claim evolution is only random.
Mutations are the raw change in the DNA. Natural selection carves the information from the environment into the DNA. Much like a sculptor carves an shape into the raw mass of rock. Selection is what makes it information in the sense Creationists use. The selection is by the environment. ALL the evidence supports this.
Natural Selection - mutations that decrease the chances of reproduction are removed by this. It is inherent in reproduction that a decrease in the rate of successful reproduction due to a gene that isn't doing the job adequately will be lost from the gene pool. This is something that cannot not happen. Some genes INCREASE the rate of successful reproduction. Those are inherently conserved. This selection is by the environment, which also includes other members of the species, no outside intelligence is required for the environment to select out bad mutations or conserve useful mutations.
The two steps of the process is all that is needed for evolution to occur. Add in geographical or reproductive isolation and speciation will occur.
This is a natural process. No intelligence is needed for it occur. It occurs according to strictly local, both in space and in time, laws of chemistry and reproduction.
There is no magic in it. It is as inevitable as hydrogen fusing in the Sun. If there is reproduction and there is variation then there will be evolution.
The rage you accused me of is your own. You sure didn't learn how to behave along with engineering, assuming you are a chemical engineer.
I was a creationist in the 80s. Even then they kept saying the tide was turning against evolution. But it's like an Escher illusion "more and more scientists reject evolution" but their numbers are dwindling..how?
You keep saying we haven't addressed your arguments. But every response does directly address it.
Your model is wrong. It's not how evolution works. We don't propose to hit a specific sequence in a single step. We accumulate mutations stepwise over time. Your "stats" don't match the process.
Please deal with the model we actually use.
> Not one scientist anywhere has argued against *gravity* which you Darwinists so like to compare your nonsense with.
People frequently argue against gravity. [HERE](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/andp.202200626) is one such example
Did that mess of jargon really deny gravity? Keeping mind that gravity is a fictional force in General Relativity.
It seems to be trying to make dark matter go away.
Sure, the numbers came from somewhere. Doesn’t mean that they have anything to do with anything. You’re just making up statistics. That is not how this field works. A protein having lots of amino acids has nothing to do with chance, you’re just projecting this weird nonsensical argument onto something with big numbers so you can exclaim “impossible!” It’s a classic argument from incredulity and has no basis on reality.
Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it and deal it out.
By your own standards, you have just done the impossible. You claim that 1 in 10\^50 odds is defined as impossible, and yet the order of the cards you just dealt had 1 in 8x10\^67 odds of occurring.
So every time people play a game of cards, they're doing the impossible according to you.
Doing the impossible is a lot easier than it sounds, isn't it?
There are 52 cards in a deck. They can be dealt out 52! ways. 52! = 8x10\^67. Thus any particular order of cards has a 1 in 8x10\^67 chance of being dealt after a random shuffle.
This is not a controversial fact. It's basic math. You are the one who doesn't understand statistics.
To add on to this, the reason you(OP) don't think it is improbable is because you aren't assigning the significance to it like you are to titin. You'd probably think it is incredibly unlikely to shuffle and end up with a perfectly sorted deck, but that order would be just as unlikely as any other, but we assign value to that order so it would seem miraculous.
This compounded by you seemingly thinking that titin is the goal and not simply one of the many ways that amino acids can fold and be used by organisms. This happens bit by bit, not all at once, and is encouraged by more useful protein sequences being maintained and passed on.
>The physicist Richard Feynman used to make a joke about a posteriori conclusions, as they are called. “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight,” he would say. “I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!” His point, of course, was that it is easy to make any banal situation seem extraordinary if you treat it as fateful.
It feels sacrilegious to quote Richard Feynman through someone else (Bill Bryson), but it has an explanation in it so I'll do that anyway
Actual debate and discussion is welcomed here. What is not welcomed are posts written by someone who claims to have a big "gotcha!" that actually just boils down to pseudoscience, complete and utter falsehoods, or actual science that they don't fully understand, often resulting in the original poster doubling down and refusing to earnestly engage with people who provide cited evidence and scholarly articles in an attempt to have a good-faith discussion.
A) There have actually been multiple comments that have pointed out the flaws in your analysis.
B) Fifty percent? Really, where'd you pull that number from?
C)....I never mentioned the Bible?
> I sent this analysis to Douglas Axe, professor of Biochemistry
Funny that you only sent this to a creationist who already agrees with you, rather than asking someone who might actually challenge your views.
>"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
That is a myth. Even with Darwin nobody had to die for it to become accepted. Same with Einstein, Planck himself, etc.
>Today, fifty percent of Americans reject Darwinism, most because of science refuting it.
Funny that essentially everyone who rejects evolution has a religious agenda for doing so. And among scientists who actually understand evolution, acceptance is nearly universal.
Funny that you can't point out anything I said that was actually wrong. For someone who criticizes this sub you sure are quick to shut down debates when they aren't going your way. How convenient that you suddenly don't want to read what I write when you notice my comments are detailed responses that directly address your protein of choice with citations and quotes from the relevant literature. Almost like you need an excuse to avoid evidence that proves you wrong.
This post is low effort in that this kind of combinatorial math has been answered here a ton of times. It's wrong because:
No one suggests that proteins start out that large. New proteins are usually very short, but they can, and do, evolve to get larger (eg under selection for structural stability or specificity).
No one suggests that protein sequences need to be exact for them to work. You only need to look across multiple organisms at the same protein, and see that there are a lot of different sequences that are equivalent (literally for almost any protein, most species will have a different variants)
No one suggests that the original function of a protein is the one it has right now. Proteins "change jobs" pretty frequently over evolutionary time, and across clades.
There are other arguments against the simple "multiply the length by the number of codon" type arguments, but these are enough to demonstrate your calculations are fatally flawed, by hundreds of orders of magnitudes. This is basic. A quick Google search will show you that you're not making a novel, factual, or interesting point. The world we observe every day proves you are wrong.
One reference among dozens: https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/85890/how-hard-would-it-be-to-create-a-protein-by-chance
Sure it matters. It matters completely.
Hitting a tiny particular target in n dimensional space in a single shot is not the same process as moving incrementally stepwise to an arbitrary target.
They are fundamentally not the same thing and the math is completely different.
Friend I am a Christian pastor and the /s is most definitely NOT pro-Darwinian. If you have vails evidence to debate evolution you by all means please present it.
While Titin does have weight of 3 million Dalton and composed is composed of 27,000 amino acids it was not randomly assembled as you are thinking. Did you sleep through your science classes in biology, chemistry and physics? Or did you just have shitty teachers who have no understanding of science and just teach you religious bullshit?
As a Christian who has taken science classes I will tell you that your reasoning is wrong. And the person who taught you this crap doesn’t have a clue about God’s world.
Educate yourself by taking a biology class so you can lean and see for yourself why you are wrong.
Sure. Can Douglas Axe and your other friends tell us how amino acids have self assembled and been doing on meteors? It sure as shit wasn’t God or a designer as the math shows us there is a 50% distribution between two different types. This demonstrates it was and is not a random event as your friends are saying.
It doesn't need to be sequentially and they don't all need to be selected. Titin is made of tons of repeating motifs that have been duplicated over and over, which in turn were cobbled together from earlier, simpler proteins. There is a lot of variability in those motifs, and even more variability in the sequences. And the parts between those motifs can have almost any sequence. And that is ignoring other completely different sequences with the same mechanical properties.
For most enzymes the actual active part is only 2 or 3 amino acids. The rest of the protein can have a huge variety of sequences.
>Douglas Axe has shown that of polypeptides 150 amino acid residues in length, only 1 in 10 to the 77th power is functional.
This has been tested experimentally and it is closer to 1 in the 10 to the 12th.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4476321/
So there is clearly something wrong with his math since I contradicts reality.
I got a reply from this ranter. Now it isn't here. Oh well, it was just accusing me of being it.
I have my doubts about its alleged education but it is an engineer and that is where the worst nonsense comes from. Besides YEC lawyers anyway.
I suspect that its a fake claim. This person has likely been banned before and does not learn. I replied to Chemical Burns on another part of this. It has multiple posts but only one remains.
>No one said it is.
To be fair, not everyone reads wherever it says "yeah we're a honeypot for creationists acually", so yeah it does actually say that in the title
Actually is just says debate evolution and the OP is not even trying to debate. It has multiple posts and this is only one not removed of the three remaining. It has one comment on guns guns guns from 7 months ago and the rest are these ignorance based hate posts.
I think it is lying about its education but maybe not.
Dude your hostility and rage is preventing you from leaving from your mistakes. Protein assembly is NOT random. And you are not factoring in protein folding. But you big mistake is proteins like Titin ARE coded for, it’s not random.
Are you mad you tried to post on r/evolution with some creationist bullshit and it got removed because you couldn't be bothered to read the sidebar? Or are you mad because your other incoherent post here got removed?
As for your post, your inability to use statistics isn't an argument. I just shuffled a deck of cards very thoroughly to get them as close to random as possible and laid them out. The odds of them being in said order is 52! or 8.07×10^(67).
According to your logic, people cannot shuffle a deck of cards.
Go take a statistics course and then get back to us instead of throwing a tantrum.
Hi! I’m a mathematician, and I can explain the error in your calculation, if you’re actually interested in understanding why I don’t find your argument persuasive.
The evolution of proteins is not that randomly a bunch of point mutations happened that coded for a large protein that had a very specific function that depended on the exact sequence. You’re right that that would be absurd, but it’s irrelevant because that’s not how evolution or proteins work
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/7273
> Considerable variability exists in the I-band, the M-line and the Z-disc regions of titin. Variability in the I-band region contributes to the differences in elasticity of different titin isoforms and, therefore, to the differences in elasticity of different muscle types.
So there is not a single titin sequence like you claim, but a bunch of different sequences.
What is more, titin has a large number of repetitions of less than 100 nucleotides in length, and the number of duplicates differs in different lineages and even different muscles in the same organism. In fact in humans titin can range from about 5,000 to about 36,000 residues in length. These repetitions are separated by spacer sequences where the sequence doesn't matter. So rather than needing to evolve every single nucleotide one at a time, that less than 100 nucleotide sequence only needed to evolve once and then it was copied over and over. And even those sequences are not exactly the same.
And there are both other proteins in humans which re-use similar repeats, other animals with titin in other animals that is similar but not identical in sequence, and related proteins in invertebrates that also have similar repeats.
>Do 1/20 to the 38,138th power for me and tell me how that compares with 1 chance in 10 to the 50 which is Emil Borel's definition of "impossible.".
Alright, so you’ve given us some math you believe represents the odds of a protein evolving. That’s a testable prediction!
I like [this study](https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1007853) on the evolution of a novel transport protein. The chimeric protein that evolved enables this strain of yeast to digest maltotriose, which it was previously unable to do, and is 616 amino acids long.
Applying your math, that protein had somewhere on the order of a 1 in 10^800 chance of evolving. So either something impossible happened in a lab the other day, or your math is very very wrong. In fact, the researchers of that particular study have identified a few other strains of yeast where similar evolutionary events occurred — the impossible has happened multiple times!
This is why I tend to roll my eyes at these napkin math predictions. They’re just disconnected from biological reality…
>There are only 10 to the 80 particles in the universe.
What does everyone keep ending probability arguments with "there are only 10 to X particles in the universe"?
You're not only telling us you understand biology, but you're doubly telling us you don't understand statistics and probabilities.
And yes, I do know that this is simply about presenting big scary numbers regardless of whether they are relevant. But invoking "10 to X particles in the universe" comparisons immediately undermines that point for anyone who has seen these types of arguments before.
As for not wanting to read this sort of thing, you might which to read the book, *The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism*. It's an entire text dedicated to debunking these types of creationist probability arguments. And it's written by a mathematician to boot.
>What does everyone keep ending probability arguments with "there are only 10 to X particles in the universe"?
Maybe this was rhetorical but in case it's not clear - it's because they're all copying this argument from [Stephen Meyer](https://genesisfile.com/stephen-meyer/) (scroll down a little) who has practically turned this 10\^whatever thing into a hymn to be sung from memory. He's been on PragerU so now everyone can regurgitate the script word for word like NPCs.
Just gonna address that top part.
Creationist don’t typically debate as frankly in a fair debate, they typically lose.
Also typically from what I’ve seen creationist live in echo chambers, they will straight deny evidence. Favorite example of this personally was one trying to tell me that evolution can not add to the genetic material. While I was explain how it happens and they just saying “nuh uh” practically.
Lol. How does this in any way support creationism or debunk evolution? It doesn't. This reminds me of the fine tuning argument.
How do you explain the laryngeal nerve in all mammals? Was it "designed" that way intentionally, or is it a byproduct of the anatomy of a long distant and long gone predecessor to what roams the earth today? The evidence for EVOLUTION is everywhere we look. Not for creation. In fact, I have yet to see ANY good evidence for creation.
You need to offer evidence. Not just a very large, very made up number that means very little. It isn't convincing and it isn't even evidence for your position. You're basically saying: "look at how big this number I made up is to show how improbable this thing is, therefore god". That's not how you make a solid case. You need to provide GOOD evidence and tie it to your claim. That's what the laryngeal nerve does. It's VERY GOOD evidence for common descent. And it's a nail in the coffin for creationism...
Edit: I upvoted you because I like seeing more posts from creationists.
> It is a Pro-Darwin forum, and all dissent is immediately attacked by the horde, or else the post is deleted, as my first one was with "creationist" rhetoric.
I suggest you read the sticky. You first post was removed (silently) for being low effort and having no real subject, just complaining about 'darwinists'.
The reason people attack and mock is because of ignorant comments like your own. You obviously don't have a basic understanding of evolution enough to criticize it. Assuming you could formulate a critique. If you had even a basic understanding of evolution, you would know that proteins did not arise from happenstance. Therefore, your mathematical analysis is utterly irrelevant
>
I want you to go shuffle a deck of cards, then make a note of the order that they were shuffled into, rank and suit, every single card.
The chances of you getting the order that you got was 1 in 8.065 \* 10\^67. By your own claim that order is impossible - yet it happened.
Now go do it with a shoe of 8 decks, like on a blackjack table.... Thats an even more impossible feat.
Yet at hundreds of casinos around the world, with dozens of table games each, they are all getting these impossible things to happen, not just every day, but every few minutes.
The odds only matter if you had a predetermined event you were trying to get before the cards are dealt. If those amino acids didn't end up that way, well, things would be different - equally improbable, but different.
Using math and probability to argue against evolution: classic creationist blathering. Happily, the same can be done to mathematically prove that the existence of God is impossible.
Since God is eternal, that is equivalent to God being infinite. But there can only be one God, so the probability of an existent God is (infinity)/god or ~/1 which equals null.
So we have mathematical proof that titin is more probable than god.
The funny thing about randomness is that it is not completely random. There is no known random number generator. Even computer generated random numbers aren't random. At best, they are pseudo random.
But even in your example, there is no complete randomness. Your example is still bound by rules. The rule you used is one out of a range of two. So a flip of three or four or five gazillion and ferty bleet bazillions is not possible.
So that means that limiting the range within a probability just makes the outcome more likely, not less likely.
Titin is a structural protein. Any given residue could be switched out with another without impacting the overall structure. There is literally no reason it has to have the sequence it does now. There are literally millions of alternative sequences that wouldn’t change a thing about its biological activity. It is possibly the shittiest example you could have used, but you jumped onto it because you think big numbers will save you, but instead your own ignorance sank the ship before it left port. Even if your math was right — don’t trust you — and it meant anything — it doesn’t — this is a bad example. You are bad at this.
He doesn't know what titin is. He doesn't know anything, he regurgitated this from somewhere else.
I know and you know that OP doesn’t know shit. The large-numbers-equal-impossible crowd never do. They don’t have a large enough number of neurons to realize that large numbers are not a problem for evolution they are a key component.
[удалено]
Every bit of that is hogwash. That is a separate issue from you being a bit dim.
Copy pasted responses are rarely allowed, especially those that are not related to the topic being discussed.
[удалено]
I have a degree in it. You’re a child who recently accessed a thesaurus but you can’t be arsed to proofread. Your every accusation a projection re: fastness and looseness. No serious person is proposing the random synthesis of polypeptides *de novo* they iterate and evolve as others here have already told you. This is how I know you’re not a serious person. This is the stupidest drivel I have ever read in the most outlandish confidence. You’re on the left of the Dunning-Kruger Chart, baby.
Biochemists have established *experimentally* that 1 in 10 to the 12th have a *specific* function, not any function but one specific one. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4476321/ So on one hand we have one guy's purely theoretical calculation based on his own guesses, and on the other hand we have a direct experiment. Experiments beat theoretical calculations every time.
Tell me you failed high school biology without telling me you failed high school biology
[удалено]
Wow. I'm glad I opened that link in incognito mode because it just *reeks* of racism. It also absolutely fails to understand evolution.
I always cite blogs to invalidate the scientific consensus, too. Well played. Excellent move.
Wow, I thought the others were overstating the weird racism of that link. They were not. If you can, in your own words, attempt to explain why one of my degrees is: >Darwin's archaic tautology I'd be curious to see if you could assemble a coherent statement
You find that blog compelling? Are you out of middle school yet?
If you believe evolution happens by random chance, you haven’t taken the time to learn about how evolution works. Try again.
Nor does he know how random chance works.
[удалено]
Copy pasted responses a generally not allowed here, especially those that are not relevant to the subject being talked about. Removed under rule 3
[удалено]
FYI, but some of us have been debating this subject for decades. We're well familiar with all the purported creationist arguments against evolution. What would be nice if creationists availed themselves of those counterarguments and worked to put forth better arguments themselves, instead of regurgitating the same crap that was dealt with decades ago.
I have been studying creationist arguments for decades. Not one holds up to scrutiny. Including this one, as I and others have explained
Pretty sure I have yet to run into one that wasn’t already debunked with sources on the Talk Origins master list.
I have. You haven’t done the same if you’re advancing tired, trivially addressed arguments like those you’ve made. You’re honestly like someone pointing to the horizon and claiming it’s evidence of a flat earth. Read a book man.
🙄 nobody but nobody who accepts evolution proposes that each protein was invented randomly. Just ridiculous. You should be ashamed that this is your counter-argument to evolution.
[удалено]
FYI, but copy-paste spam responses are against the rules of this sub (rule #3).
[удалено]
Titin is synthesized like most proteins are, through transcription and translation. Has anyone - apart from creationists - ever ever ever proposed that genes or proteins were first assembled by randomly selecting amino acids and stringing them together? What is the calculation of the odds of something that nobody ever proposed happened supposed to refute?
I have done that several times. Why are you ignoring it? I thought you were the one who wanted to debate? Now you are doing everything possible to avoid debate.
This reads very much as "I don't understand how proteins evolved, therefore it must be impossible." Here's a thread with a bunch of information: https://www.reddit.com?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1
[удалено]
The projection in this statement is staggering.
We have directly observed new proteins with new functions evolving, from organisms we have confirmed genetically did not have that protein, and with step-by-step, mutation-by-mutation tracking of exactly how it evolved. So any claim that it is impossible is disproven by the simple fact that we have seen it happen.
You are the one doing the screaming. They obviously evolved as life is WAY too messy for anything competent to have designed it. IF you think that life is designed I hope you are NOT doing chemical engineering.
>I hope you are NOT doing chemical engineering I mean, in the engineers’ defense, sometimes they’re excellent engineers and just really fucking stupid at everything else. I have observed this phenomenon time and again where a STEM-educated person, but especially engineers, think that they suddenly have the expertise to opine on molecular biology just because their particular brain is good with certain kinds of numbers. It does not typically go well for them.
I forgot who said "Science and Engineering are cousins, not siblings" but yhat holds in these cases. And the book the Things We Make and, more so, another onr which for the life of me I cant think of the name of covers this (starting with an explanation of how Masons build Cathedrals without understanding some of the science or physics behind architecture)
I mean, you haven't exactly argued a position well. I'll try fashion it a bit more coherently for you: >Human bodies need Titin. >Titin requires 38 138 amino acids in a specific order to function. >For the origination of titin, it would have required for amino acids to be structuring. >Once this structuring took place, it would have been a 1/20 to the 38138th power chance to assemble. >This likelihood is so witheringly impossible, it is unreasonable to assume it assembled by chance. I hope this accurately portrays your argument. There are, however, a few problems with it. 1. Vanishingly unlikely things happen constantly. That is the nature of the universe. Every shuffle of a deck is exceedingly unlikely. But something must occur, so something does occur. 2. The entire notion of evolution is iterative steps. Titin is a muscle protein (primarily, it appears) it isn't required to exist apriori for humans to exist. Evolution could have iterated its way there. 3. It is a synthesised protein, our bodies make it, it doesn't assemble randomly. Hope this answers your two assertions, the one spoken one (titin shows humans couldn't exist without a creator) and the unspoken(ish) one (people don't argue evolutionists, they do, your arguments are just shoddy as hell so people are likely rolling their eyes and moving on rather than engaging). I suspect you'll find people more cordial if you are a bit more structured, a bit more reasonable, and a bit less... aggressive? Accusatory?
[удалено]
And no one ever said that this protein started out as this specific sequence out of billions. Your model of evolution is totally wrong. You're arguing against a position that literally no one believes. If you want to argue against evolution, argue against the actual theory of evolution.
It's not a surprise that posts like this would get deleted, you aren't making an argument against evolution, you're demonstrating a misunderstanding that simply googling would clear up. There are already other comments pointing out your mistake, but if you take anything away from this post: you aren't being oppressed. Your opinion isn't being suppressed. If you came to this community with an interesting point, your post would do well. If you come here not knowing that you don't evolve large proteins in a single step, you will be made fun of and shot down. Maybe learn the basics of evolution first, then start participating in this community instead of whinging.
[удалено]
Except that many of the people here have literal PhDs in both things. Myself included. Your model is incorrect, therefore your numbers are incorrect. Here's a better model (not perfect but closer): Start with a vector of 1000 random heads-tails. This is a toy gene. The chances of all heads is 0.5^1000. basically impossible to have all heads. Now create a population of these genes (say a population of 10k individuals). Simulate generations of mutation, and selection (every genereation some point on the genes randomly mutates. The genes with the most heads reproduce. The genes recombine). You will get a population of all heads very very quickly. Importantly, evolutionary algorthms *just like this* are used all the time in computer science, biochem, machine learning. It's just standard gradient descent. If you don't believe this works, you basically don't know anything about how modern statistics, machine learning or engineering works. Let alone biology.
I used to be a creationist but I abandoned it many years ago, and a major reason for abandoning it was the realisation of the power of *accumulated* changes, like your analogy with the heads on coins. Natural selection does not start from scratch every time, instead it starts from what has been already selected successfully, and it continues to improve on those successes. It was Dawkins’ weasel that made me understand this.
I started my undergrad as a creationist (back in the 90s before the really good molecular modelling) What convinced me was the nested cladogenesis, and gradual accumulation of derived traits across the entire tree of life. It's just impossible to imagine how you would get that from any other process than evolution.
[удалено]
Copy pasted responses a generally not allowed here, especially those that are not relevant to the subject being talked about. Removed under rule 3
No one is claiming that each amino acid is added one at a time. On the contrary, titin was made by duplicating existing sequences as a chunk over and over
>Whether you flip a coin once a second or once every thousand years, guess what? Probability of heads is 1/2. Have you never played Yahtzee? You roll dice, but keep the ones that are useful. You'd need 6^5 rolls of the dice to get 5 sixes*. You need about 7 rolls if you keep the sixes each turn. You're looking at the big number and assuming that it happens all at once. It doesn't. Natural selection keeps the useful ones, and rolls on the rest. * Actually, 6^5 / 2 for a 50% chance.
[удалено]
Yes. And you're ignoring the large literature on how functional proteins evolve. With experimental evidence. Every artificial evolution experiment. Every whole genome sequence turns up more examples.of functional variants and intermediates. Why are you ignoring empirical results instead of relying on your really awful cartoon models?
Would it be more likely for someone to flip 5 heads in a row if they only have 5 flips, or if you had 1000 flips? Even that isn't a good analogy for evolution because evolution doesn't reset the odds with each flip/generation, it is a cumulative process.
I love when people just multiple and divide random numbers and go “see! It’s statistically impossible!” Like, this is not how statistics work, and it’s certainly not how science works. You’re right, this isn’t really a debate forum the way you want it to be because evolution is an established fact. We’re just here to show how wrong creationist ideas are in the hopes that some people see the post and come around to reality.
[удалено]
Your reply to me was so toxic is already gone. You are doing the whining and are not using science. Darwin is NOT the source of present day theory. You have not learned anything real about evolution by natural so here: How evolution works First step in the process. Mutations happen - There are many kinds of them from single hit changes to the duplication of entire genomes, the last happens in plants not vertebrates. The most interesting kind is duplication of genes which allows one duplicate to do the old job and the new to change to take on a different job. There is ample evidence that this occurs and this is the main way that information is added to the genome. This can occur much more easily in sexually reproducing organisms due their having two copies of every gene in the first place. Second step in the process, the one Creationist pretend doesn't happen when they claim evolution is only random. Mutations are the raw change in the DNA. Natural selection carves the information from the environment into the DNA. Much like a sculptor carves an shape into the raw mass of rock. Selection is what makes it information in the sense Creationists use. The selection is by the environment. ALL the evidence supports this. Natural Selection - mutations that decrease the chances of reproduction are removed by this. It is inherent in reproduction that a decrease in the rate of successful reproduction due to a gene that isn't doing the job adequately will be lost from the gene pool. This is something that cannot not happen. Some genes INCREASE the rate of successful reproduction. Those are inherently conserved. This selection is by the environment, which also includes other members of the species, no outside intelligence is required for the environment to select out bad mutations or conserve useful mutations. The two steps of the process is all that is needed for evolution to occur. Add in geographical or reproductive isolation and speciation will occur. This is a natural process. No intelligence is needed for it occur. It occurs according to strictly local, both in space and in time, laws of chemistry and reproduction. There is no magic in it. It is as inevitable as hydrogen fusing in the Sun. If there is reproduction and there is variation then there will be evolution. The rage you accused me of is your own. You sure didn't learn how to behave along with engineering, assuming you are a chemical engineer.
[удалено]
I was a creationist in the 80s. Even then they kept saying the tide was turning against evolution. But it's like an Escher illusion "more and more scientists reject evolution" but their numbers are dwindling..how? You keep saying we haven't addressed your arguments. But every response does directly address it. Your model is wrong. It's not how evolution works. We don't propose to hit a specific sequence in a single step. We accumulate mutations stepwise over time. Your "stats" don't match the process. Please deal with the model we actually use.
> Not one scientist anywhere has argued against *gravity* which you Darwinists so like to compare your nonsense with. People frequently argue against gravity. [HERE](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/andp.202200626) is one such example
Did that mess of jargon really deny gravity? Keeping mind that gravity is a fictional force in General Relativity. It seems to be trying to make dark matter go away.
Sure, the numbers came from somewhere. Doesn’t mean that they have anything to do with anything. You’re just making up statistics. That is not how this field works. A protein having lots of amino acids has nothing to do with chance, you’re just projecting this weird nonsensical argument onto something with big numbers so you can exclaim “impossible!” It’s a classic argument from incredulity and has no basis on reality.
Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it and deal it out. By your own standards, you have just done the impossible. You claim that 1 in 10\^50 odds is defined as impossible, and yet the order of the cards you just dealt had 1 in 8x10\^67 odds of occurring. So every time people play a game of cards, they're doing the impossible according to you. Doing the impossible is a lot easier than it sounds, isn't it?
[удалено]
There are 52 cards in a deck. They can be dealt out 52! ways. 52! = 8x10\^67. Thus any particular order of cards has a 1 in 8x10\^67 chance of being dealt after a random shuffle. This is not a controversial fact. It's basic math. You are the one who doesn't understand statistics.
To add on to this, the reason you(OP) don't think it is improbable is because you aren't assigning the significance to it like you are to titin. You'd probably think it is incredibly unlikely to shuffle and end up with a perfectly sorted deck, but that order would be just as unlikely as any other, but we assign value to that order so it would seem miraculous. This compounded by you seemingly thinking that titin is the goal and not simply one of the many ways that amino acids can fold and be used by organisms. This happens bit by bit, not all at once, and is encouraged by more useful protein sequences being maintained and passed on.
>The physicist Richard Feynman used to make a joke about a posteriori conclusions, as they are called. “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight,” he would say. “I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!” His point, of course, was that it is easy to make any banal situation seem extraordinary if you treat it as fateful. It feels sacrilegious to quote Richard Feynman through someone else (Bill Bryson), but it has an explanation in it so I'll do that anyway
>A random bunch of cards is not improbable. The specific order they are in however, *is*.
Actual debate and discussion is welcomed here. What is not welcomed are posts written by someone who claims to have a big "gotcha!" that actually just boils down to pseudoscience, complete and utter falsehoods, or actual science that they don't fully understand, often resulting in the original poster doubling down and refusing to earnestly engage with people who provide cited evidence and scholarly articles in an attempt to have a good-faith discussion.
[удалено]
A) There have actually been multiple comments that have pointed out the flaws in your analysis. B) Fifty percent? Really, where'd you pull that number from? C)....I never mentioned the Bible?
> I sent this analysis to Douglas Axe, professor of Biochemistry Funny that you only sent this to a creationist who already agrees with you, rather than asking someone who might actually challenge your views. >"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." That is a myth. Even with Darwin nobody had to die for it to become accepted. Same with Einstein, Planck himself, etc. >Today, fifty percent of Americans reject Darwinism, most because of science refuting it. Funny that essentially everyone who rejects evolution has a religious agenda for doing so. And among scientists who actually understand evolution, acceptance is nearly universal.
[удалено]
Funny that you can't point out anything I said that was actually wrong. For someone who criticizes this sub you sure are quick to shut down debates when they aren't going your way. How convenient that you suddenly don't want to read what I write when you notice my comments are detailed responses that directly address your protein of choice with citations and quotes from the relevant literature. Almost like you need an excuse to avoid evidence that proves you wrong.
Here comes the rage quit... edited: And now the account has been suspended. :D
>There has not been ONE SINGLE RESPONSE that has pointed out any error in my analysis Yes, yes there have been.
[удалено]
Irving Langmuir always struck me as the kinda chemist whom I would not want to be disappointed in me.
This post is low effort in that this kind of combinatorial math has been answered here a ton of times. It's wrong because: No one suggests that proteins start out that large. New proteins are usually very short, but they can, and do, evolve to get larger (eg under selection for structural stability or specificity). No one suggests that protein sequences need to be exact for them to work. You only need to look across multiple organisms at the same protein, and see that there are a lot of different sequences that are equivalent (literally for almost any protein, most species will have a different variants) No one suggests that the original function of a protein is the one it has right now. Proteins "change jobs" pretty frequently over evolutionary time, and across clades. There are other arguments against the simple "multiply the length by the number of codon" type arguments, but these are enough to demonstrate your calculations are fatally flawed, by hundreds of orders of magnitudes. This is basic. A quick Google search will show you that you're not making a novel, factual, or interesting point. The world we observe every day proves you are wrong. One reference among dozens: https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/85890/how-hard-would-it-be-to-create-a-protein-by-chance
[удалено]
Sure it matters. It matters completely. Hitting a tiny particular target in n dimensional space in a single shot is not the same process as moving incrementally stepwise to an arbitrary target. They are fundamentally not the same thing and the math is completely different.
Friend I am a Christian pastor and the /s is most definitely NOT pro-Darwinian. If you have vails evidence to debate evolution you by all means please present it. While Titin does have weight of 3 million Dalton and composed is composed of 27,000 amino acids it was not randomly assembled as you are thinking. Did you sleep through your science classes in biology, chemistry and physics? Or did you just have shitty teachers who have no understanding of science and just teach you religious bullshit? As a Christian who has taken science classes I will tell you that your reasoning is wrong. And the person who taught you this crap doesn’t have a clue about God’s world. Educate yourself by taking a biology class so you can lean and see for yourself why you are wrong.
Damn pissed a pastor off to the point of cussing
[удалено]
Sure. Can Douglas Axe and your other friends tell us how amino acids have self assembled and been doing on meteors? It sure as shit wasn’t God or a designer as the math shows us there is a 50% distribution between two different types. This demonstrates it was and is not a random event as your friends are saying.
Was just about to post that. https://www.space.com/asteroid-ryugu-samples-analysis-hyabusa2
That is one example.
It doesn't need to be sequentially and they don't all need to be selected. Titin is made of tons of repeating motifs that have been duplicated over and over, which in turn were cobbled together from earlier, simpler proteins. There is a lot of variability in those motifs, and even more variability in the sequences. And the parts between those motifs can have almost any sequence. And that is ignoring other completely different sequences with the same mechanical properties. For most enzymes the actual active part is only 2 or 3 amino acids. The rest of the protein can have a huge variety of sequences. >Douglas Axe has shown that of polypeptides 150 amino acid residues in length, only 1 in 10 to the 77th power is functional. This has been tested experimentally and it is closer to 1 in the 10 to the 12th. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4476321/ So there is clearly something wrong with his math since I contradicts reality.
[удалено]
I got a reply from this ranter. Now it isn't here. Oh well, it was just accusing me of being it. I have my doubts about its alleged education but it is an engineer and that is where the worst nonsense comes from. Besides YEC lawyers anyway.
>it is an engineer and that is where the worst nonsense comes from. Salem hypothesis confirmed.
I suspect that its a fake claim. This person has likely been banned before and does not learn. I replied to Chemical Burns on another part of this. It has multiple posts but only one remains.
>No one said it is. To be fair, not everyone reads wherever it says "yeah we're a honeypot for creationists acually", so yeah it does actually say that in the title
Actually is just says debate evolution and the OP is not even trying to debate. It has multiple posts and this is only one not removed of the three remaining. It has one comment on guns guns guns from 7 months ago and the rest are these ignorance based hate posts. I think it is lying about its education but maybe not.
Dude your hostility and rage is preventing you from leaving from your mistakes. Protein assembly is NOT random. And you are not factoring in protein folding. But you big mistake is proteins like Titin ARE coded for, it’s not random.
Are you mad you tried to post on r/evolution with some creationist bullshit and it got removed because you couldn't be bothered to read the sidebar? Or are you mad because your other incoherent post here got removed? As for your post, your inability to use statistics isn't an argument. I just shuffled a deck of cards very thoroughly to get them as close to random as possible and laid them out. The odds of them being in said order is 52! or 8.07×10^(67). According to your logic, people cannot shuffle a deck of cards. Go take a statistics course and then get back to us instead of throwing a tantrum.
Hi! I’m a mathematician, and I can explain the error in your calculation, if you’re actually interested in understanding why I don’t find your argument persuasive.
The evolution of proteins is not that randomly a bunch of point mutations happened that coded for a large protein that had a very specific function that depended on the exact sequence. You’re right that that would be absurd, but it’s irrelevant because that’s not how evolution or proteins work
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/7273 > Considerable variability exists in the I-band, the M-line and the Z-disc regions of titin. Variability in the I-band region contributes to the differences in elasticity of different titin isoforms and, therefore, to the differences in elasticity of different muscle types. So there is not a single titin sequence like you claim, but a bunch of different sequences. What is more, titin has a large number of repetitions of less than 100 nucleotides in length, and the number of duplicates differs in different lineages and even different muscles in the same organism. In fact in humans titin can range from about 5,000 to about 36,000 residues in length. These repetitions are separated by spacer sequences where the sequence doesn't matter. So rather than needing to evolve every single nucleotide one at a time, that less than 100 nucleotide sequence only needed to evolve once and then it was copied over and over. And even those sequences are not exactly the same. And there are both other proteins in humans which re-use similar repeats, other animals with titin in other animals that is similar but not identical in sequence, and related proteins in invertebrates that also have similar repeats.
>Do 1/20 to the 38,138th power for me and tell me how that compares with 1 chance in 10 to the 50 which is Emil Borel's definition of "impossible.". Alright, so you’ve given us some math you believe represents the odds of a protein evolving. That’s a testable prediction! I like [this study](https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1007853) on the evolution of a novel transport protein. The chimeric protein that evolved enables this strain of yeast to digest maltotriose, which it was previously unable to do, and is 616 amino acids long. Applying your math, that protein had somewhere on the order of a 1 in 10^800 chance of evolving. So either something impossible happened in a lab the other day, or your math is very very wrong. In fact, the researchers of that particular study have identified a few other strains of yeast where similar evolutionary events occurred — the impossible has happened multiple times! This is why I tend to roll my eyes at these napkin math predictions. They’re just disconnected from biological reality…
OMG big numbers! C'mon man, this is embarrassing.
>There are only 10 to the 80 particles in the universe. What does everyone keep ending probability arguments with "there are only 10 to X particles in the universe"? You're not only telling us you understand biology, but you're doubly telling us you don't understand statistics and probabilities. And yes, I do know that this is simply about presenting big scary numbers regardless of whether they are relevant. But invoking "10 to X particles in the universe" comparisons immediately undermines that point for anyone who has seen these types of arguments before. As for not wanting to read this sort of thing, you might which to read the book, *The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism*. It's an entire text dedicated to debunking these types of creationist probability arguments. And it's written by a mathematician to boot.
>What does everyone keep ending probability arguments with "there are only 10 to X particles in the universe"? Maybe this was rhetorical but in case it's not clear - it's because they're all copying this argument from [Stephen Meyer](https://genesisfile.com/stephen-meyer/) (scroll down a little) who has practically turned this 10\^whatever thing into a hymn to be sung from memory. He's been on PragerU so now everyone can regurgitate the script word for word like NPCs.
Just gonna address that top part. Creationist don’t typically debate as frankly in a fair debate, they typically lose. Also typically from what I’ve seen creationist live in echo chambers, they will straight deny evidence. Favorite example of this personally was one trying to tell me that evolution can not add to the genetic material. While I was explain how it happens and they just saying “nuh uh” practically.
Lol. How does this in any way support creationism or debunk evolution? It doesn't. This reminds me of the fine tuning argument. How do you explain the laryngeal nerve in all mammals? Was it "designed" that way intentionally, or is it a byproduct of the anatomy of a long distant and long gone predecessor to what roams the earth today? The evidence for EVOLUTION is everywhere we look. Not for creation. In fact, I have yet to see ANY good evidence for creation. You need to offer evidence. Not just a very large, very made up number that means very little. It isn't convincing and it isn't even evidence for your position. You're basically saying: "look at how big this number I made up is to show how improbable this thing is, therefore god". That's not how you make a solid case. You need to provide GOOD evidence and tie it to your claim. That's what the laryngeal nerve does. It's VERY GOOD evidence for common descent. And it's a nail in the coffin for creationism... Edit: I upvoted you because I like seeing more posts from creationists.
I love it when creationists throw big numbers at us but never show their work. So effective and convincing.
> It is a Pro-Darwin forum, and all dissent is immediately attacked by the horde, or else the post is deleted, as my first one was with "creationist" rhetoric. I suggest you read the sticky. You first post was removed (silently) for being low effort and having no real subject, just complaining about 'darwinists'.
Nah, just the stupid, evidence less already debunked for decades stuff is attacked by the mob.
I love when non-scientists try to do math. It's adorable. The wider scientific community eagerly awaits your scientific paper.
Big scary creationist probabilities. I can run a Genetic Algorithm that has a solution probability of 1e-35000. Takes a couple of hours.
The reason people attack and mock is because of ignorant comments like your own. You obviously don't have a basic understanding of evolution enough to criticize it. Assuming you could formulate a critique. If you had even a basic understanding of evolution, you would know that proteins did not arise from happenstance. Therefore, your mathematical analysis is utterly irrelevant
> I want you to go shuffle a deck of cards, then make a note of the order that they were shuffled into, rank and suit, every single card. The chances of you getting the order that you got was 1 in 8.065 \* 10\^67. By your own claim that order is impossible - yet it happened. Now go do it with a shoe of 8 decks, like on a blackjack table.... Thats an even more impossible feat. Yet at hundreds of casinos around the world, with dozens of table games each, they are all getting these impossible things to happen, not just every day, but every few minutes. The odds only matter if you had a predetermined event you were trying to get before the cards are dealt. If those amino acids didn't end up that way, well, things would be different - equally improbable, but different.
Using math and probability to argue against evolution: classic creationist blathering. Happily, the same can be done to mathematically prove that the existence of God is impossible. Since God is eternal, that is equivalent to God being infinite. But there can only be one God, so the probability of an existent God is (infinity)/god or ~/1 which equals null. So we have mathematical proof that titin is more probable than god.
The funny thing about randomness is that it is not completely random. There is no known random number generator. Even computer generated random numbers aren't random. At best, they are pseudo random. But even in your example, there is no complete randomness. Your example is still bound by rules. The rule you used is one out of a range of two. So a flip of three or four or five gazillion and ferty bleet bazillions is not possible. So that means that limiting the range within a probability just makes the outcome more likely, not less likely.
[удалено]