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, 09:24 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(18-08-2015 09:04 AM)kim Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 07:46 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Indeed. The proponents of evolution are the ignorants.....Laugh out load

That totally destroys the Evolution Theory: 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 ?

^^There^^ is where your understanding disconnects from science and reality.
There is no "foresee".
There is no "specific goal".

This is where your proud waves halt. Drinking Beverage



I'm not above paraphrasing fictional characters ... at least I don't pretend they're real.

thats precisely the problem of evolution. there is no forsight. So why would evolution produce a assembly chaperone enzyme to make rubisco ? You dont make a robot for a assembly line, if the end product is not known.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 09:29 AM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2015 09:49 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(18-08-2015 08:40 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 07:58 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.


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.

what you do, is the same as to compare a 50ccm motobike to a harley davidson of 1200ccm.

or , to put it even more clear :

The best of Behe's book : Darwins Black box

Darwins Black Box page 40:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...k-box#3760

So let us attempt to evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle by the gradual accumulation of mutations. Suppose that a factory produced bicycles, but that occasionally there was a mistake in manufacture. Let us further suppose that if the mistake led to an improvement in the bicycle, then the friends and neighbors of the lucky buyer would demand similar bikes, and the factory would retool to make the mutation a permanent feature. So, like biological mutations, successful mechanical mutations would reproduce and spread. If we are to keep our analogy relevant to biology, however, each change can only be a slight modification, duplication, or rearrangement of a preexisting component, and the change must improve the function of the bicycle. So if the factory mistakenly increased the size of a nut or decreased the diameter of a bolt, or added an extra wheel onto the front axle or left off the rear tire, or put a pedal on the handlebars or added extra spokes, and if any of these slight changes improved the bike ride, then the improvement would immediately be noticed by the buying public and the mutated bikes would, in true Darwinian fashion, dominate the market. Given these conditions, can we evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle? We can move in the right direction by making the seat more comfortable in small steps, the wheels bigger, and even (assuming our customers prefer the «biker» look) imitating the overall shape in various ways. But a motorcycle depends on a source of fuel, and a bicycle has nothing that can be slightly modified to become a gasoline tank. And what part of the bicycle could be duplicated to begin building a motor? Even if a lucky accident brought a lawnmower engine from a neighboring factory into the bicycle factory, the motor would have to be mounted on the bike and be connected in the right way to the drive chain. How could this be done step-by-step from bicycle parts? A factory that made bicycles simply could not produce a motorcycle by natural selection acting on variation—by «numerous, successive, slight modifications»—and in fact there is no example in history of a complex change in a product occurring in this manner.

If that's the best of the fool-idiot Behe's book, I'd hate to see the rest of it. A Third-grader can dismantle this nonsense.

He can't deal with the realities of the chemistry itself, so he (Behe) cooks up a gigantic false analogy, and puts his head so far up his ass in it, he can't see daylight.
But in fact cells have done PRECISELY what he claims did not happen. Chloroplasts and mitochondria have different DNA than their surrounding cells, (as well as double wall structures). This is real evidence they were engulfed at some point in evolution and they were used as "engines" to make energy for their cells. Plants use chloroplasts, and animals use mitochondria. Each have their own sets of DNA, separate from their surrounding cells.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage...a-14053590
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9896/
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/c...rganelles/

And we're not talking about a "product" in a garage. Nice try though, dumbo.

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
18-08-2015, 09:30 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(18-08-2015 09:22 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 09:03 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  As opposed to billions of years and a planet (or galaxy if panspermia is true) full of materials.

It was a visual demonstration of the principle of self organisation. The MIT researchers could have thrown in hundreds of those components into a large swimming pool, switched on a wave machine and got all kinds of structures out of it including chairs. But they got these interesting ordered structures arising out of chaotic behaviour without any intelligent design using only static simple components.

I use the same principle to create artificial intelligence. I don't know how my agents function nor do I dictate how they should do their job. I just throw in the ingredients, provide the right form of disturbance and let them self-organise.

I have also performed simulations where an environment full of particles that can bind together, break apart and conduct heat can form simple structures that feed off other structures. This without any form of attraction or repulsion.



Weeping

i have already posted, what it would require to make the first self replicating living cell.

In my view, impossible only through natural mechanisms.

You assumed something with the complexity of a modern cell. That is an error - a big one.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-08-2015, 09:30 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
What's with all the "cart before the horse" arguments?

Evolution does things randomly; you can't "work backwards" and say "it must have been done this way", then say "it seems impossible to have been done the complicated way it is now via small steps, therefore goddidit".

I'm trying to respect your request to stay out of it, man, but you're making it hard on me.

But I'll say it as clearly as I can, since the others don't seem to be reaching you: evolution has no "specific goal", and if you are asserting that what is observed today was the goal, you don't understand how it works. At all.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
18-08-2015, 09:41 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(18-08-2015 08:40 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 07:58 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.


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.

what you do, is the same as to compare a 50ccm motobike to a harley davidson of 1200ccm.

or , to put it even more clear :

The best of Behe's book : Darwins Black box

Darwins Black Box page 40:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...k-box#3760

So let us attempt to evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle by the gradual accumulation of mutations. Suppose that a factory produced bicycles, but that occasionally there was a mistake in manufacture. Let us further suppose that if the mistake led to an improvement in the bicycle, then the friends and neighbors of the lucky buyer would demand similar bikes, and the factory would retool to make the mutation a permanent feature. So, like biological mutations, successful mechanical mutations would reproduce and spread. If we are to keep our analogy relevant to biology, however, each change can only be a slight modification, duplication, or rearrangement of a preexisting component, and the change must improve the function of the bicycle. So if the factory mistakenly increased the size of a nut or decreased the diameter of a bolt, or added an extra wheel onto the front axle or left off the rear tire, or put a pedal on the handlebars or added extra spokes, and if any of these slight changes improved the bike ride, then the improvement would immediately be noticed by the buying public and the mutated bikes would, in true Darwinian fashion, dominate the market. Given these conditions, can we evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle? We can move in the right direction by making the seat more comfortable in small steps, the wheels bigger, and even (assuming our customers prefer the «biker» look) imitating the overall shape in various ways. But a motorcycle depends on a source of fuel, and a bicycle has nothing that can be slightly modified to become a gasoline tank. And what part of the bicycle could be duplicated to begin building a motor? Even if a lucky accident brought a lawnmower engine from a neighboring factory into the bicycle factory, the motor would have to be mounted on the bike and be connected in the right way to the drive chain. How could this be done step-by-step from bicycle parts? A factory that made bicycles simply could not produce a motorcycle by natural selection acting on variation—by «numerous, successive, slight modifications»—and in fact there is no example in history of a complex change in a product occurring in this manner.
At work.

Nice job of AGAIN changing things so as to shoe horn in your bodgy cut and paste.

Also see EvolutionKills' post.

How about replying to some of those hard posts you're also ignoring?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 09:46 AM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2015 09:53 AM by kim.)
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(18-08-2015 09:24 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 09:04 AM)kim Wrote:  ^^There^^ is where your understanding disconnects from science and reality.
There is no "foresee".
There is no "specific goal".

This is where your proud waves halt. Drinking Beverage



I'm not above paraphrasing fictional characters ... at least I don't pretend they're real.

thats precisely the problem of evolution. there is no *forsight. So why would evolution produce a assembly chaperone enzyme to make rubisco ? You dont make a robot for a assembly line, if the end product is not known.


^^There^^ just the larger typed words ... concentrate only on that... keep this in your mind when you explore the world. You will begin to gain greater understanding.

An isolated, "protected" world doesn't always survive... use your common sense. Drinking Beverage


*foresight

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 09:56 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(18-08-2015 09:22 AM)Godexists Wrote:  i have already posted, what it would require to make the first self replicating living cell.

In my view, impossible only through natural mechanisms.

But you don't address whether a simpler self replicating cell can exist. And you can't argue along the lines of every component of a modern cell is necessary because that's like looking at a modern car and saying the minimum number of wheels required for a vehicle is 4 because if you took one wheel away then it would not work. A modern car is balanced for 4 wheels, a chariot is balanced for 2 wheels.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 10:05 AM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2015 10:09 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
What motivates these people to come onto a board with more than a few scientists to argue bullshit? Because the science forums kick them off straightaway? Because deep down they realize what they're spouting is complete nonsense and they want to be convinced of their own ignorance? And what is this reasonandscience.heavenforum that dude keeps referencing. It looks like a forum where only the admin posts. Is it GodExits forum and he's trying to advertise it? People puzzle me.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
18-08-2015, 10:25 AM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(18-08-2015 09:56 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 09:22 AM)Godexists Wrote:  i have already posted, what it would require to make the first self replicating living cell.

In my view, impossible only through natural mechanisms.

But you don't address whether a simpler self replicating cell can exist. And you can't argue along the lines of every component of a modern cell is necessary because that's like looking at a modern car and saying the minimum number of wheels required for a vehicle is 4 because if you took one wheel away then it would not work. A modern car is balanced for 4 wheels, a chariot is balanced for 2 wheels.

(Bold emphasis in his quote my own emphasis.)

That's what I kept thinking, but I'm really trying hard to stay out of this one. If he knows what the first cell consists of, he needs to publish, RIGHT NOW.

The arrogance... the utter arrogance!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
18-08-2015, 11:16 AM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2015 11:26 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(18-08-2015 10:25 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 09:56 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  But you don't address whether a simpler self replicating cell can exist. And you can't argue along the lines of every component of a modern cell is necessary because that's like looking at a modern car and saying the minimum number of wheels required for a vehicle is 4 because if you took one wheel away then it would not work. A modern car is balanced for 4 wheels, a chariot is balanced for 2 wheels.

(Bold emphasis in his quote my own emphasis.)

That's what I kept thinking, but I'm really trying hard to stay out of this one. If he knows what the first cell consists of, he needs to publish, RIGHT NOW.

The arrogance... the utter arrogance!

I bet he has his tux rented for the Nobel ceremony next year, and his tickets ordered for the trip.
Ya think ?

Angel

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: