# The Insuperable Statistics of Protein Synthesis

Science lesson begins here and now.

Titin is the largest protein in the human body. It has 38,138 peptide residues in a precise sequence.

The original synthesis of titin required the assembly of 1 out of 20 amino acids to be “selected” and then the next amino acid, out of 20 to be joined to the first by a peptide bond. Non-peptide bonds are possible and have a roughly equal probability of forming. So the impossibility is correct “selection” of each successive amino acid, 38,138 times in a row or 1 chance in 10 to the 49,618th power.

The problem is, you also need to calculate the 1/2 to the 38,138th power for peptide bonding. Then you need to calculate the 1/2 to the 38,138th power for chirality since all human amino acids are L form, not D form. Multiplying these three factors gives you 1 chance in 10 to the 72,578th power.

Emile Borel, famous statistician, declared that 1 change in 10 to the 50 is “impossible.” Ten to the 50th marbles 1 cm in diameter would fill 928,400 billion billion spheres the size of earth. Pick the one unique marble on your first and only selection if you think it’s not impossible.

One final giggle: There are at least 20,000 different polypeptides in the human body.

1 Like

Yawn. A variant of the old Hoyle’s fallacy a.k.a. Junkyard tornado fallacy.

3 Likes

Where did you get the probability of the 2nd step happening, given the 1st step has already happened? P(B|A)? (or phrased another way: why did you assume independence)?

1 Like

Probabilities are determined by a rational examination of the occurrence being considered. So if there are 20 different amino acids in humans, what would YOU say is the probability of the exactly right amino acid, out of 20 possibilities, being chosen at random?
Why on earth would you possibly assume DEPENDENCE. Explain and use some science.

Biochemistry is not dismissed by a yawn and two non-sequiturs.
Titin is real, as I described. Biochemistry deals with mechanisms and syntheses which are profoundly complex and cannot be yawned away, try as you might.

Your argument suggests random chance as the only process behind the forming of chemicals. Which is absurd, and neglects observable natural phenomena and physical+chemical law. Thus, is totally analogous to Hoyle’s fallacy. And as a fallacy, it can be dismissed with a yawn and a flick of the wrist.

Again: Yawn.

3 Likes

For you maybe, but others have a basic grasp of how the methods strive to obtain a better understanding of the physical world and universe.

# What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

Can you show the maths that demonstrates that adding an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition makes the odds lower?

1 Like

And none of that remotely evidences any deity, or anything supernatural. Why would you assume it does?

1 Like

The insuperable statistics of protein synthesis serve as proof of Nature’s God, as He is called in our Declaration of Independence.

Evolutionary theory posits that all developmental mechanisms are driven by random mutation. If you wish to propose non-random mechanisms, please do so and explain them. You chase your own tail and then keep changing the subject, with yawns and giggles.

You people never realize when your asses have been handed to you, and cannot ever admit the same. One day here and I am covered with atheist stench. Disgusting. It never changes at any atheist message bord.

1. I don’t believe your subjective unevidenced claim.
2. I am not a US citizen, so it’s not my declaration of independence.
3. I could care less what people believed during an epoch that thought slavery was justified by biblical inerrancy. Exodus 21 etc…

Publish your conclusions, get them peer reviewed, and when you win a Nobel prize in biology I will assume you know anything on the subject. until then I will go with the global scientific consensus, based over 164 years of global scientific scrutiny and evidence. Not some “Billy-no-name” in an internet forum.

That’s board, not bord (sic) champ, and if you don’t like it here you are free to leave any time. However trolling is not permitted, so you’d be wise to ditch the rhetoric.

1 Like

Atheists never use “rhetoric” do you?
Trolling is how you describe those who do not march in lockstep with you. Trolling is horrible, but when atheists plague Christian message boards, well, that’s “free speech.”
Even on the Fun Board, you people excel at being contentious, obstreperous, argumentative, and above all, wrong.

Straw man fallacy, that ignored your relentless use of rhetoric.

Straw man fallacy.

Straw man fallacy, I made no such claim.

# What objective evidence (if any) can you demonstrate that any deity exists, or is even possible?

It does not appear that you understand how biology works. Perhaps the following will help.

sigh a turn on, I know

BTW - OP source material

Hey, @PatrioticChristian, who constitutes “you people”? Does it include just the posters here you’ve encountered so far? All people identified as atheist?

I think this smuggles in the notion that there is a “chooser”

2 Likes

Ah yes, that smell…breathe deeply grasshopper. You will get used to it after a time.
Here, maybe this will help… Phantosmia - Wikipedia

Edit
It can also be a symptom of certain mental disorders such as depression, bipolar disorder, intoxication or withdrawal from drugs and alcohol, or psychotic disorders

1 Like

Are you a biochemist? Are there no mechanisms or syntheses that are simple? Can I yawn away terrible arguments? I mean, just what ARE the rules?

2 Likes

I didn’t. I asked why you assumed independence. Also:

• Presumably you also used the naive definition of probability as well.
• Also shouldn’t there be more than one order in which these can be constructed? Your calculations don’t seem to reflect that.