So, you decided that you were going to dump a pile of creationist lies into the Random & Fun section, in a failed attempt to evade the withering scutiny that your lies would have been subjected to, if you had posted them in Debate Room … once again, we can always count upon a creationist to exhibit duplicity.
Let’s deal with your garbage in detail shall we?
The idea that a creationist is in a position to deliver science lessons, is a joke. As is your foetid collection of apologetic fabrications.
And apparently something you didn’t bother to learn, when copy-pasting your second-hand creationist rip-off of Wikipedia, is that the connectin protein in question exists in a number of different splice isoforms. This means that during the transcription process, one or more exons may be omitted from contributing to the finally synthesised protein. Indeed, once more, even Wikipedia links to the proteome database entries for those different isoforms. For example here is Isoform N2BA, the gene for which which has 34,350 base pairs (scroll down the page for the full sequence). That corresponds to a protein containing just 11,450 amino acids.
Next, we have transcript variant IC, the gene for which has a whopping 109,224 base pairs, corresponding to a protein containing 36,408 amino acids.
Next, we have transcript variant N-2B, the gene for which has 82,029 base pairs, corresponding to a protein containing 27,343 amino acids.
Next, we have transcript variant N-2A, the gene for which has 101,520 base pairs, corresponding to a protein containing 33,840 amino acids.
Next, we have transcript variant novex-3, the gene for which has merely 18,220 base pairs, corresponding to a protein containing just 6,073 amino acids.
Other isoforms are known, the above is by no means an exhaustive list.
So, already, your failed attempt to peddle the tiresome and duplicitous creationist canard known as the “One True Sequence” fallacy fails, even before we start looking at the homologous gene in other species. Though that’s an exercise I shall leave for the diligent if they wish to pursue it. In the meantime, since it’s obvious you never learned that we’re wise to this garbage you just tried to sneak under the radar, I cover both the Serial Trials Fallacy and the “One True Sequence” fallacy in the Google Docs document supplied in this post.
We have long experience of creationist lying.
Moving on …
Apparently you forgot that this is accomplished by the action of ribosomes, which are enzymes that perform the requiite chemistry with a high degree of fidelity. In your eagerness to post your apologetic garbage, you also forgot that once the gene for the protein exists, ribosomes will perform the requisite chaining of amino acids in accordance with well understood rules of chemistry.
Let’ see what other garbage you’re serving up shall we?
Not when a ribosome is acting. Forget that little detail, did you?
Oh look, it’s fake creationist “probability” calculation time, folks!
Two reasons this excrement of yours fails. One, if you’re trying to conflate evolution with abiogenesis (a familiar and mendacious creationist tactic), then your fake “probability” calculation fails, because scientists do NOT postulate that modern molecules appeared de novo from prebiotic chemistry. Instead, they postulate that FAR SIMPLER ANTECEDENTS were formed first, and additional complexity was added in incremental stages later. Indeed, this has been found to be the case for the ribosome itself, courtesy of this peer reviewed scientific paper:
Evolution Of The Ribosome At Atomic Resolution by Anton S. Petrov, Chad R. Bernier, Chiaolong Hsiao and Loren Dean Williams, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 111(28): 10251-10256 (30th June 2014) [Full paper downloadable from here]
From the beginning of that paper:
What was that I said about simpler antecedents acquiring additional complexity later?
The other reason your fake “probability” calculations fail, is, once again, because the action of a ribosome during translation and transcription isn’t “random”, it proceeds in a well-defined orderly fashion.
Do you even bother learning anything substantive about the issues you posture as being in a position to lecture us on?
Moving on …
Crap. See above. Ribosome coupling of amino acids once a gene exists isn’t “random”, and prebiotic chemists don’t postulate that a protein this huge emerged de novo from prebitoic chemistry. That’s two reasons your assertions are not merely wrong, but mendacious.
Another lie. Oh wait, the problem of chirality in organic synthesis was solved in the 1960s by a Japanese chemist, who received the Nobel Prize for his work. Again, the creationist fetish for “random chance” is bullshit.
Someone else has already exposed your lies about Borel in detailed yet succinct manner, so comment on this from me is superfluous here.
All of whch are the products of well understood chemistry. You have heard of chemistry haven’t you?
Except that you’re not presenting a “rational examination of the occurrence being considered”, you’re presenting a wildly and mendaciously inaccurate strawman caricature of actual biochemistry.
Except that once again, te action of ribosomes in the presence of an existing gene isn’t “random”.
Plus, you obviously don’t know what the word means in rigorous scientific circles. Oh wait, I cover this in detail as part of Canard #10 in my list of creationist canards, which includes a detailed exposition of how scientists use the word “random” in proper, rigorous discourse, along with a brief exposition of Markov Chain processes, which are used as part of the process of defining statistical random variables. See this post for the link to the extensive Google Docs document I provide on this subject.
Try all the details I’ve provided above.
I just did. read the above and fucking weep.
You mean the way you did with your duplicitous apologetics?
You mean the way you yawned away the whole business of transcription that I mentioned above, not to mention all the findings of prebiotic chemistry that destroy your pathetic little creationist masturbation fantasies?
Crap. All you presented was the usual brand of creationist apologetic horseshit.
Apparently you’ve never heard of the Establishment Clause either.
WRONG.
Heard of selection have you? Which is anything but random?
And once again, try learning what scientists ACTUALLY mean when they use the word “random”.
Selection is a high pass filter. Learn about it.
Projection much, mythology fanboy?
Again, projection much, mythology fanboy?
The way you didn’t admit that your apologetics were a steaming pile of lies?
The only stench here, is the stench of your creationist duplicity.
Not the mendacious sort we see all the time from mythology fanboys like you.
Lie.
We know from past experience, that some of your ilk are genuinely stupid enough to believe the gibberish you dump here from your soiled intellectual nappies.
But we also know that it IS gibberish.
Most of us have never bothered visiting Christian message boards, let alone posting therein. The last time I even saw one of your outposts of crazy was about 7 years ago, when I had the misfortune to be pointed at Rapture Ready by one of your ilk. That place is diseased.
Says the mythology fanboy who launched into a lie-riddled creationist diatribe with his first post. Projection much, mythology fanboy?