All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-09-2015, 04:14 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(21-09-2015 12:24 AM)Astreja Wrote:  Apparently Godexists values quote-mining above scientific facts. That is the mark of a moribund faith that is running scared and running down like the spring of a wind-up clock, terrified of losing the bogus promise of eternal life it was foolish enough to believe.

Well... according to the entropic conjecture of Gwynnite, all life is eternal. Angel

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
21-09-2015, 05:45 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(20-09-2015 08:06 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 06:32 AM)Godexists Wrote:  In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate."

Lewin, R. (1980)
"Evolutionary Theory Under Fire"
Science, vol. 210, 21 November, p. 883

Another creationist misquote:

The relevant section of the article, as quoted on the above site, is:

"Thus went the verbal jostling, with the mood swinging perceptibly in favor of recognizing stasis as being a real phenomenon. Gabriel Dover, a geneticist from Cambridge University, England, felt atrongly enough to call species stasis 'The single most important feature of macroevolution.' In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said: 'We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.'"

So I e-mailed Dr Ayala asking for his reaction, and his reply (received on 26 July 2001) was as follows:

Dear Dr. Arrowsmith:
[please note that the "Dr" is Dr Ayala's error/assumption and I did not misrepresent my credentials!]

I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small (genetic) changes do accumulate.

The paper that I presented at the conference reported by Lewin is virtually the same that I presented in 1982 in Cambridge, at a conference commemorating the 200 [sic] anniversary of Darwin's death. It deals with the claims of "punctuated equilibrium" and how microevolutionary change relates to macroevolution. (I provide experimental results showing how one can obtain in the laboratory, as a result of the accumulation of small genetic changes, morphological changes of the magnitude observed by paleontologists and presented as evidence of punctuated equilibrium.) The paper was published as part of the conference proceedings:

Ayala, F.J. 1983. Microevolution and macroevolution. In: D.S. Bendall, ed., Evolution from Molecules to Men (Cambridge University Press), pp. 387-402.

More accessible are two papers dealing with the same topic, written with my colleague G.L. Stebbins: Stebbins, G.L. and F.J. Ayala. 1981. Is a new evolutionary synthesis necessary? Science 213:967-971. (I quote from the abstract of the paper:

"Macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with the synthetic theory of evolution." But, please, read the whole paper to get the wealth of results and ideas that we are discussing; and read also the following paper:

"Stebbins, G.L. and F.J. Ayala. 1985. The Evolution of Darwinism. Sci. American 253:72-82."

You may quote from this letter so long as you don't quote out of context or incomplete sentences.

Sincerely yours,
Francisco J. Ayala

I'll quote this in big red letters so you don't miss it:

"Macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with the synthetic theory of evolution." But, please, read the whole paper to get the wealth of results and ideas that we are discussing; and read also the following paper:

"Stebbins, G.L. and F.J. Ayala. 1985. The Evolution of Darwinism. Sci. American 253:72-82."

You may quote from this letter so long as you don't quote out of context or incomplete sentences.

Sincerely yours,
Francisco J. Ayala


I think you owe Francisco J. Ayala an apology, because you did exactly what he said in his letter not to do, you misquoted him!

Do you have any idea how you have already shot your credibility to hell? Do you have any idea what a bizarre god you've constructed and cast in the role of Mystical Molecule Mover?

The god you constructed is an invisible molecule mover that doesn't show up until some ill-defined barrier in your imagination is crossed- a barrier that you cannot demonstrate.
A barrier that you can only assert exists somewhere in the microscopic world, your god is microscopic, your god is invisible, your god is imperfect.

I know that you are too dishonest to acknowledge the huge theological difficulty that your invisible Mystical Molecule Mover creates. Your god purposely causes cancer, purposely causes genetic defects.

You shouldn't really want this god to be real, because he's an enormous fuck-up. It's constantly making mistakes on the micro and macro level. From cancer to vestigal organs, to every disease and virus, your god creates them all.

Maybe you can understand why there would be quite a few of your fellow believers that would reject your Mystical Tinkerer God, The Mystical Molecule Mover that can't get it right. The Mystical Molecule Mover that generates suffering, the Mystical Molecule Mover that hides at the microscopic level, the Mystical Molecule Mover that's less powerful and less competent than genetic scientists that correct His mistakes.

Nice work, Mr.Detective.

upon your post, i deleted the given quote at my library. I was not aware that it was aq misleading quote.

Now what ? Do you think, that changes the facts ? I don't think so. The problem of your view is not only, that small changes do not acumulate to generate all the biodiversity we see on earth. The major problem is, that a protein has no function, unless it has a minimum amino acid sequence. In order to get the first proteins for the origin of life, evolution, neither macro, nor micro, was not possible, since no replication occured. All you have left, is chance, or physical necessity.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...t=proteins

Few of the many possible polypeptide chains will be useful to Cells

Bruce Alberts writes in Molecular biology of the cell :

Since each of the 20 amino acids is chemically distinct and each can, in principle, occur at any position in a protein chain, there are 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 = 160,000 different possible polypeptide chains four amino acids long, or 20n different possible polypeptide chains n amino acids long. For a typical protein length of about 300 amino acids, a cell could theoretically make more than 10^390 different pollpeptide chains. This is such an enormous number that to produce just one molecule of each kind would require many more atoms than exist in the universe. Only a very small fraction of this vast set of conceivable polypeptide chains would adopt a single, stable three-dimensional conformation-by some estimates, less than one in a billion. And yet the vast majority of proteins present in cells adopt unique and stable conformations. How is this possible?

The complexity of living organisms is staggering, and it is quite sobering to note that we currently lack even the tiniest hint of what the function might be for more than 10,000 of the proteins that have thus far been identified in the human genome. There are certainly enormous challenges ahead for the next generation of cell biologists, with no shortage of fascinating mysteries to solve.

Now comes Alberts striking explanation of how the right sequence arised :

The answer Iies in natural selection. A protein with an unpredictably variable structure and biochemical activity is unlikely to help the survival of a cell that contains it. Such
proteins would therefore have been eliminated by natural selection through the enormously long trial-and-error process that underlies biological evolution. Because evolution has selected for protein function in living organisms, the amino acid sequence of most present-day proteins is such that a single conformation is extremely stable. In addition, this conformation has its chemical properties finely tuned to enable the protein to perform a particular catalltic or structural function in the cell. Proteins are so precisely built that the change of even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the whole molecule so severelv that all function is lost.

Proteins are not rigid lumps of material. They often have precisely engineered moving parts whose mechanical actions are coupled to chemical events. It is this coupling of chemistry and movement that gives proteins the extraordinary capabilities that underlie the dynamic processes in living cells

Now think for a moment . It seems that natural selection ( does that not sound soooo scientific and trustworthy ?! ) is the key answer to any phenomena in biology, where there is no scientific evidence to make a empricial claim. Much has been written about the fact that natural selection cannot produce coded information. Alberts short explanation is a prima facie example about how main stream sciencists make without hesitation " just so " claims without being able to provide a shred of evidence, just in order to mantain a paradigm on which the scientific establishment relies, where evolution is THE answer to almost every biochemical phenomena. Fact is that precision, coded information, stability, interdependence and irreducible complexity etc. are products of intelligent minds. The author seems also to forget that natural selection cannot occur before the first living cell replicates. Several hundred proteins had to be already in place and fully operating in order to make even the simplest life possible
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 05:55 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(21-09-2015 05:45 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Now what ? Do you think, that changes the facts ? I don't think so. to make even the simplest life possible

You wouldn't know a fact if it ass-raped you and gave you teh AIDS. Goes to credibility, yer honor, and as demonstrated you have none. The whole principles you say require a creator exist through tao - the tension of opposites. But that's metaphysical nonsense that has no actual bearing on the science involved.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
21-09-2015, 07:25 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
thats what someone wrote at FB:

Heinrich Ferreira Thanks for posting this link. The implications of the link between the Spliceosome and exons is is truly far reaching. To me this is so far the most profound demonstration of Intelligent and deliberate "programming" of life I have come across, in my opinion, second only to the regulated self assembling and operation of the ATP Synthase and the bacterial Flagellar motor.

http://splicejunction.blogspot.com.au/20...abble.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 07:29 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(21-09-2015 07:25 AM)Godexists Wrote:  ...and the bacterial Flagellar motor.

Wow. Quoted for fucking genius. Me likely when you make yourself look stupid, then I only have to highlight.

In case you missed it, two flakes don't make a right. Dodgy

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 07:51 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(21-09-2015 05:45 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 08:06 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Another creationist misquote:

The relevant section of the article, as quoted on the above site, is:

"Thus went the verbal jostling, with the mood swinging perceptibly in favor of recognizing stasis as being a real phenomenon. Gabriel Dover, a geneticist from Cambridge University, England, felt atrongly enough to call species stasis 'The single most important feature of macroevolution.' In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said: 'We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.'"

So I e-mailed Dr Ayala asking for his reaction, and his reply (received on 26 July 2001) was as follows:

Dear Dr. Arrowsmith:
[please note that the "Dr" is Dr Ayala's error/assumption and I did not misrepresent my credentials!]

I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small (genetic) changes do accumulate.

The paper that I presented at the conference reported by Lewin is virtually the same that I presented in 1982 in Cambridge, at a conference commemorating the 200 [sic] anniversary of Darwin's death. It deals with the claims of "punctuated equilibrium" and how microevolutionary change relates to macroevolution. (I provide experimental results showing how one can obtain in the laboratory, as a result of the accumulation of small genetic changes, morphological changes of the magnitude observed by paleontologists and presented as evidence of punctuated equilibrium.) The paper was published as part of the conference proceedings:

Ayala, F.J. 1983. Microevolution and macroevolution. In: D.S. Bendall, ed., Evolution from Molecules to Men (Cambridge University Press), pp. 387-402.

More accessible are two papers dealing with the same topic, written with my colleague G.L. Stebbins: Stebbins, G.L. and F.J. Ayala. 1981. Is a new evolutionary synthesis necessary? Science 213:967-971. (I quote from the abstract of the paper:

"Macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with the synthetic theory of evolution." But, please, read the whole paper to get the wealth of results and ideas that we are discussing; and read also the following paper:

"Stebbins, G.L. and F.J. Ayala. 1985. The Evolution of Darwinism. Sci. American 253:72-82."

You may quote from this letter so long as you don't quote out of context or incomplete sentences.

Sincerely yours,
Francisco J. Ayala

I'll quote this in big red letters so you don't miss it:

"Macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with the synthetic theory of evolution." But, please, read the whole paper to get the wealth of results and ideas that we are discussing; and read also the following paper:

"Stebbins, G.L. and F.J. Ayala. 1985. The Evolution of Darwinism. Sci. American 253:72-82."

You may quote from this letter so long as you don't quote out of context or incomplete sentences.

Sincerely yours,
Francisco J. Ayala


I think you owe Francisco J. Ayala an apology, because you did exactly what he said in his letter not to do, you misquoted him!

Do you have any idea how you have already shot your credibility to hell? Do you have any idea what a bizarre god you've constructed and cast in the role of Mystical Molecule Mover?

The god you constructed is an invisible molecule mover that doesn't show up until some ill-defined barrier in your imagination is crossed- a barrier that you cannot demonstrate.
A barrier that you can only assert exists somewhere in the microscopic world, your god is microscopic, your god is invisible, your god is imperfect.

I know that you are too dishonest to acknowledge the huge theological difficulty that your invisible Mystical Molecule Mover creates. Your god purposely causes cancer, purposely causes genetic defects.

You shouldn't really want this god to be real, because he's an enormous fuck-up. It's constantly making mistakes on the micro and macro level. From cancer to vestigal organs, to every disease and virus, your god creates them all.

Maybe you can understand why there would be quite a few of your fellow believers that would reject your Mystical Tinkerer God, The Mystical Molecule Mover that can't get it right. The Mystical Molecule Mover that generates suffering, the Mystical Molecule Mover that hides at the microscopic level, the Mystical Molecule Mover that's less powerful and less competent than genetic scientists that correct His mistakes.

Nice work, Mr.Detective.

upon your post, i deleted the given quote at my library. I was not aware that it was aq misleading quote.

Now what ? Do you think, that changes the facts ? I don't think so. The problem of your view is not only, that small changes do not acumulate to generate all the biodiversity we see on earth. The major problem is, that a protein has no function, unless it has a minimum amino acid sequence. In order to get the first proteins for the origin of life, evolution, neither macro, nor micro, was not possible, since no replication occured. All you have left, is chance, or physical necessity.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...t=proteins

Few of the many possible polypeptide chains will be useful to Cells

Bruce Alberts writes in Molecular biology of the cell :

Since each of the 20 amino acids is chemically distinct and each can, in principle, occur at any position in a protein chain, there are 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 = 160,000 different possible polypeptide chains four amino acids long, or 20n different possible polypeptide chains n amino acids long. For a typical protein length of about 300 amino acids, a cell could theoretically make more than 10^390 different pollpeptide chains. This is such an enormous number that to produce just one molecule of each kind would require many more atoms than exist in the universe. Only a very small fraction of this vast set of conceivable polypeptide chains would adopt a single, stable three-dimensional conformation-by some estimates, less than one in a billion. And yet the vast majority of proteins present in cells adopt unique and stable conformations. How is this possible?

The complexity of living organisms is staggering, and it is quite sobering to note that we currently lack even the tiniest hint of what the function might be for more than 10,000 of the proteins that have thus far been identified in the human genome. There are certainly enormous challenges ahead for the next generation of cell biologists, with no shortage of fascinating mysteries to solve.

Now comes Alberts striking explanation of how the right sequence arised :

The answer Iies in natural selection. A protein with an unpredictably variable structure and biochemical activity is unlikely to help the survival of a cell that contains it. Such
proteins would therefore have been eliminated by natural selection through the enormously long trial-and-error process that underlies biological evolution. Because evolution has selected for protein function in living organisms, the amino acid sequence of most present-day proteins is such that a single conformation is extremely stable. In addition, this conformation has its chemical properties finely tuned to enable the protein to perform a particular catalltic or structural function in the cell. Proteins are so precisely built that the change of even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the whole molecule so severelv that all function is lost.

Proteins are not rigid lumps of material. They often have precisely engineered moving parts whose mechanical actions are coupled to chemical events. It is this coupling of chemistry and movement that gives proteins the extraordinary capabilities that underlie the dynamic processes in living cells

Now think for a moment . It seems that natural selection ( does that not sound soooo scientific and trustworthy ?! ) is the key answer to any phenomena in biology, where there is no scientific evidence to make a empricial claim. Much has been written about the fact that natural selection cannot produce coded information. Alberts short explanation is a prima facie example about how main stream sciencists make without hesitation " just so " claims without being able to provide a shred of evidence, just in order to mantain a paradigm on which the scientific establishment relies, where evolution is THE answer to almost every biochemical phenomena. Fact is that precision, coded information, stability, interdependence and irreducible complexity etc. are products of intelligent minds. The author seems also to forget that natural selection cannot occur before the first living cell replicates. Several hundred proteins had to be already in place and fully operating in order to make even the simplest life possible

You have proven your dishonesty, yeah, it casts doubt about everything you say, you have zero credibility.

There are two possibilities:

1. You deliberately mis-quote people to buttress your world view, which makes you a liar.

2. You are unaware you are mis-quoting all of these people and have constructed a systematic way of deluding yourself where you don't really care about the facts as long as you can find something that supports your world view even if you are loose with the facts, which means you have no credibility and everything you say can be dismissed.

I don't have to read your inane walls of text to know exactly what you're up to. You are an effusive storyteller and cavalier with scientific facts. You just want to shove god into everything using sci-ency terms, there is an inherent deception in the way you operate.

Your Mystical Molecule Mover is tied to the problem of evil, it created suffering due to genetic manipulation. Quite the devil you've constructed there.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
21-09-2015, 06:36 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(20-09-2015 08:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 06:45 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  How does any of that answer my question GE?

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

Laugh out load

ostrich behavior much ?? Hobo

Irony.

You are apparently unable to detect it. Consider

You are an idiot. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
22-09-2015, 05:35 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
Novella makes an indirect contribution to this thread with 44 reasons why creationists are deceptive.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
22-09-2015, 05:59 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(22-09-2015 05:35 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Novella makes an indirect contribution to this thread with 44 reasons why creationists are deceptive.

Shit. I'm gonna start a thread on that JohnnyC. Thumbsup

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
22-09-2015, 06:04 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(20-09-2015 08:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 06:45 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  How does any of that answer my question GE?

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

Laugh out load

ostrich behavior much ?? Hobo

Reading comprehension much ?? Hobo

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: