>>18196
Your attached picture is really accurate. People with Asperger syndrome tend to isolate themselves from others to a very large extent which fuels their depressive thoughts.

>>18193
There are many issues with evolution. Abiogenesis is just the first insurmountable hurdle.

>>18195
An absolutely amazing post, that highlights the cognitive bias in creationists, so good in fact I feel it's worth quoting in full.

>>18193
I couldn't find the complete text of the paper (which IMO is bullshit for an 18-year-old paper, but whatever), but I did find something interesting.

First, most obviously, is that the methodology is inapplicable to the question of the plausibility of evolution by natural selection. What's being investigated is a particular model of how enzymes might have arisen. The paper is basically saying "if the assumptions we made are valid, it's statistically improbable that enzymes arose by random assemblage of unrelated protein folds".

Second, apparently this paper is circulated around creationist circles. I think this is interesting. Regardless of the probability of enzymes assembling randomly, I wonder about the probability of a naive layman stumbling upon such a technical paper.

Finally there's something else that should be mentioned. It doesn't make or break the validity of the argument, but I think it helps shed some light on the motivation behind the paper.
The (apparently only?) author is Douglas D. Axe. I don't know what the D stands for, which makes his name difficult to Google, but Douglas Axe (without a D) is a molecular biologist and the director of the Discovery Institute. ResearchGate lists Ann Katharine Gauger (also from the institute) as a common co-author of D.D. Axe's, so that's good enough for me to conclude that Douglas D. Axe and Douglas Axe are the same person.

So what's the point? The point is that ol' Dougy here had a point to make. He wanted to connect a very high improbability value with the assemblage of proteins, and he wanted to get that connection published on a peer-reviewed journal any way he could. He knew if he made the paper technical enough 99.9% of people wouldn't be able to understand what it's saying (if they can even get their hands on it), so all he needed to do was find some way to make a reasonably legitimate experiment but fucked just enough to get some stupidly high power of 10, but not so fucked that it wouldn't get past the reviewers. Once it's published all he needs to do is pass it around his creationist buddies to use as propaganda.
I'll admit it's clever, but ultimately it doesn't amount to more than editing Wikipedia to say that you're the president of the United States. It doesn't fool anyone.


Here's what other people had to say on the paper: https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/51670/can-estimating-the-likelihood-of-protein-sequences-adopting-functional-enzyme-fo

File 164829736556.png - (12.40KB , 531x350 , Extremely high number.png )

>>18196
Glad I can help you out. Here is some more evidence to strengthen your argument.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000096
>Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space
This Japanese study determined that you would need an unfathomable amount of trials (pic related) to acquire the wild-type function of the g3p minor coat protein of the Fd bacteriophage. The study concluded that functional protein sequences are ridiculously rare, just like all the previous papers I have posted.

>>18208
>The question remains regarding how large a population is required to reach the fitness of the wild-type phage. The relative fitness of the wild-type phage, or rather the native D2 domain, is almost equivalent to the global peak of the fitness landscape. By extrapolation, we estimated that adaptive walking requires a library size of 10^70 with 35 substitutions to reach comparable fitness. Such a huge search is impractical and implies that evolution of the wild-type phage must have involved not only random substitutions but also other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination. Recombination among neutral or surviving entities may suppress negative mutations and thus escape from mutation-selection-drift balance. Although the importance of recombination or DNA shuffling has been suggested [30], we did not include such mechanisms for the sake of simplicity. However, the obtained landscape structure is unaffected by the involvement of recombination mutation although it may affect the speed of search in the sequence space.

Good job quoting a paper that directly contradicts you.

>>18209
Nice reading comprehension you got there. Their experiment is in line with the other studies because they relied on base pair substitutions. When they write "also other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination" they are making assumptions because that is the only way you can explain anything you cannot substantiate with raw data or actual evidence (just like you, in this entire thread, assume abiogenesis is possible because you cannot explain your belief in it empirically). If you yourself have no peer-reviewed sources that show how abiogenesis can occur in a laboratory environment or in nature you have admitted defeat.

>>18210
>First, the smooth surface of the mountainous structure from the foot to at least a relative fitness of 0.4 means that it is possible for most random or primordial sequences to evolve with relative ease up to the middle region of the fitness landscape by adaptive walking with only single substitutions. In fact, in addition to infectivity, we have succeeded in evolving esterase activity from ten arbitrarily chosen initial random sequences.
Congratulations, you played yourself.

>>18211
How, exactly? They even wrote in the study that after 7 generations the bacteriophage stagnated. After 20 generations, they saw negligible changes. Beyond 20 generations they needed huge amounts of trials to even come close to the adaptive fitness in the original protein. Going halfway up the fitness landscape does not mean the protein reaches the required fitness level. Also, esterase activity has nothing to do with the g3p minor coat protein. Without the g3p minor coat protein the bacteriophage cannot infect other organisms and as a result dies out. It is fairly obvious you don't understand what their study is saying.

>>18210
>When they write "also other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination" they are making assumptions because that is the only way you can explain anything you cannot substantiate with raw data or actual evidence
Uh-huh. But the paper is written under the assumption that evolution is a real phenomenon. If you think that assumption is invalid you should treat the entire paper as invalid and not cite any parts of its conclusions. You can't cherry-pick the facts that are convenient for you.

Also, needless, to say, there's plenty of evidence for evolution at the macro level. No need to go looking for more of it at the molecular level.

>>18215
Science doesn't work that way, my illiterate friend. They used the most common method, base pair substitution, and got nothing. You do realize what context means, right? Even their entire extrapolation is from an in vitro artificial selection experiment. This means they had to take a defective bacteriophage that could not survive in the wild due to the fact that they removed the most crucial component to its survival and put it inside a bacterial host in order to let it duplicate itself.
Bacteriophages are not able to self-replicate because they are primitive (a human cell contains billions of base pairs while a bacteriophage has tens of thousands) and thus they need external material so they can perpetuate their existence. The experiment eliminates all obstacles such as environmental factors and even host scarcity meaning the defective bacteriophage has optimal chances for survival because they select only those that show the most changes. Despite all this they couldn't reproduce the g3p minor coat protein. In short: in nature a defective bacteriophage do not survive and reproduce and they certainly do not produce proteins through uninterrupted contact with the same host.

>>18217
Nothing in your post refutes what I said.

>>18218
You didn't even have a point in your post. Zero peer-reviewed sources, zero evidence for abiogenesis and zero knowledge about the subject. That's why you cope and can't provide evidence.

>>18219
Abiogenesis is not the current topic of discussion, retard. It's your inability to understand assumptions and implications. You can't cite a paper that assumes evolution happens to prove evolution doesn't happen. Are you unable to understand why that doesn't work?

>>18220
No, you don't understand how science works. You can't say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You can barely read a scientific paper and grasp its content.

>>18222
>You can't say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Do you understand at which point absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence? If you're looking for an umbrella that could only be in one of ten closets, and you've already looked in all of them, the only conclusion you must reach is that the umbrella is nowhere.
Is your contention that if abiogenesis happened, we should have found evidence of it by now? Note that "evidence" I mean what you mean, which is the exact chain of chemical reactions that led from non-living organic compounds to life.
Is that your claim? What do you base it on? Do you understand just how complex organic chemistry is? Have you counted all the closets?

>>18223
You are the one that claims scientific papers that fail to produce complex, integrated protein sequences somehow prove abiogenesis is possible. The absolute state of your mental gymnastic sophistry is laughable

>>18225
I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to put words in my mouth then you can argue with yourself.

>>18226
If you in a primitive bacteriophage with less than 100 000 base pairs cannot produce a integrated protein sequence that is necessary for its survival then how do you expect a cell with over billions of base pairs to randomly assemble itself and produce highly integrated protein sequences that makes it self-replicate? I'm still waiting for real evidence and not your weak attempts at pseudo-scientific armchair sophistry.

>>18227
>how do you expect a cell with over billions of base pairs to randomly assemble itself
Because the very first cells were likely even simpler than the simplest current viruses, possibly without even a genetic code? They might not even have been able to self-replicate without incorporating into themselves what was already in the environment (i.e. grow then divide). We're talking about structures on the very edge of life.
I mean, what do you think abiogenesis says happened? That the first organism was a modern E. coli bacterium?

>I'm still waiting for real evidence and not your weak attempts at pseudo-scientific armchair sophistry.
"We don't know how it happened" is the best current answer. "And therefore it couldn't have happened" is a non sequitur. If you want to believe that abiogenesis is impossible because we don't know how it happened, go ahead, but it's a faith-based position, and inherently precarious.

>>18229
Still waiting for real evidence. You are the one basing your opinion on faith and not real evidence. To even suggest abiogenesis involves a process that lacks a genetic code sounds like sci-fi hippie nonsense which further more is also lacking proof.

>>18230
>To even suggest abiogenesis involves a process that lacks a genetic code sounds like sci-fi hippie nonsense which further more is also lacking proof.
I see how it works now. When I say that something might be possible I have to prove that it definitely happened, but you can say that things are completely impossible without a shred of evidence.

>>18231
You lacked knowledge on the subject from the start and you are , embarrassingly, like a teenager in your reasoning. Make claims without evidence and say they have some sort of authority. Just keep on repeating your absence of evidence is not evidence of absence mantra.

>>18232
Exactly what is my claim?

>>18233
First I pointed out Yockeys argument:
>The paradox is seldom mentioned that enzymes are required to define or generate the reaction network, and the network is required to synthesize the enzymes and their component amino acids.

You then reply, like a teenager:
>If abiogenesis is a paradox then why does life exist?

To which I retort:
>If life exist, but abiogenesis is a paradox, does that prove abiogenesis happened?

Several posts and peer-reviewed sources later you still just repeat your ad ignorantiam fallacy.

>>18234
You didn't really answer my question. What is my claim?

>You then reply, like a teenager:
>>If abiogenesis is a paradox then why does life exist?
>To which I retort:
>>If life exist, but abiogenesis is a paradox, does that prove abiogenesis happened?
I very specifically responded to your retort and you ignored it:

>If life exists and abiogenesis didn't happen, that leaves us with only two options:
>1. Life, and specifically cellular life, has always existed.
>2. Life started, but by non-physical means, whatever those may be.
>Which of the two is the case, and how do we know?

For the sake of argument, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that abiogenesis is impossible, but only if you follow the implications of that assumption to their logical conclusion. If you're not willing to do that then shut the fuck up.

>>18235
You have no evidence for abiogenesis because there is none. You have not the slightest clue how the cell would assemble itself because nothing supports the notion scientifically. You are fanatically irrational and only rely on your own fantasy instead of empirical testing.

>>18236
Thanks for confirming that I don't need to continue to waste my time with you. Goodbye to this shithole of a thread.

>>18236
Once again you ignored his response.

Maximum cope, minimum intelligence.

File 164841773768.jpg - (147.81KB , 650x422 , (you).jpg )

>>18237
>>18238
Still waiting for evidence, buddy.

>>18239
I'm still waiting on your alternative theory...

File 164841873092.png - (373.46KB , 730x596 , (you).png )

>>18240

>>18241
Before you retreat in to your cope cage could you at the very least address the following:

>If life exists and abiogenesis didn't happen, that leaves us with only two options:
>1. Life, and specifically cellular life, has always existed.
>2. Life started, but by non-physical means, whatever those may be.
>Which of the two is the case, and how do we know?

File 164841930437.jpg - (173.64KB , 748x584 , 100% Aspie (you).jpg )

>>18242

>>18243
Are you incapable or unwilling to respond. I suspect the latter because it would require you to challange Yockeys opinion.

File 164843496636.png - (89.03KB , 796x703 , (you).png )

>>18244
>Abiogenesis? Yeah, it is possible.
>Source? Dude, trust me.

File 164844244044.jpg - (28.31KB , 324x291 , 717.jpg )

>>18239
>>18241
>>18243
>>18245

>>18245
You're still not answering the question:

>If life exists and abiogenesis didn't happen, that leaves us with only two options:
>1. Life, and specifically cellular life, has always existed.
>2. Life started, but by non-physical means, whatever those may be.
>Which of the two is the case, and how do we know?

>>18245
lel

File 164849883787.png - (1.02MB , 778x2086 , Aspie larp.png )

>>18246

>>18250
Why do you keep trying to ad homo your way out of answering the question?

>If life exists and abiogenesis didn't happen, that leaves us with only two options:
>1. Life, and specifically cellular life, has always existed.
>2. Life started, but by non-physical means, whatever those may be.
>Which of the two is the case, and how do we know?

Is this fucking thread still going lol

>>18250
That pic is this thread in a nutshell.

>>18256
It's nice that you think we're the same person. Perhaps you could answer the question?

>If life exists and abiogenesis didn't happen, that leaves us with only two options:
>1. Life, and specifically cellular life, has always existed.
>2. Life started, but by non-physical means, whatever those may be.
>Which of the two is the case, and how do we know?

File 165324654223.png - (9.65KB , 410x248 , Experimentally impossible.png )

Once again I will prove OP right by supplying this thread with yet another study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC58511/
>Searching sequence space for protein catalysts
>This study provides a quantitative assessment of the number of sequences compatible with a given fold and implicates previously unidentified residues needed to form a functional active site.
>Our estimate of the low frequency of protein catalysts in sequence space indicates that it will not be possible to isolate enzymes from unbiased random libraries in a single step.
>The required library sizes far exceed what is currently accessible by experiment, even with in vitro methods

This study determined that you cannot prove evolution experimentally because the amount of trials you would need is beyond anything that is remotely possible.

>>18274
>Misplacement of catalytic residues by even a few tenths of an angstrom can mean the difference between full activity and none at all.

lol, and yet fedoras think abiogenesis is just a regular occurence that can happen no matter the circumstances.

>>18274
5 x 10^23…lmao. I wonder if Richard Dawkins would have the patience to do this experiment.

Youtube  >>18274
Thanks again. I greatly appreciate it.

>>18274
>>18315
The dedication of this strawberry is bewildering.

>>18492
>strawberry

Is this the latest schizo babble meaning delusion?

File 168119456591.png - (90.09KB , 796x703 , larping aspie.png )

>>18506
it's that autist again, lmao