All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2015, 12:56 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(02-09-2015 01:46 PM)Godexists Wrote:  All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...ly-complex

Prokaryotes are thought to differ from eukaryotes in that they lack membrane-bounded organelles. However, it has been demonstrated that there are bacterias which have membrane bound organelles named acidocalcisomes, and that V-H+PPase proton pumps are present in their surrounding membranes. Acidocalcisomes have been found in organisms as diverse as bacteria and humans. Volutin granules which are equivalent of acidocalcisomes also occur in Archaea and are, therefore, present in the three superkingdoms of life (Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya). These volutin granule organelles occur in organisms spanning an enormous range of phylogenetic complexity from Bacteria and Archaea to unicellular eukaryotes to algae to plants to insects to humans. According to neo-darwinian thinking, the universal distribution of the V-H+PPase  domain  suggests the domain and the enzyme were already present in the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA).

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...estor#3992

If the proton pumps of Volutin granules were present in LUCA, they had to emerge prior to self replication, which induces serious constraints to propose evolution as driving factor. But if evolution was not the mechanism, what else was ? There is not much left, namely chance, random chemical reactions, or physical necessity.

But lets for a instance accept the "fact of evolution", and suppose as the driving force to make  V-H+PPase proton pumps.  In some period prior to the verge of non-life to life, natural selection or an other evolutionary mechanism would have had to start polymerisation of the right amino acid sequence to produce V-H+PPase proton pumps by addition of one amino acid monomer to the other. First, the whole extraordinarly  production line of staggering complexity starting with DNA would have to be in place, that is  :

The cell sends activator proteins to the site of the gene that needs to be switched on, which then jump-starts the RNA polymerase machine by removing a plug which blocks the DNA's entrance to the machine.  The DNA strands do shift position so that the DNA lines up with the entrance to the RNA polymerase. Once these two movements have occurred and the DNA strands are in position, the RNA polymerase machine gets to work melting them out, so that the information they contain can be processed to produce mRNA 2 The process follows then after INITIATION OF TRANSCRIPTION through RNA polymerase enzyme complexes, the mRNA is  capped through Post-transcriptional modifications by several different enzymes ,  ELONGATION provides the main transcription process from DNA to mRNA, furthermore  SPLICING and CLEAVAGE ,  polyadenylation where a long string of repeated adenosine nucleotides is added,  AND TERMINATION through over a dozen different enzymes,    EXPORT FROM THE NUCLEUS TO THE CYTOSOL ( must be actively transported through the Nuclear Pore Complex channel in a controlled process that is selective and energy dependent  )  INITIATION OF PROTEIN SYNTHESIS (TRANSLATION) in the Ribosome in a enormously complex process,  COMPLETION OF PROTEIN SYNTHESIS AND PROTEIN FOLDING through chaperone enzymes. From there the proteins are transported by specialized proteins to the end destination. Most of these processes require ATP, the energy fuel inside the cell.  

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

The genetic code to make the right ~600 amino acid sequence would have to be made by mutation and natural selection. But mutation of what, if there was no functional protein yet ? . The problem in this stage is,  when there is no selective advantage until you get the final function, the final function doesn't evolve. In other words, a chain of around 800 amino acids is required to make a funcional V-H+PPase proton pump, but there is no function, until polymerisation of all 600 monomers is completed and the right sequence achieved.

The problem for those who accept the truth of evolution is,  they cannot accept the idea that any biological structure with a beneficial function, however complex, is very far removed from the next closest functional system or subsystem within the potential of "sequence space" that might be beneficial if it were ever found by random mutations of any kind. In our case the situation is even more drastic, since DENOVO genetic sequence and subsequently amino acid chain for a new formation of a new amino acids strand is required.  A further constraint is the fact that 100% of  amino acids used and needed for life are left handed, while DNA and RNA requires D-sugars.  Until today, science has not sorted out how nature is able to select the right chiral handedness. The problem is that the pre-biotic soup is believed to be a warm soup consisting of racemic mixtures of amino acid enantiomers (and sugars). How did this homogenous phase separate into chirally pure components? How did an asymmetry (assumed to be small to start with) arise in the population of both enantiomers? How did the preference of one chiral form over the other, propagate so that all living systems are made of 100 percent optically pure components?

What is sequence space ?
Imagine 20 amino acids mixed up  in a pool, randomly mixed , one adjacent to the other. The  pool with all the random amino acids  is the sequence space. This space can be two dimentional, tridimensional, or multidimensional. In evolutionary biology, sequence space is a way of representing all possible sequences (for a protein, gene or genome).  Most sequences in sequence space have no function, leaving relatively small regions that are populated by naturally occurring genes. Each protein sequence is adjacent to all other sequences that can be reached through a single mutation. Evolution can be visualised as the process of sampling nearby sequences in sequence space and moving to any with improved fitness over the current one.

Functional sequences in sequence space
Despite the diversity of protein superfamilies, sequence space is extremely sparsely populated by functional proteins. That is, amongst all the possible amino acid sequences, only a few permit the make of functional proteins. Most random protein sequences have no fold or function. To exemplify:  In order to write METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL , there are 10^40 possible random combinations possible to get the right sequence. But only one is correct.

Enzyme superfamilies, therefore, exist as tiny clusters of active proteins in a vast empty space of non-functional sequence.The density of functional proteins in sequence space, and the proximity of different functions to one another is a key determinant in understanding evolvability.
Protein sequence space has been compared to the Library of Babel a theoretical library containing all possible books that are 410 pages long. In the Library of Babel, finding any book that made sense was impossible due to the sheer number and lack of order. 


How would a bacterium evolve a function like a single protein enzyme? - like a V-H+PPase proton pump? The requirement is about 600  specified residues at minimum.  A useful V-H+PPase cannot be made with significantly lower minimum size and specificity requirements.   These minimum requirements create a kind of threshold beyond which the V-H+PPase function simply cannot be built up gradually where very small one or two residues changes at a time result in a useful change in the degree of the proton pump function. Therefore, such functions cannot have evolved in a gradual, step by step manner.  There simply is no template or gradual  pathway from just any starting point to the minimum threshold requirement.  Only after this threshold has been reached can evolution take over and make further refinements - but not until. Now, there are in fact examples of computer evolution that attempt to address this problem;

All Functions are "Irreducibly Complex" 

The fact is that all cellular functions are irreducibly complex in that all of them require a minimum number of parts in a particular order or orientation.  I go beyond what Behe proposes and make the suggestion that even single-protein enzymes are irreducibly complex.  A minimum number of parts in the form of amino acid residues are required for them to have their particular functions.  The proton pump function cannot be realized in even the smallest degree with a string of only 5 or 10 or even 500 residues of any arrangement.  Also, not only is a minimum number of parts required for the proton pump function to be realized, but the parts themselves, once they are available in the proper number, must be assembled in the proper order and three-dimensional orientation.  Brought together randomly, the residues, if left to themselves, do not know how to self-assemble themselves to form a much of anything as far as a functional system that even comes close to the level of complexity of a even a relatively simple function like a proton pump.  And yet, their specified assembly and ultimate order is vital to function.
Of course, such relatively simply systems, though truly irreducibly complex, have evolved.  This is because the sequence space at such relatively low levels of functional complexity is fairly dense.  It is fairly easy to come across new beneficial sequences  if the density of potentially beneficial sequences in sequence space is relatively high.  This density does in fact get higher and higher at lower and lower levels of functional complexity - in an exponential manner.  

It is much like moving between 3-letter words in the English language system.  Since the ratio of meaningful vs. meaningless 3-letter words in the English language is somewhere around 1:18, one can randomly find a new meaningful and even beneficial 3-letter word via single random letter changes/mutations in relatively short order.  This is not true for those ideas/functions/meanings that require more and more letters.  For example, the ratio of meaningful vs. meaningless 7-letter words and combinations of smaller words equaling 7-letters is far far lower at about 1 in 250,000.  It is therefore just a bit harder to evolve between 7-letter words, one mutation at a time, than it was to evolve between 3-letter words owing to the exponential decline in the ratio of meaningful vs. meaningless sequences.  

The same thing is true for the evolution of codes, information systems, and systems of function in living things as it is for non-living things (i.e., computer systems etc).  The parts of these codes and systems of function, if brought together randomly, simply do not have enough meaningful information to do much of anything. So, how are they brought together in living things to form such high level functional order?

OMG! You just proved God existed by somehow going from A to C without ever going through B!

Just curious though, what do you suppose would be in B?

Popcorn

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2015, 01:01 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 12:56 PM)Free Wrote:  OMG! You just proved God existed by somehow going from A to C without ever going through B!

Just curious though, what do you suppose would be in B?



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
13-09-2015, 02:39 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 12:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Where did Dale Dickinson say that ?
Prove it.

The fact is, GE is a damn liar.

lets see if you have the balls to retract from your acusation. I pretty much doubt.

[Image: 1_Angelo_Grasso.png]
image hosting
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2015, 02:46 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
I'm going to have to assume god exists that you asked these people and secured their permission before posting their first and last names on a very public Internet forum.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
13-09-2015, 03:35 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 02:39 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 12:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Where did Dale Dickinson say that ?
Prove it.

The fact is, GE is a damn liar.

lets see if you have the balls to retract from your acusation. I pretty much doubt.

[Image: 1_Angelo_Grasso.png]
image hosting

I asked for a reference, as you have, in general, posted many many quotes out of context in your many idiot threads. You ARE a damn liar, as has been demonstrated many times here. I did not say you lied about *this*. Inasmuch as you are totally dishonest, I asked for proof of this claim. It changes nothing. The fact that one scientist posts this opinion, which IS NOT SHARED by the consensus of science, WHICH WAS THE POINT, the very point you in no way addressed, proves nothing.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
13-09-2015, 03:38 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 02:46 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I'm going to have to assume god exists that you asked these people and secured their permission before posting their first and last names on a very public Internet forum.

Quite. But, beyond that, a quick search of Dale's Facebook history - which is public - reveals that he is both a fan of the movie God's Not Dead and recently attended seminary school. Not so much, I think, the crushingly unbiased scientific support that Godexists was hoping for.

It's also worth noting that the argument from personal incredulity doesn't become any less fallacious when a scientist does it.

So, no. Still not evidence against evolution.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2015, 04:11 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 03:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 02:46 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I'm going to have to assume god exists that you asked these people and secured their permission before posting their first and last names on a very public Internet forum.

Quite. But, beyond that, a quick search of Dale's Facebook history - which is public - reveals that he is both a fan of the movie God's Not Dead and recently attended seminary school. Not so much, I think, the crushingly unbiased scientific support that Godexists was hoping for.

It's also worth noting that the argument from personal incredulity doesn't become any less fallacious when a scientist does it.

So, no. Still not evidence against evolution.

As long as someone cannot provide compelling answers to my questions through naturalism, that top design, all atheists have, is irrelevant blabbering.

Please address these questions : What good would the spliceosome be good for, if the essential sequence elements to recognise where to slice would not be in place ? What would happen, if the pre mRNA with exons and introns were in place, but no spliceosome ready in place to do the post transcriptional modification, and neither the splicing code, which directs the way where to splice ? Had the availability of these parts not have to be synchronized so that at some point, either individually or in combination, they were all available at the same time ? Had the assembly not have to be coordinated in the right way right from the start ? Had the parts not have to be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’ ? even if sub systems or parts are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly. Thanks for your kind answers.

i guess however you have no clue what my post is all about. You are probably a illiterate as all others here.... so not wondering about your rejection, since it does not fit your preconceived world view.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2015, 04:22 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
GE, you are actually worse than Behe.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
13-09-2015, 04:33 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 04:11 PM)Godexists Wrote:  As long as someone cannot provide compelling answers to my questions through naturalism, that top design, all atheists have, is irrelevant blabbering.

That really isn't how this works, I'm afraid.

Even assuming that no one knows how such systems could have formed naturally - a proposition which is highly unlikely, as quite a few of your "irreducible" systems, like eyes and the circulatory system, were solved long ago - this is still not evidence that evolution is wrong.

"We don't know how it happened in this specific case" is not particularly compelling when you attempt to use it as a basis for refutation. We still know - not "think", not "believe", not "make the preliminary conclusion that", know - that evolution happens, and there is no biological system which has been shown to be impossible to form through the process.

On the side of evolution, we have literally millions of confirmed cases. On the side of design, we have a handful of quote-mined examples which, at best, are unknowns.

"Well, you haven't yet proven that every specific piece evolved" is, in the face of the evidence, idiotic.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
13-09-2015, 06:11 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 04:11 PM)Godexists Wrote:  As long as someone cannot provide compelling answers to my questions through naturalism, that top design, all atheists have, is irrelevant blabbering.

Unfortunately for you, all you have are a series of "god of the gaps" arguments, and arguments from personal incredulity. Also quoting a scientist in an argument for 'design" is the argumentum ad vericundiam. No god or designer is subject to scientific inquiry, and the sample size of one universe is hardly adequate to draw any conclusions from. You also betray your complete theological ignorance, GE. If you think you have 'proof" then good for you. You then need and have no faith. If something is "proven" no faith is necessary. Interesting you have no "faith' in your god, and you claim you have proof. Too bad your weak and impotent deity *had* to make things work according to the principles one would expect if there was no god, and was not powerful enough to make life work without his wasteful and redundant and imperfect *design*.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: