Sportscaster to be fired for supporting ID on live TV?

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 21, 2015

Culture, Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

If so, Darwin’s followers are raising the stakes. Don’t think you can watch the game in peace any more—not unless you acknowledge their prophet.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

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?Zachriel_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

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!bornagain77_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

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}.Zachriel_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

"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.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&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 Lennoxbornagain77_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

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."Seversky_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

@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.KRock_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

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/2009/02/how-big-is-a-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.com/2010/12/how-proteins-evolved.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/2013/05/the_fantasy_wor071901.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' https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-darwinian-enigma-defending-the-preposterous-after-having-been-informed/comment-page-1/#comment-410559
bornagain77_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

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.Zachriel_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

"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?feature=player_detailpage&v=s6XAXjiyRfM#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/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html
bornagain77_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

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.Zachriel_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

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.velikovskys_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT}

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: peacefifthmonarchyman_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

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."bornagain77_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

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.Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

@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.KRock_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

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.Radioaction_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

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.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-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/2012/10/a_revolutionary065521.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/~robins/Confronting_Sciences_Logical_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/2000/000113/full/news000113-10.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/releases/2013/05/130508122828.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/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.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-bell-test-loophole-photons.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/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952939
Thus, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, Neo-Darwinism is falsified.bornagain77_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

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.Collin_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

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?Collin_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

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!Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

"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/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.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/releases/2012/12/121227143001.htmbornagain77_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

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?Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

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!bornagain77_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

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).Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

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.Collin_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

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.bornagain77_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

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.bornagain77_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

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.Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

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/2015/01/kenneth_miller_1092771.html
bornagain77_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

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.”Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply