Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Simplest Protein of Life
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 202 of 281 (676359)
10-22-2012 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Larni
10-22-2012 3:38 AM


Re: New information
Hi Larni,
Larni writes:
f course there is information in a snow flake.
Look at one side of a snow flake: now you know what the other side looks like.
What information in the snow flake tells you what the other side looks like?
You assume it looks the same but if you put it under a microscope it will look different.
Patterns are simply created by matter and energy and never produce an exact copy. No information is required nor is any present.
Unless you are saying the snow flake has DNA, is that what you are saying?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Larni, posted 10-22-2012 3:38 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Larni, posted 10-22-2012 12:42 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 204 of 281 (676363)
10-22-2012 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Coyote
10-22-2012 1:12 AM


Re: New information
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes:
I showed you a picture that contains some information, whether you say yea or nay. You been whupped, boy!
The picture contains no information apart from your observation of the picture.
The snow flake contains no information.
It has no transmitter or receiver.
Coyote writes:
Clouds for example. Meteorologists can infer quiet a bit from the nature and behavior of clouds, and they too appear "quite literally out of thin air."
Notice the word infer. That means the meterologist can observe how the clouds move and things they do and draw conclusion based upon that observation.
There is no information stored in the cloud to cause it to do anything.
Unless you are saying the clouds have DNA, is that what you are saying?
Coyote writes:
And on occasion I hear that so many hundredths of an inch of rain fell--important information for farmers and a lot of other folks.
Yes it is a very important observation that an amount of rain has fallen to a farmer.
The rain falls whether the farmer knows it fell or not. It does not send him a message that it has fallen. He can observe it is falling if he can see it fall.
By the way what is your definition of information?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2012 1:12 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 10-22-2012 12:58 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 207 of 281 (676367)
10-22-2012 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Larni
10-22-2012 12:42 PM


Re: New information
Hi Larni,
Larni writes:
Snow flakes are symetrical. If you know what one side looks like you now have information about the other side.
quote:
First, not all snowflakes are the same on all sides. Uneven temperatures, presence of dirt, and other factors may cause a snowflake to be lop-sided. Yet it is true that many snowflakes are symmetrical and intricate.
Snowflake Chemistry - Common Questions

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Larni, posted 10-22-2012 12:42 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Larni, posted 10-22-2012 1:14 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 220 by Panda, posted 10-22-2012 6:43 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 229 of 281 (676497)
10-23-2012 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Percy
10-22-2012 8:42 PM


Re: Anything to say about the topic?
Hi Percy,
Percy writes:
This thread was opened to argue that even one of the simplest proteins could not have formed naturally because that would require all the amino acids to come together in the right order spontaneously by chance.
Let me see if I have got this straight.
Statement "the simplest proteins could not have formed naturally".
Reason: All the amino acids would have to come together in the correct order spontaneously by chance for that to happen.
Message 157
Percy writes:
It certainly didn't happen anything like the opening post suggests, with all the amino acids coming together in the correct order by chance because that would be incredibly unlikely.
Percy writes:
If you have some other reason why even a simple protein could not have formed naturally then it belongs in a different thread.
So no other reason for or against is forbidden, is that what you are saying?
Just to refresh the OP.
Message 1
OP writes:
The Ribonuclease protein is the simplest protein that we know of, and can be considered the most basic building block of a cell. It is made from 124 amino acids, the first one in the strand being Lysine. There are 17 different amino acids in this protein, so to simplify it, lets say that there is a 1/17 chance of Lysine coming first. The second one in line, is Glutamic acid. The odds of it coming second are 1/289. Then comes Threonine. Chances of it coming 3rd are 1/4913. If we continue down the list, the end result is 1 followed by 552 zeroes. To put that in perspective, It's the same as a poker player drawing 19 royal flushes in a row, with out trading in any cards. If this is a million: 1,000,000. And this is a billion: 1,000,000,000. And this is a trillion: 1,000,000,000,000, We still have 546, 543, and 540 zeroes to go, respectively. To conclude, I think the chances of a living cell forming from chemicals that just happened to bond, is ridiculously unlikely.
RIDICULOUSLY UNLIKELY
Percy writes:
It certainly didn't happen anything like the opening post suggests, with all the amino acids coming together in the correct order by chance because that would be incredibly unlikely.
INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY
It seems you agree 100% with BoredomSetsIn.
I also agree.
I gave my reason for why I agree.
The only known method of creating a protein is that the information in DNA for a specific protein be sent to a receiver called a ribosome which produces the protein.
Anything else is incredibly unlikely as you have said and ridiculously unlikely as BoredomSetsIn says.
Since there is no evidence to examine for how the simplist protein was created anything other than the known method is an assumption made by pure speculation.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Percy, posted 10-22-2012 8:42 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by dwise1, posted 10-23-2012 2:54 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 232 by Percy, posted 10-23-2012 3:38 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 233 by Taq, posted 10-23-2012 3:58 PM ICANT 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