The problem is that you haven’t done the calculations for the size of that fraction.
1 Like
How can you calculate such odds when the number of functionally significant mutations is unknown?
If a chimp was put into a human environment would it give birth to humans?
Please refer to Hunts article for the range of estimates. 10^10 to 10^60 for 70 AA proteins. In all cases the function is a tiny fraction of total search space. You need to explain how evolution can over come this.
What is the fraction of mutations that leads to an eye? That is not found in Hunt’s article.
How many simultaneous proteins binding are required? If the answer is 5 and we take his most conservative number your total number of trials is equal to your total evolutionary resources. The only thing we should be observing in nature is a light sensitive spot 
How did you determine that this is the only solution?
How did you determine that these 5 proteins did nothing prior to being involved in sensing light?
1 Like
I doesn’t matter. They need to evolve the ability to bond to each other. Your hypothesis that this was due to random mutation fails.
Why does it fail?
You don’t have the number of trials available to solve this problem and the billions of others evolution requires. The fact the DNA and proteins are sequentially structured is a killer problem for the random hypothesis. It is great however at explaining biochemical diversity.
You have never supported this claim, just reasserted it. We need to see the actual math.
1 Like
I just supported it with a very simple working example of a light sensitive spot. Now imagine trying to build a spliceosome which contains 200 proteins or a ubiquitin system which is mission critical for the universal common descent claim.
@Ashwin_s is this a parody? The two math problems are not equivalent. If you don’t see this, perhaps we need to start with the basics of probabilistic analysis and combinatorics. You seem to falling prey to the gamblers fallacy and the birthday paradox at the same time!
These are cases where simulation could really help you, especially because you are a programmer. I suggest you stop arguing semantically and start understanding the math.
Exactly.
No. We know for a fact there is more than one solution from comparative biology.
No, you really didn’t. The only math you have shown is for a 70 amino acid peptide binding to ATP which has no bearing on the question at hand.
Ok. So where is the problem? You seem to locked into the Sharpshooter fallacy in pretending that the solutions we see are the only possible solutions. You need to find ALL the possible solutions, something you haven’t done yet.
1 Like
So why mention probabilities? This is why I said your point was only interesting trivia with little evolutionary significance.
If you put a human genome in a chimps zygote, would we get human beings?
Sure it does. It shows the probability of a sequence binding another molecule. You are simply throwing up roadblocks to discussion and not making a positive claim on your own.
We have good tools not to estimate probabilities in order to test the random change hypothesis and if the case was close I would agree with you but it is not even close.
I was pointing out that assuming all mutations are equally probable is a fallacy. Hence the calculation is wrong.
I am not a computer programmer. I work in product design and development.
You don’t need to invoke the sharpshooter fallacy to estimate the probability of 200 proteins working together and binding one or more proteins.
To show that rate of mutation was more than adequate for changing every base in the human genome. If there is a substitution mutation in the human genome that will increase functional information then it is almost guaranteed that this mutation exists in the human population, and it is trivially easy to get through the known mechanisms of mutation.
Most likely you would get a human bening. It requires that the chimp proteins and RNA in the egg can interact with the human genome properly, but the most likely outcome is a human.
Do we agree that the differences between chimp and human genomes are responsible for the physical differences between the species? If so, would those differences in DNA sequence be examples of differences in functional information?
I don’t think this matters. Once the solution starts to form the others go away as a possibility as we are talking about specific proteins interacting.