Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2015, 07:50 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(17-08-2015 11:53 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Model T's didn't have, nor need, ECU's.

Indeed. Thats the same as to compare apples with oranges. If the Ford T had not several basic parts like the wheels, or even just the piston, it would not be able to do the job it was projected for..... same with biological systems.

To have a first living self replicating cell, much more than you might imagine, is required:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...parts#3797
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 07:52 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(18-08-2015 05:28 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 11:26 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Oh, and if one of the biology students here isn't around...

Well I am, but I study ethology, not the cellular biology of plants.

I can say, however, that anybody who uses RuBisCO as their evidence for a designer must forfeit their right to use the descriptor 'intelligent' in relation to the proposed designer. RubisCO is such an inefficient enzyme, and does its job so poorly that it could not have been designed by a great intellect.

Laugh out load

Despite slow catalysis and confused substrate specificity, all ribulose bisphosphate carboxylases may be nearly perfectly optimized 2

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/19/7246.abstract

The cornerstone of autotrophy, the CO2-fixing enzyme, d-ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco), is hamstrung by slow catalysis and confusion between CO2 and O2 as substrates, an “abominably perplexing” puzzle, in Darwin's parlance. Here we argue that these characteristics stem from difficulty in binding the featureless CO2 molecule, which forces specificity for the gaseous substrate to be determined largely or completely in the transition state. We hypothesize that natural selection for greater CO2/O2 specificity, in response to reducing atmospheric CO2:O2 ratios, has resulted in a transition state for CO2 addition in which the CO2 moiety closely resembles a carboxylate group. This maximizes the structural difference between the transition states for carboxylation and the competing oxygenation, allowing better differentiation between them. However, increasing structural similarity between the carboxylation transition state and its carboxyketone product exposes the carboxyketone to the strong binding required to stabilize the transition state and causes the carboxyketone intermediate to bind so tightly that its cleavage to products is slowed. We assert that all Rubiscos may be nearly perfectly adapted to the differing CO2, O2, and thermal conditions in their subcellular environments, optimizing this compromise between CO2/O2 specificity and the maximum rate of catalytic turnover. Our hypothesis explains the feeble rate enhancement displayed by Rubisco in processing the exogenously supplied carboxyketone intermediate, compared with its nonenzymatic hydrolysis, and the positive correlation between CO2/O2 specificity and 12C/13C fractionation. It further predicts that, because a more product-like transition state is more ordered (decreased entropy), the effectiveness of this strategy will deteriorate with increasing temperature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 07:53 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(18-08-2015 07:48 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 11:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  He doesn't understand a word of what he's parroting.

Critizism about the opponents knowledge

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...tacks#3759

Critizising the oponents knowledge and education is not the best way to establish a point. I hear often critiques like : You need basic understanding in science, you don't understand evolution, take a science class, we're trying to educate you, you are spouting ignorance of the subject,  you refuse to learn, Head well and truly in the sand, willful ignorance is your decision, you don't understand what you're copying and pasting, or go over to explicit insults of various forms and degrees. Mock and ridicule  with contempt is not new to me. That are responses put forward frequently by Atheists in the attempt to hide their own ignorance, and avoid providing substance. Rather than address the specific issues in question, and provide compelling scenarios that would underline their own views, they resort to that implicit personal attacks and try to discredit the oponent. Not only does it hide their ignorance on the subject, but they expose also their ignorance of their oponents knowledge and education, which cannot be known after a few sentences and posts made on  a specific topic.   Fact is, even IF their oponent were ignorant on the issue, that would not make their  views become more credible or correct. Thats a logical fallacy. The best way for them to deal with the arguments brought forward by proponents of ID/creationism, is 1. educate themself about the issue in question, and 2. if they disagree with the inference drawn , provide a better explanation based on their views.

[Image: no_und10.jpg]

Wow, how pathetic is this? The bitch can't even defend himself without resorting to copy-pasta. It's like trying to communicate with a calculator...

Fuckin' weaksause.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 07:57 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
Only a matter of time before


[Image: banhammer.jpg]

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JDog554's post
18-08-2015, 07:58 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
At work.

(18-08-2015 07:50 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 11:53 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Model T's didn't have, nor need, ECU's.

Indeed. Thats the same as to compare apples with oranges.

No, they are DIRECTLY comparing a car to a car. Which is why you aren't happy with the analogy and hence then see fit to try and then swap things around to attempt to discredit said analogy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
18-08-2015, 08:00 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
GE, for future reference, the point where I realised that you knew not what you were talking about was this bit ...

(18-08-2015 07:46 AM)Godexists Wrote:  ... Evolution Theory:
... forsee
... a specific goal,

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
18-08-2015, 08:01 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(18-08-2015 07:07 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Darwin's idea of "survival of the fittest" was catchy, but an inaccurate way to desribe how Natural Selection works. It's actually "death or diminishing for the unfit or less-fit".

... or you could describe it as Natural Pruning.

I like it. I'll make sure to remember this because it sits neatly with non-equilibrium thermodynamics which explains how everything self organises by minimising free energy to maximise entropy.

Darwinian evolution is just another form of self organisation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
18-08-2015, 08:05 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(18-08-2015 07:44 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Incredulity is based on human experience and on what we actually know.

And science is a way of overcoming that cognitive bias.

Quote:For example, the belief in abiogenesis can be strongly doubted, one can be skeptical of it, because it has never been observed and all proposals have lead to a dead end so far.

Not that tired argument again. When the experiments have run for millions of years without any appreciable result, then your statement might have some basis in reality.

We know that organic compounds are abundant in the universe, so the building blocks are there for the rational to see.

Quote:So its more than rational to look somewhere else. What has been observed is biogenesis, life coming from life. What we know is that the complexity in the natural world of living organisms is similar to, in fact much greater than, the complexity of intelligently created devices, such as the clock or the computer.

So? That says more about man's intellect than it does about natural processes.

Orgel's Second Rule: Evolution is cleverer than you are.

Quote:You might implie that incredulity is an unreasonable position, but it is in fact a foundation for all critical thought. Sensible people do not believe things without evidence. Consider the opposite, credulity; there is no context in which that is not a pejorative word! Considering what atheists are willing to believe, can indeed be classed as credulous.

There is no evidence for a creator.

Quote:It is also quite proper for a person of one religion or philosophy to be skeptical of the beliefs of another one. The religion of naturalism, which is the basis of evolution, can properly be rejected by a biblical theist. The evolutionist system may be dominant in some parts of the world, but that says nothing about whether it is true. Many have looked at it and found it inadequate; they have found good reasons to be skeptical of it, especially since theism better explains very many features of the natural world.

Those who are skeptical of the truth of evolutionary theory are ignorant of it. They typically have some cartoon version of it in their heads.

Quote:When i say that something is unbelievable or inconceivable, i give good reasons.

No, actually you don't. Unless you mean your ignorance of evolution is a good reason. Consider

Quote:If my whole argument were simply an unsupported statement of unbelief, you would have a good point; to say something is unbelievable without giving a reason is not a good argument. But the problem is that you oversimplify; you do not address the reasons for incredulity.

Your "reasons" are fallacious because they rely on a strawman version of evolution.

Quote:Incredulity is an argument of scepticism about a certain point of view, and the evolutionist and atheist are not innocent of using such an argument. Incredulity, doubt and scepticism about God and special creation, are implicit in every naturalistic explanation about abiogenesis and many other facets of their view points.

And that skepticism is well-founded since there is no evidence of any gods or creators.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
18-08-2015, 08:08 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(18-08-2015 07:50 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 11:53 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Model T's didn't have, nor need, ECU's.

Indeed. Thats the same as to compare apples with oranges. If the Ford T had not several basic parts like the wheels, or even just the piston, it would not be able to do the job it was projected for..... same with biological systems.

To have a first living self replicating cell, much more than you might imagine, is required:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...parts#3797


You don't have a fucking clue jackass.

The precursors of cellular life where very probably far simpler than anything that exists today, and we no longer see them because they were not able to compete with their more advanced counterparts. Possible explanations that can trace cellular life back through phospholipids and simple self-replicating molecules already exist.


Note for the slow (that's you GE): Cells didn't inextricably pop into existence looking exactly like they do today with all the same matching parts.


But the ID crowd just pulls the same tactic when creationists are presented with the fossil record of human evolution; there is never too many 'gaps' to insert their particular emotionally stunted space wizard into.


You also seemingly never take into account how ID is the least probable explanation to any situation all other things being equal. How so? Because assuming design requires a designer, so you're explaining away your ignorance (I don't know how this system came about) by positing another system (an intelligent designer, which itself also needs an explanation for how it came into being) that you also don't have any fucking clue about nor evidence for.


Even assuming a designer was responsible (which we don't), the intercession of advanced space-faring extraterrestrial life is still a far more probable designer than a supernatural deity (which requires the additional assumption of the supernatural, and is thus less probable than non-supernatural alien life). In short, learn how to calculate probabilities (without selectively ignoring variable) buckwheat.


So even if we grated your every assumption, you still couldn't bridge the gap from 'designer' to 'deity', let alone to the Yahweh of classical monotheism, you stupid, incredulous, fuckatd... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
18-08-2015, 08:14 AM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2015 08:36 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(18-08-2015 07:46 AM)Godexists Wrote:  How should and could natural non guided natural mechanisms forsee the necessity of chaperones in order to get a specific goal, that is the right precise 3 dimensional folding resulting in functional proteins to make living organisms ? Non living matter has no natural " drive " or purpose or goal to become living.

Your question is on a par with asking how water can foresee the need to form solid crystalline structures around the inside of your fridge because it has no natural drive or purpose or goal to form fractals.

You are asking the wrong question and because the answer is obviously it can't, you are drawing the wrong conclusion. This is called a leading question.

What you should be asking is, how can all the pieces of a chair naturally come together?

http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/en_uk...lds-itself

[Image: 14205772852.gif]

Or how if I throw all USB sticks and their caps loose into my handbag front pocket that I often find the USB sticks days later with their caps on?

You know those children's toys where you have several silver balls on a flat surface where you have to tilt it carefully so each ball rests in its own indentation? How do you go about achieving this?

It's the same process for all of these examples.

Add too much energy to the system and it breaks apart. Not enough energy and nothing happens. You need to add just enough energy so structures form and then a random walk and plenty of time will do the rest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: