So a nonsensical post it was.
I don’t care what Behe was talking about. You made an incorrect claim that shows you fail to understand the distinction between deleterious and null mutation.
Behe’s references (Walsh 1995, Lynch & Walsh 1998) do not support the claims he make in the sentence you bolded.
Oh right, this was Behe lying about what his references say. Unless you think he’s flagrantly incompetent and fairly stupid.
Bill humor me for a moment here. Try to get specific and tell me how rare or difficult it is to find a
for a protein that has been designed only to be able to fold?
Suppose someone designs a protein only for the purpose of it being able to fold stably into some 3-dimensional structure, in complete ignorance of whether it will be able to carry out any function.
How many such only-designed-to-be-able-to-fold proteins must be screened to find one able to bind a biologically relevant substrate?
And how many would it take to find an enzyme?
Rough estimate of a number, a fraction, please. Just the one you think is most reasonable you have read in the pro-ID literature.
Hi Rum
The poster child in the ID literature for prokaryotic cells is the bacterial flagellum. You are well aware of this structure which Behe first surfaced in Darwins black box. Now this is more complicated than a single enzyme but it is trivial compared to some eukaryotic functions.
If you still believe and want to defend UCD you need to explain the emergence of the complex structures not the simplest. You need to show that complex sequences can come from simple ones.
As far as a unique enzyme I agree one could be found from a duplicated gene and a similar sequence but this does almost nothing to explain what you so passionately believe in.
Bill, a number please. What number do you think is realistic? What does your reading of the pro-ID literature suggest is the fraction?
The search for the bacterial flagellum would take about 2^30000 trials or more depending on unseen complications. This would need to start from an organism that has never had one.
I am sticking with the assumption of 50% amino acid substitutions generating a null allele and a combined residue count of 300000. This is less than Behe’s number of 70%.
Now this number is not close to feasible so I would assume you disagree.
Bill why don’t you answer the question you are posed?
It’s because he doesn’t understand the question. Have you tried asking it with more waffling and word salad?
Maybe.
I’m more inclined to believe it’s because he either doesn’t know and doesn’t want to admit he’s clueless, or because he’s afraid he will say something I will then demonstrate to be hilariously wrong to such a degree it will make both him and the fake authorities that have destroyed his brain look like the dishonest clowns they are.
In any case, him refusing to directly answer it is itself a revealing answer.
So great, the Archaea made their own.
I did answer it. But my answer was about 3x in the exponent too large. The flagellum to fold and bind 30 proteins will take about 2^10000 trials. Translated to the fraction 2^-10000 or 18^10000/20^10000. This is conservative as we are not including the coordinated transcription that needs to take place.
This is assuming 50% of the residues will work in each position.
No you blathered about the flagellum, because you’re afraid to answer the question.
Try to get specific and tell me how rare or difficult it is to find a
for a protein that has been designed only to be able to fold?
I don’t care about your irrelevant flagellum blather. Answer the question.
I agree with concept of micro evolution or functional changes inside an existing population. There is nothing to prove here.
You asked for an ID test. This is one of the early poster child.
I don’t care.
No. I asked the question I wrote in my post. What are you so afraid of?
Waisting time on uninteresting discussions.
Oh btw, I find this response of yours fascinating.
So apparently you think a protein that can fold just has no problem evolving the ability to bind a substrate, or a new enzymatic activity. That’s just “microevolution” or “functional changes inside an existing population”! Something to be expected.
Great.
Great. Then do you agree with concept of one population splitting into two? If so, that’s all you need for evolution to produce lots of species from one.
Did you pass any of those courses?
In order to do so, you would have to learn that it’s necessary to show your working, and that just giving the final answer isn’t enough. If it’s right it doesn’t show understanding, and if it’s wrong (as your answers invariably are) there’s no way of working out where you went wrong and correcting your error.
So you should know better than to just include previously unmentioned numbers with no derivation whatsoever, as you do here:
Neither 10^371 nor 10^482 have appeared in this thread before. 10^482 might be a bad approximation of 20^371, and 10^371 derived from it, but since you’ve not explained where they come from, and 10^371 looks like a botched attempt to divide 20^371 by 2, the only response needed is to 
.
You should also, if you’ve that much maths background, know the difference between fractions and rations, know how to manipulate exponents, and know to check that you haven’t accidentally introduced extra zeros when transcribing numbers:
That much background should also help you avoid errors that a ten-year old wouldn’t make, such as not being able to correctly subtract 3-digit numbers, or this gem:
2^-10000 is not the same as 18^10000/20^10000. It’s not even close.
2^-10000 is approximately 5e-3011. 18^10000/20^10000 is approximately 3e-458[1].
You’re off by more than 2500 orders of magnitude - which may be a new world record.[2]
P.S. Since you asked:
Quite a lot. Especially probability and number theory. But it’s not relevant, because high-school maths is all that’s needed to spot your errors.
A demonstration of why you should never expect a straight answer from @colewd: