leroy
Well-Known Member
based on what do you make that claim?
If you only need 100 bio molescules, that would certainly falsify my argument
-
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!
What would refute creationism?
- Thread starter Subduction Zone
- Start date
If you only need 100 bio molescules, that would certainly falsify my argument
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Define biomolecules and you will probably be shown to be wrong.
Is that still a thing?
We don't know anything about the first living things. What good reasons are you claiming that what you think fits?
We have no idea. We don't even know the conditions when it formed? Maybe they were great conditions and life just popped up everywhere and what we have now is the winners in the subsequent competition.
Again, we don't know that. Conditions could have driven new chemistry that resulted in life. You're just making premises that fit with your conclusion.
These all appear to be premises directed to fit your conclusions and bordering on an argument from ignorance, since we do know the information to be able claim what you are claiming.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, but hopefully not for long. I can't find it right now, but I have heard that they are having some financial difficulties.
I would imagine the money has dried up quite a bit as the movement has floundered in the back waters.
Well, let's see. The earliest life was almost certainly RNA based, so there are 4 main nucleotides. Add a couple more since we know of non-standard ones even in ribosomal RNA.
Next, a few sugars. Glucose, fructose, manose, etc. At most 10 of these.
This also gives things like cAMP and other messengers.
Some lipids. Maybe 10 (at most) different ones required for the cell membranes.
The original list of amino acids is probably smaller than today because catalysis was done by RNA and not proteins (which came later). In any case, that is at most 20 more.
For polymers, we need one type of self-reproducing RNA. We probably need a few more for coupling this with catalysis and metabolism.
Allowing for 50 basic ribozymes still puts us under 100 basic molecules for the basics of life.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Ok but you need many (thousands) of each (in a very specific order) to have successfull self replication.
We know this because we observe it,even the simplest known life form has houndeths of thousands of base pairs (plus al the other molecules)
leroy
Well-Known Member
Well yes, we "know" with high degree of certainty that they followed the laws if evolution and natural selection. .... don't we ?
leroy
Well-Known Member
We know how self replicating microbes work today, we know that many proteins and enzymes, are involved, and we know that changing one little thing would likely screw the process of replication..... this is not speculation, this is what we really observe.
You are the one who blindly hopes that things where different in the past....
We know that snakes can't talk because based on what we observe snakes don't talk, nor have vocal cords, nor brain capacity to talk.
If a YEC claims that things where different in the past, you would expect extra_stong evidence for that claim... so I am also demanding extra strong evidence, if you want to convnce me that reproduction was simple in the past.
leroy
Well-Known Member
This is not as hard to get as you seem to belive
For example there are arround 10^300 ways in which an average protein can fold, and only a small portion would result in functional proteins. (These numbers have been estimated)
Last edited:
Do we? What makes you say this?
We know about modern life. We don't know anything about the first things or how they came to be alive.
Why the baseless insult? I made none in my post.
You'll have to explain how this is relevant to answering what I pointed out. I pointed out that we don't have the evidence that is required to support your premises. It is not me that needs evidence. Your claims, your burden of proof.
I assume you mean 10^300.
And this serves as a very good cautionary example. No protein, when folding, randomly picks a possible conformation, then unfolds, then randomly picks another conformation, repeating until it gets a functional one.
So calculating a probability as 1 in 10^300 is simply wrong. And, in fact, if that were the case, it would take longer than the age of the universe for a single protein to fold into the functional conformation.
Instead, the protein does smaller mini-folds, getting functional regions *first* and then spreading out the entire folding pattern from that. This is why alpha helices and beta sheets are so common.
And this is how a protein can correctly fold in a fraction of a second. So the number 10^300 is irrelevant to anything dealing with protein folding.
Furthermore, since the functionally active sites are coded by very few amino acids, the number of proteins of a given length that are functional is far larger than just 1 and can actually take up a fair amount of the sequence space, especially when realizing that there are many different targets, which increases the likelihood of hotting one of them.
Once away from the active sites, the actual amino acids required for a functional protein are generally only limited by whether they are hydrophilic or not.
So, in fact, your naive calculation is completely irrelevant to what actually happens and gives a result that is orders of magnitude away from the real value. In both the protein folding problem and the question of how many functional proteins there are, the number you gave, 10^300, is just irrelevant.
And we have very good reason to think that proteins were NOT the basis of enzyme activity for early life. Instead, that would have been done by RNA. And, in fact, even in life today, the central aspects of reproduction are handled by RNA.
Furthermore, it is simply false that 'one thing' would 'screw' the entire process. yes, there are a few critical points, but the vast majority of the system is much more flexible than that as shown by the fact that it is slightly different in each organism.
This is not speculation, this is observation.
Not at all. In fact, we *know* that things were different in the past. From the fact that the atmosphere was reducing as opposed to oxidizing, to the dominance of RNA instead of proteins and DNA, to the simple fact that all life was single celled for billions of years, we *know* that things were different in the past.
Well, the first thing to notice is that all life was single celled, which drastically simplifies reproduction. Second, the complicated system used by eucaryotes (even single celled ones) would not have been operative.
Furthermore, we have very good evidence that RNA was the central molecule at first, not DNA and proteins. That would also greatly simplify the mechanics of reproduction.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Awesome, that would show that ID and SC are testable and falsifiable
leroy
Well-Known Member
leroy
Well-Known Member
Ok all known types reproduction have the characteristics that I mentioned.
Why assuming that things where different in the past ?
ID has already been falisified in every case presented. SC is just ID rewritten.
You didn't say assumption. You said we know some things with a high degree of certainty and you refuse to walk back and explain what you meant or justify the statement.