• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Proof of Design

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hey brothers and sisters, I am a Clinical Trial Assistant by trade and schooled in Lab Biomedical Technique. I have one instance I would like to share with you that absolutely proves random chemical coincidence is not the answer to living things. Interestingly this is not one you will find on most apologetic websites and for the life of me I cannot figure out why. A chemist friend Aaron Huang told me it is probably because the instance is so insignificant to most people. They just see protein folding as a process in macro terms and do not really pick apart what happens on the micro level though it is commonly known (Aaron, born and educated in China, became interested in Intelligent Design some years ago, and now, after a number of years, he has begun attending church with his family…Hallelujah!)

This aspect of protein folding is called sulfide bonding and refers to di-sulfide bonds which determine the folding that occurs which determines the function of the protein produced. This is very significant in animal biology.

First I will describe what happens and how they bond, and then point out the significance of this as a refutation for a random chemical coincidental explanation. I will describe this process in lay terms so any not of a science background can understand what I saying. For those interested you can find more at Wiki under “Protein Folding” or if you care to go deeper, you can hear it in a lecture at:

Lecture - 2 Amino Acids II - Free Medical Video Lecture

Or also try…

http://labs.mcdb.lsa.umich.edu/labs/bardwell/files/publications/2008_nov-dis.pdf

to learn of the importance of the process in forming polypeptide chains (if it spurs your interest)

Here we go…

Since every protein (every organ, every function, every vessel, every hormone, etc.,) in your body is dependent on what happens in this process I thought you might find it important. When polypeptide chains fold to their three dimensional structure they do this because certain sulfide molecules bond with other sulfide molecules. The combinations of bonded sulfides determine the shape thus the function.

What we found is that when by chemical process we unfold these proteins and allow then to re-bond, even if the string has 100 sulfides the only the exact same sulfides re-bond with their component sufildes. However there is absolutely no reason scientifically that these mindless allegedly planless, designless sulfides should only bond with those same specific ones in the presence of such variety and opportunity. Even if and when we try and force and alternative bonding they just will not and immediately revert to their original site.

The bonding (called covalent bonding where two molecules share their valence electrons) is natural when two elements which bond this way come into contact so when we try and force alternative di-sulfide bonds they should automatically covalently bond but they will not. No matter if we repeat the unfolding and allowance process 100 times in a row they will bond only with the same other sulfide over and over.

If chemical random coincidence were the rule they would randomly bond each time. If true sometimes they would bond randomly different occasionally (maybe even one in a thousand) but they do not. There is clearly an irresistible intention in the resultant fold, shape, and function.

Any thoughts?

Paul
 

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hey brothers and sisters, I am a Clinical Trial Assistant by trade and schooled in Lab Biomedical Technique. I have one instance I would like to share with you that absolutely proves random chemical coincidence is not the answer to living things. Interestingly this is not one you will find on most apologetic websites and for the life of me I cannot figure out why. A chemist friend Aaron Huang told me it is probably because the instance is so insignificant to most people. They just see protein folding as a process in macro terms and do not really pick apart what happens on the micro level though it is commonly known (Aaron, born and educated in China, became interested in Intelligent Design some years ago, and now, after a number of years, he has begun attending church with his family…Hallelujah!)

This aspect of protein folding is called sulfide bonding and refers to di-sulfide bonds which determine the folding that occurs which determines the function of the protein produced. This is very significant in animal biology.

First I will describe what happens and how they bond, and then point out the significance of this as a refutation for a random chemical coincidental explanation. I will describe this process in lay terms so any not of a science background can understand what I saying. For those interested you can find more at Wiki under “Protein Folding” or if you care to go deeper, you can hear it in a lecture at:

Lecture - 2 Amino Acids II - Free Medical Video Lecture

Or also try…

http://labs.mcdb.lsa.umich.edu/labs/bardwell/files/publications/2008_nov-dis.pdf

to learn of the importance of the process in forming polypeptide chains (if it spurs your interest)

Here we go…

Since every protein (every organ, every function, every vessel, every hormone, etc.,) in your body is dependent on what happens in this process I thought you might find it important. When polypeptide chains fold to their three dimensional structure they do this because certain sulfide molecules bond with other sulfide molecules. The combinations of bonded sulfides determine the shape thus the function.

What we found is that when by chemical process we unfold these proteins and allow then to re-bond, even if the string has 100 sulfides the only the exact same sulfides re-bond with their component sufildes. However there is absolutely no reason scientifically that these mindless allegedly planless, designless sulfides should only bond with those same specific ones in the presence of such variety and opportunity. Even if and when we try and force and alternative bonding they just will not and immediately revert to their original site.

The bonding (called covalent bonding where two molecules share their valence electrons) is natural when two elements which bond this way come into contact so when we try and force alternative di-sulfide bonds they should automatically covalently bond but they will not. No matter if we repeat the unfolding and allowance process 100 times in a row they will bond only with the same other sulfide over and over.

If chemical random coincidence were the rule they would randomly bond each time. If true sometimes they would bond randomly different occasionally (maybe even one in a thousand) but they do not. There is clearly an irresistible intention in the resultant fold, shape, and function.

Any thoughts?

Paul

You seem to be saying that the bonding process is stunning and amazing because you can't find a reason for the lack of randomness.
I would have to insist that the reason will surface some day. Enjoy the journey.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Each sulfide molecule having equal chemical occasion and opportunity to bond with any other present sulfide negates there being a purely materialistic “reason” if there is no pre-programmed plan or design directing this process. There is nothing unique or different between the potential molecules or bonding sites that should dictate which is the appropriate or determined site as far as anyone can tell. This conclusion that one day such a reason will be known begs the question as to how long is long enough? We have already been puzzled by this for ½ a century after 10 centuries one could still say “but one day it will be known” but that does not mean it will…ever…though it is the hope of materialist determinists that it will be so. I know it is only my opinion but I can see intent in why these should for no as yet known reason to selectively insist on joining at only these specific places. IMO it is Intelligent Design but disagreement is a good thing only I see no supporting arguments for disagreement aside from the wish of an unknown future enlightenment. But good comment, thanks!

It is like the 2 or 3 hundred years of blind faith in abiogenesis many insist on without one iota of evidence for it (other than bias based interpretation of general observation that appears from there being a time of non-life then a time of living things suddenly appears). How much longer should we wait? 1,000s of years? Or will the same premise be still acceptable then that "one day we will find adequate evidence"? I could say this of the belief that one day the Sun will become a marshmallow...based on this logic one cannot say it will never happen just because it never has yet, because "one day the reason for why it will or could will become apparent".

The sulfide problem is one akin to a blind man in a room of colored balls always and only picking the exact same red ball...not likely to happen by random coincidence. The level of mathematical improbability is so great as to exceed that allowed for mathematical possibility in a Universe only 16 billion years old (if it is even that old). The improbability is so great that one could not even calculate it based on it happening exactly the same, uniquely in each folded protein, every time.

Paul
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Presumably the shape the proteins keep adopting is the lowest energy state of any of the possible combinations of disulphide bonds? If so the question is how the protein breaks accidental wrong combinations along the way rather than why it always ends up the same shape.

Of course then there is the question of
*cough*prions*cough*
which catalyse normal shaped proteins to change to the new shape.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,828
7,845
65
Massachusetts
✟392,324.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Presumably the shape the proteins keep adopting is the lowest energy state of any of the possible combinations of disulphide bonds? If so the question is how the protein breaks accidental wrong combinations along the way rather than why it always ends up the same shape.
With the help of an enzyme, protein disulfide isomerase, which shuffles disulfide bonds. There is some evidence that incorrect ("non-native") disulfide bonds facilitate the proper folding of the protein and the eventual formation of the correct bonds.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
With the help of an enzyme, protein disulfide isomerase, which shuffles disulfide bonds. There is some evidence that incorrect ("non-native") disulfide bonds facilitate the proper folding of the protein and the eventual formation of the correct bonds.
So there is a whole topography of energy states, and easily reached structurally, but incorrect bonds guide the structure down the correct energy valley to the lowest energy state in that valley?

Could a prion molecule form a template of new disulphide bonds between it and the normal protein leading that protein down a different energy valley to another low energy structure, the prion structure?
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,828
7,845
65
Massachusetts
✟392,324.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So there is a whole topography of energy states, and easily reached structurally, but incorrect bonds guide the structure down the correct energy valley to the lowest energy state in that valley?
It's not just the energy -- the incorrect bonds get the correct base pairs into physical proximity.

Could a prion molecule form a template of new disulphide bonds between it and the normal protein leading that protein down a different energy valley to another low energy structure, the prion structure?
I don't know.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Each sulfide molecule having equal chemical occasion and opportunity to bond with any other present sulfide negates there being a purely materialistic “reason” if there is no pre-programmed plan or design directing this process. There is nothing unique or different between the potential molecules or bonding sites that should dictate which is the appropriate or determined site as far as anyone can tell. This conclusion that one day such a reason will be known begs the question as to how long is long enough? We have already been puzzled by this for ½ a century after 10 centuries one could still say “but one day it will be known” but that does not mean it will…ever…though it is the hope of materialist determinists that it will be so. I know it is only my opinion but I can see intent in why these should for no as yet known reason to selectively insist on joining at only these specific places. IMO it is Intelligent Design but disagreement is a good thing only I see no supporting arguments for disagreement aside from the wish of an unknown future enlightenment. But good comment, thanks!

It is like the 2 or 3 hundred years of blind faith in abiogenesis many insist on without one iota of evidence for it (other than bias based interpretation of general observation that appears from there being a time of non-life then a time of living things suddenly appears). How much longer should we wait? 1,000s of years? Or will the same premise be still acceptable then that "one day we will find adequate evidence"? I could say this of the belief that one day the Sun will become a marshmallow...based on this logic one cannot say it will never happen just because it never has yet, because "one day the reason for why it will or could will become apparent".

The sulfide problem is one akin to a blind man in a room of colored balls always and only picking the exact same red ball...not likely to happen by random coincidence. The level of mathematical improbability is so great as to exceed that allowed for mathematical possibility in a Universe only 16 billion years old (if it is even that old). The improbability is so great that one could not even calculate it based on it happening exactly the same, uniquely in each folded protein, every time.

Paul

I would be happy as a clam to join you in your determination that intelligent design is the cause for your results. I'm simply saying that I refuse to support your premise at this time as I have insufficient background to have your facts in focus. I sounds to me like there is a hidden reason. I'd have to do more research on the matter. It's waited 50 years to impress me. It can wait a few months longer to convince me. :thumbsup:

You say there is an irresistible intention in the fold shape and function.
I say that evolutionists will agree with you rather than resist your claims.
True randomness is out of favor in evolutionary circles.
True engineers have denounced the concept of randomness for at least 30 years.
When I was 17 I dated the daughter of a forensics engineer who told me there
was no such thing as "random". When engines fell off jet air planes at O'Hare airport
he led the team to find out why. She was tall, pretty, and I took it to heart.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

chilehed

Veteran
Jul 31, 2003
4,732
1,399
64
Michigan
✟250,124.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
...True engineers have denounced the concept of randomness for at least 30 years...

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.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
I have one instance I would like to share with you that absolutely proves random chemical coincidence is not the answer to living things.

This statement interests me, not because of the science, which is over my head, and I will leave to the chemists. It interests me because it implies a claim about the origin of life.

But who ever claimed that random chemical coincidence IS the answer to living things?


Is this actually a claim made by scientists? Or is it something creationists claim that scientists claim? IOW an invented claim attributed to scientists but not actually made by scientists?

The process described is certainly fascinating, but it doesn't mean much in terms of proving design if the original claim was never actually put on the table in the first place.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
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.

I think there is a lot of confusion over "randomness".

There are plenty of reasons not to be able humanly to predict an outcome even when there is a cause. Theologically, who are we to be able to predict how God will work out his purposes?

Yet I have had a lengthy conversation with an ID supporter who refuses to consider any other definition of "random" than "without cause or purpose". So no matter how "random" something looks to an engineer, he insists it is not "random" unless it has no cause or purpose.
 
Upvote 0

chilehed

Veteran
Jul 31, 2003
4,732
1,399
64
Michigan
✟250,124.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I think there is a lot of confusion over "randomness".

There are plenty of reasons not to be able humanly to predict an outcome even when there is a cause. Theologically, who are we to be able to predict how God will work out his purposes?

Yet I have had a lengthy conversation with an ID supporter who refuses to consider any other definition of "random" than "without cause or purpose". So no matter how "random" something looks to an engineer, he insists it is not "random" unless it has no cause or purpose.
What a goofy thing to think! It renders the word entirely purposeless in most instances, because everything that comes into being is caused. The only uncaused thing in existance is God... I don't suppose he thinks that nothing is random but God, does he?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
What a goofy thing to think! It renders the word entirely purposeless in most instances, because everything that comes into being is caused. The only uncaused thing in existance is God... I don't suppose he thinks that nothing is random but God, does he?


I will have to ask him that.

But it seems to be part of the ID ideology about evolution. ID doesn't say evolution never happens. But it says the theory of evolution (which IDists always call "Darwinism") can't be the way it happened, because---according to them--"Darwinism" calls for "unguided" change.

They qualify the term "unguided" as "unguided by any intelligent being" --including God.


The flip side of that is to define "not random" as meaning "guided by intelligence". Somehow they work in a place for "law" and "necessity" as well, but I am somewhat confused to how that works in relation to "random", since it is neither chance nor guided by an intelligence. And random events are still governed by natural law.
 
Upvote 0

chilehed

Veteran
Jul 31, 2003
4,732
1,399
64
Michigan
✟250,124.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
...The flip side of that is to define "not random" as meaning "guided by intelligence". Somehow they work in a place for "law" and "necessity" as well, but I am somewhat confused to how that works in relation to "random", since it is neither chance nor guided by an intelligence. And random events are still governed by natural law.
This might seem kind of random, but I'm reminded of something I've noticed in my study of information theory. Before compression there's an inverse proportionality between meaning and information content, but, after compression, strings that are meaningful appear highly random (and thus devoid of meaning) unless you have the key.

Without the key, you can't tell the difference between a truly random string which is unguided and meaningless, and one of equal length that only appears to be so.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
This might seem kind of random, but I'm reminded of something I've noticed in my study of information theory. Before compression there's an inverse proportionality between meaning and information content, but, after compression, strings that are meaningful appear highly random (and thus devoid of meaning) unless you have the key.

Without the key, you can't tell the difference between a truly random string which is unguided and meaningless, and one of equal length that only appears to be so.

I didn't know that. (I don't have the math to really understand information theory). But it doesn't surprise me one bit. I have been trying to make the point that just because something appears to be random to human intelligence doesn't mean it must be in God's perspective.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This statement interests me, not because of the science, which is over my head, and I will leave to the chemists. It interests me because it implies a claim about the origin of life.

But who ever claimed that random chemical coincidence IS the answer to living things?


Is this actually a claim made by scientists? Or is it something creationists claim that scientists claim? IOW an invented claim attributed to scientists but not actually made by scientists?

The process described is certainly fascinating, but it doesn't mean much in terms of proving design if the original claim was never actually put on the table in the first place.

Random chemical coincidence just means that it happened by chance. That under the right conditions, for no specific reasons, inanimate dead matter can become living matter (though there has never been a test that can show this and it has never been demonstrated or observed). Now one can argue these conditions become the cause but I was not saying there is no such thing as things occurring randomly. Randomness is all around us (from the human perspective) but the point was that does not explain why the specific sulfides bond with only the specific sulfides they originally bind with as opposed to any others they may bind with that are present (why every time only with the same ones and not with others...chance would dictate that on occasion they would rebond differently)

Paul
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,828
7,845
65
Massachusetts
✟392,324.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Randomness is all around us (from the human perspective) but the point was that does not explain why the specific sulfides bond with only the specific sulfides they originally bind with as opposed to any others they may bind with that are present (why every time only with the same ones and not with others...chance would dictate that on occasion they would rebond differently)
The answer, as has already been mentioned in this thread, is that the wrong bonds do form, all the time. In fact, there is a specific enzyme that shuffles sulfide bonds so proteins can find their way out of the wrong configuration.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Thanks, sfs, for providing the information from someone familiar in the field to solve the problem posed in the OP.


pshun wrote:
(though there has never been a test that can show this and it has never been demonstrated or observed)

Making an argument like this - about anything - hurts our Christian witness by making us look irrational. That's because the line above can be applied to anything that either takes too long or is otherwise hard to test in the lab, things that all of us accept through the evidence anyway.

Two easy examples:
Some crazy geologist suggest that mountains can form
(though there has never been a test that can show this and it has never been demonstrated or observed)

Some crazy astronomers say that Pluto orbits the Sun
(though there has never been a test that can show this and it has never been demonstrated or observed)

Since everyone knows that mountains do, in fact, form, and that pluto does, in fact, orbit the sun (and so on), making the same statement about another area makes us look like hypocrites who pick and choose what to object to based on some personal bias. That reduces trust, the very basis for any meaningful conversation.

Papias
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0