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.
irrelevant. if both cell-phone and proteins becoming non-functional when some parts of of them removed then the conclusion should be the same.Cellphones were designed, not evolved. And cell phones don't reproduce. ANd cell phones don't have variation when they reproduce. Your analogy is flawed and doesn't work.
Right. If you smash a bug with the heel of your shoe it stops working. Therefore it can't have evolved and must have been designed. We know this because if you smash your cellphone with the heel of your shoe it stops working, too, and we know that cellphones were designed. QED.irrelevant. if both cell-phone and proteins becoming non-functional when some parts of of them removed then the conclusion should be the same.
irrelevant. if both cell-phone and proteins becoming non-functional when some parts of of them removed then the conclusion should be the same.
here is one example i already gave:
Construction of a minimum-size functional flagellin of Escherichia coli.
so any protein will be non-functional if we will remove some parts of it.
irrelevant. if both cell-phone and proteins becoming non-functional when some parts of of them removed then the conclusion should be the same.
One of the key aspects you are missing is that proteins can have relative degrees of functionality, including multiple functions or functional changes. The same applies to relative biological structures.
No, not irrelevant.
Things that have evolved had earlier versions where not all of the components were in place, and so they can work without all components. For example, eyes can work and serve to benefit an organism even if they can't form an image as clear as the ones we see.
And even your cellphone analogy fails you here. My current phone has wifi, gps, bluetooth, a colour touchscreen and a tremendous amount of processing power. The phone I had back in 2002 (a Nokia 3310) had a tiny monochrome screen, no wifi, no gps, no bluetooth, no touch screen, no internet connectivity... And yet it was still a cellphone.
So my old 3310 lacks many of the things my current phone has, and it still worked. How can you argue that a phone won't work if you take things out of it?
i can say the same about cell-phone. we can change a cell phone into many other functional system. so?
Cell phones are irrelevant here. We're talking about proteins and biological evolution.
you know what? lets take a system that does exist in nature: a sonar system. we know that any sonar need at leats several parts. so what make you think that it will be different in nature? what is the first step to sonar and how many parts we need for that first step?
but these biological systems does use proteins. so its still the same argument. so how many protein/s we need to evolve the first step in sonar system?Why can't you just stay on subject? We were talking about protein function and evolution. Do you not wish to discuss that anymore? Have you run out of arguments?
The first step is the ability to detect and respond to sound waves. Even the simplest single-cell creatures have that ability to some degree. Is that what you mean?but these biological systems does use proteins. so its still the same argument. so how many protein/s we need to evolve the first step in sonar system?
but these biological systems does use proteins. so its still the same argument. so how many protein/s we need to evolve the first step in sonar system?
how is that any different? if we cant make a sonar (that base on proteins) stepwise how is that different in a single protein?The discussion was about functional changes in protein. It was centered on your claim that you we would need a whole host of changes (e.g. 100 to 200) to happen in a single step. You still have not supported that claim.
This has nothing to do with the evolution of sonar which is a different topic entirely. Why can't you stay on topic?
What good would it do to produce sound if the echo can't be detected?actually i think that the first step is to produce sound. so how many parts we need to that step?
how is that any different? if we cant make a sonar (that base on proteins) stepwise how is that different in a single protein?
lets talk about a single protein. this protein for instance bind amino acid to a trna:This is going back to your claim about functional changes to proteins and your claim there would need to be 100+ changes happen all at once.
Since you haven't supported that claim, are you abandoning it now? You certainly seem to be abandoning it given you keep trying to change the subject.
the same is true for a cell-phone. some cell-phones have no screen. but they can still be used as cell-phones.
right. see above. but in any case the cell-phone still need at least several parts for its minimal function.
very simple: im talking about the crucial parts of the cell-phone function. so we are talking now only about the minimal set of parts that make the cell-phone a cell-phone.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?