03-24-12, 08:52 AM #21
One is reminded here of the problem of protein folding. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Watterson, 1997), that problem also arises from applying classical theories, since they predict an average, not a unique fold. That these questions remain unsolved still today after 50 years of intense research effort, highlights a two-fold failing of statistical methods: firstly, they did not predict the existence of a stable folded state, and secondly, once given as an experimental fact, they cannot explain it.
In terms of evolution of the cell and life, experiments confirm that proteins fold into specific configurations with a probability of 1.0. This specific folding was not predicted by and statistical mechanics, which assumes an average fold due to randomness and thermal fluctuations. This statistical conclusion was fine for years until improvement in tools allowed observational biologists to prove the unique fold of proteins. Now the random theory has this unexplained flaw.
How does a statistical model for evolution, based on randomness, predict specific protein folding with a probably of 1.0?
This does not reflect negatively on Darwin, but rather on 20th century addendum.
03-25-12, 12:45 AM #22
03-25-12, 12:46 AM #23
Haven't we already established that Wellwisher's knowledge of evolutionary theory is about on par with those on that site?
07-18-12, 03:46 PM #24
By cosmictraveler in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 01-19-11, 08:52 PMReplies: 11
By Bishadi in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 11-09-09, 08:26 AMReplies: 21
By River Ape in forum HistoryLast Post: 05-05-09, 03:29 PMReplies: 22
By WildBlueYonder in forum Biology & GeneticsLast Post: 11-30-07, 07:59 AMReplies: 1
By darksidZz in forum Computer Science & CultureLast Post: 07-20-07, 11:07 AMReplies: 6