80 Replies to “Sportscaster to be fired for supporting ID on live TV?

  1. 1
    Mapou says:

    AVS:

    Meanwhile people are being beheaded in the Middle East and there’s a mass shooting every other day.
    Thanks god.

    Atheists Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao killed tens of millions. Thanks, atheism.

    And we all can’t wait to go on vacation to atheist North Korea, the favorite holiday destination of billions. Not.

  2. 2
    goodusername says:

    News,

    We are discussing a serious issue here.

    What serious issue is that? Do you really think the sportscaster may be fired for that? Seriously?

    Stories like this have been a regular feature on UD. In all the times over the years that you’ve asked “Will X be fired for supporting ID?” or something similar, has it ever happened? Even once?

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    As to Bill Walton’s comment”

    “I believe in science and evolution.”

    Actually if Bill Walton truly does ‘believe in science’ then he should definitely not believe in Darwinian Evolution.
    Darwinian evolution is not even a real science in the first place but is in fact a pseudo-science that does not even have a rigid falsification criteria like other overarching theories of science have,,,

    Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science:
    The primary reasons why Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a proper science are as such:
    1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (Falsification Criteria)
    2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis
    3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are both grossly inadequate as ‘creative engines’
    4. Information is not reducible to a material basis, (in fact, in quantum teleportation it is found that material ultimately reduces to a information basis)
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit

    Besides that little embarrassing fact for Darwinists (i.e. that Darwinism does not even qualify as a real science in the first place), is the fact that ‘science’ cannot even be grounded in the naturalistic/materialistic worldview that undergirds Darwinian thought. In fact, if naturalism were true it would lead to the epistemological failure of science:

    Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism – Mike Keas – October 10, 2012
    Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:).
    Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga’s nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states:
    “Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not.”
    Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305.
    http://blogs.christianpost.com.....ism-12421/

    Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True (Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism) – video
    Excerpt: “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
    Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs

    Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (An Introduction) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpQ1-AGPysM

    Quote: “In evolutionary games we put truth (true perception) on the stage and it dies. And in genetic algorithms it (true perception) never gets on the stage”
    Donald Hoffman PhD. – Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception – 7:19 to 9:20 minute mark – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dqDP34a-epI#t=439

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    Moreover, modern science was not born out of naturalism but was born out of the Judeo Christian belief that the universe was created by the rational mind of God and that we, being made in God’s image, could therefore discern the rationality with which God has created the universe

    The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications – Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014
    Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing.
    As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed, and as I pointed out in two of my talks at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview.
    http://townhall.com/columnists...../page/full
    Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.robkoons.net/media/.....ffd524.pdf

    Moreover, modern science flourished quite well when Christianity was far more respected in America than it currently is:

    Bruce Charlton’s Miscellany – October 2011
    Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be – if Christianity was culturally inimical to science?
    http://charltonteaching.blogsp.....-wife.html

    Thus, if Bill Walton truly ‘believes in science’ then he should definitely not believe in Darwinian evolution. Moreover, he, especially, should not believe in the atheistic naturalism that undergirds Darwinian thought since it is the root cause for the epistemological failure of science.!

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    as to: “Will X be fired for supporting ID?” or something similar, has it ever happened? Even once?”

    Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

    Slaughter of Dissidents – Book
    “If folks liked Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” they will be blown away by “Slaughter of the Dissidents.” – Russ Miller
    http://www.amazon.com/Slaughte.....0981873405

    Origins – Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk

    “In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ”
    Professor James M. Tour – one of the ten most cited chemists in the world
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

    Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows Darwinian Evolution Does Not Work – James Tour, Phd. – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y5-VNg-S0s

  5. 5

    Teething biscuits…

  6. 6
    goodusername says:

    BA77,

    I wasn’t talking about the times that it’s been alleged that someone was fired for supporting ID or opposing Darwinism; I’m talking about all the times on UD that it’s been predicted or asked if someone is going to be fired, such as in the OP.

  7. 7
    tjguy says:

    Goodusername

    What serious issue is that?

    You may not think it is serious, but I bet the guy getting fired does. Since Darwinists are in control and can fire people at will for their views on evolution, you can rest at ease, but not the rest of us. It is serious for the us. Many scientists have had their careers derailed by their views on this subject.

  8. 8
    goodusername says:

    tjguy,

    You may not think it is serious, but I bet the guy getting fired does.

    Do you think the sportscaster is getting fired for this?

  9. 9
    smiddyone says:

    This is a 3Rd hand quote who cites the”word on the street” persecution complex for cheap points on display. There was another.articles on this site about conspiracy theories being believed by those with more extreme political views. Very telling

  10. 10
    rvb8 says:

    What business has a sports caster got mentioning any thing about god or religion? He should be fired for simply not doing his job.

    When the game is on do I really want the caster to say; “Well Bob, that play went like clockwork, probably the work of intelligence..”? No I do not! Clumsily shoving god onto the pitch is misplaced idiocy and the guy most certainly should be for the chop; get rid of the cretin. And as he walks to the door, ask him to explain why the most Christian of teams sometimes lose; perhaps one of the team is not pulling His weight?

  11. 11
    goodusername says:

    rvb8,

    To be fair, it was Bill Walton that started it (at least from the video cited), and then kind of put him on the spot. But yeah, it was a bit cringe-worthy.

  12. 12
    rvb8 says:

    I use general terms to include all sports as I have no idea who these people are, nor do I have an opinion on US sports, which appear very strange to me.

    So, he was asked about his beliefs. Again, why is this even part of a sports broadcast? If he was pressed for an answer to a completely un-sport related field why did he not say, ‘that’s irrelevant Bill.’

    I have to add that NEWS is truly desperate to spread the victim theme. My only comment to that would be that ID today, has become so irrelevant to YEC, and OEC that the victim road is the only one that gets a mild notice.

  13. 13
    MrCollins says:

    If anyone gets fired, it should be Walton for inciting religious persecution on national television. Pasch did the professional thing and tried to get back to the game quickly. So if you want to fire the guy who wasn’t doing his job, it’s the attacker and not the guy defending himself

  14. 14
    Mark Frank says:

    This seems to be yet another example of Betteridge’s Law of Headlines. Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word “no.”

    The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.”

  15. 15
    News says:

    Mark Frank at 14 has probably never been in the news business. Lose the nonsense about Betteridge. It’s old and incorrect.

    Mentioning that someone might be fired for dissing the prophet Darwin is roughly like suggesting that someone might be beheaded for dissing a different Prophet. It happens. And as that lady said in the Stoning of Soraya M., one wants the world to know.

    No, this isn’t as serious, but why should we let it get to be as serious before the world knows?

    The Darwinists who display themselves in all their glory above are perfectly content that that guy was set up and his career maybe wrecked – that’ll teach HIM for having questions or doubts.

    Funny, I catch a nap, and you do all my work for me. Thanks, guys. I don’t think you have any idea how much you contribute to our brand.

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    H’mm: A live, on air “birthday present” — where were the candles . . . — of Origin of Species joined to stuff on believing “Science” and naming Grand Canyon? This, given to a Christian who then responds by trying to get back on topic, only naming a theme, Irreducible Complexity? Sounds like an ideological set-up, loaded with insinuations. While dismissal is a rumour only, that it is even taken as noteworthy and adverse for the man set up on live TV should be troubling. KF

  17. 17
    goodusername says:

    Lose the nonsense about Betteridge. It’s old and incorrect.

    For being incorrect, it sure is remarkable how well it holds up around here.

  18. 18
    DavidD says:

    BA77:
    As to Bill Walton’s comment”

    “I believe in science and evolution.”

    ………………

    What I take away from Walton’s comment is that he is separating “science” from “evolution” otherwise why would you separate the two if it was just about science ? This stupid childish double standard and Pot to Kettle in these comments here the local intellects here is tiring. The other side “Evos” would be “cry-babying” foul if Dave Pasch offered Bill Walton a bible and stated he believed in science and creation.

    Clearly Walton has no problem with “Science” and “Faith”. There it’s fixed now. Both these guys have been going round and round with each other for a long time

    http://tucson.com/sports/baske.....b064b.html

  19. 19
    keith s says:

    O’Leary:

    Funny, I catch a nap, and you do all my work for me.

    Someone has to do your work for you.

  20. 20
    Mark Frank says:

    #15 News

    My experience of the news industry is utterly irrelevant. It is a simple matter of logic:

    Is the answer “yes” or “no” or “I don’t know”? If it is the last it is not news. It is speculation.

  21. 21
    DNA_Jock says:

    Looks like the first few posts on this thread have disappeared. Is this a software glitch, or were there deletions “for cause”?

    Regarding this story, my money’s on Betteridge.

  22. 22
    cobracai says:

    DNA_Jock,
    At the beginning of the post, it says there are 21 comments. I proceeded to count them and came up with 21 comments. Not “for cause”.

  23. 23
    Silver Asiatic says:

    There’s no controversy. Nobody is interested in ID and it doesn’t generate any attention. Right?

  24. 24
    Axel says:

    The atheist movers and shakers must be absolutely terrified.

  25. 25
    Me_Think says:

    I see no point in talking about the expulsion when he hasn’t been expelled, and is unlikely to be expelled. It seems the ID camp is fervently hoping he is expelled just so they can make him a martyr.

  26. 26
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (Falsification Criteria)

    Wrong on two counts.

    First, a mathematical basis is not required for falsification, just a testable claim. For instance, concerning phototropism in plants; blue light is the primary cause of the effect, activation occurs at the tip, bending occurs below the tip; three different scientific claims, none of which are mathematical, but each subject to falsification. See Darwin, The Power of Movement in Plants, Murray 1880.

    Second, the modern theory of evolution does have mathematical components, including population genetics and cladistics.

    And that’s just your first point!

    DNA_Jock: Regarding this story, my money’s on Betteridge.

    IS BETTERIDGE OFF HIS ROCKER? DO ALIENS WORSHIP OPRAH? Read all about it!
    http://tinyurl.com/DoAliensWorshipOprah

  27. 27
    DNA_Jock says:

    cobracai,

    You might notice that the first two comments on this thread quote previous comments: Mapou responding to AVS and goodusername responding to News.

    The original comments (and others relating to Wilson and Tebow …) have disappeared.

    And don’t be over-concluding from the fact that a comment by News was deleted.
    😉

    So: glitch, or intentional?

  28. 28
    cobracai says:

    DNA_Jock,
    I didn’t notice that, good observation. Beats me but I have known this site to be fair with its reporting and allowing different sides to be discussed.

  29. 29
    cantor says:

    I wish Pasch had said

    “Thanks Bill. Have you got anything better than a book written 160 years ago? A lot of water has passed under the bridge.”

    or perhaps

    “Thanks Bill. I’ll put this on the shelf along with other interesting old books on phlogiston and phrenology”.

  30. 30
    Silver Asiatic says:

    “Thanks, Bill. Oh, interesting. It says here life was ‘originally breathed by the Creator’. Glad to know that.”

  31. 31
    DesignDetectiveDave says:

    I watched the video. It was uncool of the other guy to pick on him on TV that has nothing to do with origins.

  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:
    “First, a mathematical basis is not required for falsification, just a testable claim.”

    Okie Dokie, how bout this testable claim and falsification?:

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
    – Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

    “Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), ‘If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’ Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It’s a mirage. None of it happens that way.
    – Doug Axe PhD. – Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/

    as to:
    “Second, the modern theory of evolution does have mathematical components, including population genetics and cladistics.”

    yet,,,

    Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85kThFEDi8o

    Evolution And Probabilities: A Response to Jason Rosenhouse – August 2011
    Excerpt: The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years – according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper, that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....osenhouse/

    Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test – Douglas Axe – July 18, 2012
    Excerpt: “For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time (i.e. the mutations cannot be ‘neutral’). Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (greater than 100 million years).
    My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they’re in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be.” Doug Axe PhD.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62351.html

    A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013
    Excerpt: The relationship between cladistics and Darwin’s theory of evolution is thus one of independent origin but convergent confusion. “Phylogenetic systematics,” the entomologist Michael Schmitt remarks, “relies on the theory of evolution.” To the extent that the theory of evolution relies on phylogenetic systematics, the disciplines resemble two biologists dropped from a great height and clutching at one another in mid-air.

    Tight fit, major fail.7

    No wonder that Schmidt is eager to affirm that “phylogenetics does not claim to prove or explain evolution whatsoever.”8 If this is so, a skeptic might be excused for asking what it does prove or might explain?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74601.html

  33. 33
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: ‘If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’ Well that condition has been met time and time again.

    No, but you just admitted it represents a falsifiable claim. It’s a weak claim because it relies on a negative proof, which could simply represent limitations of human knowledge. However, Darwin offers numerous positive ways to test his theory.

    bornagain77: yet,,,

    No, but you again admitted to what you just denied, that modern evolutionary theory has mathematical components.

  34. 34
    KRock says:

    Is this sportscaster for sure getting fired?

  35. 35
    bornagain77 says:

    Comparing the Odds: The Seahawks Game Versus…Evolution? – Ann Gauger – January 22, 2015
    Excerpt: that the odds of last week’s Seahawks win were quite small. They had to come back from a 12-point deficit in the last three minutes of the game. At that point the odds for a win were only 0.1 percent.,,,
    what if the odds were 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 to one? One out of 10^77.(?),,,
    Those are the odds of finding a protein capable of carrying out a particular function by chance alone.,,,
    Finally, instead of the goal posts being about 50 yards away, they are anywhere in a cubic search space of roughly 1×10^25 meters on a side (using the number 1 in 10^77 as a guide for the relative size of the space to be searched compared to the target). 1×10^25 meters is approximately one billion light-years, so the space to be searched is a cube one billion light-years on a side. Even if a trillion trillion trillion blindfolded players and proportionately more 12th person fans yelling loudly were dropped randomly into that (oxygenated) space, they still couldn’t find the goal. They’d each have a cube 10 trillion meters on a side to search.
    Clearly the only way to get the team to the cosmic goal would be to get some very specific intelligent guidance from someone. Luck wouldn’t win the game.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92961.html

  36. 36
    velikovskys says:


    Is this sportscaster for sure getting fired?

    Still on the air, still working with Bill Walton. This is the slowest moving persecution in history

  37. 37
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: what if the odds were 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 to one? One out of 10^77.(?),,,
    Those are the odds of finding a protein capable of carrying out a particular function by chance alone.,,,

    Actually, the chance of finding a particular function, such as ATP binding, is only about 10^-11. See Keefe & Szostak, Functional proteins from a random-sequence library, Nature 2001.

  38. 38
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, you keep repeatedly citing Szostak as if that experiment has not been thoroughly addressed and found wanting numerous times here and on Dr. Hunter’s blog. Why is that? Do you not care for what the evidence actually says? If you do care, then why do you continually repeat this evidence as if it has not been addressed and found wanting? Moreover, is it even possible for you to answer that question with rigorous honesty instead of rhetoric?!?

    Why Greta Christina’s critique of God-guided evolution misses the mark – August 18, 2014
    Excerpt: Keefe and Szostak managed to isolate four ATP binding proteins from a library of 6×10^12 proteins, and concluded that the proportion of all possible protein sequences that are actually functional might be as high as 1 in 10^11, or 1 in 100,000,000,000, and that functional proteins could therefore have arisen by an unguided, stochastic (i.e. random) process. (Their 2001 paper in Nature 410:715-718 can be accessed here.) Another team of scientists (Taylor et al., 98:10596-10601, 2001, doi:10.1073/pnas.191159298) estimated that a random protein library of about 10^24 members would be sufficient for finding one chorismate mutase molecule, making the problem of unguided natural processes hitting upon a functional sequence difficult but by no means impossible (see here for their article). Dr. Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. In a recent personal communication, Dr. Cornelius Hunter explained to me why these estimates of the probability of finding a functional protein sequence by chance are wildly over-optimistic, and pointed out that a more realistic estimate would be 1 in 10^60, or 1 in 1 million million million million million million million million million million:
    “First, Keefe and Szostak is not relevant as they were not seeking functional proteins, but merely mild ATP binding. Second, Taylor, et. al. deals with a simple, helix only, protein (homodimeric AroQ), biased the sequence toward helix forming amino acids and sequence patterns, did not fully randomize the sequence but only randomized regions, and is vague about how they arrive at their 10^24 tries required. Even if their calculation of 10^24 is reasonable, you’re dealing with a pretty simple protein… AroQ is toward the simple end of the spectrum… And finally there are several studies on slightly more complex, challenging proteins, all of which come in at around 10^60 – 10^80 attempts required.”
    Dr. Hunter also poured scorn on the suggestion, voiced by some experts, that the first proteins may have been relatively short, making their emergence by random processes far more likely. He wrote:
    “Proteins are by no means created equal. They occupy a wide spectrum of size and complexity… Nor is there reason to think that evolution could live with the shorter, simpler ones at first, and then later somehow the larger, more complex ones would evolve. The larger ones appear to be needed, and there are not obvious gradual pathways to forming them.… We’re still not close to the more complex proteins.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-the-mark/

    Moreover, the following papers found that man-made ATP binding is disruptive (i.e. non-functional) when expressed in a cell:

    A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells – 2009
    Excerpt: “Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division.”
    http://www.plosone.org/article.....ne.0007385

    Strange Behavior: New Study Exposes Living Cells to Synthetic Protein – Dec. 27, 2012
    Excerpt: ,,,”ATP is the energy currency of life,” Chaput says. The phosphodiester bonds of ATP contain the energy necessary to drive reactions in living systems, giving up their stored energy when these bonds are chemically cleaved. The depletion of available intracellular ATP by DX binding disrupts normal metabolic activity in the cells, preventing them from dividing, (though they continue to grow).,,,
    In the current study, E. coli cells exposed to DX transitioned into a filamentous form, which can occur naturally when such cells are subject to conditions of stress. The cells display low metabolic activity and limited cell division, presumably owing to their ATP-starved condition.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....143001.htm

    Moreover, even if the rarity of truly functional proteins, (proteins that actually do something useful in the cell instead of just disrupting the metabolic balance of the cell), were ONLY one in a trillion, that still would present an insurmountable, even comical, difficulty for the Darwinian scenario:

    How Proteins Evolved – Cornelius Hunter – December 2010
    Excerpt: Comparing ATP binding with the incredible feats of hemoglobin, for example, is like comparing a tricycle with a jet airplane. And even the one in 10^12 shot, though it pales in comparison to the odds of constructing a more useful protein machine, is no small barrier. If that is what is required to even achieve simple ATP binding, then evolution would need to be incessantly running unsuccessful trials. The machinery to construct, use and benefit from a potential protein product would have to be in place, while failure after failure results. Evolution would make Thomas Edison appear lazy, running millions of trials after millions of trials before finding even the tiniest of (non-beneficial) function.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....olved.html

    Yet, the reality of finding useful proteins is far more stark than the, ahem, ‘optimistic’ 1 in a trillion number that Zachriel cited is:

    Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the Same Protein – Cornelius Hunter – Dec. 1, 2012
    Excerpt: In one study evolutionists estimated the number of attempts that evolution could possibly have to construct a new protein. Their upper limit was 10^43. The lower limit was 10^21.
    These estimates are optimistic for several reasons, but in any case they fall short of the various estimates of how many attempts would be required to find a small protein. One study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein.
    And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences.
    Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required.
    And another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. In that case the protein was only a part of a larger protein which otherwise was intact, thus making the search easier.
    These estimates are roughly in the same ballpark, and compared to the first study giving the number of attempts possible, you have a deficit ranging from 20 to 56 orders of magnitude. Of course it gets much worse for longer proteins.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....1503051454

    Stephen Meyer & Doug Axe Critique Richard Dawkins’s “Mount Improbable” Illustration – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8

    Of related note, here is a very interesting comment by Jack Szostak himself as to the unexplained origin of molecular machines necessary for life (such as ATP synthase):

    The Origin of Life on Earth
    Excerpt: Every living cell, even the simplest bacterium, teems with molecular contraptions that would be the envy of any nanotechnologist. As they incessantly shake or spin or crawl around the cell, these machines cut, paste and copy genetic molecules, shuttle nutrients around or turn them into energy, build and repair cellular membranes, relay mechanical, chemical or electrical messages—the list goes on and on, and new discoveries add to it all the time.
    It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines, which are mostly protein-based catalysts called enzymes, could have formed spontaneously as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago.
    Dr. Jack Szostak – Nobel Laureate and leading Origin of Life researcher (who, despite the evidence he sees first hand, apparently still believes ‘life’ simply ’emerged’ from molecules)
    http://www.scientificamerican......e-on-earth

  39. 39
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Keefe and Szostak is not relevant as they were not seeking functional proteins, but merely mild ATP binding.

    That meets your condition of “finding a protein capable of carrying out a particular function”. If you want to retract your original claim, that’s fine.

  40. 40
    bornagain77 says:

    If disrupting the metabolic balance of a cell by binding ATP in non-useful ways is your definition of “finding a protein capable of carrying out a particular function” then it is clear you have no interest in being honest with the evidence.

    On the positive side, unlike the 1 in a trillion ATP binding protein, at least you do serve a useful purpose/function in life, in clearly showing unbiased people how intellectually dishonest Darwinists are willing to be just so to defend their foundational atheistic/materialistic worldview from honest criticism.

  41. 41
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: If disrupting the metabolic balance of a cell by binding ATP in non-useful ways is your definition of “finding a protein capable of carrying out a particular function” then it is clear you have no interest in being honest with the evidence.

    Binding ATP was the specified function, and that’s what it did within the cell. From your citation: “We found that a synthetic ATP-binding protein from non-natural origins functions inside living cell by disrupting the normal energetic balance within the cell.” This is an important result that may have implications for the development of protein engineering and new medical treatments.

    bornagain77: intellectually dishonest Darwinists

    That’s seems to be your only remaining argument, that the very scientists you cite for their results are dishonest.

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    “This is an important result that may have implications for the development of protein engineering”

    So it is relevant for ‘protein engineering’, (i.e. intelligent designing proteins), but not for Darwinian evolution? Thanks for at least that much honesty!

    As to ‘protein engineering’, (i.e. intelligently designing a protein that binds in a useful way instead of in a disruptive way), trying to intelligently design a protein that binds in a useful way has been compared to ‘docking a space station’

    Computer-designed proteins programmed to disarm variety of flu viruses – June 1, 2012
    Excerpt: The research efforts, akin to docking a space station but on a molecular level, are made possible by computers that can describe the landscapes of forces involved on the submicroscopic scale.,, These maps were used to reprogram the design to achieve a more precise interaction between the inhibitor protein and the virus molecule. It also enabled the scientists, they said, “to leapfrog over bottlenecks” to improve the activity of the binder.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-06-c.....ruses.html

    Viral-Binding Protein Design Makes the Case for Intelligent Design! – Fazale Rana – June 2011
    Excerpt: When considering this study, it is remarkable to note how much effort it took to design a protein that binds to a specific location on the hemagglutinin molecule. As biochemists Bryan Der and Brian Kuhlman point out while commenting on this work, the design of these proteins required:
    “…cutting-edge software developed by ~20 groups worldwide and 100,000 hours of highly parallel computing time. It also involved using a technique known as yeast display to screen candidate proteins and select those with high binding affinities, as well as x-ray crystallography to validate designs.2”
    If it takes this much work and intellectual input to create a single protein from scratch, is it really reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes could accomplish this task routinely?
    In other words, the researchers from the University of Washington and The Scripps Institute have unwittingly provided empirical evidence that the high-precision interactions required for PPIs (protein-protein interactions) requires intelligent agency to arise.
    http://www.reasons.org/viral-b.....-sick-cool

    Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator – Fazale Rana
    Excerpt of Review: ‘Another interesting section of Creating Life in the Lab is one on artificial enzymes. Biological enzymes catalyze chemical reactions, often increasing the spontaneous reaction rate by a billion times or more. Scientists have set out to produce artificial enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions not used in biological organisms. Comparing the structure of biological enzymes, scientists used super-computers to calculate the sequences of amino acids in their enzymes that might catalyze the reaction they were interested in. After testing dozens of candidates,, the best ones were chosen and subjected to “in vitro evolution,” which increased the reaction rate up to 200-fold. Despite all this “intelligent design,” the artificial enzymes were 10,000 to 1,000,000,000 times less efficient than their biological counterparts. Dr. Rana asks the question, “is it reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes routinely accomplished this task?”
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801072093

    Dr. Fuz Rana, at the 41:30 minute mark of the following video, speaks on the tremendous, Herculean, effort that went into intelligently designing the preceding protein:

    Science – Fuz Rana – Unbelievable? Conference 2013 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....38;index=8

  43. 43
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: So it is relevant for ‘protein engineering’, (i.e. intelligent designing proteins), but not for Darwinian evolution?

    The hypothesis was based in theories of abiogenesis, and the full experiment included artificial evolution.

    Returning to your original comment:

    bornagain77: what if the odds were 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 to one? One out of 10^77.(?),,, Those are the odds of finding a protein capable of carrying out a particular function by chance alone.,,,

    Actually, the chance of finding a particular function, such as ATP binding, is only about 10^-11. As your last comment seemed to change the subject, do you now concede the point?

  44. 44
    bornagain77 says:

    “the full experiment included ‘artificial’ evolution”

    So it is not evidence for ‘real’ evolution?,,, And your point, besides being dishonest, is what exactly?

  45. 45
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain: So it is not evidence for ‘real’ evolution?

    It shows that random mutation and selection can optimize protein function.

  46. 46
    bornagain77 says:

    ‘artificially’ of course

  47. 47
    bornagain77 says:

    actually, finding a protein that will not be disruptive to the metabolic balance of the cell, as Szostak’s ATP binding protein is disruptive, is far more difficult than finding a 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 to one, a 1 in 10^77, needle in a haystack protein:

    The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds – Douglas Axe – 2010
    Excerpt Pg. 11: “Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2010.1

    Actually, considering the extreme inter-weaved complexity involved in the metabolic pathways of a cell, I firmly believe even that ‘one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities’ estimate of Dr. Axe, for finding a metabolic pathway that will not be disruptive to a cell, is overly optimistic:

    Map Of Major Metabolic Pathways In A Cell – Picture
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AKkR.....way-1b.png
    Metabolic Pathways – interactive map (high resolution)
    http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~turk.....thways.png

    As well the cell is found to be optimal in its metabolic efficiency:

    Metabolism: A Cascade of Design – 2009
    Excerpt: A team of biological and chemical engineers wanted to understand just how robust metabolic pathways are. To gain this insight, the researchers compared how far the errors cascade in pathways found in a variety of single-celled organisms with errors in randomly generated metabolic pathways. They learned that when defects occur in the cell’s metabolic pathways, they cascade much shorter distances than when errors occur in random metabolic routes. Thus, it appears that metabolic pathways in nature are highly optimized and unusually robust, demonstrating that metabolic networks in the protoplasm are not haphazardly arranged but highly organized.
    http://www.reasons.org/metabolism-cascade-design

    Making the Case for Intelligent Design More Robust – 2010
    Excerpt: ,,, In other words, metabolic pathways are optimized to withstand inevitable concentration changes of metabolites.
    http://www.reasons.org/making-.....ore-robust

    Optimal Design of Metabolism – Dr. Fazale Rana – July 2012
    Excerpt: A new study further highlights the optimality of the cell’s metabolic systems. Using the multi-dimension optimization theory, researchers evaluated the performance of the metabolic systems of several different bacteria. The data generated by monitoring the flux (movement) of compounds through metabolic pathways (like the movement of cars along the roadways) allowed researchers to assess the behavior of cellular metabolism. They determined that metabolism functions optimally for a system that seeks to accomplish multiple objectives. It looks as if the cell’s metabolism is optimized to operate under a single set of conditions. At the same time, it can perform optimally with relatively small adjustments to the metabolic operations when the cell experiences a change in condition.
    http://www.reasons.org/article.....metabolism

    Needless to say, haphazardly throwing a protein into that extreme optimal complexity and expecting that protein to be useful instead of disruptive is not a rational belief to hold.

    of related interest, Casey Luskin has recently done a excellent overview of the insurmountable difficulties faced by unguided Darwinian processes for merely changing a protein of one function into a similar protein of a different, yet similar, function.

    Biologic Institute’s Groundbreaking Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins – Casey Luskin – January 22, 2015
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92941.html

    In Light of New BIO-Complexity Paper, Maintaining Neo-Darwinism Means Rejecting Established Methods of Historical Science – Casey Luskin – January 23, 2015
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92951.html

  48. 48
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: ‘artificially’ of course

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VEdt.....C+Pisa.jpg

  49. 49
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: as Szostak’s ATP binding protein is disruptive

    ATP binding is an important function in the cell.

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    ATP is certainly important for the cell. Binding ATP in a non-useful fashion that disrupts the optimal metabolic balance of a cell, as Szostak’s proteins did, is certainly NOT important for the cell.

    Refusing to accept that obvious point is important for someone who refuses to be honest to the evidence just so he can defend his irrational atheistic belief system.

  51. 51
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Binding ATP in a non-useful fashion that disrupts the optimal metabolic balance of a cell, as Szostak’s proteins did, is certainly NOT important for the cell.

    The purpose of the experiment was to determine if it would bind to ATP in a natural cell.

    From your citation: “We found that a synthetic ATP-binding protein from non-natural origins functions inside living cell by disrupting the normal energetic balance within the cell.”

  52. 52
    bornagain77 says:

    Can you present any ‘real’, instead of ‘artificial’, evidence for evolution is action? Behe surveyed four decades of laboratory evolution experiments and he could not find even one protein that had been generated by ‘real’ evolutionary processes. (see The First Rule: Behe) Moreover, in conjunction with Axe’s and Gauger’s recent work, Dr. Behe found that protein/protein binding sites (i.e. proteins acting in new and useful ways with other proteins), are extremely difficult for unguided Darwinian processes to generate:

    Kenneth Miller Steps on Darwin’s Achilles Heel – Michael Behe – January 17, 2015
    Excerpt: Enter Achilles and his heel. It turns out that the odds are much better for atovaquone resistance because only one particular malaria mutation is required for resistance. The odds are astronomical for chloroquine because a minimum of two particular malaria mutations are required for resistance. Just one mutation won’t do it. For Darwinism, that is the troublesome significance of Summers et al.: “The findings presented here reveal that the minimum requirement for (low) CQ transport activity … is two mutations.”
    Darwinism is hounded relentlessly by an unshakeable limitation: if it has to skip even a single tiny step — that is, if an evolutionary pathway includes a deleterious or even neutral mutation — then the probability of finding the pathway by random mutation decreases exponentially. If even a few more unselected mutations are needed, the likelihood rapidly fades away.,,,
    So what should we conclude from all this? Miller grants for purposes of discussion that the likelihood of developing a new protein binding site is 1 in 10^20. Now, suppose that, in order to acquire some new, useful property, not just one but two new protein-binding sites had to develop. In that case the odds would be the multiple of the two separate events — about 1 in 10^40, which is somewhat more than the number of cells that have existed on earth in the history of life. That seems like a reasonable place to set the likely limit to Darwinism, to draw the edge of evolution.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92771.html

  53. 53
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Can you present any ‘real’, instead of ‘artificial’, evidence for evolution is action?

    You’re attempting changing the subject again. You misstated the odds of finding a functional protein. You cited a paper that directly contradicts your position.

  54. 54
    bornagain77 says:

    Got it Zachriel, as does everybody reading your response get it, disruptive means functional for you since you would rather live in denial than admit what is obvious.

  55. 55
    bornagain77 says:

    No, you misstated the odds of finding a functional, i.e. useful, protein that does not disrupt a cell.

    i.e. there are a countless number of functionless proteins that will disrupt processes in a cell and serve no functional/useful purpose compared to the specific proteins that will enhance and help a cell.

  56. 56
    Collin says:

    Can everyone agree that keiths comment at 19 is unhelpful?

    Zach,

    With other sciences we can use mathematical equations to make very accurate predictions. Earth’s position relative to the sun can be known 10,000 years out. But what will happen to the butterfly in 10,000 years? Or homosapien?

    With evolution, no matter what happens, it confirms the prediction “survival of the survivors.” In that way, it is like astrology. Vague enough to resist disconfirmation.

  57. 57
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: No, you misstated the odds of finding a functional, i.e. useful, protein that does not disrupt a cell.

    So what you meant by functional is apparently not what scientists mean by functional. Scientists mean a sequence that folds into a complex structure that has an enzymatic function. Even your own citation disagrees with how you are using the term.

    Collin: With other sciences we can use mathematical equations to make very accurate predictions. Earth’s position relative to the sun can be known 10,000 years out. But what will happen to the butterfly in 10,000 years? Or homosapien?

    Any new species will be descended from existing organisms consistent with common descent (absent human intervention, of course).

  58. 58
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, correction,,,

    ‘So what you meant by functional is apparently not what scientists Darwinists mean by functional.’

    Exactly! when I say functional I mean exactly what I say! I mean a protein that will actually produce a useful function instead of disrupting preexistent function.

    By your convoluted, (i.e. Darwinian), definition of functional protein, any protein that haphazardly attached to a protein machine, and compromised the function of the protein machine, would be termed functional.

    Most people with common sense would severely disagree.

    Would you consider random pieces of junk metal attached to your car, and which compromised the aerodynamics of your car, to be functional? I would certainly hope not!

    You played the same game of semantics with the word ‘evolution’ not too long ago. When antibiotic resistance was shown to you to be ancient instead of newly evolved, and were also shown that the resistance came at cost of preexisting functional information instead of a gain of new functional information, you still insisted that it was proof of ‘evolution’ just because there was a minor change in the bacteria even though no functional complexity was ever gained by the bacteria over and above what was already present. And even though the change certainly gave you no evidence for ‘evolution’ (as it is commonly meant).

    With such intellectual dishonesty on your part, all I can do is keep highlighting it for the benefit of others. It is clear, because of your atheistic bias, that you have no intention of ever dealing forthrightly with the evidence!

  59. 59
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Would you consider random pieces of junk metal attached to your car, and which compromised the aerodynamics of your car, to be functional?

    We’re not talking about a random piece of junk metal, but a sequence that folds into a specific three-dimensional structure specific to the substrate, like a tool designed for a very specially shaped bolt.

    Why did you cite a study that uses the term function in a manner contrary to your own usage?

  60. 60
    bornagain77 says:

    “like a tool designed for a very specially shaped bolt.”

    A tool designed for a specifically shaped bolt??? I beg to differ!

    once again, the following papers found that man-made ATP binding is disruptive (i.e. non-functional) when expressed in a cell:

    A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells – 2009
    Excerpt: “Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division.”
    http://www.plosone.org/article.....ne.0007385

    Strange Behavior: New Study Exposes Living Cells to Synthetic Protein – Dec. 27, 2012
    Excerpt: ,,,”ATP is the energy currency of life,” Chaput says. The phosphodiester bonds of ATP contain the energy necessary to drive reactions in living systems, giving up their stored energy when these bonds are chemically cleaved. The depletion of available intracellular ATP by DX binding disrupts normal metabolic activity in the cells, preventing them from dividing, (though they continue to grow).,,,
    In the current study, E. coli cells exposed to DX transitioned into a filamentous form, which can occur naturally when such cells are subject to conditions of stress. The cells display low metabolic activity and limited cell division, presumably owing to their ATP-starved condition.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....143001.htm

  61. 61
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: A tool designed for a specifically shaped bolt???

    Yes, the protein folded into a shape capable of binding specifically to ATP. Now you got it!

  62. 62
    Collin says:

    Zachriel,

    “Any new species will be descended from existing organisms consistent with common descent (absent human intervention, of course).”

    This proves my point. Survival of the survivors.

    But what new feature will evolve from the butterfly? An extra wing? A more complex nervous system?
    Will dogs grow wings? If not, why not? What is your mathematical formula for deciding what will happen to a species?

  63. 63
    Collin says:

    After all, IDers are given tons of crap for not having a perfectly mathematical calculation for CSI. And maybe those criticisms have merit. But then Darwinists need to account for their own failure to predict future evolution.

  64. 64
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, as if such rarity of functional proteins were not bad enough for the committed reductive materialist, (i.e. neo-Darwinist), proteins do not even belong to the world of classical physics as is presupposed in Darwinism, but proteins are now shown to belong to the ‘non-local’ world of quantum physics.

    Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature – Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes – University of Toronto – Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73
    Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state.
    per: scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/

    Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011
    Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from.
    To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,,
    Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins.
    That’s a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo’s equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics.
    http://www.technologyreview.co.....f-protein/

    Moreover, we have evidence of proteins using ‘quantum computation’ to solve the ‘travelling salesman problem’ within protein folding:

    The Humpty-Dumpty Effect: A Revolutionary Paper with Far-Reaching Implications – Paul Nelson – October 23, 2012
    Excerpt: Anyone who has studied the protein folding problem will have met the famous Levinthal paradox, formulated in 1969 by the molecular biologist Cyrus Levinthal. Put simply, the Levinthal paradox states that when one calculates the number of possible topological (rotational) configurations for the amino acids in even a small (say, 100 residue) unfolded protein, random search could never find the final folded conformation of that same protein during the lifetime of the physical universe. Therefore, concluded Levinthal, given that proteins obviously do fold, they are doing so, not by random search, but by following favored pathways. The challenge of the protein folding problem is to learn what those pathways are.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65521.html

    Confronting Science’s Logical Limits – John L. Casti – 1996
    Excerpt: It has been estimated that a supercomputer applying plausible rules for protein folding would need 10^127 years to find the final folded form for even a very short sequence consisting of just 100 amino acids. (The universe is 13.7 x 10^9 years old). In fact, in 1993 Aviezri S. Fraenkel of the University of Pennsylvania showed that the mathematical formulation of the protein-folding problem is computationally “hard” in the same way that the traveling-salesman problem is hard.
    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~ro.....Limits.pdf

    The reason why finding the final form of a folded protein is so hard for supercomputers is that it is like the ‘traveling salesman’ puzzle, which are ‘Just about the meanest problems you can set a computer (on) ‘.

    DNA computer helps traveling salesman – Philip Ball – 2000
    Excerpt: Just about the meanest problems you can set a computer belong to the class called ‘NP-complete’. The number of possible answers to these conundrums, and so the time required to find the correct solution, increases exponentially as the problem is scaled up in size. A famous example is the ‘travelling salesman’ puzzle, which involves finding the shortest route connecting all of a certain number of cities.,,,
    Solving the traveling-salesman problem is a little like finding the most stable folded shape of a protein’s chain-like molecular structure — in which the number of ‘cities’ can run to hundreds or even thousands.
    http://www.nature.com/news/200.....13-10.html

    Yet it is exactly this type of ‘traveling salesman problem’ faced by proteins that quantum computers excel at:

    Speed Test of Quantum Versus Conventional Computing: Quantum Computer Wins – May 8, 2013
    Excerpt: quantum computing is, “in some cases, really, really fast.”
    McGeoch says the calculations the D-Wave excels at involve a specific combinatorial optimization problem, comparable in difficulty to the more famous “travelling salesperson” problem that’s been a foundation of theoretical computing for decades.,,,
    “This type of computer is not intended for surfing the internet, but it does solve this narrow but important type of problem really, really fast,” McGeoch says. “There are degrees of what it can do. If you want it to solve the exact problem it’s built to solve, at the problem sizes I tested, it’s thousands of times faster than anything I’m aware of. If you want it to solve more general problems of that size, I would say it competes — it does as well as some of the best things I’ve looked at. At this point it’s merely above average but shows a promising scaling trajectory.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....122828.htm

    Thus, with the finding of a ‘Quantum Law of Protein Folding’, as was referenced in my second citation, we have very good circumstantial evidence that proteins are very likely finding their final folded form by some method of quantum computation.,,,, If so, as I firmly believe that is the method by which it is happening, then this far exceeds anything man has yet accomplished in regards to quantum computation, although billions of dollars have been spent trying to build quantum computers (with meager results thus far)!

    In conclusion, that ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell, Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule, is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) cause when the quantum entanglement effect falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various ‘random’ configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons – Jun 11, 2013
    Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-b.....otons.html

    etc.. etc..

    In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!

    And although Naturalists have proposed various, far fetched, naturalistic scenarios to try to get around the Theistic implications of quantum non-locality, none of the ‘far fetched’ naturalistic solutions, in themselves, are compatible with the reductive materialism that undergirds neo-Darwinian thought.

    “[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, …materialism is not.”
    Eugene Wigner
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&v=4C5pq7W5yRM

    Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism By Bruce L Gordon, Ph.D
    Excerpt: The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical – and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism.
    http://www.4truth.net/fourtrut.....8589952939

    Thus, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, Neo-Darwinism is falsified.

  65. 65
    Radioaction says:

    They came up with a protein that binds ATP. This is a function and what the researchers were trying to get. Obviously when all the protein does is bind ATP, it won’t have a specific cellular function. Not only that but by sequestering ATP, it’s gonna have some pretty bad effects.

    ATP binds and induces a conformational change in the protein. This is probably the simplest example of a functional binding site.

  66. 66
    KRock says:

    @velikovskys #36

    Okay, lol, I was just curious… It’ll be pretty disturbing if he does lose his job over expressing a part of his belief system though.

  67. 67
    Zachriel says:

    fifthmonarchyman: A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells – 2009

    Let’s look at the citation (emphasis added):

    Based on the data collected, we suggest that the function of DX as an ATP-binding protein is responsible for disrupting the energetic balance within the cell.

    We found that a synthetic ATP-binding protein from non-natural origins functions inside living cell by disrupting the normal energetic balance within the cell.

    Notice the use of the word function. Remember, this is your citation.

    Collin: This proves my point. Survival of the survivors.

    Not merely survival, but descent with modification from common ancestors.

  68. 68
    bornagain77 says:

    fifthmonarchyman???

    Besides the trouble you seem to be having in calling a spade a spade, (i.e. calling something ‘functional’ when it, in reality, inhibits functionality within a cell), it seems you are now having trouble calling bloggers by their proper handle. I, bornagain77, cited that reference!

    Poetic mistake on your part that proves my point exactly?? Certainly such a mistake on your part couldn’t have happened at a better time! Thanks for proving my point so clearly in such timely fashion!

    Raymond J. Johnson Jr. – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84503534&v=qoYsfbq3vMc

    Romans 10:13
    for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

  69. 69
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    BA77 said

    it seems you are now having trouble calling bloggers by their proper handle.

    I say,

    Don’t you know we Christian fundies all look and sound alike to the other side?

    😉

    quote:

    The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
    (Joh 17:22)

    end quote:

    peace

  70. 70
    velikovskys says:

    knock:

    Okay, lol, I was just curious… It’ll be pretty disturbing if he does lose his job over expressing a part of his belief system though.

    It is television, they can fire you for whatever reason they want if it hurts the bottom line. Money is the belief system.

  71. 71
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: it seems you are now having trouble calling bloggers by their proper handle

    We apologize for the misattribution, but you cited a paper which seems to contradict your own position. As we pointed out ATP-binding is a specified reaction, a tool that is designed to fit a specific complex shape.

  72. 72
    bornagain77 says:

    “a tool that is designed”

    although that protein is certainly not a ‘tool’ being used for any constructive purpose in the cell, for the sake of banter, an intelligently ‘designed tool’ provides evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution how exactly?

    i.e. Why must you twist and contort evidence which you yourself admits supports ‘design’ so as to try to make it seem Darwinism is remotely possible?

    Not plausible have you, just remotely possible!

    And where is all the scientific evidence of unguided Darwinian processes creating molecular machines and such as that? Irrefutable empirical evidence that will blow all ID arguments out of the water?

    All the evidence I’ve ever seen for Darwinism always turns out to be imaginary. Never have I been shown any actual evidence that Darwinism can build anything of functional significance. Why is this? Is it because, as Dr. Hunter has repeatedly shown, Darwinism is a religion instead of a science?

    And why in blue blazes do you embarrass yourself defending such a scientifically bankrupt theory? Do you get paid, like wd400 does, for being so irrational?

    “Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination”
    Dr. Michael Behe – 29:24 mark of following video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....fM#t=1762s

    EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES
    Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo.
    Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man.
    Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability.
    Biologist Michael Behe observes:
    “Some evolutionary biologists–like Richard Dawkins–have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,,
    http://www.wayoflife.org/datab.....ories.html

  73. 73
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: although that protein is certainly not a ‘tool’ being used for any constructive purpose in the cell, for the sake of banter, an intelligently ‘designed tool’ provides evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution how exactly?

    It shows that functional proteins are fairly common in sequence space, a hypothesis that follows from abiogenetic theory. It also shows the sufficiency of mutation and selection to optimize the specified function.

  74. 74
    bornagain77 says:

    Once again, The protein is not functional in that it does anything functionally important in the cell! In fact the protein is DIS-functional in that it inhibits the normal metabolic function of the cell and slows down reproduction.

    That fact is plainly obvious to anyone with common sense.

    That you would refuse to acknowlege what is plainly obvious is just one more piece of evidence of your self deception (i.e. denialism)!

    This ‘intelligently designed’ protein, which you yourself say is ‘Designed’, proves nothing for Darwinism save for the fact that dis-functional proteins greatly outnumber useful proteins in sequence space.
    Which is precisely the point that ID advocates have been making all along.

    Moreover, even if 1 in a trillion were true for functional proteins, that is far from being ‘fairly common in sequence space’ as you hold. ,,,, Do you have any real clue as to how big a trillion truly is?

    “The largest dump truck in the world would have to carry more than nine full loads to move a trillion grains of sand. A regular dump truck will have to make 150 trips.”
    http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/2.....-trillion/

    Dr. Hunter quips:

    How Proteins Evolved – Cornelius Hunter – December 2010
    Excerpt: Comparing ATP binding with the incredible feats of hemoglobin, for example, is like comparing a tricycle with a jet airplane. And even the one in 10^12 shot, though it pales in comparison to the odds of constructing a more useful protein machine, is no small barrier. If that is what is required to even achieve simple ATP binding, then evolution would need to be incessantly running unsuccessful trials. The machinery to construct, use and benefit from a potential protein product would have to be in place, while failure after failure results. Evolution would make Thomas Edison appear lazy, running millions of trials after millions of trials before finding even the tiniest of (non-beneficial) function.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....olved.html

    Needless to say, We see nothing like that happening in the ‘real’ biological world even though each species is now shown to have a fairly large percentage of unique ORFan genes/proteins.

    Optimization of a function by trial and error processes is far from the only thing you need to explain in life. The programming found in DNA greatly outclasses any computer program even written by man, yet trial and error processes are used on only a limited class of problems in computer programming:

    The Fairyland of Evolutionary Modeling – May 7, 2013
    Excerpt: Salazar-Ciudad and Marín-Riera have shown that not only are suboptimal dead ends an evolutionary possibility, but they are also exceedingly likely to occur in real, developmentally complex structures when fitness is determined by the exact form of the phenotype.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....71901.html

    A Darwinian Enigma: Defending The Preposterous After Having Been Informed
    Excerpt: I’m thoroughly familiar with Monte Carlo methods. Trial and error can be a useful tool in an intelligently designed computer program, given a limited search space, sufficient computational resources, and a goal in mind.
    None of this has anything to do with extrapolating Monte Carlo methods in computation to the origin of information in biological systems.
    Unsupported extrapolations such as this are the hallmark of Darwinian speculation, which is the antithesis of rigorous scientific investigation. –
    Gil Dodgen – Programmer of ‘Perfect Play Checkers’
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-410559

  75. 75
    KRock says:

    @velikovskys

    “It is television, they can fire you for whatever reason they want if it hurts the bottom line. Money is the belief system.”

    And, non the less, still disturbing…! Sure, its showbiz, they can replace anyone they choose, but in this case, we’ll all have a pretty good idea why they chose to; if of course, he’s let go.

  76. 76
    Seversky says:

    Cantor 29

    “Thanks Bill. Have you got anything better than a book written 160 years ago? A lot of water has passed under the bridge.”

    To which the obvious reply would have been, “Better then a 2000 year old book. Even more water has passed under that particular bridge since then.”

  77. 77
    bornagain77 says:

    “Better then a 2000 year old book. Even more water has passed under that particular bridge since then”

    actually, that old book is holding up quite well,,,

    The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.
    Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

    “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”
    Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation
    http://www.evidenceforchristia.....38;id=3594

    “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”
    George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE

    “Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”
    Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’

    “The Bible is frequently dismissed as being anti-scientific because it makes no predictions. Oh no, that is incorrect. It makes a brilliant prediction. For centuries it has been saying there was a beginning. And if scientists had taken that a bit more seriously they might have discovered evidence for a beginning a lot earlier than they did.”
    John Lennox

  78. 78
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Once again, The protein is not functional in that it does anything functionally important in the cell!

    That’s semantic quibble can be easily disposed of.

    The experiment shows that {amino acid sequences that fold into the complex three-dimensional configuration necessary to specifically bind to particular substrates} are fairly common in sequence space, a hypothesis that follows from abiogenetic theory. It also shows the sufficiency of mutation and selection to optimize {the complex three-dimensional configuration necessary to specifically bind to particular substrates}.

  79. 79
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, the facts are that the protein is DIS-functional in a cell. Trying to say this 1 in a trillion protein would be useful for origin of life is delusional. The protein binds to ATP making it useless for producing any other further work in any other protein that may USEFULLY catalyze a metabolic activity. Thus even in your imaginary scenario your protein is useless.

    As with the other thread, I will retire from this thread and let the unbiased readers judge for themselves who has been fair with the evidence.

    Thanks once again for so clearly showing people just how far into irrationality Darwinists are willing to go just to defend their base atheistic worldview. You are doing a much better job at apologetics than most theists!

  80. 80
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: the facts are that the protein is DIS-functional in a cell.

    You asked “although that protein is certainly not a ‘tool’ being used for any constructive purpose in the cell, for the sake of banter, an intelligently ‘designed tool’ provides evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution how exactly?” See our previous comment for the answer.

    What if we were to replace a protein domain with a random sequence? What are the chances it would be functional in the cell?

Leave a Reply