Take on Darwin

[wellwisher]

One is reminded here of the problem of protein folding. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Watterson, 1997), that problem also arises from applying classical theories, since they predict an average, not a unique fold. That these questions remain unsolved still today after 50 years of intense research effort, highlights a two-fold failing of statistical methods: firstly, they did not predict the existence of a stable folded state, and secondly, once given as an experimental fact, they cannot explain it.

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/contr.html

In terms of evolution of the cell and life, experiments confirm that proteins fold into specific configurations with a probability of 1.0. This specific folding was not predicted by and statistical mechanics, which assumes an average fold due to randomness and thermal fluctuations. This statistical conclusion was fine for years until improvement in tools allowed observational biologists to prove the unique fold of proteins. Now the random theory has this unexplained flaw.

How does a statistical model for evolution, based on randomness, predict specific protein folding with a probably of 1.0?

This does not reflect negatively on Darwin, but rather on 20th century addendum.

 

[James R]

Protein folding is chemistry, not evolution.

 

[Arioch]

@James --

Haven't we already established that Wellwisher's knowledge of evolutionary theory is about on par with those on that site?

 

[sideshowbob]

Completey wrong, the owner of the website is a philosopher and ex biochemist and by his photo probably is about 50.

From the site:

"I studied biochemistry at University College London in the program’s first or second year, but was denied my degree for an inadequate grasp of chemistry."

That would make me an ex-mathematician because I failed a math class once.