• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence For And Against Evolution

leroy

Well-Known Member
Meaningful to whom?

Meaningful to anyone, the only condition is that it has to be an independently given pattern.

If you invent your own language today and tomorrow we find a book written in that language the text would be:

1 Complex: many letters

2 specified: with meaning, or function

(where most combinations of letters would produce a meaningless text)

In the context of life, the first self replicating molecule would be

1 complex : with many aminoacids

2 specified: with a meaning or function, (in this case the fuction of self replication)

(where most possible combinations of aminoácids would not produce that) function)

Therefore both the book and the self replicating molecule came from a mind because both have the attribute of specified complexity


The argument would be
1Specified complexity can only come from a mind
2 self replicating molecules have the attribute of specified complexity

Therefore self replicating molecules came from a mind

Each of the premises is testable and falsifiable and could be explored via the scientific method.

So this my positive argument for ID

Would you provide a positive case for natural abiogebesis? Show your premises
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
For example, how many different arrangements could carry oxygen? Well, the active site in the globin molecules is certainly *one* way of doing it, but are there others? Almost certainly, but this is the one that appeared first and was subsequently used. How many different ways are there to cut a protein? Well, we already know of several different families of proteins that do that job, so it is clear that demanding agreement with any specific one is the wrong question.

How many different ways are there to split a glucose molecule? How many different ways to do *any* of the jobs done by proteins? To ask how many have exactly the same active site and folding as a previously specified protein is dramatically underestimating the probabilities.

Again, to even intelligently guess the probabilities of functionality, you would have to know *all* the different ways of doing *some* job.


But that is exactly what the author of the article that I quoted did.

He took an Enzyme whose function was to protect the organism from antibiotics.

Then he fold the Enzyme differently over and over again and found out that that there is more than one folding that would protect the cell from antibiotics. Specifically he found that for every 10^77 folding that resulted in useless enzymes he would get 1 useful Enzyme, this useful Enzyme would be different from the original, but it would serve the same function
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
You do realize that’s still the same thing as believing in superstitions?

How does “God did it” differ from Thor or Zeus causing thunder and lightning, or Poseidon being the cause of earthquake, or Hades or Osiris being cause of the afterlife?

In this day and age, where science have been able to explain many of mechanisms of the natural world, there are still people who believe in “God did it” superstitions.

Creationists and ID adherents are still trying to hinder science progress to explain how nature works, with their outdated primitive superstitions.


You completely missed my point, the point that I made is that the diversity of life could be explained by completely natural mechanisms, am simply suggesting that the darwinian mechanism (random variation +natural selection) is not the only nor the most importan mechanism

Particularly, I am suggesting natural mechanisms such as NGE that produce fast, big and non random changes in the genome.

If you ask me where do this natural mechanisms come from, I would say God, but that would be a completely different and independent issue

If you ask me why the God of the Bible and not Thor, I would say that there are arguments in support of the God of the Bible that would exclude Thor as a possibility.... But this would also be a different and independent issue.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
You keep saying that. Evolution doesn’t explain everything, and it was never meant to explain everything.

Why do you think there are active research on the Abiogenesis hypothesis?

Abiogenesis is attempts to explain how life started on Earth, that Evolution doesn’t explain.

But it isn’t just Evolution. Every natural science disciplines are broken down into different fields and sub-fields, which allow for specialized knowledge.

To give you an example, in medical school, you won’t see teachers of dentistry teach students about neuroscience or cardiovascular medicine. Dentistry don’t teach everything about medicine, nor do neuroscience or cardiovascular science.

To give you an example of my experience. When I got out of high school to do civil engineering course, I had to learn many things that are related to design and construction of buildings and sewerage systems, roads and bridges, and so on, and I could specialize in certain areas. One of the many things that I need to learn are some physics that are relevant to this courses, such as Newtonian mechanisms about mass and forces, and hydrology science.

What physics I didn’t need to know, eg (Special or General) Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Nuclear Physics, Electrical and Electronics, Astrophysics, and so many other physics disciplines I did have to learn, because I don’t require to learn everything.

It would be counterproductive to learn everything. And no science teach everything.

So you repeating yourself with this silly strawman that Evolution can’t teach and explain everything just show how little you understand science.

But guess what, leroy...you believe that god cause everything, especially natural world, and your main sources about god, come from the Bible and church teachings.

And yet the Bible explain absolutely nothing about science behind nature, and the Bible certainly DOESN’T EXPLAIN “EVERYTHING”.

Nothing in the Bible explain everything about biology, it cannot even explain basic anatomy and physiology of any parts of the human body. It doesn’t explain everything about astronomy.

And in Job 38, it explain absolutely nothing about rain, snow, thunderstorms and sea tides. All you see when reading about God being the cause of everything in Job 38 to 41, ranting like a petty child about his ultimate powers, and yet explain absolutely nothing.

And yet you believe that the Bible being true, particularly in creation, and yet Genesis don’t exhibit any real knowledge about the Earth or anything about life, including human.

In Genesis 2, God creating man from dust, is a perfect example of how little the author(s) understand human anatomy and dust. The whole dust being transformed into living male adult human, is nothing more than make believe fantasy.

Well, the Genesis creation doesn’t explain everything. It explain absolutely nothing, certainly nothing useful.

With everything I meant everything that it is meant to explain.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
No, do the math

1 in 10^77 times "billions" of chances = 1 in 10^64

There is not enough time for sufficient random positive foldings to account for the diversity of life......

But I have a theory, maybe folding is not random, maybe there is a bias towards "funcional folding".... Sounds reasonable to you?
Show your work.
By which I mean present the math.

And source your numbers.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
There is a problem citing Darwin, and referring to the contemporary science of evolution as 'Darwinian.' Yes, Darwin was the first to develop a coherent hypothesis for evolution based on his scientific research, but his science is over 150 years old, and does not represent the contemporary science of evolution. 'Darwinian mechanism?' nor terms like Neo-Darwinism? do not represent the contemporary science of evolution.

Change in genotype is not random it is response to natural selection, and offspring are not random variations of their parents..

Again the only thing that is random is the timing of each mutation. and the contemporary science concerning the processes over time
No it is not reasonable, because it is phiny use of probability to justify a religious agenda.

"statistics do not lie, but liars use statistics"

Randomness of the process of protein folding. - PubMed - NCBI

Randomness of the process of protein folding.
Go N, Abe H.
Abstract
How specific or definite are pathways of folding and unfolding in globular proteins? In order to study this question, computer simulation of the folding-unfolding transition was carried out in a two-dimensional lattice model of proteins in which it is assumed that strongly specific intramolecular interactions contribute to the stability of the native conformation. This specificity of the interactions should tend to make the pathways of folding and unfolding more definite than reality. Yet, the analysis of the record of simulation indicated the process of transition to be stochastic rather than definite. This poses a fundamental problem of how to describe the pathways of folding and unfolding transition. It is argued that the description should consist of (i) a definition of intermediate states in terms of characteristic conformational features and (ii) stochastic rules of transitions between these intermediate states. The simplest would be the case in which the transitions occur as a markoffian process.

More to follow . . .

If you have sufficient knowledge to understand this. I cite specific scientific research without a religious agenda.

So which one is it? Are changes in the genome (mutations, folding, etc.) random or not? You seem to be contradicting yourself
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Care to provide an example?
Every single one your posts that makes the claim there is not enough time for it.

When are you going to show your work?
You keep asking others to do the math, but you never present your math.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Every single one your posts that makes the claim there is not enough time for it.

When are you going to show your work?
You keep asking others to do the math, but you never present your math.

Are you going to show an example or not?

Never did understand how someone can seriously claim that something that has already happened could not have happened because the odds are against it.

The claim is that it could have not happened through Darwinian mechanisms...... Not that it didn't happened
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Are you going to show an example or not?
If a "step" requires 2 mutations in order to get a selective benefit (where 1 mutation by itself would be useless) such an even would be very unlikely but possible (specially for univelukar organisms)

So for example if an organism requires 3 mutations in order to become immune to an antibiotic such an event won't occur, not even in 10 billion years. (as long as each individual mutation has no selective benefit)



The claim is that it could have not happened through Darwinian mechanisms...... Not that it didn't happened
The claim is that there is not enough time for it to happen through Darwinian mechanisms.

Thus you are making a math claim without showing your work.
Show your work
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Every single one your posts that makes the claim there is not enough time for it.

When are you going to show your work?
You keep asking others to do the math, but you never present your math.

The math is impossible at this time. But why anyone would be quick to dismiss the prospect is beyond me.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So which one is it? Are changes in the genome (mutations, folding, etc.) random or not? You seem to be contradicting yourself

NO, I am not contradicting myself. The only thing that is random is the timing of individual mutation events and folding. The article I cited clearly determines that the process if protein folding is not 'entirely random' and is constrained by factors in natural biological processes and Natural Laws. Behe's bogus use of statistics would indicate the whole process as a whole is random, and it is not. Behe's misuse of statistics is based on the entire folding process being random, and I cited one of many research articles that refutes Behe's assertions. This misuse of statistics is pandemic in ID proponents in the Discovery Institute.

i will cite more . . .
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Source
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/16/1411798111

This is related to the probability of a folding with a positive outcome

You are misrepresenting your source. It does not show what Behe nor you claim.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/16/1411798111

Abstract
How do proteins fold, and why do they fold in that way? This Perspective integrates earlier and more recent advances over the 50-y history of the protein folding problem, emphasizing unambiguously clear structural information. Experimental results show that, contrary to prior belief, proteins are multistate rather than two-state objects. They are composed of separately cooperative foldon building blocks that can be seen to repeatedly unfold and refold as units even under native conditions. Similarly, foldons are lost as units when proteins are destabilized to produce partially unfolded equilibrium molten globules. In kinetic folding, the inherently cooperative nature of foldons predisposes the thermally driven amino acid-level search to form an initial foldon and subsequent foldons in later assisted searches. The small size of foldon units, ∼20 residues, resolves the Levinthal time-scale search problem. These microscopic-level search processes can be identified with the disordered multitrack search envisioned in the “new view” model for protein folding. Emergent macroscopic foldon–foldon interactions then collectively provide the structural guidance and free energy bias for the ordered addition of foldons in a stepwise pathway that sequentially builds the native protein. These conclusions reconcile the seemingly opposed new view and defined pathway models; the two models account for different stages of the protein folding process. Additionally, these observations answer the “how” and the “why” questions. The protein folding pathway depends on the same foldon units and foldon–foldon interactions that construct the native structure.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
But that is exactly what the author of the article that I quoted did.

He took an Enzyme whose function was to protect the organism from antibiotics.

Then he fold the Enzyme differently over and over again and found out that that there is more than one folding that would protect the cell from antibiotics. Specifically he found that for every 10^77 folding that resulted in useless enzymes he would get 1 useful Enzyme, this useful Enzyme would be different from the original, but it would serve the same function

No, that is NOT what he did. he used the same active site and the same basic length of the string of amino acids and determined how many variants of that form would give the same functionality.

That is NOT the same as looking at all possible proteins that could do something similar, but not the same. It assumed a certain active site, where potentially many others would give some sort of functionality. It assumed the folding had to be roughly similar to that of the original protein.

The actual collection of *potential* proteins is much, much larger. This article was only looking for those similar in 'shape' to the original.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The following is a long article in wikibooks, but it does explain the constraining biological processes that constrain protein folding as process that as the article concludes; "We now know that while protein folding is not a random process . . . "

Please note "not a random process."

Structural Biochemistry/Proteins/Protein Folding - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

Determinants of Protein Folding
There are various interactions that help stabilize structures of native proteins. Specifically, it is important to examine how the interactions that form protein structures are organized. In addition, there are only a small amount of possible polypeptide sequences that allow for a stable conformation. Therefore, it is evident that specific sequences are used through evolution in biological systems.

Helices and Sheets Predominate in Proteins because They Efficiently Fill Space
On average, about sixty percent of proteins contain a high amount of alpha helices, and beta pleated sheets. Through hydrophobic interactions, the protein is able to achieve compact nonpolar cores, but they lack the ability to specify which polypeptides to restrict in particular conformations. As seen in polypeptide segments in the coil form, the amount of hydrogen boding is not lesser than that of alpha helices and beta pleated sheets. This observation demonstrates that the different kinds of conformations of polypeptides are not limited by hydrogen bonding requirements. Ken Dill has suggested that helices and sheets occur as a result of the steric hindrance in condensed polymers. Through experimentation and simulation of conformations with simple flexible chains, it can be determined that the proportion of beta pleated sheets and alpha helices increase as the level of complication of chains is increased. Therefore, it can be concluded that helices and sheets are important in the complex structure of a protein, as they are compact in protein folding. The coupling of different forces such as hydrogen bonding, ion pairing, and van der Waals interactions further aids in the formation of alpha helices and beta sheets.

Protein Folding is Directed by Internal Residues
By investigating protein modification, the role of different classes of amino acid residues in protein folding can be determined. For example, in a particular study the free primary amino groups of RNase A were derivatized with poly-DL-alanine which consist of 8 residue chains. The poly-Ala chains are large in size and are water-soluble, thus allowing the RNase's 11 free amino groups to be joined without interference of the native structure of the protein or its ability to refold. As a result, it can be concluded that the protein's internal residues facilitates its native conformation because the RNase A free amino groups are localized on the exterior. Furthermore, studies have shown that mutations that occur on the surface of residues are common, and less likely to change the protein conformation compared to changes of internal residues that occur. This finding suggests that protein folding is mainly due to the hydrophobic forces.

Protein Structures Are Hierarchically Organized
George Rose demonstrated that protein domains consisted of subdomains, and furthermore have sub-subdomains, and etc. As a result, it is evident that large proteins have domains that are continuous, compact, and physically separable. When a polypeptide segment within a native protein is visualized as a string with many tangles, a plane can be seen when the string is cut into two segments. This process can be repeated when n/2 residues of an n-residue domain is highlighted with a blue and red color. As this process is repeated it can be seen that at all stages, the red and blue areas of the protein do not interpenetrate with one another. The following link shows an X-ray structure of HiPIP (high potential iron protein) and its first n/2 residues on the n-residue protein colored red and blue. Furthermore, the subsequent structures shown in the second and third row show this process of n/2 residue splitting reiterated as shown where the left side of the protein has its first and last halves with red and blue while the rest of the chain colored in gray. Through this example, it is clearly seen that protein structures are organized in a hierarchical way, meaning that the polypeptide chains are seen as sub-domains that are themselves compact structures and interact with adjacent structures. These interactions forms a larger well organized structure largely due to hydrogen bonding interactions and has an important role in understanding how polypeptides fold to form their native structure.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
With scale free, bifurcating systems, reductionist math fails and becomes useless. This is how our body codes for random useful mutations -in a way that cannot be mathematically calculated.

Chaos exists in nature. And life is adaptable to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top