Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Mechanical gear found in living organism — Behe’s IC still a challenge for Darwinism


First gear discovered

insect gear

With two diminutive legs locked into a leap-ready position, the tiny jumper bends its body taut like an archer drawing a bow. At the top of its legs, a minuscule pair of gears engage—their strange, shark-fin teeth interlocking cleanly like a zipper. And then, faster than you can blink, think, or see with the naked eye, the entire thing is gone. In 2 milliseconds it has bulleted skyward, accelerating at nearly 400 g’s—a rate more than 20 times what a human body can withstand. At top speed the jumper breaks 8 mph—quite a feat considering its body is less than one-tenth of an inch long.

This miniature marvel is an adolescent issus, a kind of planthopper insect and one of the fastest accelerators in the animal kingdom. As a duo of researchers in the U.K. report today in the journal Science, the issus also the first living creature ever discovered to sport a functioning gear.

Read more: The First Gear Discovered in Nature – Popular Mechanics
Follow us: @PopMech on Twitter | popularmechanics on Facebook
Visit us at PopularMechanics.com

How does selection arrive at such coordination? What good is one gear without the corresponding gear? The challenge of IC for Darwinism remains.

HT: friend from e-mail

Gears for anti-entanglement synchronization and torque balancing: http://creation.mobi/germ-7-motors-in-1 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/21/1215274109.full.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23184985 JGuy
Thank you Scordova. Very generous of you. Ho-De-Ho
Once again, I thank you for your polite tolerance of my unannounced intrusion onto your boards. I bid you all a hearty ‘how-do-you-do.’
Welcome to our humble blog! scordova
Thanks for the play-by-play erik, do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation?
Do you? So far you've only shown you can only regurgitate that which you seem to only tenuously understand, and engage in ad hominem. But, by all means, please keep responding. What was that old saying? "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." TSErik
So you have finally come to terms with your scientific illiteracy and misunderstanding on the topics of proteins, amino acids, etc? Well its about time. Tell ray "the banana man" comfort I said hi. AVS
I left that part out because it adds nothing to the argument. Do I really need to spell out what they did? Ok. 1. Generate 30 non-standard, plausible, early-earth amino acids by changing R group chemistry (NOTE HOW I DID NOT SAY BY CHANGING L OR D CONFORMATION) 2. Pool the 20 standard amino acids and 30 non-standard amino acids 3. Randomly select 20 amino acids from the 50 4. Score the new set of 20 on how well they cover the variations in size, polarity, and hydrophobicity Now, as I pointed out, D or L conformation was not looked at whatsoever. I am claiming that D amino acids would be just as optimal, as I have already stated that the only difference between the molecules is their orientation. The use of L aminos over D was a completely arbitrary event in the evolution of life. If you want to argue that your intelligent designer arbitrarily chose L over D then be my guest, but in that case I would argue his intelligence. Also, I do not "need to make myself feel smarter than you IDiots," you guys do that for me. AVS
Mr. AVS, I going to belatedly take Barb's advice and drop out of this discussion with you since I'm finding you to be very insincere. bornagain77
AVS, why did you disingenuoyusly leave this out of what you quoted: "drawn randomly from the pool of 50 plausible prebiotic candidates.” you are claiming knowledge that you don't have when you claim that an optimal set can be found elsewhere. Perhaps you would like to actually do the experiments to actually show that an optimal set can be found elsewhere before you claim knowledge that you don't presently have? Or is the fact that you can merely imagine that there may be an optimal set elsewhere enough for you to make the assertion? Your dishonesty towards what the evidence actually states bleeds through on every post you make! But no worry, just toss out a few more ad hominems and unsubstantiated claims and I'm sure you can make yourself feel much smarter than us IDiots! As to genetic diseases and evil in genral, I believe we live in a fallen world. The presence of evil in the world is certainly not a problem for Christianity, whereas for atheistic naturalism the presence of evil presents a insurmountable problem in that naturalism cannot account for the objective reality of evil or Good. i.e. Thus the self-refuting nature of the argument! bornagain77
Here's your post: "The authors compared the coverage of the standard alphabet of 20 amino acids for size, charge, and hydrophobicity" An then again in your own post: "…the standard alphabet exhibits better coverage (i.e., greater breadth and greater evenness) than any random set for each of size, charge, and hydrophobicity, and for all combinations thereof." NOTICE HOW D OR L IS NOT ANYWHERE IN THERE. THEY DID NOT LOOK AT D VS L. PLEASE READ WHAT YOU MINDLESSLY COPY AND PASTE BEFORE POSTING IT. Thank you. "How do you know, you can’t even demonstrate the origin of life in thee first place?" This quote of yours is my new favorite. How do I know there is no advantage to L or D? Because they are made up of the exact same atoms and have the exact same properties; they only differ in orientation. Also my questions about the arbitrary use of D or L and why newborns frequently face genetic diseases so frequently was purely about your opinion on them. Thats why I said "What do you think?" You were the one to talk about "argument" and "evil." AVS
even though they tested amino acids: drawn randomly from the pool of 50 plausible prebiotic candidates." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/does_life_use_a_non-random_set045661.html#sthash.NPZHxzlC.dpuf and found optimality, you claim,,, "but their is no real advantage to using D over L." How do you know, you can't even demonstrate the origin of life in thee first place? And as far as can be demonstrated for plausible candidates they found optimality! Are you claiming omniscience for yourself? Humbleness is not a strong suit of yours eh? You then state: How about you launch yourself into space without a space suit and tell me how well you survive. Whereas the 'privileged planet' principle is actually an argument for Theism: The Privileged Planet - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnWyPIzTOTw The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery - book By Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Wesley Richards http://books.google.com/books?id=KFdu4CyQ1k0C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false Privileged Planet - Observability Correlation - Gonzalez and Richards - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5424431 The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole. - Jay Richards The Privileged Planet - The Correlation Of Habitability and Observability “The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.” “The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.” “There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.” - Guillermo Gonzalez - Astronomer http://books.google.com/books?id=lMdwFWZ00GQC&pg=PT28#v=onepage&q&f=false Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is'; Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate ? 10^324 longevity requirements estimate ? 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe ? 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part3.pdf Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236 Isaiah 40:28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. You then state: Relax with your “argument from evil” bull. I’m simply asking you your thoughts on why so many newborns face debilitating diseases. MMMMMM, you were the one who used the argument from evil to try to support evolution not me, I merely pointed out that you were unscientific for doing so and that it is a self refuting argument. If you don't want to be shown to be disingenuous don't be disingenuous! bornagain77
My oh my. You should try reading the things you copy-paste-post sometimes. The optimality comparisons you "already pointed out to me" looked at amino acid R groups and their subsequent properties in groups of 20; none of them looked at L vs D. Same goes for your sugars example. Sugars may be the optimal carbon substrate, but their is no real advantage to using D over L. You've got nothing. The universe is optimally set up for life? How about you launch yourself into space without a space suit and tell me how well you survive. Relax with your "argument from evil" bull. I'm simply asking you your thoughts on why so many newborns face debilitating diseases. AVS
AVS you state: How about this, it was an “arbitrary event,” not a “choice.” Is that better? Okie Dokie what is you experimental proof that this 'arbitrary event' happened? You go on to state: And no comment as to why our “intelligent” designer decided not to use D-amino acids? It was already pointed out to you that the set of amino acids are found to be 'optimal': You then state Or how about L-sugars? ,, Well I don't know much about sugars but this looked interesting from a quick search on google,,, Sugars as the optimal biosynthetic carbon substrate of aqueous life throughout the universe. - Weber AL. - 2000 Excerpt: In this report, we compare the redox and kinetic properties of carbon groups in order to evaluate the relative biosynthetic capability of organic substrates, and to identify the optimal biosubstrate. This analysis revealed that sugars (monocarbonyl alditols) are the optimal biosynthetic substrate because they contain the maximum number of biosynthetically useful high energy electrons/carbon atom while still containing a single carbonyl group needed to kinetically facilitate their conversion to useful biosynthetic intermediates. This conclusion applies to aqueous life throughout the Universe because it is based on invariant aqueous carbon chemistry--primarily, the universal reduction potentials of carbon groups. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10836263 Of related note AVS, exactly how does atheism explain the fact that the universe is 'optimally' set up for life, in the very chemistry of life?: Michael Denton: Remarkable 'Optimal' Coincidences in Photosynthesis - podcast http://www.idthefuture.com/2012/09/michael_denton_remarkable_coin.html And then, seeing as you have no empirical support for Darwinism, you finally get to the argument from evil: "Or why does he form babies with genetic diseases? Why not give each newborn an equal shot at living life like everyone else?" So Mr. AVS your argument for atheistic evolution is not that you have any real proof that any of the fantastic things you claim can happen naturalistically can actually happen naturalistically but that you think that God would not allow evil in the world? But that is not science Mr. AVS, that is a Theological argument called Theodicy! Moreover if you use evil to disprove the existence of Good you then undermine any mooring that evil has in the argument in the first place. i.e. it is a self-refuting argument! In other words, the problem of evil is only generated by the prior claims that evil exists. One cannot then conclude, with Dawkins, that there is ‘no evil and no good’ in the universe.,,, The fact that evolution’s acceptance hinges on a theological position would, for many, be enough to expel it from science. But evolution’s reliance on metaphysics is not its worst failing. Evolution’s real problem is not its metaphysics but its denial of its metaphysics.,,, Cornelius Hunter – Darwin’s God – pg. 154 & 159 The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning - Paul A. Nelson - Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517 Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/?MUD=MP bornagain77
That's why I put it in quotes. You see, this is the problem when trying to talk science with the scientifically illiterate. Science tries to put things into terms that a layman can understand and then people like you turn it around to mean something else. I'm truly sorry you bombed your science classes in high school, but that's no reason to ruin it for the rest of society. How about this, it was an "arbitrary event," not a "choice." Is that better? And no comment as to why our "intelligent" designer decided not to use D-amino acids? Or how about L-sugars? Or why does he form babies with genetic diseases? Why not give each newborn an equal shot at living life like everyone else? AVS
Whatho whatho one and all. I do hope you don't mind my dropping in unannounced. It's a devil of a thing to know how to introduce oneself in these sorts of situations. I mean to say, it's tantamount to a sky-diver coming through the roof in the middle of tea, what? A spot about myself. I have been following the evolution/intelligent design to-ings and fro-ings for a goodly while now and I particularly like this site for its more tempered approach to discussion. Sufficient heat; cut,thrust,parry and riposte and all that, but without spiraling into vulgarities and nastiness. So I said to myself "Ho-de-Ho, this is just the ticket." Which remark, incidentally, is the reason for my user name. Please forgive me if I am not the most frequent of commentators. It would not be for lack of desire, I assure you. However I hope to chip in the odd penn'th or two if I can. In particular, all you good fellows and fellowesses here at UD (if I may be permitted to be so colloquial so early on)I often find myself besieged with questions about this or that and simultaneously deprived of the necessary Mathematician, Biologist, Chemist, Physicist, Engineer, computer Scientist or equally science savvy person to fire my question at. If It's ok with you all here, would you mind if I ask the occasional question? I shall be earnest in my endeavours to keep it on topic. Once again, I thank you for your polite tolerance of my unannounced intrusion onto your boards. I bid you all a hearty 'how-do-you-do.' Ho-De-Ho
Mr. AVS you claim: "It was a simple “choice” made by the earliest of organisms who would later give rise to all life today." REALLY??? "Choice" implies a mind, moreover: Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: “There is no doubt that the progenitor of all life on Earth, the common ancestor, possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell.” http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-was-our-oldest-ancestor-a-protonpowered-rock.html In fact we now have evidence for photosynthetic life suddenly appearing on earth, as soon as water appeared on the earth, in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth. The Sudden Appearance Of Photosynthetic Life On Earth - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4262918 U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland - indications of +3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis (2003) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004E&PSL.217..237R Moreover, evidence for 'sulfate reducing' bacteria has been discovered alongside the evidence for photosynthetic bacteria: When Did Life First Appear on Earth? - Fazale Rana - December 2010 Excerpt: The primary evidence for 3.8 billion-year-old life consists of carbonaceous deposits, such as graphite, found in rock formations in western Greenland. These deposits display an enrichment of the carbon-12 isotope. Other chemical signatures from these formations that have been interpreted as biological remnants include uranium/thorium fractionation and banded iron formations. Recently, a team from Australia argued that the dolomite in these formations also reflects biological activity, specifically that of sulfate-reducing bacteria. http://www.reasons.org/when-did-life-first-appear-earth Moreover there are no prebiotic chemical signatures Dr. Hugh Ross - Origin Of Life Paradox (No prebiotic chemical signatures)- video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012696 There is actually a molecular machine, that surpasses man made machines in engineering parameters, that is integral to the photosynthetic process: 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/2013/05/atp_synthase_an_1072101.html Moreover, photosynthesis is shown to require a 'non-local', beyond space and time, cause in order to explain its effect: 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhMrrmlTXl4&feature=player_detailpage#t=1268s Uncovering Quantum Secret in Photosynthesis - June 20, 2013 Excerpt: Photosynthetic organisms, such as plants and some bacteria, have mastered this process: In less than a couple of trillionths of a second, 95 percent of the sunlight they absorb is whisked away to drive the metabolic reactions that provide them with energy. The efficiency of photovoltaic cells currently on the market is around 20 percent.,,, Van Hulst and his group have evaluated the energy transport pathways of separate individual but chemically identical, antenna proteins, and have shown that each protein uses a distinct pathway. The most surprising discovery was that the transport paths within single proteins can vary over time due to changes in the environmental conditions, apparently adapting for optimal efficiency. "These results show that coherence, a genuine quantum effect of superposition of states, is responsible for maintaining high levels of transport efficiency in biological systems, even while they adapt their energy transport pathways due to environmental influences" says van Hulst. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130620142932.htm Music and Verse: Toby Mac (In The Light) - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_MpGRQRrP0 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. bornagain77
Ah there you go, asking questions you already know there answer to. There is no experimental proof for the generation of homochiral life, but I'm not really sure why it would be a problem for chemical evolution. It was a simple "choice" made by the earliest of organisms who would later give rise to all life today. In going along with the proteinoid topic,it could simply have been a proteinoid that catalyzed peptide bond formation only in L-amino acids for example. On a side note, I would love to ask your designer why he doesn't use the D-amino acids. It's like someone wanted to build a house using only 2x3s or something. What do you think? AVS
Okie Dokie Mr. AVS, let's 'get real'! What is your experimental proof that the 'homochirality problem' of proteinoids (the problem of having a mixture of left handed and right handed amino acids) can be effectively dealt within any naturalistic scenario so as to get from your tangled cross-linked proteinoid mess to a truly functional protein of only left handed amino acids? Homochirality and Darwin: part 2 – Robert Sheldon – May 2010 Excerpt: With regard to the deniers who think homochirality is not much of a problem, I only ask whether a solution requiring multiple massive magnetized black-hole supernovae doesn’t imply there is at least a small difficulty to overcome? A difficulty, perhaps, that points to the non-random nature of life in the cosmos? http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/05/21/homochirality_and_darwin_part_2.thtml The problem of 'left handed' homochirality found in the Miller-Urey experiment is certainly of no small concern to any realistic Origin Of Life scenario put forth by evolutionists: Dr. Charles Garner on the problem of Chirality in nature and Origin of Life Research - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-04-12T17_21_16-07_00 Origin Of Life - Problems With Proteins - Homochirality - Charles Thaxton PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5222490 Homochirality and Darwin - Robert Sheldon - April 2010 Excerpt: there is no abiotic path from a racemic solution to a stereo-active solution of amino acid(s) that doesn't involve a biotic chiral agent, be it chiral beads or Louis Pasteur himself. Like many critiques of ID, the problem with these "Darwinist" solutions is that they always smuggle in some information, in this case, chiral agents. http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/page3 As well there is a ‘optimality’ found for the 20 amino acid set used in the 'standard' Genetic code when the set was compared to 1 million randomly generated alternative amino acid sets; Does Life Use a Non-Random Set of Amino Acids? - Jonathan M. - April 2011 Excerpt: The authors compared the coverage of the standard alphabet of 20 amino acids for size, charge, and hydrophobicity with equivalent values calculated for a sample of 1 million alternative sets (each also comprising 20 members) drawn randomly from the pool of 50 plausible prebiotic candidates. The results? The authors noted that: "…the standard alphabet exhibits better coverage (i.e., greater breadth and greater evenness) than any random set for each of size, charge, and hydrophobicity, and for all combinations thereof." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/does_life_use_a_non-random_set045661.html Extreme genetic code optimality from a molecular dynamics calculation of amino acid polar requirement – 2009 Excerpt: A molecular dynamics calculation of the amino acid polar requirement is used to score the canonical genetic code. Monte Carlo simulation shows that this computational polar requirement has been optimized by the canonical genetic code, an order of magnitude more than any previously known measure, effectively ruling out a vertical evolution dynamics. http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v79/i6/e060901 The Finely Tuned Genetic Code - Jonathan M. - November 2011 Excerpt: Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: "why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?," that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology. - Eugene Koonin and Artem Novozhilov http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/the_finely_tuned_genetic_code052611.html "The more we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes." - Thomas Nagel - "Mind & Cosmos" Moreover the first DNA code of life on earth had to be at least as complex as the current optimal DNA code found in life is because of what is termed 'Shannon Channel Capacity': Shannon Information - Channel Capacity - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5457552/ “Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible” Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life bornagain77
I defined a protein catalyst. Proteinoids fit the description of a functioning protein catalyst. Proteinoids may not closely resemble the proteins our body uses today but they are capable of carrying out the same task. It's like your trying to say that the Model T isn't a car because it doesnt have an automatic transnmission, power-steering, and a moonroof. Get real. AVS
AVS, I find you to be dishonest and misleading in your argument. First you claimed that functional proteins could be had simply by dripping amino acids on hot sand. When I looked the article up, which you did not reference by the way, I found that they are not fully functional proteins but are in fact proteinoids. When I pointed this out you stated 'they (proteinoids) are fully functional proteins', then when called on it Barbara that they have little in common with 'fully functional proteins', you retreat to the logically incoherent position of saying, 'A proteinoid is a protein, but a protein is not a proteinoid' all to protect the disingenuous statement that you first had made. Why all the dishonest Mr. AVS. Why not be forthright? What have you to gain by making a fool of yourself like this? Mr. AVS, there is a saying in AA that goes something to the effect 'if you find yourself in a hole stop digging'. Stop digging Mr. AVS! bornagain77
AVS, language. KF kairosfocus
Thanks for the play-by-play erik, do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation? AVS
Holy shit, my point is that proteinoids are made up of amino acids and have catalytic activity, therefore they are the simplest form of a functional protein. You also quoted a disputed opinion in a piece from 1984. AVS
So first, AVS, you put two sentences of ad hominem. Then you paste a rebuttal, that isn't even yours, that has been refuted before. Then when called on it you commit the fallacy of attacking the source instead of the content of the argument. Then, in a nest of supercilious pseudo-intellectual points you land to an embarrassing claim you are now trying to qualify. Well done, mate. Now stop embarrassing yourself. TSErik
Avs claimed proteinoids “are fully functioning proteins” and yet; “…there is no evidence that proteinoids differ significantly from a random sequence of amino acids, with little or no catalytic activity.” (Charles B. Thaxton [Ph.D. in Chemistry], Walter L. Bradley [Ph.D. in Materials Science], Roger L. Olsen [BS in Chemistry, Ph.D. in Geochemistry], The Mystery of Life¡’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley, 1984, p155-156). now AVS says: A proteinoid is a protein, but a protein is not a proteinoid. One is more fine-tuned than the other. And a finely made sweater is more finely-tuned than a tangled ball of yarn! Your point being? bornagain77
Guys, guys, guys, let me make this really easy so even you can understand: Protein enzymes are macromolecular structures built from amino acid monomers that can catalyze chemical reactions. Proteinoids fit this definition perfectly. Now I realize that proteins and proteinoids are not the same thing, and that is why their is a distinction when talking about them in the literature. A proteinoid is a protein, but a protein is not a proteinoid. One is more fine-tuned than the other. AVS
Why thank you Barb. That was just what I was looking for, and there you be. :) bornagain77
AVS, not to cast doubt on your honesty in your claim that proteinoids "are fully functioning proteins", but how come the paper at the base of your claim is titled: Thermal Copolymerization of Amino Acids to a Product Resembling Protein - S. Fox - November 1958 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1756313?uid=3739736 If it is truly a functional protein why didn't Fox say it was a functional protein instead of saying it was merely 'a product resembling a protein'. And again Fox himself states: Proteinoids,,,"Although these polymers have other properties of contemporary protein as well, identity with the latter is not a necessary inference".[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinoid Perhaps you also want to now tell Dr. Fox how to identify a functional protein when he sees it? Sidney Fox in 1970s coaxed amino acids to condense into "proteinoids", but this approach has not yielded much beyond that. Fazale Rana - Origins Of Life - page 25 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/Origins.html AVS, the formation of functional proteins is far more difficult than you seem to realize: Homochirality and Darwin: part 2 - Robert Sheldon - May 2010 Excerpt: With regard to the deniers who think homochirality is not much of a problem, I only ask whether a solution requiring multiple massive magnetized black-hole supernovae doesn't imply there is at least a small difficulty to overcome? A difficulty, perhaps, that points to the non-random nature of life in the cosmos? http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/05/21/homochirality_and_darwin_part_2.thtml Left-Handed Amino Acids Explained Naturally? Not by a long shot! - January 2010 http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201101.htm#20110110a In fact, the construction of truly functional proteins, not 'proteinoids', by the Ribosome is a wonder to behold. Journey Inside The Cell – Stephen Meyer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg The 'protein factory' of the ribosome, which is the only known machine in the universe capable of making functional proteins of any significant length, is far more complicated than first thought: Honors to Researchers Who Probed Atomic Structure of Ribosomes - Robert F. Service Excerpt: "The ribosome’s dance, however, is more like a grand ballet, with dozens of ribosomal proteins and subunits pirouetting with every step while other key biomolecules leap in, carrying other dancers needed to complete the act.” http://creationsafaris.com/crev200910.htm#20091010a As well, The Ribosome of the cell is found to be very similar to a CPU in a electronic computer: Dichotomy in the definition of prescriptive information suggests both prescribed data and prescribed algorithms: biosemiotics applications in genomic systems - 2012 David J D’Onofrio1*, David L Abel2* and Donald E Johnson3 Excerpt: The DNA polynucleotide molecule consists of a linear sequence of nucleotides, each representing a biological placeholder of adenine (A), cytosine (C), thymine (T) and guanine (G). This quaternary system is analogous to the base two binary scheme native to computational systems. As such, the polynucleotide sequence represents the lowest level of coded information expressed as a form of machine code. Since machine code (and/or micro code) is the lowest form of compiled computer programs, it represents the most primitive level of programming language.,,, An operational analysis of the ribosome has revealed that this molecular machine with all of its parts follows an order of operations to produce a protein product. This order of operations has been detailed in a step-by-step process that has been observed to be self-executable. The ribosome operation has been proposed to be algorithmic (Ralgorithm) because it has been shown to contain a step-by-step process flow allowing for decision control, iterative branching and halting capability. The R-algorithm contains logical structures of linear sequencing, branch and conditional control. All of these features at a minimum meet the definition of an algorithm and when combined with the data from the mRNA, satisfy the rule that Algorithm = data + control. Remembering that mere constraints cannot serve as bona fide formal controls, we therefore conclude that the ribosome is a physical instantiation of an algorithm.,,, The correlation between linguistic properties examined and implemented using Automata theory give us a formalistic tool to study the language and grammar of biological systems in a similar manner to how we study computational cybernetic systems. These examples define a dichotomy in the definition of Prescriptive Information. We therefore suggest that the term Prescriptive Information (PI) be subdivided into two categories: 1) Prescriptive data and 2) Prescribed (executing) algorithm. It is interesting to note that the CPU of an electronic computer is an instance of a prescriptive algorithm instantiated into an electronic circuit, whereas the software under execution is read and processed by the CPU to prescribe the program’s desired output. Both hardware and software are prescriptive. http://www.tbiomed.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-9-8.pdf LIFE: WHAT A CONCEPT! Excerpt: The ribosome,,,, it's the most complicated thing that is present in all organisms.,,, you find that almost the only thing that's in common across all organisms is the ribosome.,,, So the question is, how did that thing come to be? And if I were to be an intelligent design defender, that's what I would focus on; how did the ribosome come to be? George Church - Senior Scientist - Wyss Institute http://www.edge.org/documents/life/church_index.html So AVS, thus you are found to be wanting for evidence that truly functional proteins, not 'proteinoids' can form naturally and you are left with the perplexing dilemma of explaining why if proteins are supposedly so easy to form naturally as you hold then why in the world does the ribosome have to be so fantastically complex in its construction? bornagain77
AVS @ 49: Protenoids are not fully functioning proteins, as you claim. Here are some differences: 1. Proteinoids do not have anything coding their sequences, and the amino acids bond together randomly. 2. Proteinoids do not fold into a predictable three-dimensional conformation (since their sequences are not deterministic, for example). 3. Proteinoids contain both left- and right-handed amino acids in equal amounts, and even if the experiment begins will all left-handed amino acids, some are converted to the other form. 4. The amino acids in proteinoids are not all bonded together by alpha bonds: the amino acid chain in proteinoids is branched and "kinked" instead of being linear (due to incorrect bonding, for example, involving side groups). 5. Proteinoids have bonds other than peptide bonds joining their amino acids. Some of the starting amino acids are converted into pigments, which are incorporated into the proteinoid. These scientists also noted a distinct difference between proteinoids and proteins: "To this product Fox gave the name proteinoid, a cautious choice since proteinoids are far from having the regular chainlike structure of peptides." (Christian de Duve, Vital Dust:Life as a Cosmic Imperative, Basic Books, 1995, p29) "The products obtained were not natural proteins, however, even though they were made from amino acids. The special amino acids mentioned above contained either an extra amino or an extra acid group. In normal proteins, these extra groups do not take part in chain formation, but this had occurred in the heating process. Unnatural chains, even branched chains, had been produced. Further, some of the amino acids had been converted into their mirror-image forms, so both types were present. Others had been converted to colored substances, pigments, which were also built into the chains. The term proteinoid rather than protein was applied to the product, because of these features which distinguished it from anything present in earthly biology." (Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Robert Shapiro, Bantam Books, 1987, p193-194) "Studies using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) have shown that thermal proteinoids "have scarce resemblance to natural peptidic material because [beta], [gamma], and [epsilon] bonds largely predominate over [alpha]-peptide bonds." (Charles B. Thaxton [Ph.D. in Chemistry], Walter L. Bradley [Ph.D. in Materials Science], Roger L. Olsen [BS in Chemistry, Ph.D. in Geochemistry], The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley, 1984, p155-156) "A third kind of question [concerning proteinoids] was that of crosslinks such as have not been reported for protein. Reactions might be postulated, for example, between side chains of such amino acids as lysine and aspartic acid. Moreover, linkage through the amino groups of some lysine residues has been shown in a number of studies (Harada, 1959; Harada and Fox, 1965a; Suzuki, 1966; Heinrich et al., 1969). (Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose, W. H. Freeman and Co., 1972, p148-149) "Fox has produced some quite long peptides, which he terms proteinoids, using this method. Unfortunately, the resemblance between Fox's proteinoids and real proteins is rather superficial. For example, real proteins are made exclusively of left-handed amino acids (see page 71), whereas proteinoids are an equal mixture of left and right." (The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life, Paul Davies, Simon & Schuster, NY, 1999, p 90-91) "...there is no evidence that proteinoids differ significantly from a random sequence of amino acids, with little or no catalytic activity." (Charles B. Thaxton [Ph.D. in Chemistry], Walter L. Bradley [Ph.D. in Materials Science], Roger L. Olsen [BS in Chemistry, Ph.D. in Geochemistry], The Mystery of Life¡'s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley, 1984, p155-156). Barb
Proteinoids have demonstrated catalytic activity, therefore they are fully functioning proteins. You do know that of the many proteins in any given cell, the majority of them function by catalyzing a single specific reaction right? AVS
AVS claims:
You want an example of randomness producing a functional protein? Well protein lattices with catalytic activity have been produced simply by dripping amino acids onto hot sand.
Heat is another way to join monomers into polymers. Scientists have shown that when organic monomers (like amino acids) are heated and splashed onto hot sand or rocks, the heat vaporizes the water and links the monomers into polymers - which scientists call 'proteinoids'. http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/ch8life.html pro·tein·oid A proteinlike polypeptide formed abiotically from amino acid mixtures in the presence of heat, thought to resemble early evolutionary forms of protein. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proteinoid
I guess when you are a Darwinist disingenuously claiming that 'proteinoids' are not really proteinoids at all but are fully functional proteins is just par for the course? Perhaps you should read Signature in the Cell so as to get a small glimpse as to how difficult the origin of life problem is for atheistic materialists? Signature In The Cell - Stephen Meyer - e-book http://intelligentdesignscience.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/signature-in-the-cell.pdf Of supplemental note: Nick Lane Takes on the Origin of Life and DNA - Jonathan McLatchie - July 2010 Excerpt: numerous problems abound for the hydrothermal vent hypothesis for the origin of life,,,, For example, as Stanley Miller has pointed out, the polymers are "too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment." Miller has also noted that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water when the water boils. Intense heating also has the tendency to degrade amino acids such as serine and threonine. A more damning problem lies in the fact that the homochirality of the amino acids is destroyed by heating. Of course, accounting for the required building blocks is an interesting problem, but from the vantage of ID proponents, it is only one of many problems facing materialistic accounts of the origin of life. After all, it is the sequential arrangement of the chemical constituents -- whether that happens to be amino acids in proteins, or nucleotides in DNA or RNA -- to form complex specified information (a process which requires the production of specified irregularity), which compellingly points toward the activity of rational deliberation (Intelligence). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/nick_lane_and_the_ten_great_in036101.html Origin-of-Life Theorists Fail to Explain Chemical Signatures in the Cell - Casey Luskin - February 15, 2012 Excerpt: (Nick) Lane also notes that the study has a significant conceptual flaw. "To suggest that the ionic composition of primordial cells should reflect the composition of the oceans is to suggest that cells are in equilibrium with their medium, which is close to saying that they are not alive," Lane says. "Cells require dynamic disequilibrium -- that is what being alive is all about.",,, Our uniform experience affirms that specified information-whether inscribed hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment-always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process. (Stephen Meyer - Signature in the Cell, p. 347) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/origin-of-life_056391.html "Shut up," Coyne Explained - January 2012 Excerpt: Coyne writes that Kuhn's criticisms of current origin-of-life research are "absurdly funny" -- even though such research (into the origin of life) has not led to the abiotic formation of a single functional protein, much less a living cell. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/shut_up_coyne_e055421.html A Substantial Conundrum Confronting The Chemical Origin Of Life - August 2011 Excerpt: 1. Peptide bond formation is an endothermic reaction. This means that the reaction requires the absorption of energy: It does not take place spontaneously. 2. Peptide bond formation is a condensation reaction. It hence involves the net removal of a water molecule. So not only can this reaction not happen spontaneously in an aqueous medium, but, in fact, the presence of water inhibits the reaction. https://uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/a-substantial-conundrum-confronting-the-chemical-origin-of-life/ To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU) of note from yesterday: New findings challenge assumptions about origins of life - September 13, 2013 Excerpt: This finding led to the "RNA World" hypothesis, which posits that RNA alone triggered the rise of (the first biological) life from a (primordial) sea of molecules. But for the hypothesis to be correct, ancient RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes. That's a hard sell; scientists calculate that it would take much longer than the age of the universe for randomly generated RNA molecules to evolve sufficiently to achieve the modern level of sophistication. Given Earth's age of 4.5 billion years, living systems run entirely by RNA could not have reproduced and evolved either fast or accurately enough to give rise to the vast biological complexity on Earth today. "The RNA world hypothesis is extremely unlikely," said Carter. "It would take forever." Moreover, there's no proof that such ribozymes even existed billions of years ago. To buttress the RNA World hypothesis, scientists use 21st century technology to create ribozymes that serve as catalysts. "But most of those synthetic ribozymes," Carter said, "bear little resemblance to anything anyone has ever isolated from a living system.",,, The (current) study leaves open the question of exactly how those primitive systems managed to replicate themselves—something neither the RNA World hypothesis nor the Peptide-RNA World theory can yet explain. http://phys.org/news/2013-09-assumptions-life.html bornagain77
1 2

Leave a Reply