The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2015, 06:53 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(16-08-2015 06:32 AM)Godexists Wrote:  A irreducible complex system can indeed change over time. Thats called micro evolution. We know for example that ATP synthase has many variants, that change by microevolutionary mechanisms. So one, micro evolution, adds to the other. The fundamental structure is irreducible, but small changes for adaptation are normal, and based on the inbuilt mechanism that permits such changes. They make part of the overall design .

Evolutionary scientists recognise that evolution happens in small steps but that these steps build up over time to move a system very far away from its original form.

The term 'micro-evolution' is only used by creationists. They do this to pretend that evolutionary scientists are telling people that evolution works by making very large steps. Again, another dishonest tactic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mathilda's post
16-08-2015, 06:55 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
GE - You might not like EK's videos, but you should really pay attention to the bridge example used by Mathilda. That's a pretty good metaphor. You simply cannot look at a modern system and presume it's a "ladder" from A to B in order to build up its parts. One of the main mechanisms for chemical (biosynthetic pathway) evolution is that systems are "borrowed" from other functional but unrelated systems, especially when (as is often the case) there are duplications of a particular gene, and one of the duplicates gets mutated and then "borrowed" into a new function. Like the scaffolding in the example, the early versions that allowed things like your vaunted ATP synthase to come into its earliest form likely looked nothing like what's in there now. It's why your "remove any one part" is invalid (and it's also why it's not easy to overnight show the pathway for a lot of things that exist now; we have to figure out a lot of vanished "scaffolding" chemistry).

But I want to say it again, so read this slowly: you cannot look at systems with 4 billion years of evolution behind them and say "it came to be this way in a straight line, adding one piece at a time", the way you're doing. It's just not how it works. It's part of how it works, in the "microevolution" sense you're using it, but there's a lot more to the picture. I don't think you're deliberately ignoring this factor, I think you're insufficiently aware of it, and need to take a course or two in cellular biochem.

"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
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-08-2015, 07:55 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(16-08-2015 03:12 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Proponents of irreducible complexity only apply their argument to naturally evolving systems, but there is no reason why they shouldn't also argue the same for man made structures.

You can easily look at any bridge and find a single component which if you removed would cause the bridge to collapse. We all know that scaffolding was used when building the bridge which was then removed when the bridge was able to support itself. No one in their right mind would argue that because of this a bridge had to be created in an instance by magic.

So why are they arguing this for naturally evolved cells?

Godexists' argument relies on special pleading by only applying it to naturally evolved cells. There is no valid reason to do this, except to do otherwise demonstrates clearly why the argument is flawed.

oh i just LOVE analogies Big Grin

This one gave me a brain chubby Unsure

Nicely done as usual Mathilda

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
16-08-2015, 10:56 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(16-08-2015 06:55 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  GE - You might not like EK's videos, but you should really pay attention to the bridge example used by Mathilda. That's a pretty good metaphor. You simply cannot look at a modern system and presume it's a "ladder" from A to B in order to build up its parts. One of the main mechanisms for chemical (biosynthetic pathway) evolution is that systems are "borrowed" from other functional but unrelated systems, especially when (as is often the case) there are duplications of a particular gene, and one of the duplicates gets mutated and then "borrowed" into a new function. Like the scaffolding in the example, the early versions that allowed things like your vaunted ATP synthase to come into its earliest form likely looked nothing like what's in there now. It's why your "remove any one part" is invalid (and it's also why it's not easy to overnight show the pathway for a lot of things that exist now; we have to figure out a lot of vanished "scaffolding" chemistry).

But I want to say it again, so read this slowly: you cannot look at systems with 4 billion years of evolution behind them and say "it came to be this way in a straight line, adding one piece at a time", the way you're doing. It's just not how it works. It's part of how it works, in the "microevolution" sense you're using it, but there's a lot more to the picture. I don't think you're deliberately ignoring this factor, I think you're insufficiently aware of it, and need to take a course or two in cellular biochem.

The other thing I wonder about with these IC schemas is why is their god such a fuck-up? Why cancer? Why mass extinctions? Why so much imperfection? Why did the whale evolve from land animals? Does god not know what direction to evolve in? Consider

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
16-08-2015, 11:39 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 12:27 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
I just see an Eddie Izzard type skit.

"OH! I know! Really big teeth! With tiny little arms!" *Does the whole pantomime waving hands thing.*

"Hmmmmm... y'know? Nope!" *Pthppppppp!* "Wipe it all out! Start again! "

"OH! I know! A beak! Now...add some fur...Yes, I like that. Now.....tail, tail...um...Oh! Marvelous! Big, flat thing! There, perfect! Those upstart apes won't know what to think of that!"

Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
16-08-2015, 12:19 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(15-08-2015 06:26 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 01:06 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  However, I will say that no, no one who is a serious, working biochemist thinks that those systems are irreducibly complex (IC) and thus in need of "god-magic" to operate;

Are you seriously saying you are unable to look for yourself into the evidence, and make up your mind ? Most Biochemists do not bring a designer into the picture for several reasons. One is, that most are indoctrinated into evolutionary biology. Others are afraid to lose funding for research, and recognition from their colleagues.

My last post does not leave any doubt that the cell and its organelles are ic. Btw. i am collecting what mainstream scientific papers say about the enzymes, organelles etc. in the cell, that are indispensable, that is, they cannot be reduced. So far, the list is not long, but it will grow longer and longer the more i do my research.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...=essential

You have presented no evidence, only a logically flawed argument. 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
16-08-2015, 12:25 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 12:39 PM by Godexists.)
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(16-08-2015 06:55 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  GE - You might not like EK's videos, but you should really pay attention to the bridge example used by Mathilda. That's a pretty good metaphor.

Thats old, boring, long ago debunked stuff.

"Complexity by Subtraction": In Evolutionary Biology, a Devilishly Subversive Suggestion

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/com...71281.html

This is all very revealing. In the geological context, we know very well how, as a starting point, "cliffs or piles of stone" form. It's readily comprehensible how, worn by water or weather, an arch may appear. In the biological context, we do not know how the starting point -- functioning "genes, cells, tissues or organs" -- got there.


...a: parts that have beneficial functions that are not the final function of the item in question,

what beneficial function would have a half eye ? a half arm ? a half leg ? a half circulatory system ? a incomplete photosynthesis apparatus, without the oxygen evolving complex, for example ? or without a proton gradient ? there are many parts and enzymes, which are function specific, and not used in various biological systems, but only in specific ones, as for example the last 7 enzymes in the chlorophyll biosynthesis pathway are unique.....


Quote: You simply cannot look at a modern system and presume it's a "ladder" from A to B in order to build up its parts. One of the main mechanisms for chemical (biosynthetic pathway) evolution is that systems are "borrowed" from other functional but unrelated systems, especially when (as is often the case) there are duplications of a particular gene, and one of the duplicates gets mutated and then "borrowed" into a new function.

more boring attempts to refute my arguments..... Hobo
have heard that a thousand times......

It is irrelevant if subparts of a molecular machine can serve a different function. The moment anyone discusses some different function, they are no longer talking about irreducible complexity, they are talking about something else. Behe already directly responded to this nonsense, stated himself that mentioning other functions is a strawman, and went on to comment that never once did he ever suggest that subparts could not have secondary functions. He never discussed them because those questions are irrelevant.

Quote:Like the scaffolding in the example, the early versions that allowed things like your vaunted ATP synthase to come into its earliest form likely looked nothing like what's in there now.

I have shown you each single part that is INDISPENSABLE for the propper function of ATP synthase.....

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...p+synthase

1.The nucleotide binding stator subunits (“cylinders”) : The electrostatic interaction of these rotor and stator charges is essential for torque generation
2.The central stalk (“crankshaft”) : The torsional elasticity of the central stalk and the bending and stretching elasticity of the peripheral stalk create an elastic coupling between Fo and F1. Is is essential.
3, The A/V rotor subunit (“adapter”) ; It is not used in all ATP synthase motors, and can therefore be reduced.
4. The Rotor ring (“turbine”) ; A ring of 8–15 identical c-subunits is essential for ion-translocation by the rotary electromotor of the ubiquitous FOF1-
ATPase.
5.The Jon channel forming subunit ; Subunit a harbors the ion channel that provides access to the binding site on the c11 ring in the middle of the membrane from the periplasmic surface . The channel is essential for the operation of the enzyme, because mutants in which the channel is blocked are completely inactive in both the ATP synthesis and/or coupled ATP hydrolysis mode
6. The peripheral stalk (“pushrod”) ; The peripheral stalk of F-ATPases is an essential component of these enzymes. It extends from the membrane distal point of the F1 catalytic domain along the surface of the F1 domain with subunit a in the membrane domain.
7 - 11 do not exist in all atp synthase motors, and can therefore be reduced.

There are at least 5 subunit parts essential to mantain the basice function of the ATP synthase motor.

ATP synthase is an irreducibly complex motor—a proton-driven motor divided into rotor and stator portions as described and illustrated earlier in this paper. Protons can flow freely through the CF0 complex without the CF1 complex, so that if it evolved first, a pH gradient could not have been established within the thylakoids. The δ and critical χ protein subunits of the CF1 complex are synthesized in the cytosol and imported into the chloroplast in everything from Chlorella to Eugenia in the plant kingdom.49 All of the parts must be shipped to the right location, and all must be the right size and shape, down to the very tiniest detail. Using a factory assembly line as an analogy, after all the otherwise useless and meaningless parts have been manufactured in different locations and shipped in to a central location, they are then assembled, and, if all goes as intended, they fit together perfectly to produce something useful. But the whole process has been carefully designed to function in that way. The whole complex must be manufactured and assembled in just one certain way, or nothing works at all. Since nothing works until everything works, there is no series of intermediates that natural selection could have followed gently up the back slope of mount impossible. The little proton-driven motor known as ATP synthase consists of eight different subunits, totalling more than 20 polypeptide* chains, and is an order of magnitude smaller than the bacterial flagellar motor,50 which is equally impossible for evolutionists to explain.

Quote: It's why your "remove any one part" is invalid (and it's also why it's not easy to overnight show the pathway for a lot of things that exist now; we have to figure out a lot of vanished "scaffolding" chemistry).

nice how you construct your arguments based on blind speculation...LOL.....

Quote:But I want to say it again, so read this slowly: you cannot look at systems with 4 billion years of evolution

the supposed time window from the origin of the earth to cyanobacterias isnt more than 500 million years. Which would be far from enough to evolve photosynthesis and nitrogenase and circadian clocks and fix the required mutations into the population. Photosynthesis is a EXTRAORDINARELY COMPLEX mechanism.......:

http://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway/map/map00195.html

In photosynthesis , 26 protein complexes and enzymes are required to go through the light and light independent reactions, a chemical process that transforms sunlight into chemical energy, to get glucose as end product , a metabolic intermediate for cell respiration. A good part of the protein complexes are uniquely used in photosynthesis. The pathway must go all the way through, and all steps are required, otherwise glucose is not produced. Also, in the oxygen evolving complex, which splits water into electrons, protons, and CO2, if the light-induced electron transfer reactions do not go all the five steps through, no oxygen, no protons and electrons are produced, no advanced life would be possible on earth. So, photosynthesis is a interdependent system, that could not have evolved, since all parts had to be in place right from the beginning. It contains many interdependent systems composed of parts that would be useless without the presence of all the other necessary parts. In these systems, nothing works until all the necessary components are present and working. So how could someont rationally say, the individual parts, proteins and enzymes, co-factors and assembly proteins not present in the final assemblage, all happened by a series of natural events that we can call ad hoc mistake "formed in one particular moment without ability to consider any application." , to then somehow interlink in a meaningful way, to form electron transport chains, proton gradients to " feed " ATP synthase nano motors to produce ATP , and so on ? Such independent structures would have not aided survival. Consider the light harvesting complex, and the electron transport chain, that did not exist at exactly the same moment--would they ever "get together" since they would neither have any correlation to each other nor help survival separately? Repair of PSII via turnover of the damaged protein subunits is a complex process involving highly regulated reversible phosphorylation of several PSII core subunits. If this mechanism would not work starting right from the beginning, various radicals and active oxygen species with harmful effects on photosystem II (PSII) would make it cease to function. So it seems that photosynthesis falsifies the theory of evolution, where all small steps need to provide a survival advantage.


thumbsup:

that being said. Keep travelling in maionnaise.....LOL.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 12:31 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 12:35 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(16-08-2015 12:25 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 06:55 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  GE - You might not like EK's videos, but you should really pay attention to the bridge example used by Mathilda. That's a pretty good metaphor.

Thats old, boring, long ago debunked stuff.

"Complexity by Subtraction": In Evolutionary Biology, a Devilishly Subversive Suggestion

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/com...71281.html

This is all very revealing. In the geological context, we know very well how, as a starting point, "cliffs or piles of stone" form. It's readily comprehensible how, worn by water or weather, an arch may appear. In the biological context, we do not know how the starting point -- functioning "genes, cells, tissues or organs" -- got there.


...a: parts that have beneficial functions that are not the final function of the item in question,

what beneficial function would have a half eye ? a half arm ? a half leg ? a half circulatory system ? a incomplete photosynthesis apparatus, without the oxygen evolving complex, for example ? or without a proton gradient ? there are many parts and enzymes, which are function specific, and not used in various biological systems, but only in specific ones, as for example the last 7 enzymes in the chlorophyll biosynthesis pathway are unique.....


Quote: You simply cannot look at a modern system and presume it's a "ladder" from A to B in order to build up its parts. One of the main mechanisms for chemical (biosynthetic pathway) evolution is that systems are "borrowed" from other functional but unrelated systems, especially when (as is often the case) there are duplications of a particular gene, and one of the duplicates gets mutated and then "borrowed" into a new function.

more boring attempts to refute my arguments..... Hobo
have heard that a thousand times......

It is irrelevant if subparts of a molecular machine can serve a different function. The moment anyone discusses some different function, they are no longer talking about irreducible complexity, they are talking about something else. Behe already directly responded to this nonsense, stated himself that mentioning other functions is a strawman, and went on to comment that never once did he ever suggest that subparts could not have secondary functions. He never discussed them because those questions are irrelevant.

Quote:Like the scaffolding in the example, the early versions that allowed things like your vaunted ATP synthase to come into its earliest form likely looked nothing like what's in there now.

I have shown you each single part that is INDISPENSABLE for the propper function of ATP synthase.....

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...p+synthase

1.The nucleotide binding stator subunits (“cylinders”) : The electrostatic interaction of these rotor and stator charges is essential for torque generation
2.The central stalk (“crankshaft”) : The torsional elasticity of the central stalk and the bending and stretching elasticity of the peripheral stalk create an elastic coupling between Fo and F1. Is is essential.
3, The A/V rotor subunit (“adapter”) ; It is not used in all ATP synthase motors, and can therefore be reduced.
4. The Rotor ring (“turbine”) ; A ring of 8–15 identical c-subunits is essential for ion-translocation by the rotary electromotor of the ubiquitous FOF1-
ATPase.
5.The Jon channel forming subunit ; Subunit a harbors the ion channel that provides access to the binding site on the c11 ring in the middle of the membrane from the periplasmic surface . The channel is essential for the operation of the enzyme, because mutants in which the channel is blocked are completely inactive in both the ATP synthesis and/or coupled ATP hydrolysis mode
6. The peripheral stalk (“pushrod”) ; The peripheral stalk of F-ATPases is an essential component of these enzymes. It extends from the membrane distal point of the F1 catalytic domain along the surface of the F1 domain with subunit a in the membrane domain.
7 - 11 do not exist in all atp synthase motors, and can therefore be reduced.

There are at least 5 subunit parts essential to mantain the basice function of the ATP synthase motor.

ATP synthase is an irreducibly complex motor—a proton-driven motor divided into rotor and stator portions as described and illustrated earlier in this paper. Protons can flow freely through the CF0 complex without the CF1 complex, so that if it evolved first, a pH gradient could not have been established within the thylakoids. The δ and critical χ protein subunits of the CF1 complex are synthesized in the cytosol and imported into the chloroplast in everything from Chlorella to Eugenia in the plant kingdom.49 All of the parts must be shipped to the right location, and all must be the right size and shape, down to the very tiniest detail. Using a factory assembly line as an analogy, after all the otherwise useless and meaningless parts have been manufactured in different locations and shipped in to a central location, they are then assembled, and, if all goes as intended, they fit together perfectly to produce something useful. But the whole process has been carefully designed to function in that way. The whole complex must be manufactured and assembled in just one certain way, or nothing works at all. Since nothing works until everything works, there is no series of intermediates that natural selection could have followed gently up the back slope of mount impossible. The little proton-driven motor known as ATP synthase consists of eight different subunits, totalling more than 20 polypeptide* chains, and is an order of magnitude smaller than the bacterial flagellar motor,50 which is equally impossible for evolutionists to explain.

Quote: It's why your "remove any one part" is invalid (and it's also why it's not easy to overnight show the pathway for a lot of things that exist now; we have to figure out a lot of vanished "scaffolding" chemistry).

nice how you construct your arguments based on blind speculation...LOL.....

Quote:But I want to say it again, so read this slowly: you cannot look at systems with 4 billion years of evolution

the supposed time window from the origin of the earth to cyanobacterias isnt more than 500 million years. Which would far from enough to evolve photosynthesis and nitrogenase and circadian clocks.......Thumbsup

that being said. Keep travelling in maionnaise.....LOL.

You got any scientific credentials to back you up? 'Cause many of us here do. I don't think you do because your posts indicate a serious lack of even an elementary grasp of science.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
16-08-2015, 02:22 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
*yawns* He don't listen so gud, do he?

"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
16-08-2015, 02:37 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(16-08-2015 12:31 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You got any scientific credentials to back you up? 'Cause many of us here do. I don't think you do because your posts indicate a serious lack of even an elementary grasp of science.

[Image: ewrwer10.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: