Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 327 (506254)
04-24-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Bio-molecularTony
04-24-2009 6:28 AM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
B-MT writes:
Complete automated systems (Life) can not arise from non-atomically, non-complex, non-complete systems.
Aye, Aye Tony.

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-24-2009 6:28 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Coyote, posted 04-24-2009 12:24 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 228 by Percy, posted 04-24-2009 12:43 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 230 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-24-2009 8:56 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 227 of 327 (506255)
04-24-2009 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by LucyTheApe
04-24-2009 12:11 PM


Re: common igorance (sic)
B-MT writes:
Complete automated systems (Life) can not arise from non-atomically, non-complex, non-complete systems.
Aye, Aye Tony.
And the evidence for this claim is?
Perhaps you might start with the evidence for the "designer," as that is the topic of the thread and after many posts we have yet to see any evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by LucyTheApe, posted 04-24-2009 12:11 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 228 of 327 (506256)
04-24-2009 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by LucyTheApe
04-24-2009 12:11 PM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
There's a reason why you're only able to reply with "Aye, Aye Tony" instead of "Hey guys, Tony's right, and here's why..."
We are all well aware that there are many people out there who believe unsubstantiated nonsense. Were this not true then the ranks of flim-flam artists (like homeopathists, faith healers, promoters of magic fuel additives that will give you a hundred miles to the gallon, and so on) would be considerably thinner.
The goal here at EvC Forum is to examine the claims of one purported area of flim-flam known as creationism. We believe that by subjecting these claims to examination, in this case by requesting evidence for the designer of ID, they will be revealed to be completely unsubstantiated. Tony is ignoring the requests for evidence, which is why the last couple pages have turned into a torrent of requests for evidence.
You piping in with "Aye, Aye Tony" only emphasizes the lack of any evidence. It wouldn't matter if a million people posted "Aye, Aye Tony" to this thread, there still wouldn't be any evidence.
Because creationists lobby school boards, text book publishers and legislatures for representation in public school science classrooms, it is essential that we examine the legitimacy of creationism's claims to be real science. The foundation of any scientific investigation is evidence, data, observations, etc. That when engaged in discussion creationists talk about anything but is instructive.
Those participating in this discussion on the creationist side, or ID side to be more specific, need to help move the discussion forward by addressing the topic (what you were saying "Aye, Aye" to was off-topic) and supporting your positions with evidence. Every claim you make has to be able to be tied to facts from the real world. Anything else is fantasy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by LucyTheApe, posted 04-24-2009 12:11 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 229 of 327 (506277)
04-24-2009 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Bio-molecularTony
04-24-2009 6:28 AM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
Complete automated systems (Life) can not arise from non-atomically, non-complex, non-complete systems. That video is crap mythical ignorance.
Fine, where is your evidence????

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-24-2009 6:28 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 230 of 327 (506291)
04-24-2009 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by LucyTheApe
04-24-2009 12:11 PM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
This has turned from a science related thread discussing physical evidence for the existence of "supernatural designer" to a faith based, no-evidence-required religious thread with nearly every IDer and creationist in the forum bandwagoning onto Tony's unsubstantiated rants with phrases like "Aye aye".
Unfortunately, this thread has now just turned into a shouting match between the two sides: one side saying that "life needs a designer" without any type of emperical evidence why and the other side saying "Where's the beef?" aka where is the evidence requiring this natural/supernatural designer.
I myself am done with this one sided joke of a debate until the other side can provide some sort of evidence/data/etc that we can analyze to determine if a "designer" is required or not.
Like I have said over and over, the onus is on the one asserting the existence of something i.e. a designer, not the one who is not asserting the existence of something. We can see, touch, feel, detect, observe and analyze biological "life"/"living systems" or whatever you want to call it Tony. Can we see, touch, feel, detect, observe this designer of yours?
BTW, if you respond to this without providing any sort of evidence, than I (and probably most of the scientificly minded people on this board) will take that as meaning you are metaphorically speaking pulling this shit out of your ass and will not entertain this idiotic monologue with a response. And no, philosophical/religious musings about how living organisms are really machines that we don't and can't ever understand and that we should just trust you (and your deity) DOES NOT constitute as emperical evidence, just unscientific religious blabber which helps no one.
[Stepping off the soap box]
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by LucyTheApe, posted 04-24-2009 12:11 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 231 of 327 (506292)
04-24-2009 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Bio-molecularTony
04-24-2009 6:28 AM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
Tony writes:
Life can only be defined as a complete system.
If your endowed with the minimum level of parts to achieved a automated self-replicating system then you can qualify to be labelled by man as a "living system".
Actually self-replicating is only one portion of the full definition of what scientists consider a "living system". A virus self-replicate but is not considered a biological organism or "living system" because it does not meet all the paremeters of what we consider life.
The general concesus of what science considers life/living systems to be is: matter, which as the physicist Schrodinger wrote, "avoids the decay into equilibrium". In other words life can autonomously equalize or even decrease the level of entropy through metabolism (converting biologically unusable energy/matter into bioloigically usable energy/matter).
Clearly, viruses, machines, etc cannot autonomously conduct metabolism and decrease its own entropy whereas biological "life" can.
"Life" is now quite vague today.
It is only vague if you do not use a common definition of what life is, as shown above. The term "life" only makes since if we all agree what the paremeters of life are (in other words what differentiates life from non-life). The definition of what life is and is not, is really a concensus of what scientists consider life to be. I guess you could consider the term "life" vague in the same way that we can determine the term "universe" vague. These terms are just labels to help us understand each other, categorize what we see in nature, and come to a common understanding of the world around us.
Tony writes:
Calling a machine alive or not alive is mixing mythical ignorance with modern biology. If you guys would just put down your "life is some kind of black magic" religious Mythical ideas you would see the true reality of this thing we call existence.
It is only "black magic" to you because you really do not understand it. You don't even understand your own ignorance in the subject.
Tony writes:
Complete automated systems (Life) can not arise from non-atomically, non-complex, non-complete systems.
Why not? Can you demonstrate why this is the case besides your unsubstantiated musings? Put the evidence where your mouth is.
Tony writes:
That video is crap mythical ignorance.
Why? Please show specifically where it is wrong. Otherwise you are just showing how ignorant of the subject you are.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-24-2009 6:28 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 1:57 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

NanoGecko
Junior Member (Idle past 5445 days)
Posts: 20
From: NSW Australia
Joined: 04-24-2009


Message 232 of 327 (506297)
04-25-2009 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by DevilsAdvocate
04-24-2009 9:58 PM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
This is the first time that I have come across this site. I have had a brief look at the posts on this thread and see a lot of pontificating about semantics and definitions. So in response lets look at some facts.
As the Topic is:- A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
Lets have a look at what evidence is out there.
It's hard to choose where to start because there is so much evidence!!!!
So I'll just jump in at the deep end and suggest that you threaders/posters (or whatever your called) consider the massive and irrefutable evidence for design.
By the way I believe the creator/designer is the God of the Bible but that is a different subject to the scope of this thread, so I will keep this post relevant to the abovementioned topic.
Refer to the following site to verify any facts about the biochemistry:-
Just a moment...
This is a paper about "Anatomy of a proficient enzyme: The structure of orotidine 5′-monophosphate decarboxylase in the presence and absence of a potential transition state analog" written in 1998.
In a nutshell the reaction acceleration brought about by this enzyme is vital in protein synthesis for the assembly of DNA and RNA. Without this enzyme to speed up the reaction time it would take in excess of 75 MILLION YEARS for a single molecule of DNA or RNA to synthesise. It really makes you wonder how any form of life was able to pass on to the next generation it's DNA blueprint before this very complex enzyme came into existence, which itself is synthesised through complex chemical instructions that are themselves written on the DNA. Another chicken and the egg problem for evolutionists.
The above reaction acceleration pales into insignificance when in 2003 Biochemist Richard Wolfenden et al discovered a phosphatase enzyme described in the paper titled "The rate of hydrolysis of phosphomonoester dianions and the exceptional catalytic proficiencies of protein and inositol phosphatases" this can be found at:- Just a moment...
Quote from the abstract of this paper:- "Most enzyme reactions proceed with k cat/K m values in the neighborhood of 107 M−1⋅s−1 and appear to be similarly efficient according to that criterion. However, to assess the proficiency of an enzyme as a catalyst, and its corresponding affinity for the altered substrate in the transition state, it is necessary to compare k cat/K m with the rate constant of the corresponding reaction under the same conditions in the absence of a catalyst. In contrast to the relatively narrow range of values of k cat/K m observed for enzyme catalyzed reaction rates, the rates of these uncatalyzed reactions span a range of at least 19 orders of magnitude. Thus, differences in enzyme proficiency tend to reflect differences in the rates of the uncatalyzed reactions rather than the catalyzed reactions, and enzymes differ greatly from one another in their prowess as catalysts. Enzymes that catalyze the slowest reactions are of practical interest, in that they offer sensitive targets for inhibition by transition-state analogues. Their mechanisms of action are also particularly challenging to rationalize."
and at the end of the Results and Discussion part of this paper:-
"Among enzymes of this latter type, a high value of k cat (1.5 104 s−1) has been recorded for a human protein tyrosine phosphatase (PTP; EC 3.1.3.48), acting on a model peptide through a phosphorylated cysteine residue as an intermediate. Comparison with the present rate constant for spontaneous hydrolysis of the phenyl phosphate dianion indicates that PTP enhances the rate of hydrolysis of phosphorylated tyrosine residues by ≈17 orders of magnitude."
This enzyme permits reactions required to allow both regulatory and communication channels within a cell to take place in a hundredth of a second. The amazing part is that without this complex enzyme operating in the right place at the right time, these reactions which are essential for the cell to function would take 1 TRILLION YEARS. Without design from an unimaginably superior intelligence, it is inconceivable that there were a series of small mutational steps that led to the writing of the information on the DNA that is required to build this complex enzyme, because the cell would have long disappeared before it was able to function prior to the enzyme.
Another chicken and egg problem.
If you don't believe me then take a look at:-
Biocompare: The Buyer's Guide for Life Scientists
A quote from this article by Richard Wolfenden
"Without catalysts, there would be no life at all, from microbes to humans,"
Wolfenden states "It makes you wonder how natural selection operated in such a way as to produce a protein that got off the ground as a primitive catalyst for such an extraordinarily slow reaction." As Dr Jonathan Sarfati correctly points out in his 2008 book "By Design". "Natural selection could not have been operational until there was life, while as Wolfenden says, life could not have functioned without these enzymes to speed up vital reactions enormously."
So to me a mere individual in country NSW Australia, it seems very clear that a Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence is evident by these two enzymes alone without proceeding to the vast amount of other scientific evidence for complex and brilliant design that is evident to everyone, or should I say, should be evident to everyone, but unfortunately many have been deceived by the continual bombardment of evolutionaty propaganda.
You wanted facts, perhaps any evolutionists out there would like to explain how these complex enzymes came into existence by random accident, chance and time?
Jon T
By the way the spelling above is Australian English, there will be differences in some words for any US readers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-24-2009 9:58 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by anglagard, posted 04-25-2009 4:49 AM NanoGecko has replied
 Message 235 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-25-2009 7:36 AM NanoGecko has not replied
 Message 236 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-25-2009 8:24 AM NanoGecko has not replied
 Message 237 by Percy, posted 04-25-2009 8:25 AM NanoGecko has not replied
 Message 238 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-25-2009 8:32 AM NanoGecko has replied

IchiBan
Member (Idle past 4937 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 233 of 327 (506305)
04-25-2009 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Blue Jay
04-23-2009 11:35 PM


Re: All "life" can't exist unless it is made, constructed, assembled.
Okay, Heard and acknowledged.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Blue Jay, posted 04-23-2009 11:35 PM Blue Jay has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 234 of 327 (506307)
04-25-2009 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by NanoGecko
04-25-2009 1:57 AM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
NanoGecko writes:
This is the first time that I have come across this site. I have had a brief look at the posts on this thread and see a lot of pontificating about semantics and definitions. So in response lets look at some facts.
Welcome to EvC!
Facts are good, let's see what you have.
Lets have a look at what evidence is out there.
It's hard to choose where to start because there is so much evidence!!!!
So I'll just jump in at the deep end and suggest that you threaders/posters (or whatever your called) consider the massive and irrefutable evidence for design.
Strange that the real scientific community, as opposed to the proven (in the legal sense) liars at AIG, ICR, and the DI, has found none of this "massive and irrefutable evidence."
...cites two papers that are 'interpreted to mean' that enzymes can't develop naturally due to that old improbability problem.....
As to Just a moment... why didn't the authors clearly state this 'proves' any purported 'god of the gaps.?' All I see is an examination of a complex biochemical reaction.
As to the abstract linked to through Just a moment... there is no mention or inference that:
quote:
The amazing part is that without this complex enzyme operating in the right place at the right time, these reactions which are essential for the cell to function would take 1 TRILLION YEARS. Without design from an unimaginably superior intelligence, it is inconceivable that there were a series of small mutational steps that led to the writing of the information on the DNA that is required to build this complex enzyme, because the cell would have long disappeared before it was able to function prior to the enzyme.
So where did you get this from, your own interpretation?
If you don't believe me then take a look at:-
Biocompare: The Buyer's Guide for Life Scientists
A quote from this article by Richard Wolfenden
This is not a peer reviewed article, it is a post.
Here is a post that refutes your interpretation of your citations.
Page not found · GitHub Pages
It is based upon: Aharoni A, et al. Nat Genet. 2005 Jan;37(1):73-6.
This post shows that enzymes, similarly to the genetic code which controls their production, includes inadvertent minor other expressions that will be selected for under environmental pressure. Incredulity upon the part of the anti-science crowd does not preclude this simple fact that has been shown experimentally in thousands of cases.
So to me a mere individual in country NSW Australia, it seems very clear that a Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence is evident by these two enzymes alone without proceeding to the vast amount of other scientific evidence for complex and brilliant design that is evident to everyone, or should I say, should be evident to everyone, but unfortunately many have been deceived by the continual bombardment of evolutionaty propaganda.
So to me as a mere librarian in West Texas, it seems very clear that your entire argument is of the usual form, 'life is improbable' which is easily refuted by the fact natural selection, be it upon enzymes or organisms, is not a random process.
You wanted facts, perhaps any evolutionists out there would like to explain how these complex enzymes came into existence by random accident, chance and time?
The fact that evolution is not the action of random processes has been explained in this forum, and in any decent scientific text that covers evolution, countless times.
It is incumbent upon you to learn what the actual scientists have discovered before proclaiming as infallible, such easily refuted and 'so-called' evidence to the contrary.
Edited by anglagard, : Add 'so-called' as there is no real evidence
Edited by anglagard, : add a welcome and the phrase "which controls their production" for purpose of clarity

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 1:57 AM NanoGecko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 8:37 AM anglagard has replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 235 of 327 (506315)
04-25-2009 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by NanoGecko
04-25-2009 1:57 AM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
Welcome NanoGecko and thank you for providing some semblance of evidence to substantiate the ID claim. Why has it taken 232 posts before someone can provide a bit of evidence to back up this claim (not your fault, I am referrring to the illusive Tony and other tag-along creationists)? Ok, let's analyze your claims:
This is a paper about "Anatomy of a proficient enzyme: The structure of orotidine 5‘-monophosphate decarboxylase in the presence and absence of a potential transition state analog" written in 1998.
In a nutshell the reaction acceleration brought about by this enzyme is vital in protein synthesis for the assembly of DNA and RNA. Without this enzyme to speed up the reaction time it would take in excess of 75 MILLION YEARS for a single molecule of DNA or RNA to synthesise.
This is a strawman argument. The author's of this paper and specialists in the field of the synthesis of RNA/DNA do not state that this system occurred lock-stock-and-barrel "as is" but rather these reactionary pathways along with the organic material developed together growing more and more complex with more and more reactionary sidepaths and loops through the billions of years that life evolved on the Earth. Yes, this is still a hypothesis since there are several explanations stating exactly how this could have happened, as spelled out in the RNA world and other similar suggested scientific hypotheses.
However, it is a leap of faith to state that there is no way in which these enzymes and there reactionary pathways themselves could have evolved into more complex biochemical systems. Why not? What is stopping the chemical reactions from increasing the complexity of these enzymes such as Orotidine 5'-phosphate decarboxylase and others. If we use your logic than atom's shouldn't form by the attraction of electrons to atomic nucleasus or molecules form by the chmeical reactions between atoms. Why is it so difficult to understand how simple organic molecules can combine and evolve into larger more intricate biomolecular systems such as protiens and self-replicating molecules such as RNA and DNA?
It really makes you wonder how any form of life was able to pass on to the next generation it's DNA blueprint before this very complex enzyme came into existence, which itself is synthesised through complex chemical instructions that are themselves written on the DNA. Another chicken and the egg problem for evolutionists.
Again this is an example of your "God of the Gaps" in which because we have yet to fully explain and verify the abiogenesis of life and certain chemical reactions of organic compounds, we must then resort to some unknown supernatural factor now ambiguously labled as "intelligent design".
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 1:57 AM NanoGecko has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 236 of 327 (506319)
04-25-2009 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by NanoGecko
04-25-2009 1:57 AM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
BTW, I am not skirting your argument here, but will have to do some more background research in this issue and get back with you on your claims that the "irreducible complexity" of these two enzymes are legitement evidence which substantiate ID.
I have some basic undergrad biology/chemistry education as well as some self-education in biology and do understand the basics of biochemistry but will have to do some self-education on these two specific enzymes and there synthesis pathways.
Thanks for your patience.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 1:57 AM NanoGecko has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 237 of 327 (506320)
04-25-2009 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by NanoGecko
04-25-2009 1:57 AM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
Much of your source material appears to be an article by Jonathan Sarfati titled World record enzymes. It appears over at the Creation Ministries International website.
I guess we've already drifted pretty far from the original topic as characterized by the opening post (see Message 1). If you go back and give it a read you'll see just how far. Anyway, I guess a little more drift won't hurt.
You're presenting evidence that a designer *does* exist, while recently we were looking for evidence that gives some indication of the nature of the designer, and originally whether the evidence was consistent with a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent designer.
Richard Wolfenden would probably be surprised to see his writings used in support of creationist arguments. When he wondered how natural selection might have originally produced the enzymes, it wasn't an expression of skepticism but one of honest curiousity, because part of what his lab does is synthesize such enzymes. His hope is that understanding how natural selection did it would inform the efforts at his own lab. Check out his webpage where he describes the nature of his work: Richard Wolfenden's webpage at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Since the beginning of time man has attributed what he doesn't understand to unknown and unseen forces, usually a god or gods. DNA doesn't leave fossil evidence, so there is no direct evidence for almost all of the evolutionary history of DNA. There will always be uncountable DNA structures and behaviors about which you can say, "We do not know how this evolved." Where one can go wrong is interpreting this as, "We do not see how this could have evolved," turning it from an expression of lack of knowledge to one of skepticism about the sufficiency of natural processes.
Those who believe things we do not know in a scientific sense are evidence of a designer (or creator or gods or god or God or call it what you will) will always be with us, because it is their nature and because there will always be things we do not know. All we can do is point out that in all of science across all the centuries nothing we've ever figured out has had a designer or God as the answer. As our science has expanded the gaps into which gods can fit have grown smaller and smaller. Where once gods were mighty and ruled the entire universe, they have now shrunk to the size of microbiological enzymes inhabiting the space between molecules of DNA.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 1:57 AM NanoGecko has not replied

Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5378 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 238 of 327 (506322)
04-25-2009 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by NanoGecko
04-25-2009 1:57 AM


Non-physical God - with non-physical evidence
Hi NanoGecko, well done. I have heard some things along these lines but this must be more updated information. Thanks.
_________________________________________________
The theme of this thread is kind of a joke, misnomer.
Because before creation (the big bang as it were) there was no matter, not space-time, no gravity, etc. It is said only God existed at that time. So here we have "Nothing" of a physical nature in existence. And now they ask us to show them God, or any physical evidence of his reality.
A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
The only thing possible at this time (that I can think of) to show evidence of his existence are non-physical aspects for he has no physical aspects to show. God is a spirit and not blood and flesh.
His existence was before the physical universe came into being.
If you can use a telescope to see for non-physical realities then you would have a chance to find what your looking for.
But as it is, we do not know what existed before creation or how to "see" it. It's like an intelligence program becoming self-a-ware and trying to see "us" the physical reality beyond the "1's" and "0's" from the programming code. The programming code can not examine the physical motherboard not knowing of such an existence and therefore not looking for it. Not even having the "tools" to even see such a thing.
So our reality is kind of "on that par" with almighty God (J). We do not have such "tools" to see non-physical realities as yet and might never will. We are just not built to "see" the spirit realm.
Intelligence is none physical and anything like that we can show you that are not dependent on physical properties.
So wisdom, love, kindness, joy, math, chemistry mindedness, engineering intelligence. All these things linked with intelligence that is not dependent on being of a physical nature we can show you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 1:57 AM NanoGecko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by lyx2no, posted 04-25-2009 10:51 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied
 Message 244 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 11:46 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied
 Message 245 by onifre, posted 04-25-2009 12:39 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

NanoGecko
Junior Member (Idle past 5445 days)
Posts: 20
From: NSW Australia
Joined: 04-24-2009


Message 239 of 327 (506323)
04-25-2009 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by anglagard
04-25-2009 4:49 AM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
Thanks for your welcome anglagard.
The point of the examples that I chose is that the sheer time required for a cell to complete vital reactions for it's survival are far too great without the enzymes being in existence to speed things up to a massive degree!


Your statement:-
....."cites two papers that are 'interpreted to mean' that enzymes can't develop naturally due to that old improbability problem".....

It seems that you missed the point when you imply that this is a probability matter. I will try to explain this as simply as possible for you.
The time needed for essential chemical reactions to occur within the cell is far too great without the enzyme. Take just one of many examples of this, the synthesis of uridine 59-phosphate and uridine 5′-phosphate that is an essential precursor needed in the cells construction of DNA and RNA molecules. The point here is that without DNA or RNA, there can be no cell replication of heritable characteristics, which by definition precludes natural selection from occurring at all. The only result is that the hypothetical organism dies with no offspring if it could even be described as being alive and able to function without the ability to synthesise DNA or RNA. Life ends. No possible path for evolution.


Your statement:-
....."As to Just a moment... why didn't the authors clearly state this 'proves' any purported 'god of the gaps.?' All I see is an examination of a complex biochemical reaction".....

The aim of this research wasn't to prove or disprove "any purported 'god of the gaps." as you put it but rather it was about determining the molecular structure of orotidine 5′-monophosphate decarboxylase and how it reacts with proteins as a functioning free and inhibited enzyme.
Of particular note is the amazing degree to which this enzyme accelerates reactions within the cell through, among other processes the enzymatic decarboxylation of OMP. The time difference between with the enzyme of 18 msec and without the enzyme 78 million years would, I should think provide good cause for any reasonable person to reflect on how fortunate it is that this enzyme does in fact exist. More importantly it had to exist right from the first time that DNA and RNA existed.
You rightly point out that the enzyme reaction is complex !!!


Your statement:-
....."Strange that the real scientific community, as opposed to the proven (in the legal sense) liars at AIG, ICR, and the DI, has found none of this "massive and irrefutable evidence".....

Your attack on the abovementioned Creationist Organisations just shows your prejudice and worldview. If you are going to criticise, then please be a lot more specific than this unsubstantiated accusation. There are many well respected mainstream scientists all over the world that carry out very good peer reviewed and published science, who work for National Governments, Industry and Private Research Organisations, and also contribute to Creationist Organisations such as the ones that you denigrate above.
See below,
taken from the peer reviewed and published paper from "real scientists",:-
Orotidine 5*-phosphate decarboxylase produces the largest rate enhancement that has been reported for any enzyme. The crystal structure of the recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae enzyme has been determined in the absence and presence of the proposed transition state analog 6-hydroxyuridine 5*-phosphate, at a resolution of 2.1 and 2.4 , respectively. Orotidine 5*-phosphate decarboxylase folds as a TIM-barrel with the ligand binding site near the open end of the barrel. The binding of 6-hydroxyuridine 5*-phosphate is accompanied by protein loop movements that envelop the ligand almost completely, forming numerous favorable interactions with the phosphoryl group, the ribofuranosyl group, and the pyrimidine ring. Lysine-93 appears to be anchored in such a way as to optimize electrostatic interactions with developing negative charge at C-6 of the pyrimidine ring, and to donate the proton that replaces the carboxylate group at C-6 of the product. In addition, H-bonds from the active site to O-2 and O-4 help to delocalize negative charge in the transition state. Interactions between the enzyme and the phosphoribosyl group anchor the pyrimidine within the active site, helping to explain the phosphoribosyl groups remarkably large contribution to catalysis despite its distance from the site of decarboxylation. Orotidine 59-phosphate decarboxylase (ODCase) (EC 4.1.1.23) is responsible for de novo synthesis of uridine 59-phosphate, an essential precursor ofRNAand DNA. In neutral solution, orotidine 59-monophosphate (OMP) undergoes spontaneous decarboxylation to uridine 59-phosphate with a half-time of 78 million years (1). At the ODCase active site, the same reaction proceeds with a half-time of 18 msec (2). Comparison of kcatyKm with knon indicates that ODCase surpasses other enzymes in its proficiencyi as a catalyst, achieving a remarkable affinity for the altered substrate in the transition state (1). In addition to surmounting this formidable kinetic barrier, the ODCase reaction is of special interest in view of its lack of precedent in biological chemistry. The substrate is devoid of an effective repository for the negative charge that is generated at C-6 when CO2 is eliminated, yet the enzyme functions without metals or other cofactors. Enzymatic decarboxylation of OMP is also remarkable in the importance (for catalysis) of a seemingly irrelevant part of the substrate. By its presence, the 59-phosphoryl group contributes a factor of '108-fold to kcatyKm, in spite of its considerable distance from the site of chemical transformation of the substrate (3). As a first step toward understanding these unusual properties, we have investigated the crystal structure of recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae ODCase alone and in complex with a postulated transition state analogue, 6-hydroxyuridine 59- phosphate (BMP) (Ki 5 9 3 10212 M (4).


Your statement:-
....."As to the abstract linked to through Just a moment... there is no mention or inference that:
quote:The amazing part is that without this complex enzyme operating in the right place at the right time, these reactions which are essential for the cell to function would take 1 TRILLION YEARS. Without design from an unimaginably superior intelligence, it is inconceivable that there were a series of small mutational steps that led to the writing of the information on the DNA that is required to build this complex enzyme, because the cell would have long disappeared before it was able to function prior to the enzyme".....

Well you should really brush up on your chemistry a bit more is all that I can say to this.
For your information a trillion years is expressed as 10 to the 18th power usually as an order of magnitude which in this case is 18.
The facts are there, clear for all to see, I already quoted parts of the document to assist informed understanding of the issue,
so again see my previous:- Quote from the abstract of this paper:-
"Most enzyme reactions proceed with k cat/K m values in the neighborhood of 107 M−1⋅s−1 and appear to be similarly efficient according to that criterion. However, to assess the proficiency of an enzyme as a catalyst, and its corresponding affinity for the altered substrate in the transition state, it is necessary to compare k cat/K m with the rate constant of the corresponding reaction under the same conditions in the absence of a catalyst. In contrast to the relatively narrow range of values of k cat/K m observed for enzyme catalyzed reaction rates, the rates of these uncatalyzed reactions span a range of at least 19 orders of magnitude. Thus, differences in enzyme proficiency tend to reflect differences in the rates of the uncatalyzed reactions rather than the catalyzed reactions, and enzymes differ greatly from one another in their prowess as catalysts. Enzymes that catalyze the slowest reactions are of practical interest, in that they offer sensitive targets for inhibition by transition-state analogues. Their mechanisms of action are also particularly challenging to rationalize."
I hope that pointing this out, will clarify this for you.


Your statement:-
....."If you don't believe me then take a look at:-
Biocompare: The Buyer's Guide for Life Scientists
A quote from this article by Richard Wolfenden
This is not a peer reviewed article, it is a post".....

Who ever said that this was peer reviewed, it is in fact a news article and it was never represented as anything other than an article. But who cares about being pedantic all the time. This nit-picking is ridiculous, the fact is that Richard Wolfenden is publicly quoted in this article as saying:-
"It makes you wonder how natural selection operated in such a way as to produce a protein that got off the ground as a primitive catalyst for such an extraordinarily slow reaction."


The entire article is shown below for your convenience; the implications for living organisms, if these enzymes did not exist.
In short we wouldn't exist!!! The link to the site is at the bottom.


Without Enzyme Catalyst, Slowest Known Biological Reaction Takes 1 Trillion Years
Source: University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Monday, May 05, 2003
All biological reactions within human cells depend on enzymes. Their power as catalysts enables biological reactions to occur usually in milliseconds. But how slowly would these reactions proceed spontaneously, in the absence of enzymes - minutes, hours, days? And why even pose the question?
One scientist who studies these issues is Dr. Richard Wolfenden, Alumni distinguished professor of biochemistry and biophysics and chemistry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1998, he reported a biological transformation deemed "absolutely essential" in creating the building blocks of DNA and RNA would take 78 million years in water.
"Now we've found one that's 10,000 times slower than that," Wolfenden said. "Its half-time - the time it takes for half the substance to be consumed - is 1 trillion years, 100 times longer than the lifetime of the universe. Enzymes can make this reaction happen in 10 milliseconds."
Wolfenden, along with co-authors Chetan Lad and Nicholas H. Williams of Sheffield University in England, published a report of their new findings April 29 in the online "early edition" of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Print publication is slated for May 13.
The report highlights the catalytic power of phosphatase enzymes to tremendously enhance the transformation rate in water of a specific group of biochemicals: phosphate monoesters. Protein phosphatase enzymes acting on these monoesters help regulate the molecular cross-talk within human cells, the cell signaling pathways and biochemical switches involved in health and disease.
"We have esters floating around in our cells with all kinds of functions," Wolfenden said. "Every aspect of cell signaling follows the action of the type of phosphatase enzyme that breaks down phosphate monoesters. Other phosphatases highlighted in the study for their catalytic power help mobilize carbohydrates from animal starch and play a role in transmission of hormonal signals."
As to the uncatalyzed phosphate monoester reaction of 1 trillion years, "This number puts us way beyond the known universe in terms of slowness," he said. "(The enzyme reaction) is 21 orders of magnitude faster than the uncatalyzed case. And the largest we knew about previously was 18. We've approached scales than nobody can grasp."
Why would we want to know the rate of a biological reaction in the absence of an enzyme?
That information would allow biologists to appreciate what natural selection has accomplished over the millennia in the evolution of enzymes as prolific catalysts, Wolfenden said. It also would enable scientists to compare enzymes with artificial catalysts produced in the laboratory.
"Without catalysts, there would be no life at all, from microbes to humans," he said. "It makes you wonder how natural selection operated in such a way as to produce a protein that got off the ground as a primitive catalyst for such an extraordinarily slow reaction." Experimental methods used to observe very slow reactions can generate important information for drug design.
"Enzymes that do a prodigious job of catalysis are, hands-down, the most sensitive targets for drug development," Wolfenden said.
"The enzymes we studied in this report are fascinating because they exceed all other known enzymes in their power as catalysts. We've only begun to understand how to speed up reactions with chemical catalysts, and no one has even come within shouting distance of producing their catalytic power."
Wolfenden's research on enzyme mechanisms and water affinities of biological compounds has exerted major influences in these areas. His research also has influenced rational drug design; findings from his laboratory helped spur development of ACE inhibitor drugs, now widely used to treat hypertension and stroke.
Support for this research came from the National Institute of General Medicine, a component of the National Institutes of Health.
University of North Carolina School of Medicine
The above article can be found at:-
Biocompare: The Buyer's Guide for Life Scientists



Your statement:-
....."Here is a post that refutes your interpretation of your citations.
Page not found · GitHub Pages
It is based upon: Aharoni A, et al. Nat Genet. 2005 Jan;37(1):73-6.
This post shows that enzymes, similarly to the genetic code which controls their production, includes inadvertent minor other expressions that will be selected for under environmental pressure. Incredulity upon the part of the anti-science crowd does not preclude this simple fact that has been shown experimentally in thousands of cases".....

The above article at pandasthumb.org is irrelevant to this matter as there simply could be no enzymes acting on protein reactions and enzyme and protein synthesis if the instructions for their formulation encoded on the DNA to be transcribed/decoded/mobilised by the RNA, mRNA and tRNA respectively was going to take millions of years, this argument misses the point entirely. And who are the "anti-science crowd", this childish form of derogatory comment really doesn't progress a reasoned scientific debate; I once again must conclude that you must resort to this type of underhand attack, because you feel that you are standing on very shaky ground in respect of your belief system.


Your Statement:-
....."So to me as a mere librarian in West Texas, it seems very clear that your entire argument is of the usual form, 'life is improbable' which is easily refuted by the fact natural selection, be it upon enzymes or organisms, is not a random process".....

This is a fairly meaningless statement, you make an incorrect assumption about the thrust of my entire argument, and then neatly pigeon hole me as being "of the usual form, 'life is improbable'. If this post of yours is an indication of the standard of debate here, there really is precious little point in continuing.
Again you miss the point entirely, I will try to explain again though I am getting tired of the no holes barred nit-picking approach that you present.
Natural selection is only possible, whether random or otherwise if, a beneficial mutative advantage within a species can be conferred onto subsequent generations within that species. The mechanism by which the naturally selected advantage is passed to the offspring is encoded within the DNA molecule in the reproductive cells of either parent organism. If the reaction time for the synthesis of elemental building blocks for the DNA and RNA takes millions to billions of years without the enzymes being present, then natural selection just ain't gonna happen. The point being that the highly complex molecular folding and synthesis pathway that must be exactly followed in order to even assemble one of these enzymes must by real scientific definition have been there right from the beginning of the existence of the the DNA and RNA molecules. In a word simultaneous.


Your statement:-
....."The fact that evolution is not the action of random processes has been explained in this forum, and in any decent scientific text that covers evolution, countless times.
It is incumbent upon you to learn what the actual scientists have discovered before proclaiming as infallible, such easily refuted and 'so-called' evidence to the contrary".....

This attack is not really worthy of a response. The facts are the same.
The way that each person interprets those facts is where the problems begin.
It really comes down to how each individual looks at the world.
What I mean by that is simply that it is the biases, prejudices or pre-suppositions that are really at the heart of the way that each person interprets the world around them. Whether a person is a Creationist an Evolutionist or a Monty Pythonist, it is their overall worldview that will dictate the way that they interpret the world. So the question is not whether a person is biased but rather what is the best bias to be biased by to form an accurate understanding of the world around them.
Some see the handiwork of God because they believe that God exists and yet others just see a random collection of matter and energy with no particular purpose because they dont believe in God, but have instead put their belief in another religion atheism or agnosticism, though they usually dont recognize that their beliefs constitute a religion.
It is abundantly clear that many people are just not aware of the huge amount of logical, scientific evidence for the existence of a supreme creative genius designer of the cosmos, one who I believe is Jesus Christ.
The sad truth is that many people have put their faith in the evolution religion because many falsely assume that evolution has been proven by science which is not the case at all.
One could be forgiven though for thinking that evolution was a fact, from the continual bombardment of evolutionary propaganda in the media and education systems within western culture at the present time.
The fact is, that nothing could be further from the truth, there is very little and arguably none, actual physical evidence indicating that evolution has occurred at all. (By evolution I mean Darwinian evolution, the assumed process by which all species of life have come to exist here on earth, after the assumed existence of the first living cell had somehow come into existence by chance).
Edited by Admin, : Replace long divider lines with horizontal rule.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by anglagard, posted 04-25-2009 4:49 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Percy, posted 04-25-2009 9:31 AM NanoGecko has replied
 Message 242 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-25-2009 10:13 AM NanoGecko has replied
 Message 264 by anglagard, posted 04-26-2009 1:44 AM NanoGecko has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 240 of 327 (506326)
04-25-2009 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by NanoGecko
04-25-2009 8:37 AM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
NanoGecko writes:
For your information a trillion years is expressed as 10 to the 18th power usually as an order of magnitude which in this case is 18.
Actually, in short-scale countries, which includes the US and the UK but evidently doesn't include Australia if your understanding is typical down there, a trillion is 1012.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Edit for clarity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 8:37 AM NanoGecko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 9:56 AM Percy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024