Optimized amino acids

[lee_merrill]

They evolve, but not all do. Those that do not optimally evolve to survive became food for those that do...

Yet again, evolution is not expected to produce the ultimate optimal solution.

The same case is for the amino acid combinations in the earliest microbes that failed to compete and reproduce enough, therefore the set of twenty microbes we have was the most successful. This is the history of evolution. If you are not the optimum fit to compete you are the food for those that do.

Have you noticed that sloths are both edible, and slow? How is it that they survive?

the 20 we have did likely evolve from a shorter set as noted in the research. Also cited was contemporary research has demonstrated other possible combinations, and again, they did not reproduce and compete with the microbes with 'optimal' set of amino acids.

But what other combinations have been demonstrated? I fear this is speculation.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Yet again, evolution is not expected to produce the ultimate optimal solution.

The evidence for evolution is that evolution DOES NOT produce the 'ultimate optimal solution.' Evolution produces the optimal solution that results in the survival and reproduction of the organisms. The set of amino acids worked and survived best over others. The reference cited best described the research into the possibilities for the sets of amino acids. Quite simple the first microorganisms with the first shorter set evolved the and reproduced the best and when the full set of 20 amino acids it dominated. The research cited also described that there are possibly other combinations of amino acids. Even humans are not the product of the ultimate optimal solution.

Have you noticed that sloths are both edible, and slow? How is it that they survive?

Changing the subject in mid stream, because of your insecurities? Neither are sloths an ultimate optimal solution, and in fact, the life that evolves is not the ultimate optimal solution.

But what other combinations have been demonstrated? I fear this is speculation.

Fear all you want, changing the subject, and 'arguing from ignorance' gets you nowhere.

Based on the reference I provided from the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial, the goal and purpose of the Discovery Institute is definitely not science.

Still no falsifiable hypothesis proposed to support any aspect of the religious claim of 'Intelligent Design.'

[lee_merrill]

The evidence for evolution is that evolution DOES NOT produce the 'ultimate optimal solution.'

Agreed, so then seeing a highly optimized set of amino acids is unexpected.

Blessings,
Lee

[HMS_Beagle]

Have you noticed that sloths are both edible, and slow? How is it that they survive?

[shunyadragon]

Agreed, so then seeing a highly optimized set of amino acids is unexpected.

Blessings,
Lee

No, first because it is not highly optimized. It is optimized for the survival of the microbes with this set of amino acids.
Second, The microbes with this set evolved as the best of the alternative to all possible sets of amino acids, because it was more successful at reproduction and competition.

[lee_merrill]

No, first because it is not highly optimized.

Well, it is highly optimized, that was the result of the paper.

Second, The microbes with this set evolved as the best of the alternative to all possible sets of amino acids, because it was more successful at reproduction and competition.

Sounds highly optimized to me! But that is unexpected, for evolution to produce such a set.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Well, it is highly optimized, that was the result of the paper.

No, it is not.

Sounds highly optimized to me! But that is unexpected, for evolution to produce such a set.

Sounds?!?!?!? Bogus logic and not science.

No, evolution produces the optimal set by the process of natural selection as is the case throughout the history of life.

Blessings,
Lee[/QUOTE]

[TheLurch]

Sounds highly optimized to me! But that is unexpected, for evolution to produce such a set.

How many times do we have to repeat "i did not expect it != it is unexpected" for it to sink through?

[shunyadragon]

Well, it is highly optimized, that was the result of the paper.

Which paper?

[lee_merrill]

Well now, which is it?

Which paper?

This paper...

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

How many times do we have to repeat "i did not expect it != it is unexpected" for it to sink through?

Are you saying evolution is expected to produce a highly optimized set of amino acids?

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

Are you saying evolution is expected to produce a highly optimized set of amino acids?

I already said evolution could get very optimized under certain circumstances, such as a large effective population size (people have worked out mathematically why that's the case). And i brought up effective population size several pages back in this discussion, and (perhaps obliquely) suggested you look into it if you didn't want to sound ignorant.

You didn't. You've continued to sound ignorant.

So let me be very clear this time: the degree to which evolution can optimize a system will depend on a variety of factors, including the shape of the fitness landscape, the effective population size, the rate of mutations, etc. The entire field of population genetics focuses on these issues.

Until you know what those are for a given system, then any evaluation of its probability of reaching an optimized state is uninformed.

[shunyadragon]

Are you saying evolution is expected to produce a highly optimized set of amino acids?

Blessings,
Lee

Evolution will produce primitive microorganisms with the most optimal set of amino acids needed to survive and reproduce.

[shunyadragon]

Well now, which is it?

Evolution produces the optimal set by the process of natural selection as is the case throughout the history of life.

This paper...

Again, again, again and again . . .

This reference is incomplete, and unless you can provide access to the complete article, your reference is meaningless. If you put in the context of the limited information in the abstract. The paper supports the abiogenesis of the evolution of the set of amino acids to the optimal set of 20 by natural processes, and not your assertions based on a religious agenda.

Still waiting . . .

[shunyadragon]

Well now, which is it?


This paper...

Blessings,
Lee

Your putting far too much emphasis on the adjective 'highly' to describe the degree of being optimal. First, the paper you cite and I believe the evidence supports, and I, support the hypothesis that laws of nature and natural processes resulted the abiogenesis of microorganisms with the set of twenty amino acids through natural processes. They do not consider it 'highly' optimal beyond the capability

What is your point in emphasizing the trivia of an adjective, 'highly,' to justify an Intelligent Design argument. Your guilty of selectively citing a reference to justify our agenda despite the fact that the paper does not support your argument.