Sociopath Community

perfection-incarnate said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

 

Yeah, Turq. 

Sorry, really couldn't resist. 

 

 Pig and whale and cow make sense while I still have some extra weight on me, but literally of all animals a squirrel? lmao

..........................like, and look at that hand it looks more like the hand of palepeach butterface crackhead, you're likely projecting again. Again, you're the one that chose the relationship you're in so if you're that disgusted by your partner you need therapy instead of attempting to project onto others things that in reality have nothing to do with them :)

lmfao I knew you'd show up. 

I thought you overcame your fragile emotions and would no longer effected by people on this site? 

Major Major said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

You cannot just random sample as you'd never reach an estimate.

Instead you can reduce your search space by knowing what your looking for. In this case what you are looking for is protein with a stable shape and function, and that 'function' is actually a chemical reaction that occurs when there is an interaction between what is called an active site (located on the protein) and some outside molecule. So to find these you look for those active sites which are denoted by a reaction. That's the basic idea. So from these reactions you can infer the different probabilities associated with different types of proteins. 

Luckily a lot microbiologists work on this exact issue because proteins folding is one of the most troubling problems in microbiology so I had a lot to work with. 

So no you do just pick a protein of some length and morph it into a combinatorial expression and assume equal probabilities, if that's what held my argument together you'd be right to doubt its conclusion. 

Now I have no idea what you're talking about again....You say you don't assume equal probability, and then you say that if it isn't equal probability it's not random. It's really difficult to parse whatever you're trying to say here.

Above I am describing the process that allows us to know the probabilities of different types of proteins manifesting. In the short answer, we do some chemistry.

After doing so we can compute the probabilities for different types of proteins. This includes proteins that are already well established (meaning they have clear codes in the genome), unstable proteins (meaning they do nothing at all), and new proteins with a function(they form stable shapes and do something, harmful or beneficial). The proteins that fall into these three categories vary in length, so we then compute the probabilities for those different lengths.

Why am I telling you this? Because the probabilities between all these different types and lengths of proteins are not equal. They all have different probabilities and the general rule is the more complex the protein the less likely a stable/functional mutation will occur.

What probabilities did you assume I treated as equal?

I won't quote the rest because I have no idea what you're talking about.... I'll just quote this instead

Perhaps there is a sort of selection bias that has been established at the microscopic scale that 'selects' possible mutations, but then those mutations would not be random. 

If you have two mutations with 90% and 10% chance of occurring.... Is it not a random process?

No, a probabilistic event and random event are not the same thing.

This is well defined and if you would like I can expand on the concepts.

Why do you think evolution through natural selection says that every protein mutation must occur at an equal probability? Humans don't evolve through equally probable mutations to random configurations..... Making babies is a messy procedure even if the underlying components that make up people are simple... That's because of emergent properties... Simple shit making complicated shit when they come together through aeons of selection.

Simple, I do not believe the probabilities are equal. A neutral protein of length n=150 does not have the same probability of popping into existence as a neutral protein of length n=250. A functional protein of length n=250 doesn’t have the same probability as the neutral protein of length n=250. Etc etc etc.

There's nothing that contradicts evolution through natural selection there.

What has been contradicted is the notion of randomness and this also leads me to believe only in evolution at the molecular level. Once again, I believe in natural selection, but I think it only plays a role in phenotypic evolution.

If humans can have emergent properties... then why do you assume bacteria can not have them? Why do you think evolution theory insists that all possible protein mutations must occur at an equal probability?

 I've answered this. 

ooo Yah yah bitch, back up off me
You don't know me, I'm too clean, I'm too holy, bitch I'm godly

How much can you dodge in a single post is..... unbelieveable. You haven't explained anything at all.. You didn't answer a single question.

What probabilities you treat as equal?

Tell me how you arrive at this number:

"So, it is necessary to also know the possibility of a mutation leading to a stable shape for a protein of 150 elements is 1/10^74 from stable shapes"

Give me a direct quote from somewhere where it says that "the possibility of a mutation leading to a stable shape for a protein of 150 elements is 1/10^74."

You just keep quoting that pubmed paper but tell me how they can come up with the possibility of a mutation leading to a stable shape while all evidence from nature contradicts their result. Unless you can actually give me something more than copy-paste jargon from a science paper I'll be forced to assume they're just doing combinatorics with the number of stable configurations vs total number of states.... assuming equal probability for each configuration.

You literally pasted the abstract... even copy-pasted some useless shit about how "the immense number of sequence combinations makes wholly random sampling unfeasible" which has nothing to do with my question..

"random processes must have equal probability because it's otherwise called something else"

You can call it whatever you want. Your definition of random processes doesn't align with what evolution through natural selection implies. Nothing in the theory of evolution states that all possible protein mutations are equally probable as far as I know... Hence emergent properties. You haven't answered anything about emergent properties or if you've done so it's hidden somewhere between your copy-pastes and jargon.

Give me a quote where it says that evolution through natural selection implies that all possible protein mutations are equally likely in bacteria or other living things.

Don't just reguriate what the science papers tell you..... Think for yourself. This is why school is useless... People become indoctrinated.

Major Major said: 

How much can you dodge in a single post is..... unbelieveable. You haven't explained anything at all.. You didn't answer a single question.

Incorrect. 

What probabilities you treat as equal?

Yes, answer the question instead of dodging. 

Equal probability has to do with sampling, so are we talking about the pubmed paper and their sampling? Are we talking about bacterium example in which I allow each one to have a mutation before passing on their genes? 

Be specific and i would be happy to answer. 

Tell me how you arrive at this number:

"So, it is necessary to also know the possibility of a mutation leading to a stable shape for a protein of 150 elements is 1/10^74 from stable shapes"

Give me a direct quote from somewhere where it says that "the possibility of a mutation leading to a stable shape for a protein of 150 elements is 1/10^74."

Here you are. 

Douglas Axe said:

Although predominantly composed of a-helices, this domain
contains small sheet regions and significant loop
structure which, along with its size (just over 150
amino acid residues), make its complexity more
representative of known domain folds. 

Their least stringent folding criterion gives a value of
10^-10 for this proportion, which would mean that of
all sequences in U, something like one in 10^74 to one. 

So, if set S is about one-thousandth the size of set H (as
above), then the proportion of all sequences of
large-domain length that perform the specified
function by means of any tertiary fold (i.e. fall
within the dark portion of F) is estimated to be in
the range of one in 10^77 to one in 10^53

You just keep quoting that pubmed paper but tell me how they can come up with the possibility of a mutation leading to a stable shape while all evidence from nature contradicts their result.

The results are derived from observation, the experiment was conducted at Cambridge. lol you can do the combinatorial calculations for protein of such and such elements long in seconds, you'll quickly find it has nothing to do with the results from this experiment. 

Unless you can actually give me something more than copy-paste jargon from a science paper I'll be forced to assume they're just doing combinatorics with the number of stable configurations vs total number of states.... assuming equal probability for each configuration.

I described the process in which they were able to obtain the figures they got. A summary of a paper naturally looks like the papers abstract given that's essentially what an abstract is. Tbh I would have just copied copied and pasted the abstract but I was afraid you wouldn't be able to understand it. 

You literally pasted the abstract... even copy-pasted some useless shit about how "the immense number of sequence combinations makes wholly random sampling unfeasible" which has nothing to do with my question..

I think it does, knowing how something is sampled has a lot to do with how results are obtained. It's in fact one of the first things I take note of when I read any paper. 

"random processes must have equal probability because it's otherwise called something else"

You can call it whatever you want. Your definition of random processes doesn't align with what evolution through natural selection implies. Nothing in the theory of evolution states that all possible protein mutations are equally probable as far as I know... Hence emergent properties. You haven't answered anything about emergent properties or if you've done so it's hidden somewhere between your copy-pastes and jargon.

lol it's just objective fact that random processes and probabilistic processes are by definition different and for good reason. 

It seems the problem is you don't know the words you're throwing around. You don't know what random means. You don't know what a probability is. You don't know what an event is. You don't know what Dawrnism is. 

Would you like me to teach you biology, mathematics, and theory all at once? We can take a deep dive into all of these if you'd like, I truly enjoy writing about them. 

Don't just reguriate what the science papers tell you..... Think for yourself. This is why school is useless... People become indoctrinated.

 I definitely am thinking for myself given I disagree with a widely accepted theory and am merely using research results that allow me to make an argument but have nothing to do with my argument. The papers I have shared are only a few of which I used to come to this conclusion and none of them are arguing against neo-dawrnism. 

I asked you for only two things and you didn't answer either of them...

1. Give me a direct quote from somewhere where it says that "the possibility of a mutation leading to a stable shape for a protein of 150 elements is 1/10^74."
2. Give me a quote where it says that evolution through natural selection implies that all possible protein mutations are equally likely in bacteria or other living things.

That quote you gave does not have "mutation" mentioned in it a single time. It talks about helixes and some shit like that. What does that have to do with mutations in evolution through natural selection?

The second one you conveniently skipped over..

Do these types of jabs about people's lack of knowledge usually work for you when you're dodging questions? You're writing on a sociopath forum.. I'm not an expert on evolution theory or stochastic processes... I write children's books for a living. I'm completely shameless about my lack of expertise.... but it's starting to become increasingly plausible to me that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about either because you can't answer any question in a simple manner..

If you can't explain something, chances are you don't understand it. It's not my job to prove that every crackpot theory is not insane. If you want experts to tear down your crackpot theory, then post it on an evolution theory forum with real scientists or something.

I didn't dodge your question on what probabilities you treat as equal.. I said that I don't know if you assume that every protein configuration is equally likely, but that unless you explain how they can both 1) estimate the probability of a mutation occurring in nature, experimentally and 2) have all of the mutations in nature contradict their experiment... then I'm inclined to just propose that they're answering a theoretical question assuming equal weighting for each protein configuration... Or some other theoretical question that doesn't relate to evolution theory..

If that's not what they're doing, great.. then what the fuck are they doing and how does it in any way relate to evolution through natural selection? Can you summarize it to one clear sentence instead of a fucking 100-page article?

If you ever do teach someone I feel sorry for that person for having to listen to your incoherent monologue... Perhaps I can teach you how to teach.. I'm clearly better at conveying ideas than you are.

Major Major said: 

I asked you for only two things and you didn't answer either of them...

1. Give me a direct quote from somewhere where it says that "the possibility of a mutation leading to a stable shape for a protein of 150 elements is 1/10^74."
2. Give me a quote where it says that evolution through natural selection implies that all possible protein mutations are equally likely in bacteria or other living things.

That quote you gave does not have "mutation" mentioned in it a single time. It talks about helixes and some shit like that. What does that have to do with mutations in evolution through natural selection?

An alpha helix is a type of structure found in proteins. It is the most dominate structure and as such plays the biggest role in the protein’s overall stability. Don’t forget that a new stable protein shape is what leads to new traits (that’s its relevance to evolution – protein mutations are what drive this process for the most part).

They are saying that they are particularly looking at 150 element proteins because structurally it is the most representative of all other protein types.

The second one you conveniently skipped over..

I have never made any claims regarding point 2 so I do not find it necessary to support. Explain why it is relevant.

Once again, I do not think all possible mutations are equally likely nor do I find natural selection to be responsible for mutations let alone their likelihood.

Do these types of jabs about people's lack of knowledge usually work for you when you're dodging questions? You're writing on a sociopath forum.. I'm not an expert on evolution theory or stochastic processes... I write children's books for a living. I'm completely shameless about my lack of expertise.... but it's starting to become increasingly plausible to me that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about either because you can't answer any question in a simple manner..

No, but I am just having fun with the person who has repeatedly said they are going to teach me lesson and show me the right path. I am still waiting for that lesson.  

If you can't explain something, chances are you don't understand it. It's not my job to prove that every crackpot theory is not insane.

And it is not my job to help you understand, yet here we are. Don’t pretend like you’re not having fun.

Also, it is not a theory.

I am pointing out major inconsistencies in a theory using its own observations

If you want experts to tear down your crackpot theory, then post it on an evolution theory forum with real scientists or something.

I have been talking on this topic with several others from a maths and physics forum. They are equally frustrated but not for the same reason you are. It was quite nice actually and many of them helped me strengthen my argument and checked my math. It’s fun to disagree but learning from one another is an even greater delight.

I didn't dodge your question on what probabilities you treat as equal.. I said that I don't know if you assume that every protein configuration is equally likely, but that unless you explain how they can both 1) estimate the probability of a mutation occurring in nature, experimentally and 2) have all of the mutations in nature contradict their experiment... then I'm inclined to just propose that they're answering a theoretical question assuming equal weighting for each protein configuration... Or some other theoretical question that doesn't relate to evolution theory..

I’m confused, are you humble about your lack of knowledge on the topic or not? How do you know what’s been observed when you admit your ignorant on the topic? If you don’t know then how do you make the assumptions you make about their experiment not fitting observations in nature? Why assume they are answering some theoretical question? Why assumes their methodology?

If you’re going to make so many unfounded assumptions don’t pretend to be humble.

If that's not what they're doing, great.. then what the fuck are they doing and how does it in any way relate to evolution through natural selection? Can you summarize it to one clear sentence instead of a fucking 100-page article?

They are estimating how often new functional proteins form.

If you ever do teach someone I feel sorry for that person for having to listen to your incoherent monologue... Perhaps I can teach you how to teach.. I'm clearly better at conveying ideas than you are.

 Still waiting for a lesson of any sort from you.

AliceInWonderland said: 

Major Major said: 

I asked you for only two things and you didn't answer either of them...

1. Give me a direct quote from somewhere where it says that "the possibility of a mutation leading to a stable shape for a protein of 150 elements is 1/10^74."
2. Give me a quote where it says that evolution through natural selection implies that all possible protein mutations are equally likely in bacteria or other living things.

That quote you gave does not have "mutation" mentioned in it a single time. It talks about helixes and some shit like that. What does that have to do with mutations in evolution through natural selection?

An alpha helix is a type of structure found in proteins. It is the most dominate structure and as such plays the biggest role in the protein’s overall stability. Don’t forget that a new stable protein shape is what leads to new traits (that’s its relevance to evolution – protein mutations are what drive this process for the most part).

They are saying that they are particularly looking at 150 element proteins because structurally it is the most representative of all other protein types.

Holy shit how hard can it be to explain how your quote in any way proves that ""the possibility of a mutation leading to a stable shape for a protein of 150 elements is 1/10^74." What does that have to do with mutations in evolution through natural selection?

The second one you conveniently skipped over..

I have never made any claims regarding point 2 so I do not find it necessary to support. Explain why it is relevant.

Once again, I do not think all possible mutations are equally likely nor do I find natural selection to be responsible for mutations let alone their likelihood.

If natural selection dictates that stable proteins are more likely to be selected.. then it's not "random" by your definition.. You said that evolution through natural selection consists of random mutations... And by your definition of random mutation... Every possibility is equally likely, or otherwise it's call porbabla... I can't be assed to check what that word was again.

So... Give me a quote where it says that evolution through natural selection implies that all possible 150-element protein mutations are equally likely in bacteria or other living things.

Alice said:

They are estimating how often new functional proteins form.

....Through mutations in bacteria?

You have no clue what you're talking about... do you? You're just reguriating scientific jargon which you don't even understand... right?

I'm literally asking for only two things... How hard can it be..

Major Major said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Major Major said: 

I asked you for only two things and you didn't answer either of them...

1. Give me a direct quote from somewhere where it says that "the possibility of a mutation leading to a stable shape for a protein of 150 elements is 1/10^74."
2. Give me a quote where it says that evolution through natural selection implies that all possible protein mutations are equally likely in bacteria or other living things.

That quote you gave does not have "mutation" mentioned in it a single time. It talks about helixes and some shit like that. What does that have to do with mutations in evolution through natural selection?

An alpha helix is a type of structure found in proteins. It is the most dominate structure and as such plays the biggest role in the protein’s overall stability. Don’t forget that a new stable protein shape is what leads to new traits (that’s its relevance to evolution – protein mutations are what drive this process for the most part).

They are saying that they are particularly looking at 150 element proteins because structurally it is the most representative of all other protein types.

Holy shit how hard can it be to explain how your quote in any way proves that ""the possibility of a mutation leading to a stable shape for a protein of 150 elements is 1/10^74." What does that have to do with mutations in evolution through natural selection?

I will break it down to you in small little sections given you seem incapable critical thinking. 

Purpose of research experiment = To estimate frequency of new functional proteins. 

To estimate -> to quantify (they want to obtain a numerical value of something)

frequency -> how often(they want to obtain a numerical approximation of how often an event occurs)

new functional proteins -> a variation of protein that previously was not coded for (they want to obtain a numerical approximation of how often a protein that does something but was not coded for manifests during protein synthesis) 

! IMPORTANT ! - If the protein was not coded for then it is a result of mutation. 

Sample Sample Part 1 = Chorismate mutase genes (Multiple cultures)

Chorismate -> a biomolecule important to protein function in plants a microorganisms

mutase -> an enzyme that manages functional transfer( an enzyme is like a trigger, in this case it triggers a functional group in a protein aka activates the function

gene -> a piece of genetic code that acts as the instructions to produce a protein 

! IMPORTANT ! - In the experiment they use this specific type of gene because it is well understood, it is found widespread in nature, and it acts as a trigger for protein function. 

Sample Part 2 = 150 element protein chain

! IMPORTANT ! - The will focus on protein chains of 150 elements that are derived from this gene because the geometry(its structure) is representative other sized chains. This is done because they want the a approximation that can be roughly representative across these protein groups (but it is a rough approximation of these groups) 

Method Part 1 - They use mixed base oligonucleotides for randomization of the sequence 

Mixed based -> multiple types

olingucleotides -> a type of small RNA (it has small snippets of instructions that go into the protein)

for randomization of the sequence -> they want to mix up the instructions of the protein 'randomly' in order to reduce bias

! IMPORTANT ! - They are using lots and lots of this different type of RNA to mix up the instructions while the gene described earlier is coding the instructions for the protein. This mimics mutation and does so in a very natural way. Natural meaning that olinguleotides are found in nature and this happens. 

Methods Part 2 - Observe the effects on protein stability and function 

Observation - A massive fall in protein stability and function

Now here come the quotes I used and how they are relevant, be prepared, this answers your question....again. 

"Their least stringent folding criterion gives a value of 10^-10 for this proportion, which would mean that of
all sequences in U, something like one in 10^74 to one" 

For the sequences that were randomized, they call this set U (set of mutations), folding had a 1 out of 10^74 chance of occurring. 

! Important ! - So the majority of the time the protein would take on no structure. It is estimated that it does take on structure 1/10^74 but it is not stable so it will fall apart. 

"So, if set S is about one-thousandth the size of set H (as above), then the proportion of all sequences of
large-domain length that perform the specified function by means of any tertiary fold (i.e. fall
within the dark portion of F) is estimated to be in the range of one in 10^77 to one in 10^53"

Set H and S are subsets of set U. 

U is the set of mutations, H is the set of stable mutations, S is the set of stable and functional mutations. 

A mutation has a chance between 1 and 10^57 to 1 and 10^77 of becoming a member of set S (becoming a stable and functional protein)

So yes, this whole experiment and its results are built completely around the notion of mutation. They are literally estimating how often mutations lead to a functional protein and the figures given are those estimates. 

The second one you conveniently skipped over..

I have never made any claims regarding point 2 so I do not find it necessary to support. Explain why it is relevant.

Once again, I do not think all possible mutations are equally likely nor do I find natural selection to be responsible for mutations let alone their likelihood.

If natural selection dictates that stable proteins are more likely to be selected.. then it's not "random" by your definition.. You said that evolution through natural selection consists of random mutations... And by your definition of random mutation... Every possibility is equally likely, or otherwise it's call porbabla... I can't be assed to check what that word was again.

So... Give me a quote where it says that evolution through natural selection implies that all possible protein mutations are equally likely in bacteria or other living things.

This has nothing to do with natural selection

Natural selection does not select for mutations. If the mutations are random as neo-dawrnism claims then nothing selects for the mutation. It just happens. 

As for bacterium I let there be 10^40 mutations because it gives neo-dwarnism the best odds. This is not the actual figure which is smaller. I explicitly state this and give my reason, I am steel manning the theory. 

Natural selection selects what stable proteins get passed on, it has nothing to do with how stable proteins occur or the chance of that occurrence. 

Alice said:

They are estimating how often new functional proteins form.

....Through mutations in bacteria?

No.

They use genes found in bacteria, plants, and many other types of organism as described above.

You have no clue what you're talking about... do you? You're just reguriating scientific jargon which you have no idea what it means... right?

Incorrect. 

I'm literally asking for only two things... How hard can it be..?

 Very hard for you evidently. 

Incapable of critical thinking...? Shut up whore.

Your answer to the first point is satisfactory... although i doubt anyone here is willing to wade through all that shit. You could have convinced me by just saying that they introduce wholly random changes (with equal weights) to DNA and see if it produces stable or non-stable proteins... and that it's equivalent to evolution, because evolution also produces wholly random changes to DNA. Is that right?

You wanted me to teach you a lesson... The first lesson is that you should stick to the point instead of side-railing to some unrelated BS for 5 posts.

So to get this right...

1. Evolution produces completely random changes to DNA
2. The probability that those random changes produce stable proteins is ~zero according to your citation
3. So evolution theory through natural selection must be insufficient to explain how proteins evolved

..?

And the evolution theory says that the changes are completely random right? Do you have a reference for that?

By the way... you keep repeating "neo-darwinism"... do you mean the modern theory of evolution or some BS that existed when Darwin was alive? So you believe something is wrong with the current theory of evolution, or with some unrelated strawman?