The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2015, 06:16 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
Already answered Godexists on this thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 08:11 AM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2015 08:15 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(22-08-2015 05:33 AM)Godexists Wrote:  nobody to address this ?

Or how do proponents of evolution explain how natural selection would have favoured the emergence of Hsp70 chaperones, central components of the cellular network, proteins which assist a large variety of protein folding processes in the cell by transient association of their substrate binding domain with short hydrophobic peptide segments within their substrate proteins ? That is in our case, their function of which was to prevent a still-useless rubisco small subunit from folding outside the chloroplast? They are made, used during the synthesis process, and once Rubisco assembly has finished, these enzymes are discarted. This is very much a factory-like production and assembly-line process, using fully automatized and programmed nano-robot like molecular machines, namely enzymes. Most parts, if missing, render 1. the assembly of Rubisco impossible, and 2. Rubisco useless. Many parts, if missing render it not fully functional and defective. Beside the enzymes that have use in other biological systems, there would be no reason to make them unless all other parts were there too, and the assembly insctructions of Rubisco. As a analogy, if you had to make the implementation of a car factory, why would you make the assembly chain of a piston, if you do not have all the precise instructions to make 1. the car as a whole, and 2. the instructions of the precise shape and the materials required for the piston in particular, and how to mount it in the motor ? Thats precisely what happens in the cell . Evolution has no consciousness, and no forsight nor intelligence. But precisely that is required for PLANNING and make of blueprints. I cannot create a machine, without the precise drawing and project information in advance, which is required to make 1. the assembly tools 2. the subparts 2. the whole machine.

How do proponents of evolution explain how natural selection would have favoured a protein complex the function of which was to prevent a still-useless Rubisco small subunit from folding outside the chloroplast? Before it evolved a way to get the protein inside, there would be no benefit from keeping it unfolded outside. How could blind chance ‘know’ it needed to cause large subunit polypeptides to fold ‘correctly’ and to keep them from clumping? It could not ‘anticipate’ the ‘correct’ conformation before the protein became useful. And evolution would need to be clever indeed to chemically modify something not yet useful so that it could be folded ‘correctly’ when even the ‘correctly’ folded polypeptide would not yet become useful.

Only a designer would know why it would be necessary to produce a specialized protease, target it to the chloroplast, and program it to clip off the targeting sequence of the small subunit at just the right place. And what about the assembly of a collection of meaningless rubisco parts in just one certain way? In order to design a sophisticated set of tools to make something else useful in the future that had, as yet, no function, evolution (as ‘designer’) would have had to have detailed knowledge of the future usefulness of the protein it was so cleverly engineering. If evolution managed to generate any one of these chaperone protein complexes (and it would not), it would still be useless for generating rubisco unless all the other chaperones were also present. Without any one of them, the sixteen-unit complex could not be generated.

The short version, for those who don't science: a "protease" is a protein which breaks down large proteins into sub-units for various purposes. Proteases have evolved multiple times, and different classes of protease can perform the same reaction by completely different catalytic mechanisms. Proteases can be found in animals, plants, bacteria, archaea and viruses.

Protease often (as here) has to do with the process shuffling proteins (clipped to the lengths or shapes that are useful by other processes) around for new jobs in the cell, or in releasing them from the cell to do work in the body (often by incorporating part of the cell wall as a protective sheath so they're not destroyed in transport, a process that viruses often hijack in order to make new viruses).

As an "an Intelligent Designer did it" claim, RuBisCO is a terrible choice of example, as it is not very efficient in what it does (in evolution's common "good enough for the job" method of operating), and significant efforts are being made to make GMO crops that have a better version of RuBisCO.

As with most ID/IC claims, what he is doing is pretending that the steps in the process are an isolated thing, with no relation to other systems in the cell, past or present. In effect, he is laying this one process out on a rhetorical "table", and saying "these are the steps... using only what is on the table, now, you cannot take apart this process and have it still work". This is true on the tabletop, but it completely ignores how cells function and evolve in the real world, and is the reason ID claims fail when put under scrutiny, as in the bacterial flagellum motor example used in the Katzmiller case.

It is pointless to answer him about the evolution of RuBisCO, or any other part of the Krebs Cycle or the evolution of the process of carbon fixation, because even if you did all the (humongous amount) of work in pulling up the specific set of answers he is asking for, and listed out exactly the step-by-step process by which other systems were co-opted and/or altered to build the scaffolding for the bridge we currently observe (to keep using Mathilda's excellent metaphor), he will simply pretend you didn't answer his demand to explain the evolution of RuBisCO, and will move on to some other obscure protein or process.

It is called the "machine-gun tactic", and they use it because it works in a debate crowd, giving the illusion of erudition on the part of the ID proponent ("hey, he's talking about science-y stuff I don't understand... he must be on to something... and the other guy didn't answer... so that must mean he CAN'T answer!") to the Average Joe, and placing the scientist in the awkward position of choosing between standing in front of a series of rhetorical bullets that will ignore the answers actually given and will simply fire off the next round in a big game of "Gotcha!", and ignoring a known Creationist tactic of dishonest intent only to be seen as inept and/or wrong by the people who observe from outside.

It is so dishonest as a method it deserves to be in the Politics thread, or at least in a Used Car Salesman training video, but they use it because it does fool "most of the people, most of the time" (to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln).

"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
[+] 8 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
22-08-2015, 08:45 AM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2015 09:49 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(22-08-2015 05:33 AM)Godexists Wrote:  nobody to address this ?

Or how do proponents of evolution explain how natural selection would have favoured the emergence of Hsp70 chaperones, central components of the cellular network, proteins which assist a large variety of protein folding processes in the cell by transient association of their substrate binding domain with short hydrophobic peptide segments within their substrate proteins ? That is in our case, their function of which was to prevent a still-useless rubisco small subunit from folding outside the chloroplast? They are made, used during the synthesis process, and once Rubisco assembly has finished, these enzymes are discarted. This is very much a factory-like production and assembly-line process, using fully automatized and programmed nano-robot like molecular machines, namely enzymes. Most parts, if missing, render 1. the assembly of Rubisco impossible, and 2. Rubisco useless. Many parts, if missing render it not fully functional and defective. Beside the enzymes that have use in other biological systems, there would be no reason to make them unless all other parts were there too, and the assembly insctructions of Rubisco. As a analogy, if you had to make the implementation of a car factory, why would you make the assembly chain of a piston, if you do not have all the precise instructions to make 1. the car as a whole, and 2. the instructions of the precise shape and the materials required for the piston in particular, and how to mount it in the motor ? Thats precisely what happens in the cell . Evolution has no consciousness, and no forsight nor intelligence. But precisely that is required for PLANNING and make of blueprints. I cannot create a machine, without the precise drawing and project information in advance, which is required to make 1. the assembly tools 2. the subparts 2. the whole machine.

How do proponents of evolution explain how natural selection would have favoured a protein complex the function of which was to prevent a still-useless Rubisco small subunit from folding outside the chloroplast? Before it evolved a way to get the protein inside, there would be no benefit from keeping it unfolded outside. How could blind chance ‘know’ it needed to cause large subunit polypeptides to fold ‘correctly’ and to keep them from clumping? It could not ‘anticipate’ the ‘correct’ conformation before the protein became useful. And evolution would need to be clever indeed to chemically modify something not yet useful so that it could be folded ‘correctly’ when even the ‘correctly’ folded polypeptide would not yet become useful.

Only a designer would know why it would be necessary to produce a specialized protease, target it to the chloroplast, and program it to clip off the targeting sequence of the small subunit at just the right place. And what about the assembly of a collection of meaningless rubisco parts in just one certain way? In order to design a sophisticated set of tools to make something else useful in the future that had, as yet, no function, evolution (as ‘designer’) would have had to have detailed knowledge of the future usefulness of the protein it was so cleverly engineering. If evolution managed to generate any one of these chaperone protein complexes (and it would not), it would still be useless for generating rubisco unless all the other chaperones were also present. Without any one of them, the sixteen-unit complex could not be generated.

sigh

same old blindfold of faith....

You can't look at what survived the evolutionary climb through time and say, "See! that is proof of a creator, for if Insert anything here wasnt designed just the way it is, BLANK wouldnt exist!" This would be persuasive if I was 10 yo. The problem is looking at things backwards gives one a skewed view. It isn't that BLANK exists reflects and proves a creator because it is made up the specific way it is. it is the indication that THIS BLANK exists because it successfully evolved, the millions that didn't, didn't make it. Another version of the Watchmaker argument. Rolleyes

"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
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
22-08-2015, 09:42 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(22-08-2015 05:33 AM)Godexists Wrote:  How do proponents of evolution explain how natural selection would have favoured a protein complex the function of which was to prevent a still-useless Rubisco small subunit from folding outside the chloroplast?

Argument from personal ignorance and incredulity again.

(22-08-2015 05:33 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Only a designer would know why it would be necessary to produce a specialized protease

Bare assertion, begging the question.

This is just getting rather sad now.

"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
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
22-08-2015, 10:02 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(22-08-2015 05:33 AM)Godexists Wrote:  nobody to address this ?

Don't you think it's ironic that you just ignored a couple pages of thread content in order to chastise us for ignoring a collection of blatant arguments from ignorance? Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Esquilax's post
23-08-2015, 09:47 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
The one thing that always bothers me when discussing these silly 'irreducibly complex' systems is that religious adherents are trying to impose their own absolutist worldview on those who do not share it. Religions have had most of human history to come up with answers. One would think that, by now, they would have had it all figured out. Every I dotted and every T crossed, but such is not the case. However, they always seem to say that if we can't give them an answer for everything then it invalidates the entire scientific mindset. So a system must have a ready answer in place at the outset for every conceivable question that may be put forth or be seen as invalid? Isn't your demand that science do so also a complete refutation of religious thought? You demand science do (in a couple hundred years) what you have been unable to do in thousands of years?
Just because I don't know all the answers doesn't mean I should stop asking questions. Just because there is no answer currently available doesn't mean that there is no answer discoverable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheWorkingMan'sIntellectual's post
24-08-2015, 12:57 AM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2015 01:03 AM by Banjo.)
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
Answered wrong thread. Ignore this post.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 01:00 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
Life was designed?

Oh, is that why 99.9% of all life that has ever existed on this planet is now extinct?

Some fucking designer... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
24-08-2015, 01:02 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
I think i answered the wrong thread???

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
24-08-2015, 02:18 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
Banjo's medicated again. Tongue

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: