mo42

Ah, true, I suppose. The jump to multicellular organisms is another thing I always wondered about, since it seems to me that cells that do not separate after division would not have any natural advantage.

__________________
It's not getting what you want, it's wanting what you've got.

Lak

Who told you I don't beleive in God eh?

As I have tried to clarify in the previous n posts, I would GENUINELY LIKE TO SEE EVIDENCE FOR CREATION.
There is no other motive, in spite of what I think.

__________________
ignorance really is bliss.

Brooke

Evolution is a theory
Creationisim is a theory

both equally plausable in my book. I make my choice between the two as a choice of faith. When it comes down to it - what can you be 100% sure of?

__________________
And so its over
Your fantasy life is finally at an end
And the world above is still a brutal place
And the story will start again

Dirty

Here's my view and it was adopted after what my former High School Biology teacher told the class. He said that there is both Creationism and Evolution. For example. Mitochondrian, our little power houses, have a different set of DNA. They are the reason we have so much energy. These little guys just didn't find their way into our cells. They were put there by someone. I am having a hard time expressing what i mean in words.

Sorry if what i wrote is a little hard to understand i am kind of tired.

Lak

Disagreed. This was covered quite well in the Evolutionism vs Creationism in Schools thread. I'm kinda off topic tho, sorry.

__________________
ignorance really is bliss.

WillyPete

So when human geneticists step in and change the genetic makeup of a plant for whatever reason, do we label it as a 'creation' or an 'evolution'?

If it's so easy for a human, and we haven't disproven the existence of an intelligent superior being or alien race intervening in a similar fashion does that not open the possibility for it to have occurred?
By Creationism though, I assume you mean the world being created in 7 days and not an active involvement by an intelligent being that sets off or seeds the planet with its diversity of life. Right?
In that regard I am going to vote against it because of the inaccuracies and lack of understanding of those involved in the generation of the record. ('record' = Genesis or other creation myths)

Lak

Neither. I would label that 'fuckery', and maintain that it is something different entirely.

__________________
ignorance really is bliss.

Fibrosa

Both aren't equally plausable as creationism was actually falsified 150 years ago.

Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism can merely sound scientific.

That's the difference. If you want to believe in mythology, then pick one of the thousands of creation stories-just don't try to get it taught in public school as science.

__________________
D'oh!

WillyPete

Ah. A person with scientific credentials to match mine.

Fibrosa

Without individuals there is no evolution. The argument fails because it doesn't take into consideration that such morphological changes could be due to random mutations that are naturally selected for.

It's premise is you look at a computer and it couldn't have arrived by chance-which is exactly what Paley's argument was almost 200 years ago.

It is actually intellectually dishonest to equate evolution with this because evolution is not a random process-it works off of random mutation, yes-but natural selection is the mechanism that increases the complexity of organisms over time.

That's why if you look at the fossil record things go from simple (such as algea) to complex (such as us) over billions of years.

With ID, there isn't any real reason why this should be.

Basically this argument assumes it's conclusion.

The problem with this is that animals can have children and therefore the morphological similarities can be attributed to descent with modification. Additional lines of evidence, such as DNA/Psuedogenes and retroviral inserts positively demonstrate descent with modification.

The ID response to these things? There isn't a good one.

__________________
D'oh!

jwoody

Humans have evolved in the last 40 years. End of argument.

Fibrosa

We label it evolution because the scientists are just artificially selecting what mutations will be passed on. They aren't pointing at a cellular structure, waving a magic wand and saying 'ah-ha, now it's irreducibly complex'!

Where are you getting this notion for it being easy??

Also, technically ID isn't falsifiable-so disproof is a moot point. You should realize this though, after all, every line of evidence that we could present for ID's falsifiability could be explained by 'the intelligent designer planned it that way' or some such nonsense.

What I can show you is some incidents of horrible design in the animal world, would that convince you?

Either one, really, as neither are science and both are trying to get pseudoscience in the classroom.

How about the fact that Genesis 1 and 2 give two completely different creation stories?

__________________
D'oh!

Fibrosa

Those energy sources evolved.

What your teacher was doing was arguing from ignorance-which is what ID thrives off of-it works like this:

Science is continually learning new things, because of which we do not have complete knowledge of biological systems and their evolution (after all, we've only been looking for 150 years, and things have been evolving for 3.5 billion!). So when an IDer does his/her research, which consists of scanning other people's actual research, they attempt to find something that science hasn't currently figured out yet. When an IDer does find something that fits the bill, they instantly say "ah-ha, ______ couldn't have evolved and it's irreducibly complex, therefore it was ID". When the structure's evolution is explained (as with what happened with blood-clotts) the IDer scrambles to find another similar structure.

It's an effort in dishonesty really.

__________________
D'oh!

WillyPete

Exactly.
Until we get someone from on high or with a grey skin popping up to claim responsibility, it's a nice story to appease those without the background to comprehend ALL the aspects of a scientific reason.

WillyPete

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the DNA to create mitochondria reside within each human? I mean, everything we are comes from the sharing of two sets of DNA. Right?
It's not like wa all have to have a mitochondrial DNA injction at birth.

mo42

Mitochondrions are basically highly specialized bacteria with their own DNA and chromosomes living within every one of our cells. Our DNA is completely different from theirs. The current theory is that at some point in evolution, some aerobic bacteria were absorbed by a eukaryotic cell and ended up using it for its power source.

On the subject of humans "evolving" within the past 40 years, this is a different kind of evolution than the kind under question. Having certain genotypes (eg tall) prevail in a species because it is advantageous for one reason or another is *very* different than creating a new species. Creating a new species is a much much more complicated affair, and what Creationists have the hardest time accepting.

__________________
It's not getting what you want, it's wanting what you've got.

1010011010

Oh yeah, well! Your argument fails because it doesn't take into account that such morphological changes could be due to the tinkering of an intelligent designer. So nyah!

Seriously, though. I really don't see how this comment responds to anything I've said, or really makes any kind of point at all. "Ah, your alternative to evolution fails because it doesn't include evolution."

Who implied that computers (or pocket watches, if you prefer) arrived by chance?

Agreed. Why did you bother to quote my post if you appear to make no response to it?

Algae aren't simple, nor are mammals terribly complex. That whole "golden ladder" misconcept has been out of vogue for a while, BTW. The reason pregressively new and more interesting things show up is because, just as we observe in manufacturing and technology, new information builds on previous information. "Lower" lifeforms had to be designed and tested and tweaked before "Higher" level designs could be presented and modified.

By "this argument" do you mean your own, or your other argument that you inexplicably try to ascribe to me?

Can be. Can also be attributed to common design. "Evolution! Evolution! Rah! Rah! Rah!" is not a convincing counterargument.

Tinkering

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

1010011010

Prior to birth, actually. All your mitochonrdia are descended from the original population present in the ovum that was fertilized (sperm do not generally carry any mitochondria) and eventually grew into you.

Mitochondria do indeed have their own DNA, seperate from the DNA present in the nucleus that deals with the rest of the cell. They pretty much go about their own lives within the specialized environment of the cytoplasm. Much the same can be said of chloroplasts.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

hannukah harry

that sounds like something i like to call a 'coincedence.' you know, where two things happen randomly but intersect in a way that makes you say 'whoah' <feel free to imagine it being said by keanu reeves>.

you see god everywhere because you choose to. not necessarily because he/she/it's there. i used to play dark age of camelot a lot... after a while, i was dreaming it, and if i was on a 3 day sleepless streak, i'd see it. and even when well rested, i'd hear things or see things and it'd make me think of the game...

the point is that since you spend so much time thinking about it anyways, you're going to see it everywhere you go. kinda like the 50 year old janitor that used to work in my building who saw racism wherever he went. i'd talk with him and he'd tell me all these stories and it always came down to the fact that he was being victimized because he was black. but there was no evidence in his stories to back that up. just conclusions.

you see what you want to see whether it's there or not.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

hannukah harry

people believe in science because it doesn't claim to have all the answers. it merely states that it is trying to find the answer that best fits the question. when a new answer is found that fits the question better, the old answer is discarded. as technology advances new information becomes available. this leads to the modification or complete change of theories. this allows us to explain things to best of our abilities based on observable falsifiable information.

creationism/ID doesn't allow that because it has the answer and will more often modify the question to fit the answer.

one is science, the other isn't.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Lak

I see. Maybe I'm missing an implied point here, but... what are your credentials?

__________________
ignorance really is bliss.

WillyPete

Aside from such non-major classes as Microbiology at uni I have none. I was commenting on the obvious (to me) lack of scientific argument in the word 'fuckery'.

Lak

Aha, yes. Indeed, it was meant to be more amusing than scientific
EDIT - oh and you're right - I have no credentials either. But hey, I'm first-year, I'm workin' on it

__________________
ignorance really is bliss.

mo42

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ieving_atheist

I also agree, having learned much about biochemistry in my ongoing studies.

__________________
It's not getting what you want, it's wanting what you've got.

mo42

And by agree, I mean I agree with the part on how life is so amazingly complex at the molecular level that even over the amount of time that the earth was sitting around before life arose it probably would require an intelligent designer of some kinds.

The amount of genetic material that has to be *just right* in order for a cell to function at even the most basic level is mind boggling.

__________________
It's not getting what you want, it's wanting what you've got.

Fibrosa

It means you assumed your conclusion.

No one; that's why the IDer's use it as an example. It's flawed though because watches/computers have no mechanisms for change, whereas naturalistic evolution does.

Because I thought I'd elaborate on it.

This is different from what I said in what fashion?

The ID argument.


How so?

Had I offered that argument you might have a point.


Via what mechanism?


Also, I guess that does away with an omniscient God as the designer then.

__________________
D'oh!

Fibrosa

Really? Through what mechanism?

So pseudogenes serve a purpose?

Additionally there is nothing in evolution that denies complexity. The more a type of organism evolves the more complex it can become.

__________________
D'oh!

Robaggio

Here's what my father, a Ph. D. in Biology says - he was raised Catholic.

"ID has no place in science class, if, for no other reason alone than the fact that it is not science- it's theology. You don't teach the pathagorean theorum in english class."

What we have here is a classification error. Too many people, on both sides of the argument, are getting involved in the schematics of details and not getting anywhere. ID advocates have to calm down and realize that most of us arn't attacking whether it should be taught, but rather where it should be taught. That said, I see no harm in trying to get ID into part of our school's already existing theology curriculum. Append it to the classes that already teach about Bhuddism, Christianity, Native American Polytheism, etc...

On another note: ID is for losers.

"And by agree, I mean I agree with the part on how life is so amazingly complex at the molecular level that even over the amount of time that the earth was sitting around before life arose it probably would require an intelligent designer of some kinds." - originally posted by mo

I think you fail to grasp quite how much time we're dealing with. Life isn't so amazingly complex- especially on the molecular level. The simple structures that a cell is made of exist and occur naturally outside of life. The phospholipid bilayer (cell wall) for example, occurs naturally in aquatic environments without any foriegn influence. When you begin to understand the various modules that comprise a cell, you begin to understand that the development of life isn't quite so unnatural at all. It's rather quite natural. You could argue however, that this only is part of the grand 'design'. I could argue however, that this message is a banana.

1010011010

So, would that mean that proponents of evolution also assume their conclusion by failing to include the actions of an intelligent designer or some all-powerful deity in their scenarios?

Of course not. I really am not following your reasoning on this point at all.

Ummm. Watches and computers have changed considerably since thier initial invention. From Babbage's initial designs or buckets with holes & full of sand, quite a few changes have occurred.

Oh, well. Don't let me stop you, begin whenever you're ready.

It doesn't invoke evolution.

Thus the question: If you're not responding to what I've said, why have you bothered to quote me?

By noting that designed objects of a given type share similarities in a way that can be viewed as equivalent to the genetic similarity of living things. The similarity in the case of known designed objects arrises from their common designer... If we see a similar pattern in other objects, we may posit that these objects are also designed.

If we remove your comments to "The ID Argument" fnord all that is left that could legitimately be crafted in response to my argument are fanboyish praise of evolution and the wonders it has wrought. If you offer some other response to my comments (and, note, not to "The ID Argument" fnord) feel free to point it out, because I've been having some trouble finding it.

Whatever mechanism was necessary. Presumably genetic engineering in the case of living things.

The identity of the designer is irrelevant.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

mo42

Amino acids can be synthesized by a sparker and some ammonia and CO2 in a water bath. Phospholipids, I'm not so sure on existing in a primodial soup; they are VERY high energy compounds that are not thermodynamically favorable. Another major problem is ribose/deoxyribose, both of which are essential to any kind of nucleic acid chain, and are also non-occuring in a theoretical primordial soup. You simply can't create any form of life that we know of without them, and this is the greatest stumbling block for modern origin-of-life theorists.

Then you get into salt concentrations, probability of getting a ribosome or something that could sythesize proteins (ribosomes for simple prokaryotes are 1500 and 2900 nucleotides in length and are highly conserved sequences among all prokaryotes, indicating it's been like that for a looooong time) and that would require something to produce it, since it'd get hydrolyzed fairly easily. So it's really quite tricky to theorize how life could have originated evolutionarily.

__________________
It's not getting what you want, it's wanting what you've got.

Robaggio

Again, I think you fail to grasp the timeframe we're dealing with here. The compounds you describe are the final result of a gradual development. The use of ribose/deoxyribose, amino acids, phospholipids, etc. didn't have to happen at once or even at all.

hannukah harry

yep... a good example would be virus' (virii?). they are not considered to be living, but they definatly aren't dead. they're almost animated, replicating proteins. i wouldn't be surprised if they are a link between the proteins formed in the primordial ooze and the first super-simple organism.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Fibrosa

Since you bring it up, please tell us all how to test for ID, as opposed to assuming it.

Apparently.

Seriously, are you intentionally missing the point? Watches do not give birth to more watches, therefore there could be no naturalistic way for descent with modification. There are no mutations that could be naturally selected.

Therefore it's not a good analogy, because watches have to be designed and you can't just assume that nature does because that's the question that is attempting to be answered.

Unfortunately for the IDers evolution *does* explain the changes and does show us descent with modification.

There is no legitimate reason to invoke ID anymore, that reason ended with Darwin, who destroyed Paley's watchmaker argument.

I actually had to reread what you said. You are right, and I misread you initially.

It seems you perfer the magical creation of individual animals, instead of descent with modification and birth. After all, watches aren't born, nor is new technology. In fact, new technology doesn't come from old technology, as in you don't add the digital components to your hourglass, you update a design and create from totally new materials.

So in order to be a good analogy, you have to show this or, as I said from the beginning, the fact that watches can't have kids totally destroys your appealing to watches and designers.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were using the ID argument peddled by Behe, Dempski and Co. I wasn't aware that you had your own.

Since you do, please tell me the mechanism for change and all your current research into the subject.

Yeah, it can be viewed in any number of ways, my question is, is there any logical/rational reason for viewing it this way.

Also, if this were actually true, then why do we have retroviral inserts that we share with primates? Why do we have pseudogenes?

How does it show that we came from a common designer? According to your argument it would logically follow that there would be only one type of automotive manufacturer.

But alas, we have honda, ford, etc, etc.

Also, we have no reason to assume these objects were designed in the first place and many reasons to assume otherwise (including witnessing speciation and the twin nested heirarches).

What's ID got? God of the gaps and arguments from ignorance? That's not science.

Please present "your" ID argument.

(Fanboyish praise of evolution? It's just a respect for modern science. I wonder what other modern science you reject...)

And there you go, case closed, you have no mechanism. A weak appeal to genetic engineering, which doesn't actually constitute a mechanism.

Without a mechanism we can substitute the word 'magic' for design. I hope it is obvious to you that ID is just an empty appeal to ignorance and is not actual science.

Unless of course you don't think that science should be in the business of...you know, actually explaining things. I suppose it's much easier to point and say "God did it" or "aliens did it" or "an intelligent designer did it" then put in the sufficient elbow grease to actually figure out the phenomenon.

Additionally by your lack of a mechanism (and don't feel bad, no IDers have any) you implicitedly admit that evolution is more parsimonious then ID. Additionally the facade of ID being actual science is exposed as ID doesn't explain anything, it relies completely and utterly on an argument from ignorance-we don't (currently) know how this system was designed and therefore 'poof' it's magic brought to us via the common designer.

Yeah, keep believing that when the majority of IDers are Christians (or Raelians).

__________________
D'oh!

mo42

Viruses are not replicating proteins. They use either DNA or RNA, like every single other thing on this planet that can replicate given appropriate conditions.

Both DNA and RNA require a ribose or deoxyribose backbone; it's what holds the base pairs together. Furthermore, it requires a high concentration of divalent cations (eg Mg2+) to prevent the negatively charged phosphorus groups from tearing the molecule apart.

Ribose is not something that just shows up, in order to produce it requires at least five separate large enzyme complexes, which normally exist closely together within a cell. The fact that there are more proteins 100 amino acids in length (which is smaller than any of the enzymes which are required for ribose production) than there are protons in the universe (20^100) I think at least gives *some* weight to the idea that maybe there might be some kind of designing force in the universe.

__________________
It's not getting what you want, it's wanting what you've got.

hannukah harry

maybe it's just me, but i'd call entering a cell and using it to reproduce itself reproduction. but now that i think about it a bit more, it isn't a good example because it does need the cell to reproduce. so if virii came before the cell, then they had to get the mechanism of reproduction from somewhere else and i'm really not sure where that could be. which would lead to the conclusion that cells came before the virus.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

mo42

There is a simple mechanism, and can be provided by an intelligent force with only moderate power. What needs to be provided is a small amount of kinetic force, guiding specific molecules together. Moving molecules together in just the right fashion can lead to the beginnings of life, and also guide mutations, if the being desired it.

Unlikely, you say? Yes, I'll admit that. But the likelihood of things like ribose, any protein with any use, or deoxyribose looks even less likely to me. Even over the course of 3 billion years.

First you need an adequate supply of amino acids (and they are not very plentiful on our planet outside of current life forms; you'd be working with exceedingly low percentages), and then you'd need those amino acids to spontaneously join together in a chain (not particularly likely; water will degrade cleave a protein into its individual components over a relatively short amount of time) and this chain would have to fold into an enzyme capable of catalyzing ribose production. You would need other enzymes to continue the ribose creation process, using the products of the original enzyme complex. In order to get a protein with this function, a very specific protein would have to be formed from the amino acids.

Modern organisms require at least 8 enzymes for ribose production (just looked that one up again) from products that might exist in small quantities in the primoridal soup. These enzymes average to be about 300 amino acids in length. Even assuming there was somehow a better enzyme that existed in the soup that was only 50 amino acids long, the odds of that 50 amino acid chain being created is one in 20^50, which comes out to 11 with 64 zeroes after it. A billion has 9 zeroes after it. Odds are freaking low for the "random amino acids came together to make good proteins which made components for RNA and then RNA came together in useful chains that were capable of catalyzing replication which eventually graduated into DNA" theory.

__________________
It's not getting what you want, it's wanting what you've got.

mo42

The current theory is that free-floating RNA predated the cell, and eventually managed to end up inside of a phospholipid bilayer, and managed to replicate inside and have the bilayer split into multiple cells. In order for a cell to split, it would require centromeres (proteins that attach to polymer threads in the cell to make each DNA copy go to the daughter cells) on its genetic material, all sorts of structural proteins and polymers to facilitate division, and the capability to synthesize more of each of the respective proteins, and nucleotide chains.

__________________
It's not getting what you want, it's wanting what you've got.

1010011010

Well, first you'd need to identify groups of designed objects.
One group would be objects designed for a common task.
Another group would be objects designed by a common designer.
From that you may develop of rigorous characterization of what gives an object the appearance of being designed.
Then you would look for those characteristics in living things.

[Steps out of character]
No one has done this, of course, because in all probability no rigorous characterization of design would arise. On the off chance that one could be formulated, though, I'd wager it's probable that no evidence of design would be detected in living things.

As it stands, ID is not a science and is not falsifiable. This is not because ID is inherently unscientific, but merely because no one has been bothered to do the legwork to establish a standard of evidence. This dismissive attitude of ID as the creationists' newest rhetoric is dangerous.[/character]

Pithy.Watchmakers do give birth to more watches, though. And watchbuyers can select those watches that most fit their needs and desires. If a watchmaker comes up with a new design that increases the usefulness or desireability of a timepiece, those watches will sell, and so the representation of that design of watch will increase in the population.

Thus we see in the design of watches (and other designed objects) an accumulation of new and interesting features over times... because the design process under market pressure is itself somewhat evolutionary in nature.

We don't, we're pointing out that the patterns we see in nature (genetic similarities, et al.) are similar to those patterns we may observe in certain lineages of designed objects. Thus is is reasonable to assume that these patterns known to arrise in designed objects, when found in living things, would also indicate that living things are designed.

Or so you claim, anyway. I've yet to see how you distinguish between an evolutionary design process and natural selection.

Paley's was essentially an argument from ignorance. What Paley failed to realize is, of course, that watches, though designed and created, do evolve.

Certainly there is the occassional cognitive leap in technology. But surely you're not claiming that the genetic and/or fossil record is complete and without shortcomings?

Of course, if watches could have baby watches, and had been having baby watches for a thousand million years, you'd merely assert that the watches evolved... despite the fact that they were designed.

I don't, really. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate to make things interesting.

Not yet. There potentially could be, if, as noted above, someone did the legwork to establish a standard of evidence for design.

Why do we have computer viruses? Why do we have unnecessary includes? Why do we have buffer overruns?

Unless you're suddenly asserting that automobiles evolve (and not in the design process method outlined above) I think the observable fact that there are multiple car makers demonstrates you don't quite follow the logic.

And in all probability you would be able to identify an unbadged Honda, Ford, etc. etc. from model year to model year... Furthermore, you'd probably be able to identify that the same person that desined the VW Passat designed the new Ford 500... or the same person that designed the 94-98 Honda Accord line also worked on cars for Volvo and BMW. But still be able to identify these cars as Hondas, VWs, Volvos, or Fords... based on other design clues.

Unless those observations serve a design hypothesis equally as well or better. As it stands, we have no way of knowing if they do or not.

True. ID is not currently science. It is not inherently unscientific, though... which is pretty much the core message I'm trying to get across.

I believe it's been sketched out in this post, above.

I'm going to lapse completely out of character for a moment.
I'm not very impressed with the way you've been handling this. You remind me of a scholastic. You have respect for modern science, but knowledge is preferrable to respect. You jump to repeat what you've read from respected sources at the expense of actually paying attention to the argument being made by your opponent. Behe, Dembski, and the whole irreducible complexity and complex specific information snowjob are bankrupt, sure... but it doesn't make you (or me, when I'm not clowning at being Evil) look good to demolish those guys when you are the one that brings them up in the conversation. It looks like misdirection and grandstanding. Those are the tactics of the Creationists. Don't Do It. Stick to the conversation at hand, and constrain yourself to what's actually being said by your opponent. If it looks liek they're dancing the partyline or reciting some but of boilerplate, ask first, then tear them apart. Otherwise they can just ask you what the fuck you're talking about and you've spent your rhetoric on a straw man.
I now return you to your regulaly scheduled program.

How long did it take us to go from the beginning of the industrial revolution to our current clumsy attempts at genetic engineering? Imagine where a culture even of our skill wold be after 5 billion years. Why is genetic engineering a disallowed design process for a sufficiently advanced species?

Is not, yes. Cannot be, no.

Well, I'm certainly not going to be the one to put in the elbow grease to figure out if intelligent design has any merit, neither are you, in all probability.

Careful where you stand. How do we know humans and mushrooms and coelacanths and blue spruces have a common ancestor? "'poof' It's evolution!"

So the Fundies are right in claiming there's some sort of significance in many scientists being Atheists? They're just trying to promote their godless agenda?

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

1010011010

This remainds me of something I read in another "lies, damned lies, and statistics" type discussions. I think the context of that discussion was the probability of evolving Cytochrome C. Anyway, it was estimated that 60% of the proteins in the search space would have at least some cytochrome functionality. So while it might be one out of 20^100 (or what have you) to assemble the specific sequence for a given protein... the chance to assemble a sequence that will function for a given task may be six out of 10.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

mo42

Much of the protein does require specific amino acids, while some sections may be more flexible, this is true. However, assuming that only 5 amino acids are required specifically and that 20 of them can only be one of two amino acids (which is making it significantly more probable than is actually the case), only one of (20^5 * 10^20 = ) 3.2 x 10^26 proteins will give the correct effect, still a far larger number of proteins than could be reasonably expected to be synthesized in the lifetime of the earth.

__________________
It's not getting what you want, it's wanting what you've got.