Live stream of the Nelson–Velasco debate – NOW

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 29, 2014

Intelligent Design, News, Tree of life}

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

Further to “Nelson-Velasco debate: Hold it despite opposition. Anything else is “fascism,” says prof,” here’s the live stream of the debate (presumably when it starts, at 3:00 pm EST).

By the way, in case you happen to hear, during the debate, that “Creationists will be the death of science” or some such, get this, from genetcisit Todd Wood’s blog:

I just got back from the Bryan College Undergraduate Research Conference. I’m teaching an adjunct class this semester to bio majors, and two of my students were presenting. …

[evil creationists, see?]

After the conference, the department chair took me aside and shared with me the results from the latest standardized testing of the senior biology majors. The test splits up their scores in four categories: cell, organismal, genetics, and evolution. To my absolute delight, Bryan College students scored in the 99th percentile – in the evolution category! That was their highest category too. Uh oh! Who’s been teaching them evolution? Well, that would be me. The class I’m teaching this semester is called “History of Life,” which is just a euphemism for evolutionary biology. I teach straight from Freeman and Herron’s Evolutionary Analysis, and we read Darwin’s Origin of Species during the class. The students know my position on origins, and when appropriate, I bring in creationist commentary. But for the most part, it’s straight evolutionary biology. The 99th percentile means they’re outperforming most students taught by actual evolutionists.

The fact that lots of people don’t believe that a pile of kindling is a Tree of Life, doesn’t mean they can’t answer questions about what’s in the book advocating that view.

The problem is more with what’s in the book.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

BA77, You are not optimally handling this situation. A. A protein with the sequence code for alanine aminotransferase will not perform the function of aspartate aminotransferase if we just fold it the right way. The sequence has to be changed also. The sequence may not be everything, but it is important. And don't forget, if you were to win this argument, you would destroy the argument that DNA must be at least approximately in the right sequence, and so fairly accurate DNA production is necessary for life. In other words, you would make it easier to argue for the spontaneous generation of life. It is not advisable for you to continue to press this point. DNA sequence is not everything, but it is not nothing, and it is not even minor. B. I had gotten AVS back to the original post. I want him (and others) to think about the idea that ID, and even Creationist, people can clearly understand evolution without accepting it. Now you are in the process of leading him down the same rabbit hole from which I had just extracted him, so he can argue your point rather than realize that sometimes "you just don't understand evolution" is not an adequate response. Look at the big picture.Paul Giem_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

AVS, it is NOT rare. And without the chaperones the polypeptide wouldn't fold. That is what has happened in most genetic engineering cases. Insulin was the rare success.
In the case of silent mutations altering translation speed and protein folding, this is still driven by the now changed DNA sequence.
It's the same amino acid sequence yet the folds are different. You sed the fold depends on the amino acid sequence. Obviously there is more to it than that. Your simpleton approach rivals that of middle-school students.Joe_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

A standardized test Paul? Which test is that? It sounds to me more like a general test the university gives its biology students as a requirement for graduation. And in a school full of creationists, it doesn't really surprise me that a creationist scored in the 99th percentile.AVS_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Joe, we've already come to the agreement that it is rare and I've already stated that to my knowledge chaperones function by providing an environment in which the protein folds more easily, still driven by its amino acid sequence. Look up the Hsp60/Hsp10 complex. In the case of silent mutations altering translation speed and protein folding, this is still driven by the now changed DNA sequence. I'm not sure what your point is.AVS_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Dr. Giem, If you are interested, I made a more thorough critique yesterday of why the sequential information in DNA has only ‘tenuous’ (weak or very slight) influence over shape and form in the DNA, cell, and over the overall body plan, here:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jonathan-wells-far-from-being-all-powerful-dna-does-not-wholly-determine-biological-form/#comment-494620
Here are some more notes that extend the critique I made yesterday to include the materialistic processes of neo-Darwinism ever adequately explaining the shape or form of proteins:
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. http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/ Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011 Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way. 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/ INFORMATION AND ENERGETICS OF QUANTUM FLAGELLA MOTOR Hiroyuki Matsuura, Nobuo Noda, Kazuharu Koide Tetsuya Nemoto and Yasumi Ito Excerpt from bottom page 7: Note that the physical principle of flagella motor does not belong to classical mechanics, but to quantum mechanics. When we can consider applying quantum physics to flagella motor, we can find out the shift of energetic state and coherent state. http://www2.ktokai-u.ac.jp/~shi/el08-046.pdf
bornagain77_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

AVS, You said,
I can only imagine what this christian college gave their students to test their understanding of evolution.
It was a standardized test. You could deduce that from the use of 99th percentile. As Todd Wood (PhD) said here, " The 99th percentile means they're outperforming most students taught by actual evolutionists." Wouldn't you agree that at least some creationists understand evolution very well?Paul Giem_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

BTW there are alleged silent mutations in which the amino acid sequence remains the same but the protein misfolds. That couldn't happen if AVS was right. The misfolding has to do with the timing of the arrival of the tRNAs at the ribosome.Joe_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

AVS:
The bottom line is protein shape and function is entirely dependent on amino acid sequence.
Nope. Many proteins won't even take a 3D shape unless there are chaperones to make it so.
Even in the rare case of chaperones directly helping the folding process,
It isn't rare.Joe_{April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

Very true, if I have learned anything about biology it is that there is always an exception to the rule. But I think you would find it extremely difficult to find a process that doesn't rely on the amino acids of the protein to determine folding. To my knowledge chaperones function by making the proper folding process that is driven by the primary sequence more favorable. Also I think the native state of the pre-prion protein is more stable, the problem is when a specific part of the protein becomes unfolded, it cooperatively unfolds the rest of the protein and catalyzes more and more unfolding of more of that protein. that's my understanding. 99th percentile on the evolutionary biology...what? I can only imagine what this christian college gave their students to test their understanding of evolution. But anyways, yes i would need a lot more information than that post gave me to draw any conclusions. And I didn't watch the debate. I've wasted too much time being an asshole on here already to be watching other people do the same thing.AVS_{April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

AVS, You're mostly right. Always be careful of saying "always". ;) Protein shape is not "entirely" dependent on amino acid sequence. We don't know how rare chaperone help for folding is, but it definitely happens some of the time. A cause can be necessary without being sufficient. And the shape of the pre-prion protein is definitely not the most stable shape, or otherwise prions could not form. (And some of the bonds holding proteins in shape can be covalent, such as disulfide bonds.) Now that I have your attention, what do you think of the creationist class that scored 99th percentile on the evolutionary biology, and what did you think of the Nelson-Velasco debate? (Those were, after all, the subjects of the original post.)Paul Giem_{April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

Good point Paul, thanks. If amino acid sequence had as little of an effect on the final protein shape as BA would lead us to believe, we wouldn't see nearly as many enzyme malfunction diseases that can be traced directly back to a single amino acid mutation as we do. The bottom line is protein shape and function is entirely dependent on amino acid sequence. Even in the rare case of chaperones directly helping the folding process, the only reason the protein stays in that conformation after dissociating from the chaperone is because of the maintenance of noncovalent interactions between certain amino acids.AVS_{April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

Thanks for listening, BA77. You are essentially right about the need for chaperone proteins (of various kinds). My understanding is that without such proteins, cells die. They may not be needed for all protein folding, but they certainly are for a critical subset of protein folding. If you stick to that point, you'll get less, and less effective, diversionary tactics from opponents of ID. You are right, shape is, in many cases, not entirely dictated by sequence.Paul Giem_{April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

Thanks Dr. Geim for the salient criticism. And indeed I now agree that they were making far too strong of a claim with what they had. I wish now that I would have made that point more clear earlier, and thanks for calling me on it. But anyway, after looking and thinking the matter over for a bit, they could have made almost as strong of a statement and been correct. Remember AVS originally asked me this:
"I’m sorry BA, is that first article in your last post trying to say that the nucleotide sequence of a protein-coding gene has no effect on the final shape of the protein?"
And the answer to that specific question turns out to be that nucleotide sequence only has 'tenuous' influence on the final shape:
“It was long believed that a protein molecule’s three-dimensional shape, on which its function depends, is uniquely determined by its amino acid sequence. But we now know that this is not always true – the rate at which a protein is synthesized, which depends on factors internal and external to the cell, affects the order in which its different portions fold. So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous (very weak or slight) influence over their functions. ,,,,So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used. Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent. Stuart A. Newman, Ph.D. – Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy http://www.desdeelexilio.com/2010/06/01/biologia-evolutiva-del-desarrollo-entrevista-a-stuart-a-newman/
Dr. Geim, I will remove that particular paper from my files since it is misleading as it is currently worded, but as to the point that AVS was originally trying to establish, that shape is dictated by sequence, what I've learned is that Darwinian processes, besides being unable to account for body plans (as Dr. Nelson pointed out Saturday), are also almost stopped dead in their tracks right out of the starting gate when it comes to trying to explain protein structure, much less explaining the higher levels of structural organization in an organism.bornagain77_{April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, A lot of ink and attention has been spilled unnecessarily, and perhaps by design. Remember that the original post remarked on the Nelson-Velasco debate. Proper questions might have included the one posed by mtcarner (#46). Is the debate available to the general public? The original post went on to mention the students at Bryan College, who are at a creationist (not just ID) college where they are taught by a creationist (not just ID) teacher, and were able to perform at the 99th percentile on a test on evolution. Presumably they "really understand evolution". Remarks on that would be on topic. Instead, after you posted in #4 and #5, a long series of articles with summaries, AVS called attention to one of your summaries, namely this one in #5:
A challenge to the genetic interpretation of biology – Feb 19, 2014 When a gene, a string of bases on the DNA molecule, is deployed, it is first transcribed and then translated into a peptide – a string of amino acids. To give rise to biological properties it needs to “fold” into a protein. This process consumes energy and is therefore governed by the 2nd law, but also by the environment in which the folding takes place. These two factors mean that there is no causal relationship between the original gene coding sequence and the biological activity of the protein. http://phys.org/news/2014-02-genetic-biology.html
He argued that the gene sequence does relate to the biological activity of the protein. You then defended your source, and he defended his argument, resulting in some 40 posts of back and forth that drew attention away from the salient points that were made by the original post. It is tempting to draw the conclusion that his intent was to derail the comments, which were heading in an uncomfortable (for him) direction, and you have (I assume unintentionally) assisted him. He chose a very soft target. Not only is it not true that "there is no causal relationship between the original gene coding sequence and the biological activity of the protein", but the original paper goes on to say that "Yes, a Nordic study of twins conducted in 2000 showed there was no evidence that cancer was a "genetic" disease – that is – that genes play no role in the causation of cancer. A wider international study involving 50,000 identical twin pairs published in 2012, showed that this conclusion applied to other common disease as well." These statements are simply in error. You don't have to take my word for it. Ever heard of BRCA1 and BRCA2? Familial polyposis coli? For that matter, ever heard of sickle cell anemia? To say that genes play no role in cancer or other common diseases is just balderdash. Now if the people writing had been more circumspect, and said that most cancers are not genetically determined, and most other common diseases are not genetically determined, they would have had a point. Even in the case of phenylketonuria, or PKU, clearly a genetic disease, diet makes a tremendous difference in the severity of the disease, with diets low in phenylalanine allowing people with the genetic defect to lead apparently otherwise normal lives. But the abstract and the article make too strong claims, and AVS was correct to challenge the article. Your first instinct was to defend the article because it was written by two PhD's in physics. As you said in #35,
Now I don’t know exactly how strong their case is for that specific claim, but considering that that are both physics professors,,,
The authors, Arto Annila, Professor of physics at Helsinki University and Keith Baverstock, Docent and former professor at the University of Eastern Finland,
and considering that you, AVS, are a committed Darwinist on a blog insulting people who disagree with you, then I’m also reasonably confident that these distinguished physics professors have done their homework and that they are not just whistling Dixie when they make such a dramatic claim that there is a severe disconnect between sequence and biological activity. And I am also confident that you are just trying to protect Darwinian claims by the usual non-substantive bluff, bluster and ad hominem that is typical of Darwinists.
But this is one case where your instincts were wrong. I won't pretend to know why the authors were wrong (insufficient evidence, hyperbole, narrow scientific training, being tired?), but they were. And it is best to admit it up front when you discover it, and even thank the objector for the information. If you had, AVS would have either had to graciously acknowledge the thanks, shut up, or taunt you, the latter putting him (her?) in the position of looking childish. And you could have pointed him back to the main point of the post, for which he has no good answer. There are three takeaway messages. First, take this particular paper out of your collection of quotable papers. Second, if someone challenges you, even if he or she is on the other side, take the challenge seriously and reply softly. And finally, double-check anything you find (even my videos!).Paul Giem_{April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

I was travelling Saturday afternoon and was unable to watch the debate. I was wondering if it is archived somewhere to watch?mtcarner_{April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

AVS- Look up "August Weismann"- he was key to modern evolutionists' thought.Joe_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

AVS:
No, Joe. Evolution does not “require that genes be everything.”
That is the ONLY parts that change and can change the organism- according to evos. But anyway do tell- what else changes and can cause the organism to change?Joe_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,, http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/ With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - November 2011 Excerpt: As of now, we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/with_a_startling_candor_oxford052821.html The next evolutionary synthesis: Jonathan BL Bard (2011) Excerpt: We now know that there are at least 50 possible functions that DNA sequences can fulfill [8], that the networks for traits require many proteins and that they allow for considerable redundancy [9]. The reality is that the evolutionary synthesis says nothing about any of this; for all its claim of being grounded in DNA and mutation, it is actually a theory based on phenotypic traits. This is not to say that the evolutionary synthesis is wrong, but that it is inadequate – it is really only half a theory! http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? - Koonin - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/11/18/not_to_mince_words_the_modern_synthesis Die, selfish gene, die - The selfish gene is one of the most successful science metaphors ever invented. Unfortunately, it’s wrong - Dec. 2013 Excerpt: But 15 years after Hamilton and Williams kited [introduced] this idea, it was embraced and polished into gleaming form by one of the best communicators science has ever produced: the biologist Richard Dawkins. In his magnificent book The Selfish Gene (1976), Dawkins gathered all the threads of the modern synthesis — Mendel, Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Watson, Crick, Hamilton, and Williams — into a single shimmering magic carpet (called the selfish gene). Unfortunately, say Wray, West-Eberhard and others, it’s wrong. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/epigenetics-dawkins-selfish-gene-discredited-by-still-more-scientists-you-should-have-heard-of/ Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Nobel – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/10395212 ,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”. Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov states that the concept of the selfish gene 'inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences', for over 30 years: Second, third, fourth… genetic codes - One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - video https://vimeo.com/81930637 How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. - 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611 etc.. etc..bornagain77_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

No, Joe. Evolution does not "require that genes be everything." If you got your information from scientific sources and not the likes of the people on here at UD, you would know this.AVS_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

AS:
It is well known that genes are not everything, but they are very important.
Evolutionism requires that genes be everything as that is the only part they say makes all the required changes. If genes aren't everything then evolutionism fails.Joe_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

AVS"
Now as you’ll notice I quoted wiki four times, Joe, all of them supporting me.
And I provided a quote from YOUR wiki reference that supports me. Heck you don't even undersstand what I am saying and your wiki page doesn't even address it. You lose because you are ignorant due to your anger.
You took the first sentence of the page because it helped your argument.
True and you don't even know what my argumant is.
Obviously the first sentence is going to list everything that chaperones do.
As I said you have no idea what my argument is. I never said all chaperones do is fold proteins. You have serious issues and should seek help.
For the last time, the majority of chaperones do not help proteins fold.
What a jerk you are. I never said anything to the contrary. All I said was there are proteins that canNOT fold by themselves. As I said its as if you are proud to be an ass. Nice jobJoe_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Of related note:
"It was long believed that a protein molecule’s three-dimensional shape, on which its function depends, is uniquely determined by its amino acid sequence. But we now know that this is not always true – the rate at which a protein is synthesized, which depends on factors internal and external to the cell, affects the order in which its different portions fold. So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous (very weak or slight) influence over their functions. ,,,,So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used. Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent. Stuart A. Newman, Ph.D. - Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy http://www.desdeelexilio.com/2010/06/01/biologia-evolutiva-del-desarrollo-entrevista-a-stuart-a-newman/
bornagain77_{March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

I have plenty of respect for physics and physicists, queerius, but I also understand how much effort goes into becoming a PhD in a specific field and how that means you are specialized in that specific field. While I don't doubt they know a god deal of biology, I am confident in my own knowledge of biology. Like I said to BA, some of the things they said in the article did not seem to make sense. And most of what BA says does not make sense either so I have a feeling you're trying to pick a fight. If so, please go ahead and explain how anything I have said is wrong.AVS_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77, You have way more patience than I do! If AVS were a physical chemist, I think he would have more respect for physics. The issue that AVS is misunderstanding concerns causality (versus correlation) and heritability. Your posts as usual are nicely organized and present interesting developments that anyone who claims they're working on cancer research should be familiar with. Obviously, AVS skimmed your posts and is not familiar with these discoveries. I appreciate your effort. Thank you! -QQuerius_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT}

First of all BA, you don't know anything about me. Also, I think I'd be pretty comfortable comparing my knowledge of biology to that of these two physics professors. I highly doubt these two have the evidence to back the claim that "there is no causal relationship between the original gene coding sequence and the biological activity of the protein." Unless I'm reading it wrong which I don't think I am. Also, the fact that they say "genes play no role in cancer" makes my highly suspicious, as that would disagree with many a lot of research done throughout the last half-century. Not to mention the fact that they say "it has not proved possible to relate abnormal gene sequences to common diseases" which unless again I am misreading, is completely and utterly false. We have traced hundreds of diseases back to single mutations in protein coding sequences. It is well known that genes are not everything, but they are very important.AVS_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT}

AVS, unlike you, I do not pretend to know all the answers beforehand. Although I do know for a fact that Darwinian processes are grossly inadequate to explain the unfathomed levels of complexity we are finding in molecular biology. Indeed molecular biology is a very, very, complicated field of study and anyone who thinks he has most everything figured out in molecular biology is severely deluding himself.
Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html
But I manage to muddle my way through it in spite of Darwinian attempts to obfuscate matters as you have done in this post. Moreover AVS, contrary to your claim that protein folding is well understood and that 'proteins will fold on their own', the fact of the matter, as is evident from protein isoforms, is that proteins are multifunctional, taking on different functions, and I strongly suspect different nuances of shape, depending on what cellular environment and/or context they are in. I had already listed several studies pointing out that structural information in the cell is just as, in not more, important as the linear sequences on DNA. But the point of the particular paper that you are contesting states the disconnect between structure and sequence in much stronger language,,,
A challenge to the genetic interpretation of biology – Feb 19, 2014 When a gene, a string of bases on the DNA molecule, is deployed, it is first transcribed and then translated into a peptide – a string of amino acids. To give rise to biological properties it needs to “fold” into a protein. This process consumes energy and is therefore governed by the 2nd law, but also by the environment in which the folding takes place. These two factors mean that there is no causal relationship between the original gene coding sequence and the biological activity of the protein. http://phys.org/news/2014-02-genetic-biology.html
Now I don't know exactly how strong their case is for that specific claim, but considering that that are both physics professors,,,
The authors, Arto Annila, Professor of physics at Helsinki University and Keith Baverstock, Docent and former professor at the University of Eastern Finland,
and considering that you, AVS, are a committed Darwinist on a blog insulting people who disagree with you, then I'm also reasonably confident that these distinguished physics professors have done their homework and that they are not just whistling Dixie when they make such a dramatic claim that there is a severe disconnect between sequence and biological activity. And I am also confident that you are just trying to protect Darwinian claims by the usual non-substantive bluff, bluster and ad hominem that is typical of Darwinists. But now that I've re-read the article 'A challenge to the genetic interpretation of biology', it is interesting to point out the empirical evidence they cited:
Is there any empirical evidence to support this? Yes, a Nordic study of twins conducted in 2000 showed there was no evidence that cancer was a "genetic" disease – that is – that genes play no role in the causation of cancer. A wider international study involving 50,000 identical twin pairs published in 2012, showed that this conclusion applied to other common disease as well. Since the sequencing of the human genome was completed in 2001 it has not proved possible to relate abnormal gene sequences to common diseases giving rise to the problem of the "missing heritability".
The reason I find their empirical support interesting is that it is now known that, in direct contradiction to the reductionist model of Darwiniam, even 'mental states' can epigentically alter gene expression.
Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, - December 10, 2013 Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,”,,, “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,”,,, the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways. http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes/
Now AVS, perhaps you may say, 'Wow, we are not complete victims of our genes after all' as I did when I saw that study, which would be a pleasant surprise, but something tells me that a reasonable response like that will not come from you. Proverbs 17:22 A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.bornagain77_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT}

Yes, Moose doc, next time I want to know about what really matters in biology, I will come to you. You seem to be just as knowledgeable about this topic as BA is.AVS_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

Gents (I assume gender) this yapity yap is pretty lame. Who cares if chaperones do stuff other than help proteins fold. Who cares if many proteins fold without the aid of chaperones. From what I can tell, the whole case of proteins and chaperones is fully valid if one of the tasks of chaperones is to fold proteins, and if some proteins require the assistance of chaperones for folding.Moose Dr_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

Oh BA, you are so worldly with your quotes on high. It almost makes me think you know what you are talking about. Almost. There might be a lot of things we don't know, but we certainly do know a fair amount. I think it's about time we admit that we know that we have evolved from a common ancestor, the how exactly, is what we don't know.AVS_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

‘We are so woefully ignorant about how biology really works. We still don’t understand how a particular DNA sequence—when we just stare at it—codes for a protein that has a particular function. We can’t even figure out how that protein would fold—into what kind of three-dimensional shape. And I would defy anybody who is going to tell me that they could, from first principles, predict not only the shape of the protein but also what it does.’ - Francis Collins – Former Director of the Human Genome Projectbornagain77_{March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply