Probability of evolution

Originally posted by telerion
Before I answer your question. There are not several ways to calculate a probability, at least not in the way that you mean it. Given that you have admitted to not understanding how probabilities work (behind a rudimentary level I assume ...[text shortened]... t that they screwed up, and that you had no way of knowing it.

Each vine-like molecule is a strand of DNA: a chemically linked chain of nucleotides, each of which consists of a sugar, a phosphate and one of four kinds of nucleobases (bases).

one bit of info your base pairs have 4 ways to bond
A+T, T+A, C+G and G+C ant thats it . RNA uses Uracil instead of Thymine.

Now that gets to the genetic code ,,which is made of 3 letter codons ( e.g. ACT, CAG,TTT ) of which there are 64 possible .

from what I gather is the whole process relies on what can bond to what , so a probability study would not be a valid unless it takes into the possible bonding at each step.

the example of the 4 bases illustrates that fact.


info from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Overview_of_molecular_structure

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am not saying that the your Maths is wrong. There is more than one way to calculate probability. You may have used two different methods and got slightly different answers. I will admit that Probability is not my field of study. So I wi ...[text shortened]... rand of DNA forming by chance given the four base pairs, C,A,G,T.

Would be so kind as to calculate the probability of the simplest strand of DNA forming by chance given the four base pairs, C,A,G,T.

i still don't think you have demonstrated that this question has anything to do with the validity of the theory of evolution, which is what i thought this thread was supposed to be about. arguably, the question may be applicable to abiogenesis, but i don't see how it applies to evolution.

would you be so kind as to calculate the probability that some supernatural being, over the course of a week or so, created the entire universe out of nothing? don't forget to factor in how satan planted all the fake evidence for evolution.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Would be so kind as to calculate the probability of the simplest strand of DNA forming by chance given the four base pairs, C,A,G,T.

i still don't think you have demonstrated that this question has anything to do with the validity of the theory of evolution, which is what i thought this thread was supposed to be about. arguably, the question ...[text shortened]... supernatural being, over the course of a week or so, created the entire universe out of nothing?[/b]

Thats been part of the problem here. He switches between them and uses creation science terminology to separate evolution into macro (his meaning) and micro leaving the definition of macro used in the theory in limbo which is of course a strawman.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Each vine-like molecule is a strand of DNA: a chemically linked chain of nucleotides, each of which consists of a sugar, a phosphate and one of four kinds of nucleobases (bases).

one bit of info your base pairs have 4 ways to bond
A+T, T+A, C+G and G+C ant thats it . RNA uses Uracil instead of Thymine.

Now that gets to the ...[text shortened]... that fact.


info from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Overview_of_molecular_structure

Yes, I should have said, "Before I attempt to answer your question."

There is no doubt that I lack the knowledge of chemistry and biology to do the task justice. However, if I am permitted to make some strong assumptions and if I further restrict myself to the likely ridiculous assumption that the events are uniform (equal probability of each event), since dj2 really wants this whether he realizes it or not, then maybe I can whip up something silly using conditional probabilities.

I don't know why dj2 would ask me to calculate it though given my inexperience with these subjects, especially when you can probably just go find an article related to the topic with a bit of research. Wait. I do know why dj2 would ask me . . .

So to recap: Dj2 set out in the OP to undermine abiogenesis and therefore, he mistakenly presumes, evolution as well; however what he ended up giving us was a dull story problem about randomly selecting letters from a uniform distribution with an imaginary machine. We pointed out that this little tale has nothing more to do with evolution than it does with how a rubber ball moves when dropped from 4,000 meters above the earth and further demonstated that the true author's story only serves to highlight why it is a great relief that he/she is not in charge of devising lunar landings.

Now tell me again. Why do I owe him an irrelevant story problem in return?

Originally posted by telerion
Yes, I should have said, "Before I attempt to answer your question."

There is no doubt that I lack the knowledge of chemistry and biology to do the task justice. However, if I am permitted to make some strong assumptions and if I further restrict myself to the likely ridiculous assumption that the events are uniform (equal probability of each e ...[text shortened]... lunar landings.

Now tell me again. Why do I owe him an irrelevant story problem in return?

hey I don't know everything lol.

the research into how life started is pretty intense and much still need to be known,

My own guess it it started in a batch of a basic sugar as either RNA or PNA and grew the sugar serves as a protective coat as well as an enzyme.

and you don't owe dj anything.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Would be so kind as to calculate the probability of the simplest strand of DNA forming by chance given the four base pairs, C,A,G,T.

i still don't think you have demonstrated that this question has anything to do with the validity of the theory of evolution, which is what i thought this thread was supposed to be about. arguably, the question ...[text shortened]... t of nothing? don't forget to factor in how satan planted all the fake evidence for evolution.[/b]

Excellent point. Take that dj2becker, ya narrow minded scallywag (aka doucheeee).

Originally posted by PBE6
Excellent point. Take that dj2becker, ya narrow minded scallywag (aka doucheeee).

*sigh

Originally posted by frogstomp
Thats been part of the problem here. He switches between them and uses creation science terminology to separate evolution into macro (his meaning) and micro leaving the definition of macro used in the theory in limbo which is of course a strawman.

Actually, macroevolution and microevolution are terms used by specialists in evolutionary theory.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVMicroevolution.shtml

There's a link on that page which talks about macroevolution as well.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Actually, macroevolution and microevolution are terms used by specialists in evolutionary theory.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVMicroevolution.shtml

There's a link on that page which talks about macroevolution as well.

"There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species). "
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

in essense they're one and the same ,dj is trying to deny speciation ,

Originally posted by frogstomp
"There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such ...[text shortened]... tion.html

in essense they're one and the same ,dj is trying to deny speciation ,

This is an interesting argument.

Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
This is an interesting argument.

[b]Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microe ...[text shortened]... demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.[/b]

Bizaare. I tried to add "from that page" to the first sentence of my last post and robomod prevented the edit.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Bizaare. I tried to add "from that page" to the first sentence of my last post and robomod prevented the edit.

from that page

As you know its tough to use precise technical meanings when who you're talking to is understanding them in a folk language.
It took me awhile to discern dj wasnt using the term theory correctly and macroevolution seems to be another example of creationscience speak.
Not being a biologist, does have drawbacks in these discussions, but I am fairly good at getting up to speed, at least about the fundamentals.

Originally posted by frogstomp
from that page

As you know its tough to use precise technical meanings when who you're talking to is understanding them in a folk language.
It took me awhile to discern dj wasnt using the term theory correctly and macroevolution seems to be another example of creationscience speak.
Not being a biologist, does have drawbacks i ...[text shortened]... cussions, but I am fairly good at getting up to speed, at least about the fundamentals.

I actually used to tell people that creationists made up the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" and that scientists didn't use them until I found out that they were being used by the evolutionists at my alma mater. No one other than creationists ever seem to use the word when discussing the TOE.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Bizaare. I tried to add "from that page" to the first sentence of my last post and robomod prevented the edit.

didnt prevent me lol

i was wondering how simple a sugar the process needs and in a sugar solution couldnt be used as a protective coating of RNA or PNA '

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I actually used to tell people that creationists made up the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" and that scientists didn't use them until I found out that they were being used by the evolutionists at my alma mater. No ...[text shortened]... an creationists ever seem to use the word when discussing the TOE.

probably because they don't get the usage right. There really isn't any difference since macro is after speciation and micro is up to and including speciation. the creationists want the separation to not include speciation leaving no process to explain it, its as simple as that.

edit by the way dj wants me to produce the missing link,,, LMAO.