Alternatives to Modern Evolutionary Theory

The math for the number of ways to arrange a sequence is N^L or the number of elements to the power of he length. PRPF8 is about 20^2300. The human genome is 4^3200000000

It’s a viable hypothesis that I cannot reject. What I can reject is a trial and error process through almost infinite mathematical space. No has been able to model this.

@colewd,

So you come to @swamidass’ club house, and sit on the front porch to argue with atheists passing by?

How about some support and endorsement for the Genealogical Adam scenario?

I read his first chapters and think this is an interesting hypothesis. I will continue to gain understanding here.

2 Likes

That’s the number of possible combinations. Now, how many of those combinations produce viable organisms?

How can you reject that? I see we’re right back to discussing that subject you left off here. So now you’re claiming to be back with the premises needed to complete this argument?

Premise 1: PRPF8 is highly conserved. Check!
Premise 2: Sequence space for proteins of that length is 20^L, which is a very large number. Check!
Premise 3: The total number of functional sequences is less than the total sequence space. Check!
Premise 4: There is no evidence of lower fitness PRPF8 alleles.
Premise 5-?: (…)
Conclusion: Therefore it is highly doubtful, or impossible, that PRPF8 could have evolved.

So what are these new premises you have discovered since January 17th?

1 Like

Evolution doesn’t have to search through almost infinite mathematical space. It only searches the functional space immediately around an already viable variation.

What’s that make, about the 200th time you’ve made the same piss-poor argument and been corrected on your misunderstanding?

There are 2000 protein families with very different sequences. This has been told to you thousands of times yet you continue to repeat the same evolutionist canard :slight_smile:

What does that have to do with your remarkably ignorant claim evolution has to search through an almost infinite mathematical space?

Just remove number 5 :slight_smile:

Its a fact Timmy. :slight_smile:

Then we are left with an invalid argument. The conclusion doesn’t follow.

Yes it is a fact your claim evolution has to search through an almost infinite mathematical space is remarkably ignorant. The question is why do you keep making the same dumb mistake?

It’s a very reasonable conclusion. Your objection is arbitrary. Its a much stronger conclusion than the nested hierarchy explains common descent.

More piss poor logic from Bill. Unless you can assign a reasonably accurate value for your Premise 3 your concusion is unsupported and worthless.

its either a dumb mistake or you have no idea what you are talking about. 2000 unique sequences that have little sequence similarity that you are observing and your explanation is what? How did evolution find these?

It’s an amazingly dumb mistake. Evolution has had over 3.8 billion years to produce your 2000 unique sequences, each evolving independently (except where they may have shared a distant common ancestor) and in parallel using the same basic processes. Evolution didn’t have to go explore every possible molecular combination in the universe to find them. Good grief.

2 Likes

The empirical evidence indicates the functional space is limited enough as these proteins are highly preserved. Make an argument it is not.

Show us how limited and why it’s too limited. You’re the one making the claim, you support it.

Evolution had 3,8X 10^9 years to search through 10^2000000 possible sequences just a tad short :slight_smile: