Natural selection only acts on advantageous phenotypical expression of genes

Natural selection only acts on advantageous phenotypical expression of genes.

The smallest recorded genome an organism has is 159,662 base pairs and 182 genes (as opposed to 3 billion base pairs and 20,000 genes in humans). That means, on average, each gene would consist of 877 base pairs. There are 1.02 × 10^528 possible permutations of these base pairs. That is 7.09 × 10^510 times the supposed number of seconds in the age of the earth. That means in order to get just one of the 182 genes, there would need to be a genetic mutation of any number of base pairs an average of 7.09 × 10^510 per second since the inception of the earth to get a 63% chance of arriving at the correct gene sequence. Accounting for all 182 genes, there would need to be a genetic mutation of any number of base pairs an average of 6.4 × 10^2124 per second since earth began to get a 63% chance of arriving at the correct gene sequence, which is impossible.

There are only three valid contentions to this: 1) That the majority of the base pairs of the genes are the same - but the lowest that could possibly reduce the possible permutations of the base pairs is to 1.85 × 10^530. 2) That smaller genes existed in the past as an antecedent to more modern, primative genes - but anything smaller is not functional thus not advantageous therefore not acted on by natural selection. 3) They -were- advantageous because evolution is real therefore evolution is real - but this is circular reasoning and is not confirmed by science - no such thing has ever been observed to begin to form a relevant hypothesis. Even if every advantageous mutative genetic addition were somehow naturally selected, there would need to be a mutative genetic addition an average of every 4.5 months, and no such thing has ever been observed in all of human history. Any other contention is equivalent to citing the warp drive as explanation for faster-than-light speed.

>fixed math errors

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I completely agree but unfortunately the majority of people are too stupid to think independently. People will continue to believe evolution because it is the only explanation seculars have for their worldview, even if the science says otherwise. Once you treat science like an ideology, confirmation bias kicks in big time.

I'm a young earth creationist, isn't that nearly as bad?

No. Look into the ICR there is plenty of research to support a young Universe and Earth.

>God loves us all but gave black people an average IQ of 80
This would really make me think, but unfortunately, I'm black.

>believing this unironically

>Assuming that I think the Earth is young, even though I never said so

Not very bright are ya?

You're not the first person to notice this and in fact the answer to this paradox is downright beautiful. I'd recommend reading Order from Chaos though there's zero chance you have the brain for it

Care to explain your math?

>Also, 1 post by this ID

Tldr?

Oh look another arrogant secular. Natural selection and mutations both remove information from the genome. It's okay though, you can keep putting blind faith into Darwin and treating science as an ideology.

delayed choice quantum eraser experiment proves beyond all doubt that any event that takes place in the universe will have a plausible history explaining it generated on the fly via an incomprehensibly advanced backpropagation algorithm.
all God had to do was create a couple of humans in a world builder tool and place them here, then everything necessary to support our existence spontaneously came into being around us, including a false fossil record, false evidence of evolution, and interstellar events stretching all the way back to the big bang. all of this was generated on the fly like in Dwarf Fortress or Minecraft.
again, this is indisputable science. delayed choice quantum eraser proves God is real. he could have easily created us 6000 years ago without a problem, the quantum algorithm instantly fills in all the historical blanks.
you have to accept God is real, all of the nuances of quantum physics proves this. if you deny it then there is something wrong with how your brain works. the only question you are allowed to ask is whether that God is the christian God.

Genes actually do grow longer over time, and they may be selected for or against before they even become genes.
Read into de novo gene birth and proto genes.

Also, mutations occur within every individual in a population, as well as in reproductive cells in more advanced life forms.

Additionally, read into degeneracy of the genetic code. As far as proteins are concerned, there are far less combinations than what DNA suggests

If you wouldn't mind plotting those rates versus yeast populations or the number of sperm cells the average guy produces, it might be neat.

Not to say it's not all bull shit.

Mmm dat some good bait.

>Ironically talking about false evidence of evolution, even though there is no evidence for it, and it is actually contradicted by genetics research
How is it ok to be this stupid? I guess I shouldn't expect anything more from a secular.

This logic is equivalent to using modern languages to explain what humans spoke like 100 thousand years ago.

obviously,

Nigger if you breed right you can confirm genotype though test crossing

youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ

did you seriously ignore my entire comment and only respond to the phrase "false evidence of evolution"? commit suicide, nigger

and don't bother replying to my comment, i won't see it because your shameless nigger behavior has earned you the privilege of me closing this thread in disgust

Selection of random mutations is supposedly the same language expressing new species for eternity.
But billions of years aren't long enough to get the necessary results.

if you could provide more evidence rather than overcompensating with ragefagging, that'd be greeeaat

Did god need to sandbox humans into existence or did the universal quantum wave collapse itself when it had to represent the possibility of a measurement being made?

Can I get some sources on those numbers OP?

bump

...

If you had any background in science whatsoever you would know that the vast majority of base pairs in a gene are actually junk that gets shoved in there and isn't coded for because it doesn't have the correct start and end sequences to allow for proper transcription.

Not to mention that you're supposing that life is only possible with ONE very specific combination of base pairs, which is retarded and for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Of those 1.02 x 10^528 possible permutations, 1.01 x 10^528 could code for proteins that would then be used in equally possible forms of life and evolutionary paths.

This kind of nonsensical logic is the same thing as a gambler saying "There's only a 1/52^2 chance of that same card combination that let me won, therefore God must be deciding whether I win or lose", it's retarded, and based on your refusal or inability to consider that a different scenario might also result in success.

Fuck off.

>Everything is a circular dependency

Worst graph I've ever seen. Most natural systems are n-ary branching graphs with multiple possible substitutions. That's why biologists have updated the "food chain" with the food web. Most creatures are capable of adapting. Hell, that's the whole point of evolution, adaptation to the environment.

- complex organisms today may be the result of previous symbiotic relationships between two primative organelle-type creatures, who merged DNA and thus may have overlaps in genes for expression
- duplication of DNA during replication is a common mutation, and may be advantageous for small-gened organisms as they have more buffer for errors in protein synthesis
- genetic drift acts independently to selection, but may be the cause of genetic diversity more so than natural selection

Not necessarily true, most things aren't junk in DNA, if they were, they would have been parsed out by polymerase. You are correct that some things don't get read though, but this is because of things like frameshift mutations.

No, polymerase can only correct for incorrect transcription in already transcribed sequences which haven't yet been used to make proteins.

Most of DNA is junk - that is there's no known reason for it as it isn't within codons and is not used for regulation or synthesis.

>hat means in order to get just one of the 182 genes, there would need to be a genetic mutation of any number of base pairs an average of 7.09 × 10^510 per second since the inception of the earth to get a 63% chance of arriving at the correct gene sequence
Bacteria divide every 20 minutes or so. How many trillions of bacteria are there in the ocean?