tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post2272500128685976320..comments2024-02-29T20:00:59.902-08:00Comments on Cartago Delenda Est: Good ThreadMatteohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-75889200855845462682008-02-23T22:25:00.000-08:002008-02-23T22:25:00.000-08:00Matteo, of the many Blogs I have seen, yours is ex...Matteo, of the many Blogs I have seen, yours is extremely interesting due to your conversion from angry atheist to nice-guy Christian, not to mention your many persuasive arguments similar to those which to my mind proved the existence of God long ago.<BR/><BR/>I have some ideas you are almost certain to enjoy reading. Please contact me. You will want to share them with your readers. (Or maybe not...)<BR/><BR/>Paucoremhominem@yahoo.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-43956535404037336352008-02-22T19:32:00.000-08:002008-02-22T19:32:00.000-08:00Well, it's not really "one true sequence" thinking...Well, it's not really "one true sequence" thinking. Do tell: what proportion of all amino acid sequences have any possible useful biological function? Your complaint is the same as saying that just because I cannot easily get a bitmap of the Mona Lisa via a random number generator, doesn't mean there aren't all kinds of pictures I *could* get. Well, yes. Of course. But the most astronomically likely thing I'm going to get is a grayed out wash of random colored pixels. The point stands.Matteohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-31063082046067272792008-02-22T19:16:00.000-08:002008-02-22T19:16:00.000-08:00"What darwinists don’t understand (and yet it is n..."What darwinists don’t understand (and yet it is not so difficult) is that it is almost impossible to get a “specified” sequence by a random shuffling. Let’s put it that way: if your purpose is to get an exact pre-specified order, for instance the natural ascending order of cards, you will never obtain it, even if you have been shuffling cards for 5 billion years, even if a billion people have been doing that. That’s because 10^67 is a very big space, and your random search, even in good company, has practically no chance of finding the single result which we have pre-specified (let’s call it “the functional result”)."<BR/><BR/>this point is just stupid - it's classic 'one true sequence' thinking ie look at the sequence post-hoc and state that particular sequence that codes for that gene for that particular function has a small probability of occurring in one go. yes of course it does. But is that the only sequence that could code for that? probably not. is that the only end result that would have had a viable function. again, probably not. was it a series of single trials that generated that sequence? probably not, simultaneous trials would reduce the chances against it happening drastically. also what is stopping cumulative steps? again, nothing.<BR/><BR/>the comment about 'pre-specification' is the dumbest part - what evidence is there that either in abiogenesis or evolution that some pre specified goal was being aimed for?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com