Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?

bluegenes writes: No. I told you about superfamilies and how completely unrelated AA sequences can perform the same function, so why are still going on about the 10^63 figure? The authors of the paper in your O.P. certainly don't make that claim.

It is really amazing how you insist on these non sequiturs. It is true that the relationship between the AA sequence and the 3D structure of a protein is not unique - a large number of modifications in the sequence within a protein family can be tolerated and will result in a similar 3D structure. But that has absolutely nothing to do with resources that are necesary to find a particular 3D structure. If you have 10^57 different AA sequences that result in a similar 3D structure this high degree of conservation of the 3D structure, compared to sequence conservation, does not change the fact that you need 10^63 reources to find this specific 3D structure. Your capacity for non sequiturs is breathtaking.

forexhr writes: ...to find this specific 3D structure.

You're still committing the sharpshooter fallacy. There is no single correct target. There are many correct targets.

I have a contextual question. When is this supposedly impossible search that you insist evolution requires supposed to happen? During a reproductive event?

--Percy

forexhr writes: It is really amazing how you insist on these non sequiturs...

I haven't seen any non sequiturs from bluegenes on this forum. I've seen a few of them from forexhr together with a few misunderstandings of basic research by forexhr.

So, you are an “expert” at every single level of biology?

Didn't say I was. What I am suggesting, and will continue to emphasize, is that your lack of knowledge of the relevant biological disciplines shows itself repeatedly. There's a certain suspicious arrogance on your part wherein you have the audacity to critique well-evidenced theory without deeply understanding really anything about the relevant biology -- whether it's genomics, molecular biology, biochemistry, or population genetics.

There is no quote, you need to read her papers.

I was familiar with the discoveries and experimental approaches of Barbara McClintock's research when I was a sophomore in high school. I have rather extensively read her notable publications, probably more so than you have or ever will. But, idk, maybe you could cite which paper in particular supports your assertion that the transposition mechanism is pre-programmed in such a way that insertions shouldn't count as beneficial mutations.

It's only non-random insofar as the inverted repeats in the transposon sequence restricts the reposition of that transposon to genomic locations with complementary sequences; but given that the inverted repeat regions of transposons consist of only a small number of nucleotides, there are many, many regions in the genome which would have complementary sequences. This is non sequitur. We're talking about the causes of the jumps, and not about the characteristics of transposable elements.

Then you don't know how to think experimentally. To understand the causes of the jumps, it is immensely useful to examine the characteristics of transposable elements. The above observations, coupled to reams of experimental research on transposons, indicate that transopson insertions are mutations which are just as stochastic and just as forceful a driver of evolution as substitution mutations (e.g., consider that the transposition rate in bacteria is similar to the spontaneous mutation rate).

Blargh. It gets frustrating when the people who claim to be refuting a theory held by the vast majority of molecular biologists don't take the time to, like, actually study molecular biology. WOW. What an ignorance. Using an authority as evidence against an argument belongs to the category of logical fallacies.

And an incapacity for verbal comprehension belongs in a number of categories, as well. I am not making an appeal to authority in the above quote; I'm stressing, again, the absurdity of someone trying to argue about molecular biology while having only a rudimentary-at-best understanding of that field.

Also, the ToE has nothing to do with biology, but it is a concept, a human mental construct about unseen past events that is contradicted by every instance of observation in biology.

...says the individual who doesn't understand much about, like, any of the relevant scientific disciplines.

I already said why I think so: "given the fact that most mutations are neutral or harmful, while mutation in British peppered moths resulted in a phenotypic effect(non-neutreal) and it didn't negatively affect the protein-coding capacity of the cortex gene(non-harmful) that indicates that this mutation was pre-programmed in the genome." Hence, simple probability.

Yeah, reading that made me almost spit out my coffee on my computer screen. There is absolutely not a shred of evidence that this mutation was pre-programmed in the genome any more than substitution mutations are. There is, however, a large amount of experimental research which shows that transposon insertions are stochastic, and so the peppered moth example is an excellent example of a beneficial mutation. I bet if BLASTed the peppered moth's transposon insertion sequence, I'd find a ton of homologs in the moth's genome -- and the distribution of these homologs would be random and non-predictable. What do you think?

forexhr writes: Yes, I agree, my analogy is flawed. You made a good point. To conclude, we can say that it is unknown whether the jump was random or non-random.

How is it unknown? We can observe transposons jumping randomly within a genome. Even you have said that transposon mutagenesis can result in negative, neutral, or even beneficial changes. That is the very definition of a random process of mutation.

forexhr writes: It is really amazing how you insist on these non sequiturs. It is true that the relationship between the AA sequence and the 3D structure of a protein is not unique - a large number of modifications in the sequence within a protein family can be tolerated and will result in a similar 3D structure.

You can also have different 3D structures that perform the same function. That's the part you keep missing.

Just for a bit of background, scientists have been using transposons to randomly change genomes for quite a while now, mostly in bacteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposon_mutagenesis

About 20 years ago, I was "lucky" enough to screen about 3,000 mutants for a specific gene knockout after a round of transposon mutagenesis. This was prior to modern times where a bacterial genome can be quickly sequenced and annotated. I know that transposons can randomly mutate a genome because I've personally watched it happen.

Like Genomicus, I also find it interesting that creationists can brazenly make sweeping conclusions about a vast area of biology with little or no knowledge of the relevant science. At some point, these threads are more about the psychology of creationism than the actual science, since the creationists really aren't all that interested in the science to begin with. How does a belief system remove curiosity and replace it with denial and unfounded confidence? An interesting question, for sure.

Like Genomicus, I also find it interesting that creationists can brazenly make sweeping conclusions about a vast area of biology with little or no knowledge of the relevant science.

That doesn't come as much of a surprise to those who follow political debates here in the US. The Republican party has, even before Trump, a habit of appointing mind-boggling unqualified ignorant people to key posts. In political debates, they have long been in the habit of calling relevant experts in all fields - even scientists - "glassy-eyed cultists", con artists, and/or ignorant dupes.

Listening to their debates, it's remarkable how US conservatives (or what gets called "conservatives" these days) take pride in their ignorance and narrow mindedness. They have this faith that because of their "common sense" they know more about every field than actual properly trained experienced experts.

The creationism is just one part of the anti-intellectualism that has always characterize US society.

The development of the discussion on this thread is a beautiful example of why the ToE, although it meets all of the criteria, is still not officially declared a pseudoscience. Since biology is a pretty complex area of science, there are myriad number of retorical niches to which darwinists have adapt in order to be able to defend their pseudoscience and in the same time create the illusion that their darwinism is a valid scientific theory. Currently the discussion on air is about the jumping genes. Darwinists in this thread are on them like piranhas on a prey. But, jumping genes have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. They are just the pre-existing sequences that can move from one location in the genome to other. Evolution on the other hand, is supposed to explain the origin of higher life forms that are characterized by organs, organ systems, de novo molecular machines, metabolic pathways,... or in short - specific 3D shapes that we observe in living systems.
In this thread, I proved that there haven't been enough resources in the history of life to find these 3D shapes. But, darwinists in this thread completely ignored this important issue, either via non sequiturs, red herrings, appeals to authority, ad hominems and various others pseudoscientific techniques. It is really interesting to watch how pseudoscience operates.

In my next post I will conclude this discussion with easy-to-understand falsification of evolution.

forexhr writes: In this thread, I proved that there haven't been enough resources in the history of life to find these 3D shapes.

I love this creationist trope. It's repeated by The loonytunes Davidjay and the sadly deluded Faith, here daily. Despite your ideas being debunked and proven wanting by everyone here from every level of argument from logic to molecular genetics using the very papers you site. You declare victory.

It's both amusing and sad.

forexhr writes: T.......n.

Good Lord. Another word salad.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

forexhr writes: bluegenes writes: No. I told you about superfamilies and how completely unrelated AA sequences can perform the same function, so why are still going on about the 10^63 figure? The authors of the paper in your O.P. certainly don't make that claim. It is really amazing how you insist on these non sequiturs.

You may not understand the relevance, but that doesn't make my point a non-sequitur.

forexhr writes: It is true that the relationship between the AA sequence and the 3D structure of a protein is not unique - a large number of modifications in the sequence within a protein family can be tolerated and will result in a similar 3D structure.

And there would also be a large number of functional modifications in any other sequence family that could give you the function. Functionally similar proteins don't need to be identifiable by sequence as family.

Sequence ≠ Structure ≠ Function ≠ Sequence

New Science Press: From Sequence to Function

quote:

---

As we see next, predicting a protein’s function from its structure alone is complicated by the fact that evolution has produced proteins with almost identical structures but different functions, proteins with quite different structures but the same function, and even multifunctional proteins which have more than one biochemical function and numerous cellular and physiological functions.

---

forexhr writes: But that has absolutely nothing to do with resources that are necesary to find a particular 3D structure. If you have 10^57 different AA sequences that result in a similar 3D structure this high degree of conservation of the 3D structure, compared to sequence conservation, does not change the fact that you need 10^63 resources to find this specific 3D structure. Your capacity for non sequiturs is breathtaking.

The 10^57 are only those from one sequential family, not the set of all sequences which would function in that context. And you're still sharpshooting. Like: If one in 100,000 Americans are called Donald Trump, then 100,000 Presidential election resources are needed to get a President called Donald Trump.

Always remember, when considering something like Lambda and its proteins that there's a set of 10^(virtual infinity) of different potential phages with different proteins that have never come into existence.

forexhr writes: But, jumping genes have absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution is descent with modification combined with natural selection, and the example of the peppered moth with its jumping gene is exactly that.

Evolution on the other hand, is supposed to explain the origin of higher life forms...

Evolution explains the diversity of life by explaining how adaptation happens, namely descent with modification and natural selection.

You're still committing the sharpshooter fallacy. The sheer diversity of life itself shows that there are vast numbers of satisfactory targets.

--Percy

Thanks Percy, I didn't read through that word salad presented by forexhr.

forexr writes: Evolution on the other hand, is supposed to explain the origin of higher life forms...

All modern forms of life are higher life forms. This includes microbes and whales. Modern microbes are higher life forms. Modern whales are higher life forms.

Evolutionary theory explains all those higher life forms very well.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

forexhr writes: In my next post I will conclude this discussion with easy-to-understand falsification of evolution.

In my next post, I will give easy to understand explanations of how to produce a rabbit ex nihilo out of a hat*, and how to make a new moon out of Camembert.

*As accurately depicted at left