I need Matt: (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, September 02, 2010, 03:11 (5196 days ago) @ David Turell

I am thrilled that we have a qualified mathematician with us. Matt look at this argument on protein folding and the conclusion that the specificity at the tertiary level requires a process other than Darwinian chance. Is this mathematically reasonable?
> 
> http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1-David...-You really need to reply to my own replies... I don't always look at the right-hand bar when I log in (and when you posted this, I was about ready to go to DC!) And again--Computer scientist, if I may be so bold... but as close to a mathematician as we currently have. -Critique:-Starts with the assertion of a search problem. They set up the search function initially as f(x) = possible gene mappings. However I get concerned when he sets the framework as using existing protein structures. The reason why is this: If you start with current structures, you can set up an arbitrary argument (slippery slope) to prove that current structures cannot come about by what the author terms as "evolutionary processes." I don't have a problem with the conclusion beyond the fact that they use a slippery slope. We shall see!-The first injection of math discusses the number of ways (n^L) 20 amino acids can combine. This is my conjecture, but his argument will be that picking 1 sequence (for a successful protein) out of 20^L sequences is simply something that could not have happened by chance. -I will have to pause at this point: the argument here is dense. It will take me a couple days to chew on this.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"