Jump to content


Photo

Protein Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
134 replies to this topic

#81 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 January 2010 - 08:24 PM

Tharock220, if you read a little bit closer, you would have realized that I was agreeing with you.  Atheism existed before evolution (AND DARWIN), and I clearly explained what the connection was.

Why would you even propose such a question?

Why would you even say that Evolution and Atheism has no connection, when you personally KNOW that they do?

View Post


My apologies then. I won't discuss the connection between the two any more in this thread.

#82 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 09 January 2010 - 11:45 PM

I disregard pseudoscience, creation science (and its offspring) and the softer end of the social sciences (like sociology).  Do I get three points?

I mentioned an external energy source in post 63 so the entropy issue doesn’t seem to apply; the keq thing I wasn’t aware of but I see no reason why self-replication need be a chemical equilibrium process.

I have no inclination to trade punches for points like in an amateur boxing bout.  I only reply because I am asked questions or you scoff with “pigs might fly” clichés.

View Post



The pigs could fly came from Leslie Orgel's article. I even posted the point and put a quote box around it.

Post 63

Yes, if some of that energy was in the form of stable, chemically reactive matter and the ground was a fluid, hospitable, resource-rich environment with an external energy source and no pre-existing life then I think it’s certain that if self-replicating molecules became fixed you would observe their adapting over generations due to selective pressures.


Entropy doesn't apply - are you kidding me?

Do you know how a cell gets around entropy? Hint it doesn't and it has a nifty trick. You have to account for entropy -period.

You can't say we have a sun and on open system thus say entropy doesn't apply. That is an extreme bastardization of Chemistry and thermodynamics. It like saying a rock got on top of him from the valley because the sun heated it up. The directionless energy pushed that rock right up that hill. Anything is possible with the sun and open system (sarcasm) That is the height of evolution babble.

I am sorry I am rude but a put a lot of time in responding to you and it is obvious you didn't read the post. We call this kind of post a time waster. If you want to have a dialog put some thought into your post and document your ideas. Try and understand the other persons post before posting. Don't be clueless about well documented science.

#83 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

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

Posted 10 January 2010 - 07:04 AM

Post 63
Entropy doesn't apply - are you kidding me?

Do you know how a cell gets around entropy? Hint it doesn't and it has a nifty trick.  You have to account for entropy -period.


View Post


And a cell gets around entropy how???

#84 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 10 January 2010 - 09:01 AM

And a cell gets around entropy how???

View Post


I want you to think this over and tell me. Seriously.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard evolutionist state that entropy is a non-issue. That the energy of the sun is enough to overcome entropy.

Lets put that to the test. Somebody dies. When you take the body to the funeral home. Do you put the body in the oven to preserve him? After all you are adding energy which should overcome entropy or decay.

No you put the body in a freezer. That heat accelerates and cold slows down entropy. Why is that? Think it through and get back to me.

#85 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 January 2010 - 10:00 AM

You can't say we have a sun and on open system thus say entropy doesn't apply.  That is an extreme bastardization of Chemistry and thermodynamics. 


The significance of the external energy source in not that it would prompt a decrease in entropy over the whole system (it wouldn’t) but that it would facilitate areas of local, temporary entropy decrease.

It like saying a rock got on top of him from the valley because the sun heated it up. The directionless energy pushed that rock right up that hill.  Anything is possible with the sun and open system (sarcasm) That is the height of evolution babble.


I don’t follow your analogy. A sufficiently heated rock would melt. It would require the addition of momentum to set it in relative motion and overcome friction and the incline of the valley.

Do you know how a cell gets around entropy? Hint it doesn't and it has a nifty trick.  You have to account for entropy -period.


The activation energy needed for reaction processes serves as a natural barrier that prevents all molecules immediately degrading (even though the trend will be for entropy to increase across the system). The ATP/ADP process in respiring cells controls and harnesses energy dispersion due to the second law.

#86 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 10 January 2010 - 12:24 PM

http://www.newscient...ref=online-news
A self-replicating molecule would by definition.

View Post


That´s not a self-replicating molecule.It´s really a dishonest act of Gerald Joyce call it a self-replicate molecule. It´s only a cross reaction of two catalysts. Two halfs of each catalyst is supplied by him and the catalysts link each other.it´s really ridiculous.In the same link Michael Robertson admits that:


A life-mimicking molecule will also need to assemble itself from simpler components than two halves, says Michael Robertson, a biochemist at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

#87 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 January 2010 - 05:57 PM

That´s not a self-replicating molecule.It´s really a dishonest act of Gerald Joyce call it a self-replicate molecule. It´s only a cross reaction of two catalysts. Two halfs of each catalyst is supplied by him and the catalysts link each other.it´s really ridiculous.


It meets the criteria for a self-replicating molecule: a product that catalyzes substrates to form a duplicate product and thus a chain of autocatalysis.

We live in exciting times – observation of a self-replicating molecule and Venter et al due to synthesize a fully artificial bacterium!

In the same link Michael Robertson admits that:A life-mimicking molecule will also need to assemble itself from simpler components than two halves, says Michael Robertson, a biochemist at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

View Post


A plausible candidate for the first self-replicator is as yet unknown.

#88 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 10 January 2010 - 06:17 PM

It meets the criteria for a self-replicating molecule: a product that catalyzes substrates to form a duplicate product and thus a chain of autocatalysis.


No it´s not. Because each catalyst does not catalyze itself but the other. And even if it was the case, the whole experiment is irrelevant for abiogenesis.If you want more details , you can see in this link :

Biologic Institute Announces First Self-Replicating Motor Vehicle

#89 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 10 January 2010 - 07:06 PM

The activation energy needed for reaction processes serves as a natural barrier that prevents all molecules immediately degrading (even though the trend will be for entropy to increase across the system).  The ATP/ADP process in respiring cells controls and harnesses energy dispersion due to the second law.

View Post




This is close. The key to overcoming entropy is the metabolism and the cell wall. The metabolism is very sophisticate equipment that converts energy so it can be used in very directed ways. I am trying to emphasis the word "directed" because energy is not enough, you need directed energy. For example, you can poor gas on a car and throw a match on it. The car will burn up and not run. If you put the gas in the gas tank then the car will work as designed. The motor in the car will direct the gasoline energy to accomplish the desired results. Energy which is directed by sophisticated (designed) equipment is what biology requires to accomplish life's functions.

BTW, the equipment required to make ATP is well outside the bounds of what evolution can accomplish.

So can chemicals evolve? Can outside energy provide the energy required to make that Joyce's self replicating molecule which is, I believe 189 amino acids long? The first place to start is Keq which will provide an absurd number- well beyond what time and chance can provide. That molecule can only be created by designers with sophisticated equipment who direct can control the reactions every step of the way.

#90 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 January 2010 - 08:06 PM

This is close. The key to overcoming entropy is the metabolism and the cell wall.  The metabolism is very sophisticate equipment that converts energy so it can be used in very directed ways. I am trying to emphasis the word "directed" because energy is not enough, you need directed energy.  For example, you can poor gas on a car and throw a match on it.  The car will burn up and not run.  If you put the gas in the gas tank then the car will work as designed.  The motor in the car will direct the gasoline energy to accomplish the desired results.  Energy which is directed by sophisticated (designed) equipment is what biology requires to accomplish life's functions.


OK, I had thought cell wall might be a bit obvious. I am partial toward those abiogenesis hypotheses that have the self-replicating molecules getting into protective sheaths as soon as possible.

A cell is gloriously complex. Complexity does not necessarily entail a designer. Selective pressures are a bias for which arrangements work, whether streamlined or convoluted.

BTW, the equipment required to make ATP is well outside the bounds of what evolution can accomplish.


Is there a determined bound to what a sequence of modifications can accomplish?

So can chemicals evolve?  Can outside energy provide the energy required to make that Joyce's self replicating molecule which is, I believe 189 amino acids long?  The first place to start is Keq which will provide an absurd number- well beyond what time and chance can provide.  That molecule can only be created by designers with sophisticated equipment who direct can control the reactions every step of the way.

View Post


Is the absurd number “more than the number of atoms in the Universe”? Non-genetic self-replicating chemicals can certainly adapt – protein folds (prions), the keystone of this thread, being an example. That experiment I linked was a response to Deadlock’s assertion in post 73 that self-replicating molecules don’t exist; it is not a candidate for the original self-replicator.

Any long, specific sequence might seem an improbable outcome just as would any life story. Life might have emerged by many specific paths into many specific forms just as our lives could have taken many turns.

#91 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 January 2010 - 08:19 PM

No it´s not. Because each catalyst does not catalyze itself but the other. And even if it was the case, the whole experiment is irrelevant for abiogenesis.If you want more details , you can see in this link :

Biologic Institute Announces First Self-Replicating Motor Vehicle

View Post


The molecule catalyzes a reaction that generates a replica – this is self-replication.

#92 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 11 January 2010 - 01:44 AM

The molecule catalyzes a reaction that generates a replica – this is self-replication.

View Post


Not of itself. It only makes one bind of two pre-made halves of another molecule.If you read the link I posted you will see the details and how the reaction was designed to happen.Nothing in the experiment is random reaction as it would be if it was happening in nature.

#93 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 January 2010 - 09:16 AM

Not of itself. It only makes one bind of two pre-made halves of another molecule.If you read the link I posted you will see the details and how the reaction was designed to happen.Nothing in the experiment is random reaction as it would be if it was happening in nature.

View Post


From the link: "The authors use the term “cross-replication” to describe this because they found that it works best with two distinct RNA chains, each of which catalyzes formation of the other one from supplied precursors. But since either of these RNAs could potentially kick the process off (by forming the other), much of the commentary on this widely publicized study refers to it as an example of self-replication."

One primeval self-replication process might have been a molecule forming "a negative" of itself which in turn produces a replica of the grandparent. The determining aspect of an autocatlytic process is that the product can catalyze the initial reaction and that the process generates all necessary catalysts without outside help.

The experiment demonstrates a process that amounts to the autocatalysis of RNA molecules. If one molecule encountered the other's components outside of the lab it could prompt them to bind. Observation of a replication process through one binding renders replication through several bindings conceivable.

Exciting times!

#94 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 11 January 2010 - 02:59 PM

From the link: "The authors use the term “cross-replication” to describe this because they found that it works best with two distinct RNA chains, each of which catalyzes formation of the other one from supplied precursors.  But since either of these RNAs could potentially kick the process off (by forming the other), much of the commentary on this widely publicized study refers to it as an example of self-replication."

One primeval self-replication process might have been a molecule forming "a negative" of itself which in turn produces a replica of the grandparent.  The determining aspect of an autocatlytic process is that the product can catalyze the initial reaction and that the process generates all necessary catalysts without outside help.

The experiment demonstrates a process that amounts to the autocatalysis of RNA molecules.  If one molecule encountered the other's components outside of the lab it could prompt them to bind.  Observation of a replication process through one binding renders replication through several bindings conceivable.

Exciting times!

View Post


Exciting times in fantasy land ! You only have to put a lab 3 billion years ago supplying two halves of self-replicating molecules , carefully prepaired for not make cross reactions. The problem is that you have to build a time machine first. :lol:

#95 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:55 PM

Exciting times in fantasy land ! You only have to put a lab 3 billion years ago supplying two halves of self-replicating molecules , carefully prepaired for not make cross reactions. The problem is that you have to build a time machine first. :lol:

View Post


Hey deadlock, which came first? The chicken or the egg?

All of these "self replicating" experiments uses a catalyst....proteins. So which came first the catalyzing agent of the self replicating molecules?

#96 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 January 2010 - 07:29 PM

Exciting times in fantasy land ! You only have to put a lab 3 billion years ago supplying two halves of self-replicating molecules , carefully prepaired for not make cross reactions. The problem is that you have to build a time machine first. :lol:

View Post


RNA is unlikely to have been the first autocatalyzing entity as I have remarked a couple of times. Nevertheless, it is not impossible for RNA autocatalysis to have arisen naturally (sans time machine) given the appropriate resources.

Hey deadlock, which came first? The chicken or the egg?

A proto-chicken laid an egg from which hatched what we would consider a chicken, so egg first. Go back long enough and self-replication would predate S@xual reproduction (and eggs).

All of these "self replicating" experiments uses a catalyst....proteins.  So which came first the catalyzing agent of the self replicating molecules?

View Post


There’s nothing prohibiting external catalysts and reactions building the catalyzing product and components prior to the onset of autocatalysis.

#97 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 12 January 2010 - 03:27 AM

RNA is unlikely to have been the first autocatalyzing entity as I have remarked a couple of times.  Nevertheless, it is not impossible for RNA autocatalysis to have arisen naturally (sans time machine) given the appropriate resources.


Really ? What are the resources ? A Lab and a Scientist ? :lol:

#98 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 January 2010 - 12:23 PM

Really ? What are the resources ? A Lab and a Scientist ?  :)

View Post


If the resources required included a lab and a scientist it would not arise naturally. The minimal necessary resources for an autocatalytic process to arise naturally, however improbable or short-lived, would be all components and enough catalyzing products to prompt the reactions.

#99 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 12 January 2010 - 06:14 PM

If the resources required included a lab and a scientist it would not arise naturally.  The minimal necessary resources for an autocatalytic process to arise naturally, however improbable or short-lived, would be all components and enough catalyzing products to prompt the reactions.

View Post


List them for us . Many scientists around the world wanna know :)

#100 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

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

Posted 12 January 2010 - 08:04 PM

This is close. The key to overcoming entropy is the metabolism and the cell wall.  The metabolism is very sophisticate equipment that converts energy so it can be used in very directed ways. I am trying to emphasis the word "directed" because energy is not enough, you need directed energy.  For example, you can poor gas on a car and throw a match on it.  The car will burn up and not run.  If you put the gas in the gas tank then the car will work as designed.  The motor in the car will direct the gasoline energy to accomplish the desired results.  Energy which is directed by sophisticated (designed) equipment is what biology requires to accomplish life's functions.

BTW, the equipment required to make ATP is well outside the bounds of what evolution can accomplish.

So can chemicals evolve?  Can outside energy provide the energy required to make that Joyce's self replicating molecule which is, I believe 189 amino acids long?  The first place to start is Keq which will provide an absurd number- well beyond what time and chance can provide.  That molecule can only be created by designers with sophisticated equipment who direct can control the reactions every step of the way.

View Post


Do you have a cite to the literature from which you took your ATP claim? Thanks




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users