That may be the case for creationists, but it is not the case for many others. For many people, including most scientists, the historical narrative is generated from the evidence, not the other way around.
Creationists:
Pick a historical narrative
Look at the evidence
Fit the evidence into the narrative*
Non-creationists:
Look at the evidence
Compare historical narratives to the evidence
Pick a historical narrative.
Those are two completely different approaches, and you shouldn’t assume that just because you pick the historical narrative first, others do the same.
Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis with a fair amount of supporting evidence. That evolution over deep time has occurred is so well verified it is considered scientific fact.
Of course you are referring to radiometric dating here. But that is not a legitimate science. Your samples are hopelessly contaminated. Then, you are trying to date what is on the surface of the planet using materials from deep within the planet. You are unable to date sedimentary rock. However, when soft tissue has been dated - like soft dino tissue - we arrive at dates from 30K to 50K years ago.
It seems that YECs are the ones with claims that are consistent with the evidence and that you are actually the ones who fall short.
LOL! You mean when ICR supposedly C14 dated a few hopeless contaminated dino fossils and got 30K-50K years? Including one specimen where they got dates 9000 years apart (30K, 39K) from different samples of the same individual animal? Tell us again how those results support a 6000 year old Earth and a 4500 year ago Noah’s Flood?
irrelevant. the main idea behind his claim is that we can replace one amino acid in a similar amino acid, without making any difference to the function. thus, the chance to get 2 amino acids at the same protein is basically the same as getting it in 2 different proteins. in both cases the function will not be changed
actually we find that too (and few other examples). although not with 100 aa but with about 30:
the chance of that by theobald calculation is about one in 10^30. again, evolution is false according to theobald own claim.
No, highly relevant. Crucial even. You can’t extend the particular size and shape of the fitness landscape for a particular protein(such as cytochrome c) to the entire genome in general. The question of protein redundancy is about certain ubiquitous genes, it is not meant to apply to entire genomes, or just any and all protein sequences.
No the main idea is that there are many paths to functionally equivalent and similar protein sequences from a common ancestor, but if the proteins did not evolve from a common ancestor there’s no reason to expect the observed degree of similarity, as it would be unlikely for evolution beginning from totally dissimilar ancestral states to find the same, or so similar a protein sequence, twice.
It would be very surprising if all paths in the fitness landscape of the protein would funnel totally dissimilar starting sequences towards sequences so similar when it is known that many many more, almost totally dissimilar sequences are functionally equivalent.
You would thus expect more convergence to occur in cases where starting positions were either identical or highly similar, and only very few or a single path led to higher-fitness protein sequences, of which there would then have to be only relatively few, highly similar ones. But this would then depend on the particular shape and size of the fitness landscape of the protein in question.
You have not understood Theobald at all, and I’m already bored of having to explain this to you over and over again.
What Theobald calculation? You’re just spewing nonsense now.
No. Except that life began on Earth quite soon after there was liquid water on the surface of the planet, perhaps 3-4 billion years ago. There are hypotheses to explain how the first self-sustaining replicators came to be but no-one has yet been able to test them by experiment.
That could change when exploration of Mars provides enough evidence to rule out or rule in life of some sort, perhaps extinct. If such evidence indicates organisms completely unrelated to Earth life, we can infer that life arises almost inevitably wherever conditions permit. A sterile Mars and, maybe Earth is a unique miracle.
If organisms are found with enough similarity to those on Earth, then we’d have evidence of Panspermia
Yes, @r_speir, you do arrive at dates from 30K to 50K years ago.
By using methods for which dates from 30K to 50K years ago are at the limits of their sensitivity, in the region where the levels that they are dealing with are indistinguishable from contamination. And then citing the results as “overwhelming” evidence for absurd new laws of fantasy physics which, by the RATE project team’s own admission, would have vaporised the Earth if they had any basis in reality.
It’s like using a Department of Transport weighbridge to measure out the ingredients for your kid’s birthday cake, then when the results come out all mushy and inedible, claiming that it means that Gordon Ramsay, Jamie Oliver, and Heston Blumenthal don’t know the first thing about cooking.
Real geochronologists, on the other hand, know how to account for contamination. By using techniques such as isochron dating, concordia diagrams, and cross-checks between different methods to detect and quantify it. And using the right tool for the job.
“The phenomenon of protein functional redundancy is very general, and is observed in all known proteins and genes.”
i think that you should read theobald article again. you probably missed that part.
right. and this is because of the protein redundancy, and that redundancy is also true even at the single amino acid level. this is why we dont need to find a convergence of 100 amino acids at the same protein.
Protein function is not protein sequence. We can infer phylogeny from related sequences but similar functions can result from convergent evolution and show no similarity.
No you’re missing a subtle nuance of the argument. The argument Theobald is making does not say there should never occur any degree of convergence between two lineages. It is not the case that from any given protein sequence, there should always be some large number of fitness-equivalent mutations available to it. The argument does not require that all sites in a protein should always show some high degree of malleability with multiple functionally equivalent amino acid residues possible.
It is entirely possible that some specific sites within the protein are almost universally accessible as high-fitness mutations(and that changes away from this amino acid are almost always strongly deleterious) given similar selective pressures.
In fact we know this is often the case as certain amino acids are often found to have similar functions in many, otherwise totally dissimilar proteins. To pick an example, cysteine is frequently found in enzyme active sites. With this in mind, we would expect many different enzymes catalyzing different chemical reactions, to nevertheless converge on cysteine as the “best” amino acid at some specific position, even if these proteins aren’t homologous. But having two otherwise totally dissimilar protein converge on one or two active site cysteine residues, because the thiol-group happens to be the amino acid side chain best able to shuttling electrons in bond formation, does not constitute much of a case for “convergence” undermining the possibility of inferring common descent using shared similar gene sequences.
This same phenomenon can explain why, across many different genes in echolocating mammals, there are a few individual amino acids that evolve in parallel, because under the constraint of echolocation, there’s a small handful of such near-unconditionally “highest fitness” amino acids that will always do better than all the others. This does not extend to the rest of the protein, nor the rest of the genome.
but we can say that about any amino acid at any given protein. this is why theobald claim is meaningless. i even gave here a case with about 30 amino acids at the same protein. so there is no real limit to the number of amino acids we can get by convergent evolution. prof theobald is wrong. clear and simple.
A 30 amino acid sequence consisting of 6x 5-residue repeats is somewhat different to a unique 30-residue sequence, wouldn’t you agree? In terms of evolvability.
Only because radio-nuclides have leached into your sedimentary sample. It is a scientific fact that you cannot, nor will you ever be able to, date sedimentary rock.
Tell us again how those results support a 6000 year old Earth and a 4500 year ago Noah’s Flood?