Mung has drawn our attention to a post by Kirk Durston at ENV. This is my initial reaction to his method to establish the likelihood of generating a protein with AA permease (amino acid membrane transport) capability.
Durston: “Hazen’s equation has two unknowns for protein families: I(Ex) and M(Ex). However, I have published a method to solve for a minimum value of I(Ex) using actual data from the Protein Family database (Pfam),
Translation: I have published a method to solve for a minimum value of I(Ex) among proteins that presently exist.
I downloaded 16,267 sequences from Pfam for the AA permease protein family. After stripping out the duplicates, 11,056 unique sequences for AA Permease remained.
Translation: I took some proteins that actually exist. I implicitly assume that they are a representative, unbiased sample of all the AA permeases that could exist.
the results showed that a minimum of 466 [think he means 433 – that’s the number he plugs in later anyway] bits of functional information are required to code for AA permease.
Translation: the results show that the smallest number of bits in this minuscule and biased sample of the entire space is 433.
Using Hazen’s equation to solve for M(Ex), we find that M(Ex)/N is less than 10^-140 where N = 20^433.
Translation: starting from my extremely tiny sample of protein space, multiplying up any distortions (eg those due to common origin or evolution) and ignoring redundancy, modularity, exaptation, site-specific variations in constraint and the possibility of anything more economically specified than an existing protein, the chance of hitting a 433-bit AA permease by a mechanism not actually known in biology is – ta-dah! – 1 in 10^140.
Allan Miller,
The systems came with ubiquitin already installed
By whom?
Frankie – what’s the relationship between Fits and Bits?
The Intelligent Designer
A fit is a functional bit. So the difference between the two is similar to the difference between information and information carrying capacity.
Now watch as Richie throws a hissy-fit
Oh give us a break. Dawkins claimed biology is the study of complicated things. Go ask him what he meant.
But he called keiths rules. keiths accuses people of being ignorant all the time.
Allan Miller,
I disagree here. With a large sequence space mutations will degrade the neighborhood. The ratio of delirious mutations to helpful mutations causes the sequence to drift toward non function. I have not seen an experiment that can falsify my hypothesis, have you? Can you show how the Lenski experiment improved an enzyme function through sequence improvement of that enzyme?
Rumraket,
Some these guys certainly are religiously motivated, however without Yockey’s identifying protein sequences in 1977 the discussions would just be just noise.
colewd,
Delirious mutations? The Designer must be running a high fever.
Yeah cuz everyone noes design = perfection
Frankie:
Your comment was undesigned?
That doesn’t follow
colewd,
No – the neighbourhood simply exists. Mutations visit parts of it. They don’t ‘degrade’ it – they don’t have any effect on it (in a local sense, anyway, although each change can affect the selection on other sequences).
The size of the sequence space simply conditions the maximal extent of possible change. But from any given sequence, the number of point mutations possible for a given mutation rate mean that it probes a local part of the space that many mutations distant.
If the per-base deleterious mutation rate is 1 in N residues, that simply puts an upper limit on the total length of genome (L) a lineage can maintain. But if N goes up, so does L. I think you are imagining organisms with modern values of N and L, then imagining changing N only. Sure, organisms would fare badly if you mixed up their genomes with those of ancestors. Their genes never had to operate in that milieu.
Not if they are purged (by selection) at a sufficient rate. If (at the extreme) all mutations to a given sequence are lethal, copies of that sequence can still be churned out ad lib, provided that N is not too small with respect to L. All the failures are dead. Not a problem for evolution.
I’m not sure what your hypothesis is. But do you think all science is done by people in white coats?
No. I don’t know enough of the details. But fitness certainly rose, as can be determined by competitions between frozen isolates. Fitness is a very general measure of all the differences between the competing types of course. But its increase must have been caused by something. Perhaps it is only a change in regulation. But that is still evolution.
But would you be convinced if I were able to point to a particular protein change that – in one such contest – provided the edge? How would we decide which was better? Other than the competitive measure?
I rather fancy your next move would be the ‘not a new protein’ gambit.
Frankie:
Sure they did. It’s the only possibility.
I’m not seeing anything fresh (as it were) in Guano. C’mon, I want to see the meltdown!
But if it’s ‘high mutation rates are disastrous for modern organisms’, I don’t think anyone would bother to try and falsify it. It’s true.
Matthew 7:6
Um, you know that’s your job right?
When?
I don’t know. But I do know that you don’t have anything to explain it
It is as your position doesn’t have anything to explain it
OM already did its meltdown and in its desperation posted a Bible verse that referred to evolutionists as dogs and pigs
If you say so Joe.
So you don’t know when. OK. Check.
What about how? Or why?
Yes, OM, we understand that you have nothing and because of that you are forced to lash out at you opponents. Too bad your position cannot say when nor how. And the why is cuz it happened, man.
OMagain,
It just did, OK? God, what is it with you people? It musta done, ‘cos you can’t show it happening stochastically. 😀
Could you give me an example of this “lashing out” that you speak of? You seem to be a very sensitive soul, perhaps internet discussions are not for you?
Huh? There are lots of scholarly articles for the evolution of early proteins!
Ah, I see. I think that about says it all.
LoL! ID is not anti-evolution and OM’s equivocation and gullibility are duly noted.
Good luck with that, OM. If you ever get around to presenting evidence that supports evolutionism we will consider it. Literature bluffs don’t cut it
LoL! Allan if your position had something besides BS and nonsense, ID would be a non-starter. yet you can’t even test the claims your position makes. And we understand that upsets you
Your reply did not seem to have anything to do with my comment.
Don’t you ever wonder why people accept something which you think there is no evidence for? Who is more likely to be wrong, you or thousands of people who studied hard?
Perhaps first you could define what evolutionism actually is and then perhaps evidence for it may be presented, if it’s not a strawman of your own imagination.
And why would ID not be anti-evolution if evolution is unsupported? If evolution is unsupported and ID is supported, why has ID not taken over?
Think Frankie, Think!
It is a non-starter. And every year it fades away a little more.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx
That sounds like a fun game!
If you provide a claim that evolutionism makes, we can see if it’s testable or not!
Can you do that? Can you provide a citation to a specific claim and we can verify your claim? Are your claims testable Frankie? If not, I can only refer you back to Matthew 7:3….
ID is Dead. Again. Again. Again.
ID is thriving and OM has proven it doesn’t understand the debate even though it has been explained to it many times.
ID is thriving because, unlike evolutionism, it has a scientifically testable methodology and evolutionism makes untestable claims. Also evolution by design can be modelled whereas unguided evolution cannot be.
Too bad not one of OM’s scientists can tell us how to test the claim that ATP synthase evolved via natural selection and/ or drift.
It seems you have no testable hypothesis either
I’m open to that idea, but what makes you say that specifically? What has been happening lately to give you that idea?
And when was the last time it was so tested?
Has that happened? Have the results been published?
Huh? There are many scholarly articles for evolution of atp synthase. As far as I know there are none for the Intelligent Design of atp synthase, unless you can demonstrate otherwise!
Of course ID does. And I have presented it on this blog. It is strange that you post that after I just finished saying that ID has a testable methodology and your position doesn’t.
Irony is lost on the …
OM’s continued equivocation is duly noted as is its literature bluff. There isn’t any paper that shows how natural selection and drift can produce ATP synthase. I challenge you to find one and then make a case that it does what you say.
And genetic algorithms model evolution by design
LoL! ID has the methodology and the evidence.
You say a lot of things Frankie, if evolution is untestable it cannot be eliminated as a possibility which I believe is your ” testable hypothesis”.
🙂
Design By Evolution
ID for biological life has no methodology, no evidence, but it does have plenty of professional liars and con men.
Any on how the designer and when the designer produced anything? Find one and make your case.
Those questions come AFTER and are not required to determine design exists and then to study it. We will get to those questions once ID is accepted and has the full resources at its disposal.
LoL! Unguided evolution can only break designs, not make them
I agree Mung, the intelligent designer could manipulate the environment to produce the desired effect of selection.
Yes, actual selection is telic. However natural selection is really just a process of elimination. And as Mayr explained the two are very different
No Frankie, you are asking those questions now. You need to hold your theory to the same standards or every criticism you level is a criticism of ID. If evolution is untestable so is ID if natural causes must be eliminated to assume design. That is your non testable hypothesis,right?