Proof of Design

[pshun2404]

Yes I said this and it is true. as for the totally unrelated examples of mountains forming and Pluto revolving around the sun, we can observe this...these things can be demonstrated. Secondly, the fact that an enzyme is present which can enhance the proper folding when they are forming merely demonstrates the point I was making, and as for the rare cases of the alleged disease causing misfolded proteins, these also continuously misfold in exactly the same way when first unfolded and allowed to reform.

Paul

 

[sfs]

Yes I said this and it is true. as for the totally unrelated examples of mountains forming and Pluto revolving around the sun, we can observe this...these things can be demonstrated. Secondly, the fact that an enzyme is present which can enhance the proper folding when they are forming merely demonstrates the point I was making,

The point you were making was that they don't make incorrect bonds. That point was incorrect. Your point was also that there was no way to explain how they could bond correctly, when there were so many incorrect ways of bonding. That point was also incorrect, since there is indeed a mechanism that explains how they end up bonding correctly.

 

[Papias]

pshun wrote:

as for the totally unrelated examples of mountains forming and Pluto revolving around the sun, we can observe this...these things can be demonstrated.

No, they can't be reproduced, and the whole process cannot be observed. Your point was that because no one can observe or reproduce the formation of life in the lab, it must not have happened.

By that same logic, because no one can observe or reproduce pluot having orbited the sun in the lab, it must not have happened. By that same logic, because no one can observe or reproduce the formation of mountains in the lab, it must not have happened.

As for the folding, sfs has explained that. Plus, if there were a real issue there, then scientists would be tripping over themselves to expose it, because the rewards would include fame, fortune, publications, and certainly tenure.

Interesting idea, however, so thanks for bringing it up. : )

Papias

 

[pshun2404]

The point you were making was that they don't make incorrect bonds. That point was incorrect. Your point was also that there was no way to explain how they could bond correctly, when there were so many incorrect ways of bonding. That point was also incorrect, since there is indeed a mechanism that explains how they end up bonding correctly.

No my point really was that they always bond exactly the same (even the incorrectly bonded proteins in solution re-bond the exact same incorrect way) as the original folding...the alleged mechanism you are referring to does not explain this when outside of the cell (as the video demonstrates). Yes of course in the cell there are specific encoded instructions governing everything that happens therein, and all the biochemical and physical mechanisms, processes, and related necessary organelles are in place to assure maximum possible homeostasis (and even then things on occasion randomly fail or vary from the encoded intention).

 

[pshun2404]

pshun wrote:



No, they can't be reproduced, and the whole process cannot be observed. Your point was that because no one can observe or reproduce the formation of life in the lab, it must not have happened.

By that same logic, because no one can observe or reproduce pluot having orbited the sun in the lab, it must not have happened. By that same logic, because no one can observe or reproduce the formation of mountains in the lab, it must not have happened.

As for the folding, sfs has explained that. Plus, if there were a real issue there, then scientists would be tripping over themselves to expose it, because the rewards would include fame, fortune, publications, and certainly tenure.

Interesting idea, however, so thanks for bringing it up. : )

Papias

Well let's see...Hmmm? Total misrepresentation...I never said they could be reproduced...I said observed and demonstrated...and I never said these two unrelated examples could be demonstrated in a lab...these are huge assumptions I never said.

I can observe Pluto revolving around the Sun and thus it can be demonstrated (others who look into a good telescope can confirm this)...and we observe and have demonstrated certain geological evidences that mountains (not all) have indeed risen...this can be seen (thus observed and demonstrated to) by all who have the time to comb though all the evidences of this case...

Paul

 

[sfs]

No my point really was that they always bond exactly the same (even the incorrectly bonded proteins in solution re-bond the exact same incorrect way) as the original folding...the alleged mechanism you are referring to does not explain this when outside of the cell (as the video demonstrates). Yes of course in the cell there are specific encoded instructions governing everything that happens therein, and all the biochemical and physical mechanisms, processes, and related necessary organelles are in place to assure maximum possible homeostasis (and even then things on occasion randomly fail or vary from the encoded intention).

But proteins don't always fold the same way; they randomly explore many conformations on their way to the final fold, and they sometimes end up misfolded -- which is why cells have quality control mechanisms (and why misfolded proteins still end up causing severe disease sometimes). The reason that proteins usually assume the correct shape, including the correct sulfide bonds, is that that represents the lowest energy state, and the amino acid sequence is generally arranged so that there are few false minima and simple paths to the final shape. It's all understandable in terms of chemistry and physics.

 

[mark kennedy]

But proteins don't always fold the same way; they randomly explore many conformations on their way to the final fold, and they sometimes end up misfolded -- which is why cells have quality control mechanisms (and why misfolded proteins still end up causing severe disease sometimes). The reason that proteins usually assume the correct shape, including the correct sulfide bonds, is that that represents the lowest energy state, and the amino acid sequence is generally arranged so that there are few false minima and simple paths to the final shape. It's all understandable in terms of chemistry and physics.

Steve, I have a serious question I thought you might be able to help me with. It concerns, 'Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), often referred to as "Lou Gehrig's Disease,". I assure you this isn't a bait and switch, I'm genuinely puzzled by this affliction. A guy I work with is close to someone who has it and she is passing fast.

I'm just going to ask and you can respond as you see fit or not at all if the question is of no interest to you. Point blank, do you have any thoughts on what causes this? Genetics and heredity would seem to have been ruled out. As far as I understand there is some problem with the way the proteins fold, some kind of a repeat sequence.

Your thoughts...

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[sfs]

Steve, I have a serious question I thought you might be able to help me with. It concerns, 'Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), often referred to as "Lou Gehrig's Disease,". I assure you this isn't a bait and switch, I'm genuinely puzzled by this affliction. A guy I work with is close to someone who has it and she is passing fast.

I'm just going to ask and you can respond as you see fit or not at all if the question is of no interest to you. Point blank, do you have any thoughts on what causes this? Genetics and heredity would seem to have been ruled out. As far as I understand there is some problem with the way the proteins fold, some kind of a repeat sequence.

Your thoughts...

Grace and peace,
Mark

I'm sorry, Mark, but I don't think I know any more about it than you do. There are genetic causes in a small fraction of cases, and the lack of any obvious pattern to the genes involved suggest that it might have multiple, quite distinct causes. At this point these seem only to be hints, though.

It's a bad disease, and I'm sorry about the people you know that are affected.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's a silly assertion. I know lots of experienced engineers, I'm one myself, and I've never met nor heard of a single one who denounces the reality of randomness. We run into it every day.

You might be confusing randomness with lack of causation.

There is no true randomness of any sort.
It is a catchphrase for interactions that
are so complex they cannot be tracked.

It simply means "I don't know". Radiation
is an example where the emission occurs
at a random time simply because its not
predicable.

Ants experience "random" deaths even
though I know about each step I take
when I cross my lawn.

http://www.world-science.net/_random.htm

 

[sfs]

There is no true randomness of any sort.
It is a catchphrase for interactions that
are so complex they cannot be tracked.

Who was talking about "true randomness"? "Random" in science basically means unpredictable, at least at the level of description that is being used; all that can be predicted is a probability distribution of different outcomes. So given the real meaning of "random", there's lots of randomness in science.

It simply means "I don't know". Radiation
is an example where the emission occurs
at a random time simply because its not
predicable.

This is a different issue, and what you've said here is wrong. If quantum mechanics is correct (and there is every reason to think it is correct), then the time when radiation is not merely unpredictable, but unknowable. Two absolutely identical atoms will emit radiation at different times; that's just the way the world works.

 

[Papias]

Paul wrote:

Well let's see...Hmmm? Total misrepresentation...I never said they could be reproduced...I said observed and demonstrated...and I never said these two unrelated examples could be demonstrated in a lab...these are huge assumptions I never said.

Your objection to abiogenesis is that it cannot be "observed and demonstrated". You can do neither with many other long term processes that you accept yourself, and you don't even understand the range of evidence and progress in abiogenesis research.

I can observe Pluto revolving around the Sun and thus it can be demonstrated (others who look into a good telescope can confirm this)...

No one has observed Pluto orbit the Sun because one orbit takes 250 years. Pluto was only discovered in 1930.

We know that Pluto orbits the Sun due to observations of part of the process, and reasonable conjecture on what those data might mean when extrapolated to longer times.

and we observe and have demonstrated certain geological evidences that mountains (not all) have indeed risen...this can be seen (thus observed and demonstrated to) by all who have the time to comb though all the evidences of this case...

No one has observed a mountain form because mountain formation takes millions of years. People don't live millions of years.

We know that mountains form by geologic processes due to observations of part of the process, and reasonable conjecture on what those data might mean when extrapolated to longer times.

Now, compare this (and pluto) to abiogenesis:

No one has observed life arise because all plausible routes take many years. Research into abiogenesis has only been going on since the 1940's.

We know there are many possible routes to the formation of life due to observations of parts of the process, and reasonable conjecture on what those data might mean when extrapolated to longer times.

Even 15 years ago, there had already been significant work:

The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: April 1998

and since then there has been a steady march of further advances, such as this one: Harvard Team Creates the World's 1st Synthesized Cells

Those who study the chemistry of the formation of life have proposed a number of plausible routes, and have repeatable evidence for several of them. You are ignorant of most of this because it is not your career, and to even be familiar with the evidence would require you to have a degree in biochemistry as well as years of study in the abiogenesis subfield.

My point is not that we know life arose without God's help. Rather, my point is that your basic argument - that your ignorance of a field somehow makes you think that you can dismiss any process that cannot be observed in its entirety - is not a reasonable arguement, and that using it only makes you look like you don't understand evidence.

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

Who was talking about "true randomness"? "Random" in science basically means unpredictable, at least at the level of description that is being used; all that can be predicted is a probability distribution of different outcomes. So given the real meaning of "random", there's lots of randomness in science.

The purpose of science is to eliminate all randomness.
So saying that it still exists in science is not very correct
when the intent is to explain every cause.