CreateDebate


Debate Info

13
35
The odds are against it Sure. Given enough time
Debate Score:48
Arguments:25
Total Votes:66
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 The odds are against it (11)
 
 Sure. Given enough time (14)

Debate Creator

Grugore(856) pic



Can time and chance create a functional protein?

You've probably read about the odds of a functional protein being created given enough time. I will prove that this is a statistical impossibility.

The odds are against it

Side Score: 13
VS.

Sure. Given enough time

Side Score: 35
0 points

There is a certain point where are the odds of something happening become so great that it is effectively zero. The chance of a protein forming by chance is 1 * 10 to the 176 power. The point where the odds become a near impossibility is 1 times 10 to the 55 power. Now, here is a short video that visualizes just how poor a chance this protein has.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0DSclqnnC2s

Side: The odds are against it
BurritoLunch(5866) Disputed Banned
2 points

There is a certain point where are the odds of something happening become so great that it is effectively zero

Effectively zero is not zero. If there is any possibility at all that something can occur, then given enough time it will occur. This is a basic scientific fact and I really think your cause would be best served by not speaking.

Side: Sure. Given enough time
Grugore(856) Disputed
0 points

I would bet that none of you watched the video. Even if the odds are not as started, the simplest cell has about three hundred proteins. And that doesn't include the rna, DNA, lipids and many others that MUST be in the same place at the same time in order for life to exist. But atheism is a religion. You accept it on faith. You have no choice because it has no scientific evidence to support it. It's a fairy tale for grownups. Nice to see the same ignorant, Christian-bashing fools that we're here a year ago. Well. I'm back, and I'm armed with the truth. You don't stand a chance.

Side: The odds are against it
Dreadnought Disputed Banned
2 points

To repeat your premise verbatim:-

You've probably read about the odds of a functional protein being created given enough time. I will prove that this is a statistical impossibility.

But it seems all you have proved is that you are stupid, unreasonable, and entirely unprepared to ever admit you are wrong, even when the evidence is shoved straight into your incredibly stupid face:-

Now it has happened! Not one, but two, new proteins have been discovered. In all probability new proteins are forming by this process all the time, but this seems to be the first documentation of this phenomenon. The newly discovered proteins are enzymes that break down some of the byproducts produced during nylon manufacture. Since nylon first came into commercial production in 1940, we know that the new enzymes have formed since that time.

https://ncse.ngo/new-proteins-without-gods-help

So what you claim can't happen, happened. Twice. In just the last 80 years.

You can keep banning people if you like, but all you are showing is that you are irrational and quite mentally unstable.

Side: Sure. Given enough time
Grugore(856) Disputed
1 point

FYI. I'm banning you for the same reason I've banned the others. Not because you disagree, but because you can't debate me without using personal insults. If you can't be civil, you're gone. Good riddance.

Side: The odds are against it
Grugore(856) Disputed
0 points

There is no evidence that these are new, spontaneous created enzymes. Ever hear of the law of biogenesis? Life comes only from life. There has never been an exception to this law. These enzymes are the result of the adaptation of existing enzymes. In fact, there are similar enzymes living wild that adapt and do the same thing these "new" enzymes can do, never having been exposed to these waste products. It took them three days. No evolution going on here. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Side: The odds are against it
3 points

You've probably read about the odds of a functional protein being created given enough time. I will prove that this is a statistical impossibility.

No you won't.

Side: Sure. Given enough time
Grugore(856) Disputed
0 points

I already have. I have debunked the link you posted. Unless you have any real evidence, it's a lost cause.

Side: The odds are against it
Hootie(454) Disputed Banned
3 points

I already have. I have debunked the link you posted. Unless you have any real evidence

You've done no such thing you utterly mad bastard. You made the false claim that new proteins could not have formed naturally given the age of the Earth, and that claim was shown to be false, complete with documented proof of it actually happening twice in just the last 80 years.

When your claim was shown to be false, in the manner very typical of creationists, you changed it and hoped nobody would notice. Well, I'm sorry. We all noticed.

Side: Sure. Given enough time
3 points

Here you go. Here's an expert to explain how wrong you are:-

Creationists do their own calculations to show that the chance formation of biologically useful proteins is impossible. These calculations almost always involve the erroneous assumption that each of the many amino acid positions in a protein must be filled by the one particular amino acid suitable for that position. Since there are twenty different amino acids available for each position, the chance of randomly getting a string of 200 amino acids all in the right order is (1/20)200. If you plug this expression into a calculator, it will tell you that it equals essentially zero. Thus, the creationists say, you can't get such a protein by a chance ordering of amino acids. As Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) put it (1976), "The time required for a single catalytically active protein molecule to arise by pure chance would be billions of times the assumed age of the earth."

But proteins, even modern highly evolved specialized proteins, are not built with that degree of specificity. What's more, many proteins show in their structure that they were built of smaller subunit sequences of amino acids (Doolittle, 1981) or they have a simple metalo-organic core that could have functioned alone as a primitive precursor of today's complex enzyme. So the creationist calculations give an answer of zero probability because the creationists make at least two major errors in their assumptions: they assume a degree of specificity that has not been shown to exist in real proteins, and they insist that newly formed proteins must be as efficient as their older and highly evolved counterparts.

https://ncse.ngo/new-proteins-without-gods-help

Side: Sure. Given enough time
Hootie(454) Disputed Banned
1 point

Grugore, why did you downvote and ban him just because he disproved your argument? That is pathetic and clearly illustrates the backwards mindset you have. The paper goes on to discuss actual physical proof that your assertions are inaccurate:-

We've been trying to explain all this to the protein "experts" at ICR for the last seven years. We have told them that new proteins could indeed form from the random ordering of amino acids. We have warned them that their calculations were based on faulty assumptions and soon someone would document the natural formation of a new protein from the random association of amino acids.

Now it has happened! Not one, but two, new proteins have been discovered. In all probability new proteins are forming by this process all the time, but this seems to be the first documentation of this phenomenon. The newly discovered proteins are enzymes that break down some of the byproducts produced during nylon manufacture. Since nylon first came into commercial production in 1940, we know that the new enzymes have formed since that time.

https://ncse.ngo/new-proteins-without-gods-help

Side: The odds are against it
Grugore(856) Disputed
1 point

He did not disprove anything. He posted a link. I posted a link refuting it. And I banned him because his only purpose on this site is to bash Christians. He offers no evidence based arguments, and refuses to ever acknowledge that someone might actually have a valid argument, in spite of facts or evidence provided. In short, he's a troll.

Side: Sure. Given enough time
Grugore(856) Disputed
0 points
Side: The odds are against it
Hootie(454) Disputed Banned
3 points

Easily debunked.

This doesn't debunk anything you utter retard. Your original claim was that proteins can't form naturally. But their claim is:-

In the first of this 4-part series we show that this waste degradation is not evidence for purposeless evolution but is consistent with a creation model of flexible organisms and ecologies

So they are not even denying that the new proteins were discovered!!!!! They are just trying to say they are part of their creationist model. You are conflating two completely separate arguments you fucking idiot.

Side: Sure. Given enough time
Hootie(454) Disputed Banned
1 point

Easily debunked.

This doesn't debunk anything you utter retard. Your claim was that proteins can't form naturally. There claim is:-

In the first of this 4-part series we show that this waste degradation is not evidence for purposeless evolution but is consistent with a creation model of flexible organisms and ecologies

So they are not even denying that the new proteins were discovered!!!!! They are just trying to say they are part of their creationist model. You are conflating two completely separate arguments you fucking idiot.

Side: Sure. Given enough time

Rhe concept of creation is religious in nature whether it is Messianic Judaism, my Christian faith, Islam, etc. I believe Yahweh of the Bible created functional protein, but I will have to finn proof, for you.

Side: Sure. Given enough time