99.99999999% Precision !!

[llanitedave]

Only idiots would conclude that all life on earth came about through that 0.00000001% error rate.

No idiots here, are there?

Didn't think so.

So flesh-eating bacteria are proof that God loves us.

[Steviepinhead]

Loves something about us anyway.

Our flavor?

One reason why I avoid the grass-fed diet...

[Dave Hawkins]

OK, so the Gospel According to St. Voxrat would read something like ...

"In the beginning, E. Beginni (a distant great .... great grandfather of E. Coli) had no Error Correction System at all. Because of having no Error Correction System, it had Mutations Aplenty(TM) and could evolve into anything it's little heart desired. Boy did it Evolve! Life was Great! After about a million years or so, the Chief of the E. Beginni Race decided that this High Speed Evolution stuff was just too much, so he decided to evolve a Rudimentary Error Correction System and, over time (a million years or so give or take), voila! it came to be! On and on through time, the E. Beginni Race Evolved and Evolved, until be fore you knew it, the E. Coli Race was born! The End."

[Dave Hawkins]

Technically speaking "he" would be an incorrect pronoun for referring to a bacterium, would it not?

My bad.

[buttershug]

OK, so the Gospel According to St. Voxrat would read something like ...

"In the beginning, E. Beginni (a distant great .... great grandfather of E. Coli) had no Error Correction System at all. Because of having no Error Correction System, it had Mutations Aplenty(TM) and could evolve into anything it's little heart desired. Boy did it Evolve! Life was Great! After about a million years or so, the Chief of the E. Beginni Race decided that this High Speed Evolution stuff was just too much, so he decided to evolve a Rudimentary Error Correction System and, over time (a million years or so give or take), voila! it came to be! On and on through time, the E. Beginni Race Evolved and Evolved, until be fore you knew it, the E. Coli Race was born! The End."

not even close

Why not simply believe whatever you want or sincerely try and learn.
But to sincerely try and learn you have to be willing to up beliefs.

But stop trying to make evidence fit what you already believe.

[MrFungus420]

OK, so the Gospel According to St. Voxrat would read something like ...

"In the beginning, E. Beginni (a distant great .... great grandfather of E. Coli) had no Error Correction System at all. Because of having no Error Correction System, it had Mutations Aplenty(TM) and could evolve into anything it's little heart desired. Boy did it Evolve! Life was Great! After about a million years or so, the Chief of the E. Beginni Race decided that this High Speed Evolution stuff was just too much, so he decided to evolve a Rudimentary Error Correction System and, over time (a million years or so give or take), voila! it came to be! On and on through time, the E. Beginni Race Evolved and Evolved, until be fore you knew it, the E. Coli Race was born! The End."

And the Gospel According to Dave Hawkins:

Derp, I don' unnerstan, mus be magic.

[Jet Black]

Only idiots would conclude that all life on earth came about through that 0.00000001% error rate.

No idiots here, are there?

Didn't think so.

there are about 10^14 bacteria in your gut, which already means that for a given error, there will be about a million of them in your stomach alone, and there are lots of places in the bacterial genome for errors. The number your are quoting is absolutely minuscule compared to even the number of bacteria in a single human body, never mind everywhere else. So the number you quote is perfectly fine in terms of giving something for natural selection to work on - something that only an idiot would omit from their argument. (see the variation in life on earth comes about through mutation and natural selection, something despite all your years of posting here you seem woefully incapable of understanding.). on top of that there are estimates (1998) of something like five million trillion trillion bacteria on earth (10^30) - that's more than the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, which comes in at a paltry 10^22 or so.

[Jet Black]

OK, so the Gospel According to St. Voxrat would read something like ...

"In the beginning, E. Beginni (a distant great .... great grandfather of E. Coli) had no Error Correction System at all. Because of having no Error Correction System, it had Mutations Aplenty(TM) and could evolve into anything it's little heart desired. Boy did it Evolve! Life was Great! After about a million years or so, the Chief of the E. Beginni Race decided that this High Speed Evolution stuff was just too much, so he decided to evolve a Rudimentary Error Correction System and, over time (a million years or so give or take), voila! it came to be! On and on through time, the E. Beginni Race Evolved and Evolved, until be fore you knew it, the E. Coli Race was born! The End."

stop being such a dumb fuck dave.*


*is this a "kill yourself" post?...... that's for you to decide.

[Faid]

Technically speaking...

My bad.

You know, when one removes all your superfluous nonsense, your post is more or less correct.

[Faid]

So flesh-eating bacteria are proof that God loves us.

[RAFH]

there are about 10^14 bacteria in your gut, which already means that for a given error, there will be about a million of them in your stomach alone, and there are lots of places in the bacterial genome for errors. The number your are quoting is absolutely minuscule compared to even the number of bacteria in a single human body, never mind everywhere else. So the number you quote is perfectly fine in terms of giving something for natural selection to work on - something that only an idiot would omit from their argument. (see the variation in life on earth comes about through mutation and natural selection, something despite all your years of posting here you seem woefully incapable of understanding.). on top of that there are estimates (1998) of something like five million trillion trillion bacteria on earth (10^30) - that's more than the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, which comes in at a paltry 10^22 or so.

I believe populations in seawater run from about 10⁴ to 10⁶ per ml. The former is at depth, while the latter is near the surface. Taking 10⁵ as an average, in just 9 liters of seawater one exceeds dvey's error rate. There are 1.3⁹ cubic kilometers of seawater, and 10¹² liters per cubic kilometer. So in just the ocean, we're looking at more than 10²⁰ possible errors per generation.

[Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo]

It doesn't matter how many times triple-d reboots, he just never quite manages to get the math processor to come back on-line. Large numbers (apparently, those > about 10) remain entirely beyond his ken.

[RAFH]

It doesn't matter how many times triple-d reboots, he just never quite manages to get the math processor to come back on-line. Large numbers (apparently, those > about 10) remain entirely beyond his ken.

Which is why he's a lot more comfortable with 6000.

[VoxRat]

...
I believe populations in seawater run from about 10⁴ to 10⁶ per ml.

I think that might be per liter, rather than per ml

Counts of “viable bacteria” (CGU) in surface sea water samples from the region of the North Pacific Gyre (28° N, 155°W) were estimated to range from 10,000 to 200,000 per litre.

... though your numbers might be about right if the sample is taken at the Jersey shore.

[Dave Hawkins]

Can someone please explain to me why you would bother to evolve an error correction system if "errors" are the source of your creativity? Don't the words "correction" and "error" lose all meaning in the world that Darwinists are imagining?

[VoxRat]

Can someone please explain to me why you would bother to evolve an error correction system if "errors" are the source of your creativity?

I have explained that to you. You ignored it. I really don't see much point in going through it again without some sort of assurance up front that you will at least acknowledge the explanation.

Your blithely ignoring Jet Black's and my posts above does not bode well.

Don't the words "correction" and "error" lose all meaning in the world that Darwinists are imagining?

No.

[Dave Hawkins]

OK. I acknowledge JB's post. Plenty of errors for NS to work on.

I do solemnly swear that I will acknowledge your explanation as well.

[buttershug]

Can someone please explain to me why you would bother to evolve an error correction system if "errors" are the source of your creativity? Don't the words "correction" and "error" lose all meaning in the world that Darwinists are imagining?

It's no bother. (Said in an old Jewish woman's voice.

Don't start with some kind of intelligent agent.
Stop thinking in terms of purpose.

I think you are thinking that if there is no right or wrong then how can something be correct or in error?

[VoxRat]

OK. I acknowledge JB's post. Plenty of errors for NS to work on.

I do solemnly swear that I will acknowledge your explanation as well.

Let's start by acknowledging previous discussions on exactly this topic.
Do you recall that we - you and I - have a bet related to this? Do you recall what that bet is?

[buttershug]

OK. I acknowledge JB's post. Plenty of errors for NS to work on.

I do solemnly swear that I will acknowledge your explanation as well.

Do you understand that having such discussions such as these are useless unless one is willing to change what one believes?
Everyone who argues with you is willing to change our minds.

I bet half the people that have argued with you have discovered new and interesting things because of you. And have changed their beliefs at least slightly because of it. Usually further away from what you believe. But change it never the less.


I wish there was some way I could convince you to look only at what made you believe in the first place. Anything you have found since you stopped changing your beliefs isn't part of why you started believing in the first place.
Voxrat and JetBlack don't have that problem because they never stopped changing what they believe.

In other words one is wasting ones time looking at evidence if one is not willing to change ones belief.

[Dave Hawkins]

Yes, I recall a discussion on this topic. Yes, I recall a bet. Can't recall the details.

[VoxRat]

Why don't you take a moment to review that thread:

Did Copying Errors Produce DNA Proofreading Systems to Prevent Copying Errors?

You'll find the answers there. In particular, I'd like to draw your attention to this post:

Yes?
And what exactly is the logical problem with a relatively small (and therefore relatively simple) genome evolving mechanisms that minimize randomization, thus enabling that genome to become larger and more complex? What is the logical problem with these mechanisms - perhaps starting with a single protein - themselves evolving more and more complexity, recruiting one gene after another, improving fidelity and thus allowing the viability of still larger, still more complex genomes?

What is there to talk about?

Which a quick scan of that thread tells me you never acknowledged. Let alone respond to.



If you have specific questions that weren't answered there, or if you need clarification, ask them here.



But how about we avoid another round of ...

[damitall]

I think that might be per liter, rather than per ml

Counts of “viable bacteria” (CGU) in surface sea water samples from the region of the North Pacific Gyre (28° N, 155°W) were estimated to range from 10,000 to 200,000 per litre.

... though your numbers might be about right if the sample is taken at the Jersey shore.

Even so, that's a correction of RAFH's figure from 10^20 to 10^17 possible errors per generation (which in turn assumes that all the polymerases involved have the same very high fidelity - which is unlikely)

10^17 is a Very Large Number, though: bigger than 6000, so Dave possibly won't understand it

[Pingu]

Only idiots would conclude that all life on earth came about through that 0.00000001% error rate.

No idiots here, are there?

Didn't think so.

Dave, this post of yours is idiotic.

Let me know if you are interested in why.

[Pingu]

Yes, I recall a discussion on this topic. Yes, I recall a bet. Can't recall the details.

You never do, conveniently.