Biology Information Intelligent Design

Chemist: Biology points to intelligent design

Spread the love

Gregory J. Rummo offers an anecdote by way of explanation:

I recently attended the inauguration ceremony of our university’s new president, delayed a year and a half by social distancing restrictions due to Covid19. One of the speakers, Dr. John Patrick, served as a medical missionary in Jamaica and Sub-Saharan Africa, where he studied malnutrition in children. He shared a story from when he had been invited as a guest lecturer of ethics at one of Cuba’s medical universities. The school’s director noticed how alert the students were during Dr. Patrick’s lectures and in order to better understand why this was, he challenged Dr. Patrick to a debate on the origins of life.

Dr. Patrick, always up for a good challenge, wrote on the board (in Spanish) “This sentence wrote itself.” The group of doctors and medical students debated the nonsense of such a statement for several minutes until finally Dr. Patrick erased the phrase This sentence and replaced it with DNA, adding “But you all believe this statement, don’t you?”

There was complete silence in the room, the point having been elegantly made.

Gregory J. Rummo, “Guest Post – Latest Discoveries in the Field of Structural Biology Point to Intelligent Design” at Christian Scholars Review (November 19, 2021)

You may also wish to read: Robert J. Marks: Can wholly random processes produce information? We showed that in all cases, that yes, [design] was required, and that there’s mathematics behind it. The mathematics is based on the No Free Lunch Theorem, which was popularized in the IEEE transactions on evolutionary computing in 1997. There, David Wolpert and W. G. Macready showed something which astonished the area of genetic programming and evolutionary programming.

11 Replies to “Chemist: Biology points to intelligent design

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Prior to what News quoted from the article, is this following quote,

    “The C&EN article details the 20-plus years of efforts by several research groups from around the world to understand the initiation of transcription. They discovered it involves something called a preinitiation complex (PIC); an ensemble of transcription factors, an enzyme called RNA polymerase II (Pol II), more transcription factors, and a mediator complex that stabilizes the structure. In all there are about 75 different proteins.,,,
    There is a deeper, philosophical question here: How can such a complex molecular machine, crucial for the synthesis of proteins and hence life, be itself dependent on 75 different proteins for its function? Where did those proteins come from in the first place if there was no PIC to initiate protein synthesis?
    Or what came first—the chicken or the egg?”

    Just how ‘beyond impossible’ this ‘chicken and egg’ problem actually is for Darwinists is made evident by the fact that Darwinists, using the entire ‘probabilistic resources’ of the universe, can’t even explain the origin of a single protein, much less 75 different proteins working in concert in the preinitiation complex.

    Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA

    There is also another insurmountable chicken and egg problem for Darwinists in regards to the Origin of Life.

    Namely, “You need enzymes to make ATP and you need ATP to make enzymes. The question is: where did energy come from before either of these two things existed?”

    Evolutionist Has Another Honest Moment as “Thorny Questions Remain” – Cornelius Hunter – July 2012
    Excerpt: It’s a chicken and egg question. Scientists are in disagreement over what came first — replication, or metabolism. But there is a third part to the equation — and that is energy. … You need enzymes to make ATP and you need ATP to make enzymes. The question is: where did energy come from before either of these two things existed?
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....oment.html

    Here is a ‘simple’ overview of the 10 Step Glycolysis Pathway In ATP Production

    The 10 Step Glycolysis Pathway In ATP Production: An Overview – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kn6BVGqKd8

    At the 14:00 minute mark of the following video, Chris Ashcraft, PhD in molecular biology, gives us an overview of the Citric Acid (Krebs) Cycle, which is, after the 10 step Glycolysis Pathway, also involved in ATP production:??

    Evolution vs ATP Synthase – Chris Ashcraft – video
    – description of citric acid (Krebs) cycle at 14:00 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/7XErNDtmogk?t=879

    Krebs (Citric Acid) Cycle Step by Step Explanation
    http://www.microbiologyinfo.co.....planation/

    All in all, ATP production is, as you can see, an extremely complex process:

    Here is an overview of the entire process:

    Cellular Respiration: Glycolysis, Krebs Cycle & the Electron Transport Chain
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_ceHsFmLVk

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Besides Darwinists having no realistic clue how such complex interrelated cycles that are involved in ATP production originated in the first place, ATP synthase itself, all by its lonesome,,,

    Miniature Molecular Power Plant: ATP Synthase – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI8m6o0gXDY

    ATP synthase itself, all by its lonesome, has been referred to as “a machine with a level of organization on the order of a research microscope or a standard television”,

    ATP: The Perfect Energy Currency for the Cell – Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
    Excerpt: In manufacturing terms, the ATP (Synthase) molecule is a machine with a level of organization on the order of a research microscope or a standard television (Darnell, Lodish, and Baltimore, 1996).
    http://www.trueorigin.org/atp.asp

    ATP Synthase, an Energy-Generating Rotary Motor Engine – Jonathan M. – May 15, 2013
    Excerpt: ATP synthase has been described as “a splendid molecular machine,” and “one of the most beautiful” of “all enzymes” .,, “bona fide rotary dynamo machine”,,,
    If such a unique and brilliantly engineered nanomachine bears such a strong resemblance to the engineering of manmade hydroelectric generators, and yet so impressively outperforms the best human technology in terms of speed and efficiency, one is led unsurprisingly to the conclusion that such a machine itself is best explained by intelligent design.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....72101.html

    And yet, even though all of this astonishing integrated complexity involved in ATP production, and the ATP molecular machine itself, screams “INTELLIGENT DESIGN”, we still have Darwinists who, with a straight face, come on UD and adamantly claim, in the face of all contrary evidence, that all of this staggering complexity is the result of random ‘chemical accidents’. And these Darwinists even have to nerve to claim that we are the ones who are being ‘unscientific’ to believe that such integrated complexity can’t possibly be the result of random ‘chemical accidents’.

    It would all be very humorous if not for the tragic implications involved for society at large, and even for the personal lives of atheists, in their adamant, and very unreasonable, refusal to ever accept the reality of Intelligent Design in particular and God in general.

    Of semi-related note: At the 21:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr Suarez explains why photosynthesis needs a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain its effect:

    Nonlocality of Photosynthesis – Antoine Suarez – video – 2012
    https://youtu.be/dhMrrmlTXl4?t=1260

    Verse:

    Acts 17:28
    For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    Dr. Patrick, always up for a good challenge, wrote on the board (in Spanish) “This sentence wrote itself.” The group of doctors and medical students debated the nonsense of such a statement for several minutes until finally Dr. Patrick erased the phrase This sentence and replaced it with DNA, adding “But you all believe this statement, don’t you?”

    There was complete silence in the room, the point having been elegantly made.

    I would have asked “What statement?”

    If Dr Patrick were shown just a sequence of Gs, As, Cs and Ts would he know if it was just a random string of letters or a junk DNA sequence or a protein coding sequence?

    We know that the sentence “This sentence wrote itself” was produced by human beings who used the English language and could only have happened after human beings had appeared and developed that language.

    As far as we can tell, terrestrial life has been reproducing itself through DNA long before human beings emerged and with no other intelligent designer in sight.

    You may also wish to read: Robert J. Marks: Can wholly random processes produce information? We showed that in all cases, that yes, [design] was required, and that there’s mathematics behind it.

    So when a dendrochronologist infers information about the history of a tree from the growth rings in the trunk, that was all designed?

    When a geologist infers information about the deep history of the planet from rock strata, that is all designed?

    When an cosmologist extracts information about the very early Universe from the most distant celestial objects we can see, that is all designed?

    By this standard, is there anything that wasn’t designed according to Marks.

    We might also note that one of the authors of the No Free Lunch theorems, David Wolpert, took issue with William Dembski’s original interpretations. Has Marks raised this issue with him?

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/1

    Just how ‘beyond impossible’ this ‘chicken and egg’ problem actually is for Darwinists is made evident by the fact that Darwinists, using the entire ‘probabilistic resources’ of the universe, can’t even explain the origin of a single protein, much less 75 different proteins working in concert in the preinitiation complex.

    Irrelevant, since no one is claiming that complex modern proteins sprang into existence in a single bound.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev: “Irrelevant, since no one is claiming that complex modern proteins sprang into existence in a single bound.”

    Perhaps you should have informed the late Dan S. Tawfik of this inside information about protein evolution that only you seem to be privy to: i.e. “The appearance of early protein families, he has remarked, is “something like close to a miracle.”,, and,, “no macromutations … that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”

    Dan S. Tawfik Group – The New View of Proteins – Tyler Hampton – 2016
    Excerpt: Tawfik soberly recognizes the problem. The appearance of early protein families, he has remarked, is “something like close to a miracle.”45,,,
    To the extent that Tawfik’s selection experiments were successful, it is because mutations were localized and contextualized. Mutation had a key but confined role. If evolution proceeded, the prevailing architecture of the active sites and protein shapes nonetheless remains intact. Changes were not to central structures, but to peripheral loops. A great deal of flexibility was discovered. Still, it is hard to see how any of this could build proteins—that is, in the sense of building their fundamental shapes, or scaffolds; and build proteins in terms of explaining the key catalytic strategies of each active site. Even in the impressive demonstration of a transition through nine orders of magnitude, in which a full exchange of a promiscuous activity for the primary activity was seen, the overall geometry of the protein was unchanged, and, although substrates had changed, the fundamental active site strategy stayed the same. ,,,
    “Modern neo-Darwinism and neutral evolutionary treatments,” remark Leonard Bogarad and Michael Deem, “fail to explain satisfactorily the generation of the diversity of life found on our planet.” It is not that they did not evolve, they say, but that “… most theoretical treatments of evolution consider only the limited point-mutation events that form the basis of these theories.” Their sober conclusion is that “point mutation alone is incapable of evolving systems with substantially new protein folds.”60,,,
    “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations … that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69
    http://inference-review.com/ar.....f-proteins

    Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne – September 29, 2019
    by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski
    Excerpt: Indeed, Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold. Why? Because such novel folds are so extraordinarily rare in sequence space. Moreover, as Meyer explained in Darwin’s Doubt, as mutations accumulate in functional sequences, they will inevitably destroy function long before they stumble across a new protein fold. Again, this follows from the extreme rarity (as well as the isolation) of protein folds in sequence space.
    Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream.
    https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/

  6. 6
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 @2,

    Thank you for the link to Dr. Suarez’s presentation, which I thought was brilliant and profound!

    I knew that photosynthesis involved quantum effects, but didn’t know the increase in efficiency as a result was massive–99%. His description of a “quantum funnel” effect was amazing and I see his point about our complete lack of an explanation confined to spacetime. Similarly, there are of course many studies abut sleep, but the nature of sleep and consciousness is unknown and a potential fusion of the intentional with the random is also highly thought provoking,

    -Q

  7. 7
    ET says:

    seversky:

    If Dr Patrick were shown just a sequence of Gs, As, Cs and Ts would he know if it was just a random string of letters or a junk DNA sequence or a protein coding sequence?

    Irrelevant. We observe that DNA is a template for mRNA. We observe that processed mRNA codes for a sequence of amino acids.

    As far as we can tell, terrestrial life has been reproducing itself through DNA long before human beings emerged and with no other intelligent designer in sight.

    Life begets life. You lose. Nice own goal.

    So when a dendrochronologist infers information about the history of a tree from the growth rings in the trunk, that was all designed?

    Wow. They gather the DATA from the tree rings And the tree is a LIVING ORGANISM that is also a data recorder.

    When a geologist infers information about the deep history of the planet from rock strata, that is all designed?

    Because you are ignorant you are conflating data with information.

    What is wrong with you? How many times do you have to be corrected?

  8. 8
    ET says:

    seversky:

    Irrelevant, since no one is claiming that complex modern proteins sprang into existence in a single bound.

    There isn’t any evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce any biologically relevant proteins. You have nothing but hope and faith.

  9. 9
    EugeneS says:

    For note regarding NFL theorems, at some point, it was argued that co-evolution was not subject to NFL. But that has been disproved by Ewert et al.

  10. 10
    EugeneS says:

    ET

    -What is wrong with you?-

    No point, you can’t force people off the top of the local peak of the Dunn-Krueger curve.

  11. 11
    AnimatedDust says:

    ES @ 10: *Dunning*

Leave a Reply