how quickly do proteins evolve ?

You've shown us no papers or books that say what you claim they say, anyone can see by looking at your repeated refusals.
Another lie. I pointed you right to the book using its title. The book is annotated.

Start there and take some time to work on your honesty, before you try your act out in the science section again.
 
You've shown us no papers or books that say what you claim they say, anyone can see by looking at your repeated refusals.

That's typical ... in a few posts he'll claim he did explain himself and he doesn't have to again ...

I'd like to know where he's getting his information about the universe before the CMB epoch ...

ETA: Too late, eh?, HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...
 
"It's the liar who screams and points and says 'You're a liar' " == somewhere in the Bible ...

Down to ad hominen attacks ... sad ... did you ever find out what an enzyme is? ...
I think maybe you had one too many bath salts and have your posters confused.
 
Another lie. I pointed you right to the book using its title. The book is annotated.

Start there and take some time to work on your honesty, before you try your act out in the science section again.
You mean that pop science book a "A universe from nothing"? is that it? is that all you have? I thought you had other books and papers too, not just this silly airport lounge book that's not fit to use even as a door stop, where's the consensus you always like to talk about?

From Wikipedia:

1724711884823.png


Do you have anything that other theoreticians aren't ridiculing or is this it? this is what you actually bought into? pseudo scientific claptrap.

The title should have been "A book that says nothing about nothing" because all it talks about is something. Or better still A Universe from something!
 
Last edited:
Do you have anything that other theoreticians aren't ridiculing or is this it? this is what you actually bought into? pseudo scientific claptrap.

The title should have been "A book that says nothing about nothing" because all it talks about is something. Or better still A Universe from something!

Be nice ... there's a bit of pseudo-science in the all of cosmology ... these theories aren't testable ... so they're not science ...

Yet ...

I'm still waiting for a "pair production" experiment that produces only one particle ... energy condenses into an electron and positron both, matter and anti-matter in equal amounts ... we see all the matter in the universe, so where's all the anti-matter? ... we're guessing "pair production" occasionally produces singles? ... guessing? ...

Cosmology is for people who can't handle Astrophysics ... always the math right? ...
 
Attacking the person, instead of the ideas ... generally means the ideas are unassailable and you have nothing but the person to attack ... it's the last resort of the losers of the world ...

Do you know what an enzyme is? ...
That isn't what I did. Better read more slowly.

And I never mentioned enzymes.

You have made a mistake and are doubling down on stupid.
 
I'm still waiting for a "pair production" experiment that produces only one particle ...
Are you also waiting for us to create a star in the lab? How about a galaxy? Black holes and event horizons are tough to make, in labs.



Have you read up in the experiments on analogues of Hawking radiation?
 
I'm still waiting for a "pair production" experiment that produces only one particle ... energy condenses into an electron and positron both, matter and anti-matter in equal amounts ... we see all the matter in the universe, so where's all the anti-matter? ... we're guessing "pair production" occasionally produces singles? ... guessing? ...
For every 1,000,000,000 antimatter particles, there were 1,000,000,001 matter particles. So says the CMB, the matter in the universe and e=mc^2.

But why are you discussing this with FFI? You might as well be discussing it with Apu.
 
How quickly do proteins evolve?

Here's the short answer:

View attachment 998920

You'll find that this curve goes off to the right, down to a matter of DAYS.

So what is lamda, and what is Vo?

Well, lambda is the population size, and Vo is the "fitness potential" derived from the ZSB formula (Zwanzig-Szabo-Bagchi). It is an index of evolutionary kinetics, based on the Boltzmann entropy in sequence space. It is a measure of the complexity of the sequence, with a term that includes folding.

Two other factors are known to affect the rate of evolution of a protein: heat, and chaperones.

Heat is self evident, hotter environments make proteins evolve faster.

Chaperones, are other molecules that help the protein to fold properly. Which is a somewhat complicated topic, but I'll try. The protein, when it folds, wants to minimize the Gibbs free energy. But sometimes, it gets stuck in local minima - a condition which is somewhat random because it depends on the immediately surrounding chemical and ionic environment. Chaperones help the protein bounce out of the local minima by shielding it from the environment and by providing "guiding potentials" in the areas where misfolding is likely to occur.

Chaperones are often other proteins, which themselves need to fold the right way to acquire the proper shape, and which themselves are transcribed from the DNA Proteins that require chaperones tend to evolve more quickly because any problem with the chaperone magnifies the likelihood of misfolding, and misfolding causes increased production which in turn increases the likelihood of underlying mutations

A misfolded protein doesn't just sit there, usually it goes off and goes something else. It does a job other than the one it was supposed to do. An example is cancer cells, where the rate of protein evolution is measured in days instead of years. Another example is cells that evolve resistance to drugs.

The ZSB formula gives us a surface that reflects all the different ways a protein can fold. You can think of it as an approximation to the number of microstates in Boltzmann-land. This picture shows how chaperones affect the surface. The yellow is rates without chaperones, the blue is rates with chaperones.

View attachment 998934

The stunningly relevant observation is that sequence length does not appear in these equations! Only folding shape, which is topology. The reason is, because misfolded proteins have the same sequence lengths as their properly folded cousins. It's just a bond angle that's wrong somewhere.

This should put to bed once and for all the creationist nonsense about the impossibility of protein evolution. (And it IS complete nonsense, there's not even a speck of truth in it, not even an iota). Proteins evolve WITHIN the lifetime of a human being. It doesn't take millions of years.

Further reading:

Lot's of references to genetic mutations. Not so much on slight successive changes. Punctuated equilibrium wins again!!!
 

Forum List

Back
Top