Jump to content


Photo

Protein Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
134 replies to this topic

#121 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 11 February 2010 - 04:28 AM

And, amazingly enough, the protein remains protein. It doesn't evolve into anything else! And yet the evolutheists will attempt to promulgate that assumed time will assume
macroevolution.

Funny isn't it  :lol:

View Post


proteins don't evolve because they are not alive. get it?

#122 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 February 2010 - 05:15 AM

proteins don't evolve because they are not alive.  get it?

View Post


Neither are amino acids. :lol:

#123 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 February 2010 - 05:47 AM

proteins don't evolve because they are not alive.  get it?

View Post


Absolutely, do you?

#124 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 11 February 2010 - 08:44 AM

Would anyone like to answer this question.  If irreducible complexity is not true and evolution is--then there should be an answer for this riddle.

How did natural selection and mutation produce DNA gyrase and the helicase, both of which are required for DNA to split?  If DNA can't split, then it can not replicate, and life stops?  According to Dawkins and Darwin this should happen one step at a time--but you need the entirety of both enzymes for any kind of DNA replication.

View Post

Assuming that there is not an answer to you question at the moment, does that mean we throw out all evolutionary theory?

Is there some particular reason you threw Darwin into your comment? I don't think he knew about DNA as a genetic mechanism. He was a bit before Watson and Crick. Is is just so easy to throw Charlie's name around?

#125 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 11 February 2010 - 11:22 AM

Absolutely, do you?

View Post


I wasn't the one who suggested that proteins should evolve.

#126 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 February 2010 - 02:41 AM

I wasn't the one who suggested that proteins should evolve.

View Post


But you do believe that amino acids will, right?

#127 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2010 - 05:26 AM

I wasn't the one who suggested that proteins should evolve.

View Post


I didn’t “Suggest” they should either. I was pointing out the absurdity of it. Just as it is absurd to attempt to posit macroevolution as a fact, when it is not.

#128 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 February 2010 - 09:22 AM

Just as it is absurd to attempt to posit macroevolution as a fact, when it is not.

View Post


If a fact is that which it would be perverse to deny and macroevolution is essentially speciation then I would claim that macroevoultion is certainly a fact warranted by the usual evidence.

#129 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2010 - 10:34 AM

If a fact is that which it would be perverse to deny and macroevolution is essentially speciation then I would claim that macroevoultion is certainly a fact warranted by the usual evidence.

View Post


Then you would be making a "Faith" statement and nothing more.

#130 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 February 2010 - 06:29 PM

Then you would be making a "Faith" statement and nothing more.

View Post


I would not describe a belief founded on physical evidence and reasoning "faith".

#131 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 February 2010 - 10:52 PM

Hi Otto,


Assuming that there is not an answer to you question at the moment, does that mean we throw out all evolutionary theory?


We never accepted it to start with. And why would we accept anything that never had the answers or the empirical evidence to even be considered a theory?

Is there some particular reason you threw Darwin into your comment? I don't think he knew about DNA as a genetic mechanism.


Ironically,Darwin and Mendel only lived fifty miles from each other,but they never met. Evolutionists in those days were no different than today,if they did'nt have an answer for something,then they just ignored it and continued in blind faith anyways.

Why was Mendel's work ignored?

Even if Darwin and his colleagues preferred to ignore Mendel's scientific breakthrough. It does'nt change the fact that his theory predicts that every function must be demonstrated to have the ability to evolve gradually through small incremental steps or his theory is falsified.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Charles Darwin)

If Charles acknowledged irreducible complexity as a falsification for his theory,then why do you not acknowledge AFJ's example of it?

How did natural selection and mutation produce DNA gyrase and the helicase, both of which are required for DNA to split?  If DNA can't split, then it can not replicate, and life stops?  According to Dawkins and Darwin this should happen one step at a time--but you need the entirety of both enzymes for any kind of DNA replication.


"We don't know,but it must be evolution". Is more faith than I have. :P



Enjoy.

#132 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 February 2010 - 06:03 AM

I would not describe a belief founded on physical evidence and reasoning "faith".

View Post


Neither would I, that is why macroevolution is a faith.

#133 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 13 February 2010 - 06:41 AM

AFJ said...
Would anyone like to answer this question.  If irreducible complexity is not true and evolution is--then there should be an answer for this riddle.

How did natural selection and mutation produce DNA gyrase and the helicase, both of which are required for DNA to split?  If DNA can't split, then it can not replicate, and life stops?  According to Dawkins and Darwin this should happen one step at a time--but you need the entirety of both enzymes for any kind of DNA replication.


Assuming that there is not an answer to you question at the moment, does that mean we throw out all evolutionary theory?

View Post

DNA replication is foundational to evolution in order to produce populations, which are the theoretical seedbed for evolution. You must have replication fork enzymes to split DNA. (The replication fork is the total mechanism of 4 enzymes and a binding protein, whereby DNA is replicated--an astoundingly intelligent and precision process.)

It is evident that the present system did not have the means to initially produce itself. So there are two possibilities.

It had outside manipulation and design by a third party.

Or you have to have an entirely different system which now somehow has to produce the enzymes first, then evolve into DNA. Even if RNA world was possible, these enzymes would be needless for millions and millions of years. They would not be selected for.

So yes, on the principles of selection itself, you can throw it out.

Is there some particular reason you threw Darwin into your comment?  I don't think he knew about DNA as a genetic mechanism.  He was a bit before Watson and Crick.  Is is just so easy to throw Charlie's name around?

I used Darwin in light of his concept of slow gradual steps for natural selection.

"…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps....If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin

So how long will you have faith in this theory, when it has been shown that DNA and enzymes had to happen simultaneously, and did not form "by numerous, successive, slight modifications?"

#134 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 February 2010 - 10:00 AM

Neither would I, that is why macroevolution is a faith.

View Post


I gave the standard warrant and evidence for macroevolution in this unanswered post. The same evidence can be found in school biology texts.

http://www.evolution...wtopic=2995&hl=

#135 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 February 2010 - 12:15 PM

I gave the standard warrant and evidence for macroevolution in this unanswered post.  The same evidence can be found in school biology texts.

http://www.evolution...wtopic=2995&hl=

View Post


Which, is obviously based then, solely on faith...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users