Key prediction of Darwinian evolution falsified?

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 29, 2015

Culture, Darwinism, Evolution}

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

Biological life requires thousands of different protein families, about 70% of which are ‘globular’ proteins, each with a 3-dimensional shape that is unique to each family of proteins. An example is shown in the picture at the top of this post. This 3D shape is necessary for a particular biological function and is determined by the sequence of the different amino acids that make up that protein. In other words, it is not biology that determines the shape, but physics. Sequences that produce stable, functional 3D structures are so rare that scientists today do not attempt to find them using random sequence libraries. Instead, they use information they have obtained from reverse-engineering biological proteins to intelligently design artificial proteins.

Indeed, our 21st century supercomputers are not powerful enough to crunch the variables and locate novel 3D structures. Nonetheless, a foundational prediction of neo-Darwinian theory is that a ploddingly slow evolutionary process consisting of genetic drift, mutations, insertions and deletions must be able to ‘find’ not just one, but thousands of sequences pre-determined by physics that will have different stable, functional 3D structures. So how does this falsifiable prediction hold up when tested against real data? As ought to be the case in science, I have made available my program so that you can run your own data and verify for yourself the kinds of probabilities these protein families represent. More.

Readers? Sensible responses wanted. (It’s getting so Darwin’s tenured trolls have nothing to offer but sneers, persecution, and—in the case of those afflicted with religiosity—Jesus-hollers in response.)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Yes, Zachriel, evolutionism is all gas and no substance.Virgil Cain_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: But Darwinian mechanisms (which are essentially random and therefore cannot be accurately modeled) do not work out details. A gas will fill the nooks and crannies of an enclosure even though the molecular movement is random. Indeed, the gas acts as if it were flowing into the empty spaces.Zachriel_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: The difficulty in modelling something like that is based on the unpredictable, highly random nature of the weather and it’s massive scope. Chaotic, not random. In any case, you're conflating two things. Once we have all the data, as per the original scenario, it still takes far longer to compute than it takes nature to go through the same changes. That's because of the huge number of individual interactions involved in the simulation. In nature, every particle can interact with every nearby particle simultaneously; not so with computers, which have to cycle through the individual interactions. Similarly with simulations of protein folding, which is due to the interaction of the many various parts of the folding molecule.Zachriel_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

The full article link is here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/computing_the_b098101.html ss
... a simulation right down to the smallest breeze and mist ... How long would it take to generate such a simulation? Probably several days.
The difficulty in modelling something like that is based on the unpredictable, highly random nature of the weather and it's massive scope. If you're saying that's the same problem in modelling sequences that build protein families, then you'll be supporting an ID argument with that example. steveh
It seems to me that billions of replicators may achieve in a few hours something that multiple designers using multiple supercomputers may take centuries to approximate — and still get totally wrong.
That says something about the intelligent power of those replicators - and therefore something about their origin. To cite unintelligent, accidental events as having the creative power to build powerful system-mechanisms doesn't follow. Protein folds are precise, specific and highly functional towards equally precise functions. So a comparison with weather patterns doesn't work.
Furthermore, the billions of replicators are not just working out how the folding will happen, they are actually playing out how they will interact with the all of the other trillions of replicators out there,
That's a pro-ID argument. You have to explain the origin of that interactive system somehow - starting from chaos and randomness. Randomness is not a mechanism that can produce ordered systems-mechanisms. Otherwise, it wouldn't be random. So, this is all evidence of design, not chance.
...which no Designer, even with a gazillion supercomputers, is ever ever going to match.
All that is required is a very simple version of the total reality. Start with a random generator (which already a design artifact, so start with something as purely random as you can get). Then see if it produces an integrated functional system. We can do that with design, but the challenge is to create it without design.
That’s why, AIUI, intelligent designers today use “information they have obtained from reverse-engineering biological proteins to intelligently design artificial proteins” – they can’t do what nature did,
You're assuming that nature didn't use a designed mechanism. Because otherwise, today's designers are using the design found in nature. They do that because a random search doesn't work at all.
they can only tweak the results and hope that existing Darwinian mechanisms will work out the precise details for them.
But Darwinian mechanisms (which are essentially random and therefore cannot be accurately modeled) do not work out details. Evolution is not goal-oriented anyway so whatever details are worked out, have been decided in advance. Again, to replicate what is found in nature by Darwinian means would be similiar to modelling every whisp of air and every raindrop in a weather pattern. But the difference is, we can simulate the origin of rain clouds and lightning and wind in lab conditions. But we can't simulate the evolution of protein folding processes.Silver Asiatic_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

sean samis as to:
Just because something takes forever to simulate on a computer, that same event can happen in a heartbeat in the real world.
And, as an atheistic materialist, just what 'real world' are you referring to?
Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms - Mind = blown. - FIONA MACDONALD - 1 JUN 2015 Excerpt: "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release. http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It - June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf
bornagain77_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

tjguy #10 'At what point will the Materialists admit defeat and begin to think rationally?' - tj When hell freezes over? Or maybe when Robert Jastrow goes after them with a whip, like Jesus did with the money-changers in the temple? Or mystically, if he's passed on.Axel_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Steveh @4
Our most powerful 21st century computers struggle to simulate the weather conditions we will experience in any part of the world with any accuracy more than a few days into the future, but the weather just happens continuously without doing any computations.
Oh Thank You for this! You put into words a point I’ve been missing! I am going to totally reuse this! Imagine a computer simulation of all the earth’s weather for just 2 seconds; a simulation right down to the smallest breeze and mist. How long would it take to generate such a simulation? Probably several days. How long would it take to happen in the real world? Well: 2 seconds. Just because something takes forever to simulate on a computer, that same event can happen in a heartbeat in the real world. sean s.sean samis_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

In other words, it is not biology that determines the shape, but physics.
Not exactly as chaperonins help determine the shape of large polypeptide chains. And that brings us to another chicken and egg problem- proteins need chaperones and chaperonins which are built from proteins.Virgil Cain_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Actually, it is even worse than this for Materialists. It's a 4D world!
Human Nucleome Reveals Amazing 4D World
A new study investigating the three-dimensional human genome (the nucleome) in the context of time and gene expression revealed unimaginable complexity and precision. The authors of the research paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote at the beginning of their report, "The human genome is a beautiful example of a dynamical system in three dimensions."1 The results of their research spectacularly vindicated this opening statement. .... As if three dimensions were not enough, the researchers repeated these experiments across multiple time points in response to the body's day/night time-keeping system—called a circadian clock—adding the fourth dimension of time to the study. Amazingly, they discovered thousands of genes across the genome dynamically and precisely regulated by the body's internal clock. This stunning orchestration of complex genetic activity occurs across the 3D genome. The researchers wrote, "Genomic movements in 3D space provide a geometric picture of gene regulation in the context of circadian clocks, one that may give insight into the mechanisms regulating biological time."1 Not only are thousands of genes coordinately regulated together in 3D space in a precise manner according to cell type and relevant physiological processes, but they also function within the context of time, the fourth dimension, in a wondrously precise genetic dance. These types of biological systems are incredibly complicated and our understanding of them is only beginning. http://www.icr.org/article/8840 At what point will the Materialists admit defeat and begin to think rationally? Is there no data/no discovery that can get them to question their commitment to their worldview and a priori beliefs? How much complexity can their faith in Material processes tolerate? Is there NO limit to what they think material processes can produce? Is there NO data that will convince them the effect in question is just not possible to be explained by blind, random, purposeless, undirected material processes - their proposed cause? It doesn't seem like it. Nano molecular machines, 3D genome, interdependent codes some of which can be read backwards and forwards, information, self-correcting software, irreducibly complex systems and machines, now a 4D world coordinated by internal clocks, GPS systems, sonar, fantastically complicated and effective information processing, storage, and retrieval systems, magnets, amazing design, transportation systems, quality control systems, flight, computer, temperature control systems, etc etc etc. But so what?! Add anything you want to the list and it still won't change their minds. It really doesn't matter how complex, how well designed, how efficient, or how novel something is. It doesn't matter if something violates homology? They simply use convergence to explain it. It doesn't matter if some genes are novel and violate the evolutionary rules of common descent. Enter HGT to the rescue. In the end, none of this matters to Materialists. When new complexity is found, they just suck in their gut and ratchet up their faith, and claim with fingers crossed that some day we will figure it out. They are so used to doing this they don't even know they are doing it. It is second nature to them. This has been the pattern since Darwin's time as more and more complexity, design, information, technology, etc. have been found. And there is no sign of this pattern changing any time soon. Sure, we figure out things as we study, research, experiment, etc., but mostly what we discover is more design, more complexity, more information, more fine tuning, more wonder and efficiency, etc. With hard work, we can discover how things work. That is real science. But what we don't figure out is how any of those could have evolved by natural processes. Discoveries such as the OP brought to light and the 4D thing may temporarily surprise the Materialists because they never expected such complexity, but it doesn't seem to phase their faith. And each week the amount of new things/discoveries needing concrete explanations keeps increasing! And, just like the materialist's faith, this pattern shows no signs of subsiding either.tjguy_{July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77, 8 I too find quantum entanglement fascinating. Your argument sounds very rigorous. However, it is a little more difficult to visualize than crunching statistics. Perhaps it would be helpful if you gave a couple of examples of how quantum entanglement supply information necessary for a moluecule, and how it is unrelated to energy and matter. Also, is it also independent of other natural laws and forces? IOW, could this information be derived from other laws instead of energy and matter?Peter_{July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

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 "[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
Thus, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, Neo-Darwinism is directly falsified in its claim that all the information in life is merely ‘emergent’ from a reductive material basis. Of related note: Classical 'digital' information, such as what Dembski and Marks have demonstrated the conservation of, is found to be a subset of ‘non-local' (i.e. beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following method:
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
Also of note: Quantum information is 'conserved', i.e. quantum information cannot be created or destroyed:
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html Quantum no-deleting theorem Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence Black holes don't erase information, scientists say - April 2, 2015 Excerpt: The "information loss paradox" in black holes—a problem that has plagued physics for nearly 40 years—may not exist.,,, This is an important discovery, Stojkovic says, because even physicists who believed information was not lost in black holes have struggled to show, mathematically, how this happens. His new paper presents explicit calculations demonstrating how information is preserved, he says. The research marks a significant step toward solving the "information loss paradox," a problem that has plagued physics for almost 40 years, since Stephen Hawking first proposed that black holes could radiate energy and evaporate over time. This posed a huge problem for the field of physics because it meant that information inside a black hole could be permanently lost when the black hole disappeared—a violation of quantum mechanics, which states that information must be conserved. http://phys.org/news/2015-04-black-holes-dont-erase-scientists.html+/
Besides providing direct empirical falsification of neo-Darwinian claims as to the generation of information from a material basis, the implication of finding 'non-local', beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’ quantum information in molecular biology on a massive scale is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious:
Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIyEjh6ef_8
Verse and Music:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. ROYAL TAILOR – HOLD ME TOGETHER – music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbpJ2FeeJgw
bornagain77_{July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

As stunning as this falsification of neo-Darwinism is,,,
Computing the "Best Case" Probability of Proteins from Actual Data, and Falsifying a Prediction of Darwinism - Kirk Durston - July 28, 2015 Excerpt: If we assume 10^30 life forms with a fast replication rate of 30 minutes and a huge genome with a very high mutation rate over a period of 10 billion years, an extreme upper limit for the total number of mutations for all of life's history would be around 10^43. Unfortunately, a protein domain such as Ribosomal S7 would require a minimum average of 10^100 trials, about 10^57 trials more than the entire theoretical history of life could provide -- and this is only for one domain. Forget about "finding" an average sized protein, not to mention thousands. As we all know from probabilities, you can get lucky once, but not thousands of times. This definitively falsifies the fundamental prediction of Darwinian theory that evolutionary processes can "find" functional protein families. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/computing_the_b098101.html
As stunning as that falsification of neo-Darwinism is, there is another falsification of neo-Darwinian claims that goes even one better. Neo-Darwinism is based upon a reductive materialistic framework. A framework that holds that all the information, (as well as all consciousness), in life is merely 'emergent' from a material, i.e. matter-energy, basis. Yet quantum entanglement, which 'is a physical resource, like energy', and which is also used as a 'quantum information channel' in quantum computation,,,
Quantum Entanglement and Information Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
Yet quantum entanglement, which is used as a 'quantum information channel' in quantum computation, in now found in molecular biology on a massive scale. Specifically, quantum entanglement/information is now found in every DNA and protein molecule.
Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – Elisabeth Rieper – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it) https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176 Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ Classical and Quantum Information Channels in Protein Chain - Dj. Koruga, A. Tomi?, Z. Ratkaj, L. Matija - 2006 Abstract: Investigation of the properties of peptide plane in protein chain from both classical and quantum approach is presented. We calculated interatomic force constants for peptide plane and hydrogen bonds between peptide planes in protein chain. On the basis of force constants, displacements of each atom in peptide plane, and time of action we found that the value of the peptide plane action is close to the Planck constant. This indicates that peptide plane from the energy viewpoint possesses synergetic classical/quantum properties. Consideration of peptide planes in protein chain from information viewpoint also shows that protein chain possesses classical and quantum properties. So, it appears that protein chain behaves as a triple dual system: (1) structural - amino acids and peptide planes, (2) energy - classical and quantum state, and (3) information - classical and quantum coding. Based on experimental facts of protein chain, we proposed from the structure-energy-information viewpoint its synergetic code system. http://www.scientific.net/MSF.518.491 Coherent intrachain energy migration in a conjugated polymer at room temperature. - 2009 ABSTRACT The intermediate coupling regime for electronic energy transfer is of particular interest because excitation moves in space, as in a classical hopping mechanism, but quantum phase information is conserved. We conducted an ultrafast polarization experiment specifically designed to observe quantum coherent dynamics in this regime. Conjugated polymer samples with different chain conformations were examined as model multichromophoric systems. The data, recorded at room temperature, reveal coherent intrachain, (intra - within, on the inside), electronic energy transfer. Our results suggest that quantum transport effects occur at room temperature when chemical donor-acceptor bonds help to correlate dephasing perturbations. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/23797940_Coherent_intrachain_energy_migration_in_a_conjugated_polymer_at_room_temperature
That ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its ‘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. There is simply no way that the ‘non-local’, i.e. beyond space and time, quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology can 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 neo-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 an explanation for quantum entanglement in biology, (which is a 'non-local' effect that is consistently 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. 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 that have been used against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the 'non-local' cause is not within the material particles in the first place. And although Naturalists/Atheists 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.bornagain77_{July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

Yeah, I tried it too. No go. Darwinism cannot be falsified because it's a paradigm, a philosophy and the assumption of necessity and chance. Just because something is all-but-impossible mathematically, doesn't matter here. There are always rationalizations such as we haven't found enough fossils yet, there must be other genetic mechanisms in play, and "You don't understand evolution" (my favorite). As Sean indicated, it's all physical chemistry and origami controlled by physics. But we're told that there's a vast body of knowledge in support of evolution. Apparently, we just need "more monkeys and more typewriters." -QQuerius_{July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

fyi the "more" link is broken As before:there "obviously" exists a 3d dna world (like a 3d computersimulation), and a holographic representation of the adult organism in the dna world, serves as guidance for development of the physical organism to adulthood. "Obvious", when considering the mathematical ordering of the dna system and the physical universe, is exactly the same. page 13 http://www.scienceoflife.nl/VHill_Nature-s_Code.pdf Theory by Peter Rowlands mainly, Vanessa Hill and others.mohammadnursyamsu_{July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Your link doesn't work. However, the comments you quoted make no sense to me. Our most powerful 21st century computers struggle to simulate the weather conditions we will experience in any part of the world with any accuracy more than a few days into the future, but the weather just happens continuously without doing any computations. Similarly a protein may fold in a fraction of a second, but a supercomputer may take several weeks to simulate it. It seems to me that billions of replicators may achieve in a few hours something that multiple designers using multiple supercomputers may take centuries to approximate -- and still get totally wrong. Furthermore, the billions of replicators are not just working out how the folding will happen, they are actually playing out how they will interact with the all of the other trillions of replicators out there, which no Designer, even with a gazillion supercomputers, is ever ever going to match. That's why, AIUI, intelligent designers today use "information they have obtained from reverse-engineering biological proteins to intelligently design artificial proteins" - they can't do what nature did, they can only tweak the results and hope that existing Darwinian mechanisms will work out the precise details for them. You have only falsified design?.steveh_{July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

Kirk Durston writes "In other words, it is not biology that determines the shape, but physics. " Leave it to Physics to reveal just how incredibly fine tuned Biology is. Makes sense really. "Unguided" and "Purposeless" is not real science.ppolish_{July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

Question 2: The protein produced by the desired structure: does it necessarily have the same biological functions in all conceivable biological systems? It has absolutely no function in any conceivable biological system.Mung_{July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

Question 1: are all variant 3D shapes equally likely to occur in nature? Are some energetically disfavored or favored? Question 2: The protein produced by the desired structure: does it necessarily have the same biological functions in all conceivable biological systems? Question 3: regarding “Sequences that produce stable, functional 3D structures are so rare that scientists today do not attempt to find them using random sequence libraries.” By this do you mean that stable sequences producing useful proteins are so rare... or that stable sequences themselves are very rare regardless of the protein they produce? sean s.sean samis_{July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply