Why would an intelligent designer design these?

You had quoted an example in which the reaction yielded a protein with ATP binding activity. I will rephrase the question. If the particular desired activity is for ATP hydrolysis, then ATP binding activity will not be useful.Is this correct?

Why not?

It does not make any sense to me. What do you think is the possibility? If that happens, what is the purpose?

It does not make any sense to me. What do you think is the possibility? If that happens, what is the purpose?

Could you make a greater effort to be clearer? It's still not at all clear what you're asking.

If ATP binding is only for its own hydrolysis, then this makes some sense. Otherwise when ATP is bound and is hydrolysed, then, binding is unnecesary or it is a nonsensical reaction. Because, ATP is lost.This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 03-30-2006 08:31 PM

What is nonsensical is the idea that chemical reactions have a "purpose".Chemical reactions happen or don't happen, depending on the conditions. There is no "purpose".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

There's only one massive flood, right? Which would imply one massive extinction, right?How do you explain six mass extinctions that are recorded in the geological history of the earth?

kuresu, there were too many species to drown all at once, so they were all drowned in six shifts.I hope this helps.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

I would hate to work one of those shifts. Wake up and go to work at eight in the morning just to be dead by five.

Let's be clear here: you are a creationist and NOT an IDer -- you don't need the ID concept to believe the "Flood is responsible for the fossil layers" AND in fact the ID concept is silent on the question of the flood. Exactly, NOT the answer from the ID paradigm. This is not an explanation from an ID perspective, and in fact is irrelevant and off topic to the issue of whether "intelligent design" can explain these fossils.The concept of "intelligent design" does not restrict itself to only deselecting species as they dwindle by natural selection, and in fact it posits design causing speciation -- new designs -- all the time.In it's simple formulation ID really has no conflict with geology or the fossil recordor evolution.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You have answered the question without undesrstanding what I wrote in reply to the previous post.

Ditto!! Eledhan, WE NEED YOU!!

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

What answer? I didn't ask a question - I said:

quote:

---

What is nonsensical is the idea that chemical reactions have a "purpose".

​

Chemical reactions happen or don't happen, depending on the conditions. There is no "purpose".

---

If you have a response to that statement, just post the @#$%ing response. Don't say "you have the answer".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The clincher for me against the hypothesis (has it moved that far?)of ID is the wonderful world of parasites. Whether designed by an Intelligent, Incompetent or any other 'I`s" you can think of, parasitism is so extreme, affecting all organic life (not just humans due to our fallen nature as our resident drama queen will insist), that either it has been a random, unguided process, or the result of design by the sickest puppy in the history of this world.
Parasite Rex--Carl Zimmer is a good starting point.