(facepalm again) The mechanism is called evolution and science has known about it for over 150 years, and close to 80 years for the genetic part.
What part of “evolution DOESN’T have to search the entire space” can’t you get that wee brain to comprehend?
When Lewis and Clark blazed a trail across the U.S. in the early 1800’s did they have to search every square foot of the continent to find the path? Or did they slowly only search a small way in from of them every day and from that select a new small segment of path to add on to the previous trail?
And I pointed out that 3.8x10^9 years is not a long time if search space is 10^200. If PRPF8 has 50% substitutability per AA sequence then its search space is 2^2300 or around 10^700. Time is of almost no help here either are huge populations.
If you want to convince everyone you’re a lump incapable of learning you’re doing a fine job.
EVOLUTION DOESN’T HAVE TO SEARCH THE WHOLE EFFIN’ SPACE YOU TWIT. It still only searches in the immediate vicinity of the already functional immediate ancestor.
They evolved from simpler precursors, same as the last dozen times you asked the question. Proteins evolve over time and have their own phylogenetic tree too.
yep. say that about 50% of a tipical protein cant be change at all. it means that any change at about 50% of the sequence will give us invalid protein. so we have 20^50 invalid sequences among 20^100 possible combinations.
we can think about this analogy. say that we want to change a watch stepwise into a cell-phone (analogy to change one protein into another completely different one). it cant be done by small steps. so what make us to think that its possible in proteins\genes?
Evolutionary biologists are quite clear that they do not expect a cat to evolve into a dog. Rather, each evolved from a common ancestor.
No, we don’t expect a watch to evolve into a cell phone. But we can study the history of both watches and cell phones, and see how both arose via small steps from earlier predecessors. In our modern world, manufactured things are designed, but the ideas behind those designs have evolved over periods of time.
It depends on the protein and its function but your basic idea is right. There can be huge amounts of functional space but if the total sequence space is larger you still have a problem as combinatorial spaces are exceedingly large.
This is perhaps the most difficult problem the theory faces. The lack of a credible change mechanism that can find function in these exceeding large combinatorial spaces.
No one has been able to model this search to any degree without knowing the target sequence being searched for.
The heart of the design argument is that this Functional Information that codes for a working protein is the product of conscious intelligence. We know of no other source of long functional sequences.
Hi Scd
Neil is right in his analogy that in evolution two animals descend from a common ancestor. Where you are right is the common ancestor to the watch and the cell phone (if there is one) was a designed product as are the watch and the cell phone.
Bill continues to bleat the standard ID falsehoods. Evolutionary processes involving selection feedback and carrying forward are empirically observed to create an unlimited number of new functional sequences and new functional information.
Bill has seen the experiments demonstrating this with computers running genetic algorithms but always responds with the usual ID-Creationist lame dodge “but the computer was intelligently designed!!”.
Another falsehood. The mechanism is called evolution has has been empirically observed. Bill will continue to repeat the lie evolution needs to search the entire combinatorial space as long as he can type.
Yes, we can. We can observe new ERV’s being produced in real time.
Where is the evidence for this, and why does it matter?
“The” virus origin? I think you need to read it again. They are only looking at modern viruses that are currently infecting species. They aren’t trying to find the age of the first RNA viruses.
but these are not small steps at all. a minimal cell-phone for instance will need at least several parts to be functional. so the system is too complex even in the first step.
I don’t see any reasoning or facts behind that claim. Why are there only 2000 unique protein families given the size of sequence space? Why are there only ~1300 protein folds?
But there’s zero evidence that the proteins in living things today occupy more than a tiny sliver of that space. How do you explain that fact?
How do you explain that we can routinely find a specified enzyme function multiple times in a library of only 10^8 immunoglobulins, all with the same protein fold?
