Polypeptide Synthesis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-11-2016, 07:12 AM
Polypeptide Synthesis
Hemoglobin is composed of 528 amino acid residues, in two chains, alpha and beta.
Hemoglobin was originally synthesized either by some random force, or else by an intelligent designer.

The complexity of this one single synthesis is staggeringly complex, and no, this is NOT "the argument from incredulity." It is in fact the argument from specific and precise knowledge.

So the space, or number of different possible sequences, for a 528-residue long polypeptide is far greater than 20 to the 528th power, which is 10 to the 747th power.

It is greater than this because:
1. The probability of a non-peptide bond forming is roughly equal to the probability of a peptide bond forming.
2. The folding of hemoglobin must be precisely done.
3. The amino acids must be levo-rotary, not dextro-rotary.

I challenge anyone reading this to use simple reagents and beakers to explain how, specifically and precisely, to separate a racemic mixture of twenty different amino acids into L and D components.

This statistically impossible task is not even the beginning. Remember, there are only ~10 ^ 80 fundamental particles in the universe. If you claim that there are 10^100 forms of hemoglobin that might work, that brings the probability of synthesizing any one of them "down" to one chance in 10 to the 647th power.

We can define impossible as 1 chance in 10^50th power. Richard Dawkins has defined it as 1 in 10^40th. So I am being more generous than Dawkins by ten orders of magnitude.

Many other polypeptides are longer by far than a mere 528-residue sequence.
This is the more impossible because Darwin claimed that along the route to here, there were innumerable steps which were *selected* due to *natural selection*.

Proponents of Darwin's hypothesis (not theory) must provide trillions of trillions of intermediary polypeptides, and their purpose and function, ultimately leading to the pathway of hemoglobin, cytochrome C, and all the other proteins and enzymes necessary.

There is not remotely enough time or resources available for chance to accomplish this single synthesis. Not remotely. Experts have estimated that the total creative capacity of the universe, over all time, is less than a few million bits of information.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2016, 07:30 AM
RE: Polypeptide Synthesis
(02-11-2016 07:12 AM)RenaissanceMan Wrote:  Hemoglobin is composed of 528 amino acid residues, in two chains, alpha and beta.
Hemoglobin was originally synthesized either by some random force, or else by an intelligent designer.

The complexity of this one single synthesis is staggeringly complex, and no, this is NOT "the argument from incredulity." It is in fact the argument from specific and precise knowledge.

So the space, or number of different possible sequences, for a 528-residue long polypeptide is far greater than 20 to the 528th power, which is 10 to the 747th power.

It is greater than this because:
1. The probability of a non-peptide bond forming is roughly equal to the probability of a peptide bond forming.
2. The folding of hemoglobin must be precisely done.
3. The amino acids must be levo-rotary, not dextro-rotary.

I challenge anyone reading this to use simple reagents and beakers to explain how, specifically and precisely, to separate a racemic mixture of twenty different amino acids into L and D components.

This statistically impossible task is not even the beginning. Remember, there are only ~10 ^ 80 fundamental particles in the universe. If you claim that there are 10^100 forms of hemoglobin that might work, that brings the probability of synthesizing any one of them "down" to one chance in 10 to the 647th power.

We can define impossible as 1 chance in 10^50th power. Richard Dawkins has defined it as 1 in 10^40th. So I am being more generous than Dawkins by ten orders of magnitude.

Many other polypeptides are longer by far than a mere 528-residue sequence.
This is the more impossible because Darwin claimed that along the route to here, there were innumerable steps which were *selected* due to *natural selection*.

Proponents of Darwin's hypothesis (not theory) must provide trillions of trillions of intermediary polypeptides, and their purpose and function, ultimately leading to the pathway of hemoglobin, cytochrome C, and all the other proteins and enzymes necessary.

There is not remotely enough time or resources available for chance to accomplish this single synthesis. Not remotely. Experts have estimated that the total creative capacity of the universe, over all time, is less than a few million bits of information.

Intelligent design is an argument from ignorance, complexity does not equal goddidit.

I find it odd that this is even used, I don't see how a biochemical manipulator can be tied to a specific god's actions. Which specific god are you referring to?

How does this relate to Genesis, for example. God breathed life into a lump of clay to make humans in the second chapter of Genesis, in the first chapter God let the seas bring forth life.

Where does it say god formed polypeptides in the bible?

You already mentioned a false dichotomy between a "random force" or an "intelligent designer". This mischaracterizes evolution, but what if I choose to believe it was a "random force"?

What scientific evidence could you provide that it wasn't? How would it differ from an intelligent designer? How would you make falsifiable predictions based on this?

I can show you evidence that intelligent design doesn't involve a benevolent creator- chloroquine resistance in malaria, it mutated to resist the drug chloroquine.

Why did this alleged designer deem it necessary to mutate malaria after we developed a vaccine to stop it?

Whatever the reason, it surely wasn't benevolent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2016, 08:33 AM
RE: Polypeptide Synthesis
(02-11-2016 07:12 AM)RenaissanceMan Wrote:  Hemoglobin is composed of 528 amino acid residues, in two chains, alpha and beta.
Hemoglobin was originally synthesized either by some random force, or else by an intelligent designer.

The complexity of this one single synthesis is staggeringly complex, and no, this is NOT "the argument from incredulity." It is in fact the argument from specific and precise knowledge.

No, it's a straw man argument.

Your false dichotomy shows your deep lack of understanding of evolution. The real answer is that it did not happen all at once, nor was the process random.

You have no appreciation of the power of cumulative change.

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
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
02-11-2016, 08:44 AM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2016 09:03 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Polypeptide Synthesis
(02-11-2016 07:12 AM)RenaissanceMan Wrote:  Hemoglobin is composed of 528 amino acid residues, in two chains, alpha and beta.
Hemoglobin was originally synthesized either by some random force, or else by an intelligent designer.

Wrong again, fool. Science knows how it happened and you have no clue how Evolution works.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543078/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU

His idiotic notion that complexity somehow is proof of the gods is NOT a religious idea ... if there were proofs, FAITH would not be necessary. Too bad he's so stupid, and hasn't thought that one through.

Order arises in this universe spontaneously, and the point is WRONG (again).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
02-11-2016, 10:58 AM
RE: Polypeptide Synthesis
Could you process some ergotamine for me?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2017, 02:19 AM
RE: Polypeptide Synthesis
(02-11-2016 07:12 AM)RenaissanceMan Wrote:  Hemoglobin is composed of 528 amino acid residues, in two chains, alpha and beta.
Hemoglobin was originally synthesized either by some random force, or else by an intelligent designer.

The complexity of this one single synthesis is staggeringly complex, and no, this is NOT "the argument from incredulity." It is in fact the argument from specific and precise knowledge.

It may not be complex. If molecules A + B + C combine to become molecule X,it is simple. In turn, A, B and C, may likewise be a series of simple steps to get A or B or C.

And that is how evolution works Of course A or B or C may not be optimum, but if
X works, that is all you need to start.

The problem with ID and its claims of irreducible complexity is, ID cannot prove IC is true, even in principle. You cannot in principle prove there is no way A + B + C can become X. Part of the central mechanism of a flagella is found as part of viruses. And even if we do not see some sort of similar thing in a given molecule, it does not mean that Long ago there was not.

Complex molecules like hemoglobin do not spontaneously form in all their complexity de nova at one shot. This is where ID runs off the road into the weeds.

Yog Sothoth! Yog Sothoth! Come back old ones! Yog Sothoth!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post
04-01-2017, 06:25 AM
RE: Polypeptide Synthesis
(04-01-2017 02:19 AM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  
(02-11-2016 07:12 AM)RenaissanceMan Wrote:  Hemoglobin is composed of 528 amino acid residues, in two chains, alpha and beta.
Hemoglobin was originally synthesized either by some random force, or else by an intelligent designer.

The complexity of this one single synthesis is staggeringly complex, and no, this is NOT "the argument from incredulity." It is in fact the argument from specific and precise knowledge.

It may not be complex. If molecules A + B + C combine to become molecule X,it is simple. In turn, A, B and C, may likewise be a series of simple steps to get A or B or C.

And that is how evolution works Of course A or B or C may not be optimum, but if
X works, that is all you need to start.

The problem with ID and its claims of irreducible complexity is, ID cannot prove IC is true, even in principle. You cannot in principle prove there is no way A + B + C can become X. Part of the central mechanism of a flagella is found as part of viruses. And even if we do not see some sort of similar thing in a given molecule, it does not mean that Long ago there was not.

Complex molecules like hemoglobin do not spontaneously form in all their complexity de nova at one shot. This is where ID runs off the road into the weeds.

Yeah, ID is trying to prove a negative, trying to assert something complex cannot occur naturally. It has failed consistently in this regard, in terms of evidence and in terms of it's basic methodological approach.

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
05-01-2017, 08:21 PM
RE: Polypeptide Synthesis
(04-01-2017 06:25 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Yeah, ID is trying to prove a negative, trying to assert something complex cannot occur naturally. It has failed consistently in this regard, in terms of evidence and in terms of its basic methodological approach.
It does not have to pass any sort of actual muster, it just has to sound plausible to the sheeple. I don't seriously think anyone expected, in concocting ID, that it would persuade science, scientists, skeptics, atheists, etc. It is designed to shore up believers who don't really want to hear and absorb the facts, but simply want some quasi-plausible-seeming faux science so they can rationalize that smarter people than they have it all worked out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like mordant's post
05-01-2017, 11:36 PM
RE: Polypeptide Synthesis
(05-01-2017 08:21 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(04-01-2017 06:25 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Yeah, ID is trying to prove a negative, trying to assert something complex cannot occur naturally. It has failed consistently in this regard, in terms of evidence and in terms of its basic methodological approach.
It does not have to pass any sort of actual muster, it just has to sound plausible to the sheeple. I don't seriously think anyone expected, in concocting ID, that it would persuade science, scientists, skeptics, atheists, etc. It is designed to shore up believers who don't really want to hear and absorb the facts, but simply want some quasi-plausible-seeming faux science so they can rationalize that smarter people than they have it all worked out.

The Discovery Institute's Wedge Document.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

That is what it is all about. It's a classic pseudoscience with an agenda.

Yog Sothoth! Yog Sothoth! Come back old ones! Yog Sothoth!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post
07-01-2017, 08:57 PM
RE: Polypeptide Synthesis
(05-01-2017 11:36 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  
(05-01-2017 08:21 PM)mordant Wrote:  It does not have to pass any sort of actual muster, it just has to sound plausible to the sheeple. I don't seriously think anyone expected, in concocting ID, that it would persuade science, scientists, skeptics, atheists, etc. It is designed to shore up believers who don't really want to hear and absorb the facts, but simply want some quasi-plausible-seeming faux science so they can rationalize that smarter people than they have it all worked out.

The Discovery Institute's Wedge Document.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

That is what it is all about. It's a classic pseudoscience with an agenda.
I hadn't seen this so I stand corrected, they're quite a bit dumber than I thought on the one hand, and more ruthless on the other. Dumb because of course they are never going to actually "defeat" proven science with better evidence; ruthless in that they will try to overcome it with misinformed public opinion and power grabs.

That said ... I think it's still true that ID has immediate utility in "reassuring" the flock that there are good sciencey-sounding, truthy-feeling reasons to go back to sleep. Even the grandiose plotting to "defeat science" can be part of that, too, plus, it can occupy the higher levels of ecclesiastical management with busywork that feeds the illusion of accomplishing something momentous, when all they are really doing is keeping members from defecting in larger numbers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: