Quote:
Originally Posted by Biochemist
You might recall (or maybe not) that my core argument is statistical, in that the probability of an enzyme system of 6 enzymes occurring is still on the order of 1 in 10^1000. Every other enzyme system you add would incrementally increase the number. That is, if a life form needs the Kreb's cycle AND the urea cycle AND beta oxidation, the probabilistic assessment (even with a large number of favorable assumptions) come out to 1 in 10^3000. No one (not ever here) has offered a data-driven counterpoint, other than to say "oh, that old creationist argument".
|
But it gets worse. The standard counterpoint by the speciation-by-mutation crowd is that the majority of the steps in the process are not really random.
Obviously.
But if they are not really random, exactly how non-random are they? If the extant biochemical state (or series of historical states) is such that it can alter the probability of a random event from 1 in 10^3000 down to say 1 in 10^100 or 1 in 10^3 or 1 in 10, where would we bite the bullet and suggest that the probability for a particular outcome was "front loaded"?
----------------
Few problems are so complex that they cannot be substantially clarified by one more cup of coffee
(or a nice cabernet if it is after 5:00)
Moderator in absentia. Return anticipated. Timing somewhat vague.
