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, 10:36 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(16-08-2015 07:01 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Let us suppose God would provide you undeniable proof of design in nature, and that the God of the bible would be the author of the universe. What would you do?

a) would you keep your life in the same manner as now
b) would you repent , accept Jesus Christ as your savior, and start following him as your Lord ?

I wouldn't worship your disgusting God. I would accept that he existed though. However
  • You have no proof of design in nature, not even vaguely plausible. Copy-pasting bullshit from your website and calling it rock-solid evidence doesn't change that. Also, no matter how you try to dodge with stupid cartoons (which you no doubt think are very witty), if you cannot provide peer-reviewed papers from acceptable journals supporting your position, you might as well be describing the tooth-fairy for all the "science" you're doing.
  • You have no link from your designer to the Christian God.
Your whole little side discussion is pointless anyway.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 10:51 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(16-08-2015 10:36 PM)morondog Wrote:  I wouldn't worship your disgusting God. I would accept that he existed though. However
  • You have no proof of design in nature, not even vaguely plausible. Copy-pasting bullshit from your website and calling it rock-solid evidence doesn't change that. Also, no matter how you try to dodge with stupid cartoons (which you no doubt think are very witty), if you cannot provide peer-reviewed papers from acceptable journals supporting your position, you might as well be describing the tooth-fairy for all the "science" you're doing.
  • You have no link from your designer to the Christian God.
Your whole little side discussion is pointless anyway.

These are also points worth making.

I would not worship the Christian God. If the Old Testament - and even some bits of the New - is accurate, I would, in fact, actively despise him. Assuming that the Bible is exaggerated and twisted, however, and he's actually quite a nice chap, I might be convinced to admire him. The whole concept of worship, though, is rather demeaning and repulsive when you think about it.

And yes, even assuming that you can provide irrefutable evidence of irreducible complexity, all that you've proven is that certain preconceptions about the origins of life are false. Certain things being impossible to produce through evolution does not indicate that there is a designer, and even granting that you can produce evidence of a designer, you still have not provided any evidence linking that to your god.

Your argument falls at the first hurdle, because it cannot prove its basic premise - that irreducibly complex systems exist - but even if it didn't, it would still be pathetically incompetent and completely irrational.

"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
17-08-2015, 03:57 AM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2015 04:09 AM by Godexists.)
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(16-08-2015 07:09 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Yeah, sure. Because I'm an honest person. But I began my life as a Creationist, and have spent the past 22 years learning the lies that Creationists try to employ to get people to convert (or to not deconvert).

As a beginner, NO true believer will EVER leave Christ, since who truly exerienced Gods love and care, will not want to miss it.

Quote:People who employ such tactics are the lowest scum on the planet.


Ah yah ? Is it bad to teach others to love each other, and to love God ?

Quote:As for "my life in the same manner as now", not much would change. I already treat people as I'd want to be treated.

That shows you have little understanding what it is all about to be a christian. For a starter : Its much more than just treat people as you want to be treated.

Btw. you would not want me to treat you, as you treat me. With all the name calling and false acusations. There is a big guld between how you treat me, and how i treat you.

Quote:Really, all that would change would be giving 10% of my income to clergy and spending time praying instead of reading.

So is that what you are afraid of ? Well, i give the part that belongs to God of my income to orphans, widows, and poor bible school students in india, and poor nepalese missionaries that go and preach the gospel in the himalayas, and i can tell you, its the best money that i spend of my income. There is no money that pays off to see widows with a smile in their face, because they have a bowl of rice to eat. And children that can brush their teeths because of my contribution to buy teeth brushes. And bible students that are thankful because they can learn his precious word and later serve the lord as missionaries. Thats precious to them, and its precious to me, and precious to the Lord that motivates me to do these things, and is gloryfied because of that. At least the bible teaches me not to think only about me and my own and my families well being only. If all would do as i do, the earth would be a better place for humanity.

Quote:I cannot imagine anything you could say to me that I would consider "undeniable proof of design in nature" or "the God of the Bible" as the "author of the universe". I have seen and refuted every argument you have sent in here

No, you have not. You have dodged conveniently all posts of mine, that provided you with hard evidence of creation. Obviously. You have shown more than once, that your problem is not the evidence. Its your WILL. You do NOT WANT God in your life, and try to find excuses for your unbelief. You know the reasons for your atitude. Probably that is because you do not want anyone above you that you have to submit your will to. I don't know. Atheists have thousands of reasons to reject God. They only have no scientific reasons, because the evidence we find in nature points ALL to a creator. And that is pretty obvious. Thumbsup

Quote:, so far, years ago. Much of it is so-long-ago disproved that I can't believe it's still on the web, let alone that you're still copy-and-pasting it.

Thats one of your lame excuses. The only thing is, i copy paste from my personal virtual library, and the arguments are mine. They are based on mainstream science.

Quote:It genuinely pisses me off to have spent so much time learning how evolution/biochemistry works

First of all, you do NOT know how macro evolution works. And secondly, you should be pissed off that mainstream scientific paper does not permit the evidence to lead wherever it is. They are LIEing to you.

I'll give you a example. For example, you will find in scientific papers generally that the endosymbiosis theory is true. Except, that is is not. There are many line of reasons, why, and i see it all over. That is a massive fraud, but its held as true, because it fits the general view of evolution.

file:///E:/Desktop/apdf%20files/protein%20import%20of%20chloroplasts.pdf

Endosymbiosis was accompanied by massive gene transfer from the endosymbiont to the host nucleus. However, before genes could be eliminated from the endosymbiont genome, a system to import the now nuclear-encoded gene products into the new organelle had to be established. Although the endosymbiotic bacterium had several systems to export (or secrete) proteins across the membranes, the organelle now had to import proteins (see figure).
Most striking is the homology of the translocon of the outer-chloroplast-envelope
subunit TOC75 to bacterial outer-membrane proteins that are involved in the transport of polypeptides across the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria95,96.

Nice. So that is STRIKING evidence. Nice. Homology is one of the main tenets that proponents of evolution use to sustain their neodarwinian fantasy of common descent.....

But lets continue.

This conserved β-barrel, bacterial-type channel now forms the outer-chloroplast-envelope import channel. The TOC75 homologue in cyanobacteria, SynToc75 seems to be indispensable for growth67,68. A β-barrel ion channel has, in most cases, no strong preference for the direction of ion permeation and therefore represents an ideal starting point to build a translocon. Subunits that convey the specificity and directionality of transport are eukaryotic additions, for example, the TOC34 receptor and the TOC159 motor.

But, what formed the translocon of the inner chloroplast envelope (TIC)? There is no detectable homologue for the putative TIC110 channel, and the putative second channel subunit TIC20 shows only a low homology to bacterial proteins.

Maybe the early endosymbiont continued to use bacterial export systems in reverse, such as the secretory pathway (SEC), the twin-arginine translocon (TAT) system or the albino3 (ALB3) homologue YIDC8,10.Therefore, the TIC translocon — including the adaptation of chaperones in the stroma to provide the driving force for import — could have been an invention of the endosymbiont.

Now look that massive idiocy. Rather than admit that the evidence falsifies the endosymbiont theory, because there are no homologs in all protein complexes, they come up with a just so story, namely that the translocon could have been a " invention " of the endosymbiont. What they conveniently dismiss and do not inform is, that TIC and TOC translocon cellwall gates are extremely complex by their own, and even more to be synthesized, and massive precise genetic information is required to make them, and to instruct the cell how to build them. Not a easy task that mindless processes could " invent ".

Now , that is a perfect example of pseudo science. They just make things up with wishy washy just so guesswork arguments, and they pass this information in that manner because most readers are nonthinking idiots which buy and swallow anything that comes from Nature magazine......it must be true because it comes from " serious " peer reviewed " papers, LOL.......

Fact is, there are many line of reasons why the endosymbiosis theory is bogus, the above is just of one of it. These import channels are of extreme specificity and complexity, and work in a highly sophisticated communication system together with the transit peptides that have a signal upon which they can pass the gate or not. That communication system cannot arise by natural means alone as it depends on a prestablished signal convention. All communication systems we know of come from a mind.

Please spare me with your ignorance that there is no evidence for a creator !!.

Quote:I'm sick to death of dealing with regurgitated bullshit, from answering a question

Then don't..... Why are you spending time to justify what you do not believe anyway?? Makes no sense to me. [/quote]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2015, 04:13 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(16-08-2015 10:51 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 10:36 PM)morondog Wrote:  I wouldn't worship your disgusting God. I would accept that he existed though. However
  • You have no proof of design in nature, not even vaguely plausible. Copy-pasting bullshit from your website and calling it rock-solid evidence doesn't change that. Also, no matter how you try to dodge with stupid cartoons (which you no doubt think are very witty), if you cannot provide peer-reviewed papers from acceptable journals supporting your position, you might as well be describing the tooth-fairy for all the "science" you're doing.
  • You have no link from your designer to the Christian God.
Your whole little side discussion is pointless anyway.

These are also points worth making.

I would not worship the Christian God. If the Old Testament - and even some bits of the New - is accurate, I would, in fact, actively despise him. Assuming that the Bible is exaggerated and twisted, however, and he's actually quite a nice chap, I might be convinced to admire him. The whole concept of worship, though, is rather demeaning and repulsive when you think about it.

And yes, even assuming that you can provide irrefutable evidence of irreducible complexity, all that you've proven is that certain preconceptions about the origins of life are false. Certain things being impossible to produce through evolution does not indicate that there is a designer, and even granting that you can produce evidence of a designer, you still have not provided any evidence linking that to your god.

Your argument falls at the first hurdle, because it cannot prove its basic premise - that irreducibly complex systems exist - but even if it didn't, it would still be pathetically incompetent and completely irrational.

There is nothing more joyful than to praise the lord, upon which i have been saved and received his grace and love.

Christ Crucified Is God’s Power and Wisdom
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2015, 04:16 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 04:13 AM)Godexists Wrote:  There is nothing more joyful than to praise the lord, upon which i have been saved and received his grace and love.

Christ Crucified Is God’s Power and Wisdom
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

There is nothing more joyful than to spout bullshit, when you cannot answer the charges. Fuck you evangelical nobs really are a bunch of twits.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
17-08-2015, 04:19 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 04:13 AM)Godexists Wrote:  These are also points worth making.

No. They are the contradictory rantings of a delusional fool.

(17-08-2015 04:13 AM)Godexists Wrote:  There is nothing more joyful than to praise the lord, upon which i have been saved and received his grace and love.

So. You're a hedonist, and do only that which give you the most pleasure.

(17-08-2015 04:13 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Christ Crucified Is God’s Power and Wisdom
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

So you admit your creationist bullshit is foolishness. Facepalm

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
17-08-2015, 04:30 AM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2015 04:51 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  No, you have not. You have dodged conveniently all posts of mine, that provided you with hard evidence of creation.

(16-08-2015 06:32 AM)Godexists Wrote:  A irreducible complex system can indeed change over time. Thats called micro evolution.

You are the one that is dodging. You have effectively admitted to what we are telling you, that a system can change over time. Yet you completely ignore the point that there is no difference between macro and micro evolution.

You have to do this otherwise you will have to go one step further and admit that we are right that a system can change completely. Yet you have absolutely no reason, nor have even argued any reason, why your so-called micro-evolution should be limited in its scope.

This is why you have changed tack to posting silly cartoons and then using the No True Scotsman fallacy when talking about Christianity in general rather than continuing on with the science. Because you cannot continue with your defence of IC and have lost the argument.


(17-08-2015 03:57 AM)Godexists Wrote:  First of all, you do NOT know how macro evolution works.

You do not know how evolution works.

There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution.

Evolution works in small steps because the chance of any step being detrimental to the fitness of an organism increases the larger the step. This is not just theory, this is practice. I have been using genetic algorithms and evolutionary algorithms myself since 1996 and have performed literally thousands of runs. I can attest that to get them to work, you need to design them so the smallest possible changes can be made. This does not mean that the solution that you are evolving is limited in how much it can change, on the contrary it means that you are less likely to hit a local maxima early on which would otherwise end the evolutionary run.

So to use your parlance, you need micro-evolution to achieve macro-evolution.

[Image: xWpvw.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Mathilda's post
17-08-2015, 05:31 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 04:13 AM)Godexists Wrote:  “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

When you post stuff like this, it demonstrates that the writers of the bible knew that their belief system was so stupid that it had to have a disclaimer about, even though it's stupid, it's really smart. It's god-smart!

It's so fucking clever, that people that see through Christianity's bullshit are really foolish.

But go right ahead with your denigrating bible verses, show us how Christians really are.

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
17-08-2015, 06:10 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 04:30 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Yet you completely ignore the point that there is no difference between macro and micro evolution.

Facepalm

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...ution#1982

Micro evolution and speciation is a fact. Macro change from one kind to the other in long periods of time, the change of body plans over a long period of time, is not a fact, not even a theory, or even a hypothesis. Its just fantasy without a shred of evidence. Show me some examples of observed facts; please provide and give me empirical data of a unorganized undirected unguided Neo-Darwinian accidental random macro-evolutionary event of a change/transition, where one "kind" can evolve into another beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) , like a organism randomly changing/transition into a whole entire different, new fully functioning biological features in an organism, the emergence of new complex functions, a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy, with the arise of new body plans, wings, eyes, lungs, gills, sexual gender, transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, the arise of photosynthesis and nitrogenase in cyanobacteria; something that we merely don't have to just put blind faith in?

Stephen C Meyer , Darwin's doubt pg.218:

Contemporary critics of neo-Darwinism acknowledge, of course, that preexisting forms of life can diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and genetic mutation. Known microevolutionary processes can account for small changes in the coloring of peppered moths, the acquisition of antibiotic resistance in different strains of bacteria, and cyclical variations in the size of Galápagos finch beaks. Nevertheless, many biologists now argue that neo-Darwinian theory does not provide an adequate explanation for the origin of new body plans or events such as the Cambrian explosion. For example, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson, formerly of Yale University, has expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate by minor changes at the genetic level. Geneticist George Miklos, of the Australian National University, has argued that neo- Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and structure. Biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff have attempted to develop a new theory of evolution to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argue, cannot adequately explain large-scale macroevolutionary change. As they note:

Starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its neo-Darwinism's adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species—Darwin's problem—remains unsolved."


http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...etics#3674

Stephen C Meyer , Darwin's doubt pg.218:

Contemporary critics of neo-Darwinism acknowledge, of course, that preexisting forms of life can diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and genetic mutation. Known microevolutionary processes can account for small changes in the coloring of peppered moths, the acquisition of antibiotic resistance in different strains of bacteria, and cyclical variations in the size of Galápagos finch beaks. Nevertheless, many biologists now argue that neo-Darwinian theory does not provide an adequate explanation for the origin of new body plans or events such as the Cambrian explosion. For example, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson, formerly of Yale University, has expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate by minor changes at the genetic level. Geneticist George Miklos, of the Australian National University, has argued that neo- Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and structure. Biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff have attempted to develop a new theory of evolution to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argue, cannot adequately explain large-scale macroevolutionary change. As they note:

Starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its neo-Darwinism's adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species—Darwin's problem—remains unsolved."

pg. 204

Genes alone do not determine the three-dimensional form and structure of an animal. so-called epigenetic information—information stored in cell structures, but not in DNA sequences—plays a crucial role. The Greek prefix epi means "above" or "beyond," so epigenetics refers to a source of information that lies beyond the genes. "Detailed information at the level of the gene does not serve to explain form." "epigenetic" or "contextual information" plays a crucial role in the formation of animal "body assemblies" during embryological development.

Recent discoveries about the role of epigenetic information in animal development pose a formidable challenge to the standard neo-Darwinian account of the origin of these body plans—perhaps the most formidable of all. "the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution," it has "no theory of the generative." neo-Darwinism "completely avoids the question of the origination of phenotypic traits and of organismal form." 1

Neo-Darwinism lacks an explanation for the origin of organismal form precisely because it cannot explain the origin of epigenetic information.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2015, 06:14 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 04:30 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  First of all, you do NOT know how macro evolution works.

The ones that make the assertion to know show only their ignorance on the matter.

NOBODY knows the mechanism of macro change.

How Does Evolution Supposedly Work?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...sedly-work

EVEN PROPONENTS OF EVOLUTION ADMIT TO NOT KNOWING HOW EVOLUTION SUPPOSEDLY WORKS:

“Although the vast majority of research in evolutionary biology is focused on adaption, a general theory for the population-genetic mechanisms by which complex adaptations are acquired remains to be developed.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., “Scaling expectations for the time to establishment of complex adaptations”, September 7, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.1010836107.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/0...7.abstract
“Students should realize that although virtually all scientists accept the general concept of evolution of species, scientists do have different opinions on how fast and by what mechanisms evolution proceeds.”
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Educational Benchmarks, (F) Evolution of Life
http://www.project2061.org/publications/.../ch5.htm#F
“Scientists are still uncovering the specifics of how, when, and why evolution produced the life we see on Earth today.”
Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History’s website, “Foundational Concepts: Evolution” page
http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/geotime/mai...life3.html
“But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that’s not an easy job.”
University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...0_0/evo_50
“Much of the recent experimental work on natural selection has focused on three goals: determining how common it is, identifying the precise genetic changes that give rise to the adaptations produced by natural selection, and assessing just how big a role natural selection plays in a key problem of evolutionary biology—the origin of new species.”
Scientific American Magazine, “The Evolution of Evolution: Testing Natural Selection with Genetics”, December 18, 2008.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=test...print=true
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: