Calculating the odds of life

[GenesForLife]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16049193
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12089337
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10860955
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10781044
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16594022

[spinoza99]

Genes,

I'm afraid dialogue between us is not possible. It is very hard for me to take seriously someone who exhibits such hatred and contempt for ideas that many common sense people take for granted, namely, where there is design there is a designer. You accuse me of ad hominem's but you yourself heap insults onto my ideas in almost every sentence. Calling an idea asinine does not make it asinine. If you were to encounter a fact that contradicted your world view you would certainly cover it up, ignore or distort it since it so obvious that you have a major emotional investment in atheism. You will never honestly consider anyone's ideas other than your own. Do you really believe that such a emotional attachment to your ideas is the right foundation for a successful science career?

I still have not heard from you if you think DNA can be thrown into any order for it to self-replicate? The smallest organism we can find have roughly 600,000 base pairs. How much do you think of that is necessary and why?

Many scientist believe that life arose maybe three times, the bacteria, the archaea and the eucaryota. All of life goes back to one of those three, perhaps there are more but it almost certainly not higher than 50, and to believe that it is significantly higher than 50
is to believe in something for which there is no evidence, which is the cardinal sin of atheism.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notro ... lex-cells/

Amazingly, every living thing we see around us (and many more that we can only see with the aid of a microscope) is related. As far as we can tell, life on Earth arose only once.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfron ... ticle.html

About the fact that we share 90% of our genes with a tree, I was wrong it's 50%

http://genome.pfizer.com/station2-4.cfm
Compare genomes. You share this percentage of your genes with other organisms...

* human to yeast about 30%
* human to worm about 40%
* human to banana about 50%
* human to fruit fly about 60%
* human to mouse about 90%
* human to chimp about 98.4%
* human to human about 99.9% (except for twins, whose genes are 100% identical)

Nevertheless, it is extremely likely that there is a bottleneck through which complex life must pass if it is to expand beyond the single cell. Moreover I heard once that the eye, the ear, the nose, they also share basically the same DNA structure. You can't just shuffle DNA anyway you want and expect something to happen.

All complex life goes back to the Eurokaryote and you only need to wiki to verify that. Sure, maybe you could radically alter the DNA so that complex life still arise, but we have no evidence for that and rationality is all about believing in things for which there is evidence. We don't just invent possibilities so that we can cling to our precious atheism. We look at the facts that we determine what is rational.

So if all complex life shares a certain DNA structure we could calculate the odds of life growing from 600,000 base DNA pairs, to the 1 billion or the 100 million base DNA pairs needed for complex life, or however much it is, we could calculate how much time life on Earth had to reach that point and we could come up with a rough estimate of the odds and I guarantee you that the bare minimum would be something like one in 1000 googols.

As for the Cambrian explosion, no I don't believe animals just appeared out of nowhere. I believe in the changing of species, but I also believe that an immaterial intelligence is purposefully manipulating the genes so as to produce new creatures.

I also still have not received an answer yet as how does randomness create properties from an infinite list such that they coordinate. Randomness can choose the right choice from a finite list some of the time, randomness cannot invent things from an infinite list that relate to one another. The atheists proposition that properties are random and they just coincidentally relate to one another is has no basis in logic.

[Coito ergo sum]

Genes,

I'm afraid dialogue between us is not possible. It is very hard for me to take seriously someone who exhibits such hatred and contempt for ideas that many common sense people take for granted, namely, where there is design there is a designer.

Nobody disputes that "where there is design there is a designer." What the dispute is whether there is a design in the first place. Existence - the fact that things exist - is not "design." You have to prove "design" first, and not mere existence.

[Rob]

I thought about joining genes and responding to you sometime later today but after this:

All complex life goes back to the Eurokaryote and you only need to wiki to verify that.

I am no longer interested in talking with someone who accept wiki as good enough. I almost forgot my promise to stop wasting my time arguing with people who demand a designer without providing evidence to his design. The appeareance of design is not good enough when we have enough knowledge to see through that, and I think you are smart enough to know better.

If you were to encounter a fact that contradicted your world view you would certainly cover it up, ignore or distort it since it so obvious that you have a major emotional investment in atheism.

You are making baseless accusations.



I'm going to go masturbate to relieve tension now.

[Coito ergo sum]

I thought about joining genes and responding to you sometime later today but after this:

All complex life goes back to the Eurokaryote and you only need to wiki to verify that.

I am no longer interested in talking with someone who accept wiki as good enough. I almost forgot my promise to stop wasting my time arguing with people who demand a designer without providing evidence to his design. The appeareance of design is not good enough when we have enough knowledge to see through that, and I think you are smart enough to know better.

And, I will add that we there is no demonstrated "appearance of design." There is "appearance of existence." Design, however, is the issue.

[spinoza99]

as for evidence of design, let me quote Stephen Hawking who's latest book is called the Grand Design.

[Thinking Aloud]

as for evidence of design, let me quote Stephen Hawking who's latest book is called the Grand Design.

That's not evidence for anything - it's a book title.

[Bella Fortuna]

*snork*

[Rob]

as for evidence of design, let me quote Stephen Hawking who's latest book is called the Grand Design.

Good god, Listen to yourself spinoza99! For fuck's sake, if you read the book you would know what utter bullshit you just vomited. You are worse than people who hold up as New Scientist article of "Darwin was wrong" as proof against evolution when nothing could be further from the truth!

What is wrong wrong with you? Does the truth not matter to you?

Ever heard of intellectual integrity? You need to locate some!

[GenesForLife]

Genes,

I'm afraid dialogue between us is not possible. It is very hard for me to take seriously someone who exhibits such hatred and contempt for ideas that many common sense people take for granted, namely, where there is design there is a designer. You accuse me of ad hominem's but you yourself heap insults onto my ideas in almost every sentence. Calling an idea asinine does not make it asinine. If you were to encounter a fact that contradicted your world view you would certainly cover it up, ignore or distort it since it so obvious that you have a major emotional investment in atheism. You will never honestly consider anyone's ideas other than your own. Do you really believe that such a emotional attachment to your ideas is the right foundation for a successful science career?

1) An ad hominem is an attack against a person or his character, I attacked your ideas, attacking ideas aren't ad hominems, do fucking learn some basic reasoning, will you?
2) Nothing of substance then
3) The scientific literature doesn't contradict my views.
4) The views and the evidence expressed in the papers I quoted from the literature belong to others and are not my own, in other words, your assertions about me not considering others' opinions are nothing but blatant lies. And regarding the foundation for successful scientific careers, the idea that one must depend on proper peer reviewed literature is critical, and that is what I am doing, so drop your strawmen and modify your argument so that it stands to critical scrutiny, better still get it published in a peer reviewed journal and if it passes that test I may be inclined to consider it, not that I haven't considered it given I've spent so much time debunking the utter guff contained in your arguments.

I still have not heard from you if you think DNA can be thrown into any order for it to self-replicate? The smallest organism we can find have roughly 600,000 base pairs. How much do you think of that is necessary and why?

Any self replicating system can produce longer sequences by ligation, thus allowing sequence length to increase if compartmentalized, which can be seen by imperfect lipid encapsulation, the current estimate is that 50 base pairs of RNA and the literature shows that known processes can form RNA polymers of that length and that well known undirected chemistry can work on sequences of that length, meaning that said replicators need not be improbable at all.

Many scientist believe that life arose maybe three times, the bacteria, the archaea and the eucaryota. All of life goes back to one of those three, perhaps there are more but it almost certainly not higher than 50, and to believe that it is significantly higher than 50

This is rubbish, and a blatant mischaracterisation, because all extant organisms are placed into these clades, and for purposes of classification ancestral organisms are assigned to one or the other domain.

is to believe in something for which there is no evidence, which is the cardinal sin of atheism.

One instance of a self replicator gives it the ability to be naturally selected for, in other words, I did not propose that all species sponatenously popped into existence at once, the monophyly of life certainly does not pose problems for me but it does for you given that it is a blatant mischaracterisation of what I said, if you cannot be honest coming to what I typed you are free to screw yourself yet again.

And will you please shut the bloody hell up about your errant nonsense of "cardinal sin of atheism"? Reason being atheism is NOT a doctrine,and without doctrines you cannot have a sin, atheism is the absence of belief & therefore atheism doesn't entail believing in anything.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notro ... lex-cells/

I have papers related to the monophyly and the ring of life hypothesis of life (proper peer-reviewed ones, not just pop-sci articles, and I can tell you your attempts to erect these in support of an already flawed thesis is laughable.

Amazingly, every living thing we see around us (and many more that we can only see with the aid of a microscope) is related. As far as we can tell, life on Earth arose only once.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfron ... ticle.html

Life arose only once therefore goddidit is not an argument at all.

About the fact that we share 90% of our genes with a tree, I was wrong it's 50%

50% of our genes =/= 50% of our genomes in the exact order <facepalm> , this refers to orthologous genes, that is, 50% of our genes and 50% of tree genes do the same things in both plants and animals, this again does not support your ex-recto assertions at all.

http://genome.pfizer.com/station2-4.cfm
Compare genomes. You share this percentage of your genes with other organisms...

* human to yeast about 30%
* human to worm about 40%
* human to banana about 50%
* human to fruit fly about 60%
* human to mouse about 90%
* human to chimp about 98.4%
* human to human about 99.9% (except for twins, whose genes are 100% identical)

% of genes =/= % of genomes, since genomes also incorporate position effects, chromosomal splitting and the order of genes on chromosomes, these stats again are usually with respect to Orthologous genes, which are used in phylogeny. Obfuscatory nonsense much? Look at the genome maps on NCBI and then come back when you have evidence that your pathetic strawman is true. The same gene =/= same sequence within the gene either. My next post will show you that the same genes doing the same functions through the proteins they produce ( different protein sequences = different gene sequences) have different protein sequences, and consequently, different nucleotide sequences. I have chosen telomerase and consequently its genes as an example.

Nevertheless, it is extremely likely that there is a bottleneck through which complex life must pass if it is to expand beyond the single cell. Moreover I heard once that the eye, the ear, the nose, they also share basically the same DNA structure. You can't just shuffle DNA anyway you want and expect something to happen.

In what logically consistent universe is the statement "6 million base pairs in the exact same order to the genomic extent" equal to saying "one can expect something to happen by shuffling DNA anyway" ? Another case of lying, keep it coming.

All complex life goes back to the Eurokaryote and you only need to wiki to verify that. Sure, maybe you could radically alter the DNA so that complex life still arise, but we have no evidence for that and rationality is all about believing in things for which there is evidence. We don't just invent possibilities so that we can cling to our precious atheism. We look at the facts that we determine what is rational.

What the fuck is a Eurokaryote? The basic idea here is that there are thousands of eukaryotes with extremely different genome sizes and genome patterns, the idea that life should require Mycoplasma mycoides genomes to start is nonsense, and the literature I've quoted from shows that. I am also not asserting that eukaryotes popped into existence from nowhere, so drop any argument made with the implicit accusation that I am.

So if all complex life shares a certain DNA structure we could calculate the odds of life growing from 600,000 base DNA pairs, to the 1 billion or the 100 million base DNA pairs needed for complex life, or however much it is, we could calculate how much time life on Earth had to reach that point and we could come up with a rough estimate of the odds and I guarantee you that the bare minimum would be something like one in 1000 googols.

The 600,000 base pairs assertion is nonsense, as I've been telling you all along , while presenting the requisite empirical evidence for self replicability all along, with citations to proper peer reviewed papers, it is almost like speaking to a brick wall.

As for the Cambrian explosion, no I don't believe animals just appeared out of nowhere. I believe in the changing of species, but I also believe that an immaterial intelligence is purposefully manipulating the genes so as to produce new creatures.

The fact that you "believe" and not postulate with testable empirical predictions of what we were to see in case of a guided process and back it up with evidence is enough for me to reject that hypothesis, since you were lecturing me about the ideals of a researcher, let me point out that the first rule of being a scientist is to discard hypotheses that make no testable predictions and are by nature unfalsifiable.

I also still have not received an answer yet as how does randomness create properties from an infinite list such that they coordinate. Randomness can choose the right choice from a finite list some of the time, randomness cannot invent things from an infinite list that relate to one another. The atheists proposition that properties are random and they just coincidentally relate to one another is has no basis in logic.

This is another pathetic strawman, I already explained that evolution is non random, it is just mutations (just one part of the evolutionary process) that are random, chemistry is also non-random, physical behaviour is also non-random, therefore chance vs design is a false dichotomy, impervity to evidence much?

So, more blatant lying, mischaracterisation, unsubstantiated assertions, non-sequiturs and strawmen, and apparently your argument is right because you find it difficult to discuss with me, I'm having a larf.

[RuleBritannia]

as for evidence of design, let me quote Stephen Hawking who's latest book is called the Grand Design.

There's a TV show in the UK called Grand Designs. More evidences!

[GenesForLife]

Here is the result from the protein sequence analysis comparing the protein product of the telomerase gene, if the colored block is broken it means that the sequence is altered in telomerase of one or the other organism, this is enough to show that the fact that the same genes can do the same fnction in different organisms and yet be of different sequence.

Look at the variations in sequence, screws the genome canard wholesale, and since this was the initial premise the odds were calculated based on the odds are wrong, get back to square one and start again, Spinoza.



If anybody wants it I am also going to upload the raw files in FASTA format so that they can check the alignment for themselves.
That is just a little part of the whole alignment, I will upload screenshots taken in sequence as I scroll towards the end in my next post, and the sequence variation, and the length variation, both increase, so the variations in the alignment above are not the worst the identical gene canard will have to contend with.

[GenesForLife]

Oh, and this

I'm afraid dialogue between us is not possible. It is very hard for me to take seriously someone who exhibits such hatred and contempt for ideas that many common sense people take for granted, namely, where there is design there is a designer.

Argumentum ad populum much? Common sense would also have us reject heliocentrism and the fact that the earth is a geoid, or much of the extremely bizarre and counterintuitive principles of quantum mechanics, the fact that common sense people take something for granted means absolutely bugger all.

[spinoza99]

In what logically consistent universe is the statement "6 million base pairs in the exact same order to the genomic extent" equal to saying "one can expect something to happen by shuffling DNA anyway" ? Another case of lying, keep it coming.

Ok, let me ask you directly to state some hard numbers:

1) do you agree that all mutlicelled organisms go back to one root, if not state exactly how many roots do you think there possibly are
2) what is the minimum amount of DNA needed for a mutli-celled creature in your opinion

[GenesForLife]

Some more of the sequence and a link to the aln file.







Alignment file is here http://www.4shared.com/file/tQWt6-VO/telomerase.html