Is Evolution Intellectually Viable?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
Understood. But the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein molecule still stands. How, pertaining, to this have you based your analagous argument?

---

quote:

---

Let me elaborate. The viability of proteins depends on three strict conditions. First condition: that all the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequence

​

Second condition: that all the amino acids in the chain are left-handed

​

Third condition: that all of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called "peptide bond".

---

First off Ahmad, do you realise that there is a slight problem here. If point one is correct (ie if the correct sequence) then point three has been met, other wise there would be no sequence.OK, now I know that you have been corrected on the FACT that evolution does not require abiogenesis. God could have made the first cell. Hell, an undetermined entity whom I will call Bob could have made the first cell, it does not matter. As to the protein arguement, it requires the same pre-supposition that many other creationists prior to you make. That ALL proteins currently around were required 3.5 billions years ago and that ALL functions required, require a single protein sequence (it is called a primary sequence by the way) which is pure, total, unadulterated BS. I think that TB, a creationist, will back me up on this fact although we disagree on the interpretation. (OK TB, you disagree with 3.5 BYr but I think that yo get my point.)Please do this experiment, it is similar to the on which John alluded to. Take a deck of cards, lay it out card by card. Now, what are the odds of that sequence occuring. The math phrase is 52! or ~ 1 x 10^68 (this is a memory so please check the value, some $%$(^$)^%_&&(* borrowed my calculator).Do you begin to get my point.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 11-07-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
It is not enough for amino acids to be arranged in the correct numbers, sequences, and required three-dimensional structures. The formation of a protein also requires that amino acid molecules with more than one arm be linked to each other only through certain arms (bonds) called peptide bonds.

---

Ok, Ahmad. I think that you are getting some of you info from this creationist that Andy has been (correctly) trashing. Couple of clarifications for you. Amino acids are bound to one another through peptide bonds, you have that much correct, the "arms" that you refer to are called R groups and come in a variety of forms. The primary sequence is formed by a series of amide bonds formed from primary amines and carboxylic acids. Only a few of these R groups can form covalent links of this type, namely: glutamic acid, aspartic acid and lysine (the other two basic amino acids, arginine and histidine have resonance structures as part of or adjacent to the amine group and therefor do not form amide bonds readily). These R groups do not normally cause a problem with the formation of the peptide bond due to the lack of repeating resonance structures normally found in a polypeptide, if I remember correctly the disassociation rate for these groups is much higher. The ony other amino acids which form covalent bonds are the cysteines, which form sulfer bonds and therefore will not interupt the primary structure, although they can and do have an effect on the stability of the teriary or quaternery structure. In other words, Ahmad, your objection is poppycock. You do not have to believe me, pick up any decent book on biophysical chemistry or biological physical chemistry and you will see what I mean.

quote:

---

In the same manner, in a protein molecule, the joining of even one amino acid with another with a bond other than a peptide bond renders the entire molecule useless.

---

This is flat out wrong as well. There are numerous bonds within a protein, anything from cystine bonds to non-covalent salt bonds such as bridges or hydrogen bonds. The association of these bonds is due to primarily to the primary structure of the protein, although some proteins do require chaperone proteins for proper folding. I am not trying to be rude but you really need to learn some biochemistry prior to making statements like this. Of course, then I would hope that you would not make them at all .

quote:

---

So are you saying that the first protein, here on earth, would have been a complete, pure, total and in an unadulterated form? If yes, then I have no argument as it seemingly proves a Conscious Intervention which is what I am stating.

---

No, I am saying that the first proteins (or more properly proteinoids, AKA Dr. Fox) would not be the same as those we find in living systems today. My opinion is that the first self replicating systems were a combination of RNA or RNA like molecules or polymers which were associated with proteins or protenoids. There is a whole body of literature on this area out there, free for the reading.Oh, and there is no such thing as a "pure" protein in a living system. If there were then I would be out of a job .------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz