It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

page: 21
28
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Hey, thanks for quoting my great posts that shows you have no argument




posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

Hey, thanks for quoting my great posts that shows you have no argument


Your language comprehension needs work.

Either you have the hard data or you don't. And you don't. Thanks for playing.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Scientists discuss/debate peer-reviewed evidence. In case you don't know what that is


Ugh, stop playing dodgeball. "in case you dont know what that is"... good one, you didn't read my post then, because I provided a peer-reviewed link about the structure of Bisphosphoglycerate mutase and explained why mechanistically it could not have come to be by random chance, especially at the perfect time to allow altitude acclimation.


But don't ask a scientist to "debate" something for which you have zero evidence.



Do you not believe in altitude acclimation, 2,3-BPG and Bisphosphoglycerate mutase? What do you mean zero evidence? Everything I posted was matter of fact science. There are many research papers on these components and physiological mechanisms.

biphosphoglycerate mutase

biphosphoglycerate mutase 2

biphosphoglycerate mutase 3


I am playing ball in your court, and you are refusing to play.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Is this your best example of creation? If not, I’d like to see it.

In answer to this one, altitude acclimation is not one type of evolution, but two. Tibetan and Andean populous’ developed their routes differently to each other. Why would a creation god need two different ways to solve one problem?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

What’s your next great creation proof?



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga

In answer to this one, altitude acclimation is not one type of evolution, but two. Tibetan and Andean populous’ developed their routes differently to each other. Why would a creation god need two different ways to solve one problem?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

What’s your next great creation proof?


What about that paper proves what you're saying? Do you know what an SNP is? They both use the same gene for altitude acclimation, despite being across the world from eachother. The subtle differences and allele distribution does not prove evolution by any means. Again, that would be like saying white and black people have taken different courses in evolution. That is not true, we all work off approximately the same genetic template, with variables based on environment, behaviors, etc. This variability cannot go outside the bound of the given genetic code. Humans remain human.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Have you read the paper before or did you read the whole thing in 12 minutes?

The paper goes a long way to prove that altitude acclimation occurred in two different and separated communities of human beings. Although they share some similarities (they both alter blood, so there have to be similarities), the chemical processes to alter red blood cells accordingly is different in both communities.

Evolution/adaptation has developed two different ways to cope with low oxygen content, unless you can explain why a creator needs two methods to do the same job?



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Scientists discuss/debate peer-reviewed evidence. In case you don't know what that is


Ugh, stop playing dodgeball. "in case you dont know what that is"... good one, you didn't read my post then, because I provided a peer-reviewed link about the structure of Bisphosphoglycerate mutase and explained why mechanistically it could not have come to be by random chance, especially at the perfect time to allow altitude acclimation.


But don't ask a scientist to "debate" something for which you have zero evidence.



Do you not believe in altitude acclimation, 2,3-BPG and Bisphosphoglycerate mutase? What do you mean zero evidence? Everything I posted was matter of fact science. There are many research papers on these components and physiological mechanisms.

biphosphoglycerate mutase biphosphoglycerate mutase 2 biphosphoglycerate mutase 3

I am playing ball in your court, and you are refusing to play.


And what is your objection to these papers? Was the lab work faulty? Was the design of the experiment bad? What exactly don't you agree with?



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


You are aware that the gene that allows Tibetan’s to easily acclimate to higher elevations is a direct result of Denisovan admixture right? The gene in Andean populations developed independently from those of Tibetans. Wouldn’t it have been easier for an omnipotent deity to just include that gene throughout the entirety of his creation?



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Have you read the paper before?

The paper goes a long way to prove that altitude acclimation occurred in two different and separated communities of human beings.


Have you read the paper? Both groups use the same gene. they were testing SNP's or "single nucleotide polymorphism", which means a point where there is a single nucleotide change in the sequence of the gene. It's still the same gene, just a different allele of expression for that gene. Some times it even has no effect on polypeptide sequence. You think that paper was saying that the protein necessary for altitude acclimation miraculously spawned from evolutionary randomness twice??? Not at all.



Evolution/adaptation has developed two different ways to cope with low oxygen content, unless you can explain why a creator needs two methods to do the same job?


Nope. Same gene loci, variable SNPs.

Next time you bring forth a paper, explain it in your own words. I take time out of my day to seriously respond to this stuff, but you're sending me irrelevant papers that don't say what you think they do.


originally posted by: peter vlar
The gene in Andean populations developed independently from those of Tibetans.


It hasn't even been proved once that a functioning novel protein can be made through supposed evolutionary mechanisms, let alone twice.
edit on 7-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Scientists discuss/debate peer-reviewed evidence. In case you don't know what that is


Ugh, stop playing dodgeball. "in case you dont know what that is"... good one, you didn't read my post then, because I provided a peer-reviewed link about the structure of Bisphosphoglycerate mutase and explained why mechanistically it could not have come to be by random chance, especially at the perfect time to allow altitude acclimation.


But don't ask a scientist to "debate" something for which you have zero evidence.



Do you not believe in altitude acclimation, 2,3-BPG and Bisphosphoglycerate mutase? What do you mean zero evidence? Everything I posted was matter of fact science. There are many research papers on these components and physiological mechanisms.

biphosphoglycerate mutase

biphosphoglycerate mutase 2

biphosphoglycerate mutase 3


I am playing ball in your court, and you are refusing to play.


Just out of idle curiosity, can you summarize this paper i.e. what is purpose of the paper and what the conclusions were. I'm particularly interested in the results and conclusion.
I'm not referring to the Abstract. I'm referring to the Conclusions as published in the paper. Thanks


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
edit on 7-8-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

Just out of idle curiosity, can you summarize this paper i.e. what is purpose of the paper and what the conclusions were. I'm particularly interested in the results and conclusion.
I'm not referring to the Abstract. I'm referring to the Conclusions as published in the paper. Thanks


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


You asked for papers about the bisphosphglycerate mutase so I gave you them.

Respond to my conclusions about the enzyme:

an adaptation mechanism involves many biological facets. Most commonly, they are epigenetic. Meaning that these adaptations involve turning genes up or down to accommodate various environmental cues. Take for example altitude acclimation, which requires a protein Bisphosphoglycerate mutase to increase expression and create 2,3-BPG to allow your body to adapt to the varying oxygen levels at high altitudes. So here's the dilemma for evolution: what came first, the desire to go to high altitudes, or the presence of Bisphosphoglycerate mutase to allow altitude acclimation? Without the protein that catalyzes 2,3-BPG formation, humans cannot survive high altitudes. And without proper epigenetic regulation, this thing will be too abundant or too sparse. So if some theoretical human decided to venture up a mountain, they would die without the enzyme to form 2,3-BPG. But how would that enzyme be coded for in the human genome if it were not needed? Do you suppose the genome would just pocket this enzyme just in case it was necessary later? Such is antithetical to natural selection.

This is no easy protein to code for either. It is over 750 base pairs (DNA units) in length. So how could all of these mutations have happened to eventually create this very specific protein, when it wasn't even needed until a human decided to climb to high altitudes?

Answer it on your own, you don't need to consult the paper gods.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Just out of idle curiosity, can you summarize this paper i.e. what is purpose of the paper and what the conclusions were. I'm particularly interested in the results and conclusion.
I'm not referring to the Abstract. I'm referring to the Conclusions as published in the paper. Thanks


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


You asked for papers about the bisphosphglycerate mutase so I gave you them.

Respond to my conclusions about the enzyme:

an adaptation mechanism involves many biological facets. Most commonly, they are epigenetic. Meaning that these adaptations involve turning genes up or down to accommodate various environmental cues. Take for example altitude acclimation, which requires a protein Bisphosphoglycerate mutase to increase expression and create 2,3-BPG to allow your body to adapt to the varying oxygen levels at high altitudes. So here's the dilemma for evolution: what came first, the desire to go to high altitudes, or the presence of Bisphosphoglycerate mutase to allow altitude acclimation? Without the protein that catalyzes 2,3-BPG formation, humans cannot survive high altitudes. And without proper epigenetic regulation, this thing will be too abundant or too sparse. So if some theoretical human decided to venture up a mountain, they would die without the enzyme to form 2,3-BPG. But how would that enzyme be coded for in the human genome if it were not needed? Do you suppose the genome would just pocket this enzyme just in case it was necessary later? Such is antithetical to natural selection.

This is no easy protein to code for either. It is over 750 base pairs (DNA units) in length. So how could all of these mutations have happened to eventually create this very specific protein, when it wasn't even needed until a human decided to climb to high altitudes?

Answer it on your own, you don't need to consult the paper gods.






You asked for papers about the bisphosphglycerate mutase so I gave you them.


Where exactly did I ask you about bisphosphglycerate mutase? And once again, what conclusions did this paper present?

"paper gods"? I thought you were going to discuss the science? Oh wait, you don't have any papers to discuss. I almost forgot that - until I downloaded the referenced paper above which is in JAPANESE.
edit on 7-8-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

One more question, while we're so deep into this conversation (I really need a martini).

I want to discuss why this step was necessary to the experiment. What's the relevance to high altitude and ligand binding?




2.1. Plasmid construction

Standard protocols were used to ligate the gene encoding human bisphosphoglycerate mutase into vector pET30b (Novagen) for expression of protein with a C-terminal hexahistidine tag. Primers were designed with 5′-GGAATTCCATATGTCCAAGTACAAAC-3′ as the forward primer and 5′-CCGCTCGAGTTTTTTAGCTTGTTTCACTTTTCC-3′ as the reverse primer to anneal to the gene encoding BPGAM, which was then amplified by PCR using Pfx polymerase (Invitrogen). The PCR product was blunt-cloned into pETBlue-1 and both strands were sequenced; the PCR product was then subcloned into pET30b at NdeI and XhoI (New England Biolabs) restriction sites. Correct insertion of the product was checked by performing restriction digests and sequencing of the coding region.


In case you lost the link (and you'll probably wish you had when I'm done with you), here it is:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
edit on 7-8-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Also in the future, it might be helpful is you referenced papers from the 21st century. Science does change rapidly after all and I wouldn't want to think that you were behind the learning curve, so-to-speak.


edit on 7-8-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton


You are aware that the gene that allows Tibetan’s to easily acclimate to higher elevations is a direct result of Denisovan admixture right? The gene in Andean populations developed independently from those of Tibetans. Wouldn’t it have been easier for an omnipotent deity to just include that gene throughout the entirety of his creation?





Please don't confuse him with the facts!

What you posted is very interesting, however. Do you have a link to an article about the independent development of the Andean gene? It sounds like evidence for common ancestry but evolutionary uniqueness in different populations.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

Yes, they have to have the right shape, size, angle and be expressed in the way that will allow the polypeptide chain to fit and fold correctly. All sequences don't fold into proteins.

Again, show me the evidence that these parts evolved.


Faith in a God is zero evidence. So with 360,000+ species of beetles we either have evolution or God really really loves beetles, which one is it? You also keep trying to match the "why" with the "how" as in evolution only tries to explain the how with intelligent design or not. If your argument is intelligent design made tiny machines that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution says that with those tiny machines you can make any kind of life and that is what we see, that is what evolution is all about. Evolution does not suggest where your tiny machines came from, and so the debate between intelligent design and randomness is a very different.


BTW thinks for the bold type... My very imperfect evolutionary eyes thank you.

edit on 7-8-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
Where exactly did I ask you about bisphosphglycerate mutase?


What are you even arguing?

You tried responding to this by saying I needed papers to support it, which I sent regarding its generic function (not really knowing what information you wanted?), and now am waiting on your response to this (let me know if you think any part of the empirical science is incorrect):

an adaptation mechanism involves many biological facets. Most commonly, they are epigenetic. Meaning that these adaptations involve turning genes up or down to accommodate various environmental cues. Take for example altitude acclimation, which requires a protein Bisphosphoglycerate mutase to increase expression and create 2,3-BPG to allow your body to adapt to the varying oxygen levels at high altitudes. So here's the dilemma for evolution: what came first, the desire to go to high altitudes, or the presence of Bisphosphoglycerate mutase to allow altitude acclimation? Without the protein that catalyzes 2,3-BPG formation, humans cannot survive high altitudes. And without proper epigenetic regulation, this thing will be too abundant or too sparse. So if some theoretical human decided to venture up a mountain, they would die without the enzyme to form 2,3-BPG. But how would that enzyme be coded for in the human genome if it were not needed? Do you suppose the genome would just pocket this enzyme just in case it was necessary later? Such is antithetical to natural selection.

This is no easy protein to code for either. It is over 750 base pairs (DNA units) in length. So how could all of these mutations have happened to eventually create this very specific protein, when it wasn't even needed until a human decided to climb to high altitudes?



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Oh, that’s such a shame this discovery is so worthless (hailed worldwide by non-creationists as definitive proof that fast gene adaptation is possible - only approx 3000 years in the Tibetan example). You had better call them and tell them that you think two different genomic evolutionary solutions to low oxygen environments is all a fuss about nothing.

Whatever you do don’t tell them about your YouTube degrees, and especially not about your creation bias.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

2,3-BPG is not a product of altitude acclimation, it is a product of regulation of oxygen in red blood cells, and thus has always been part of our and most mammalian genomes, but particularly ape, and therefore has had millions of years to evolve.
edit on 7-8-2019 by TerraLiga because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I never asked you about that. You posted three papers that have no relevance to anything. What's your point? I told you that I wasn't going to discuss anything that didn't have references. You gave three references but never explained why those papers are either wrong or support your position. I doubt that you even read them - you didn't know that one was in Japanese and you couldn't download it anyway. I was able to download and had it translated. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything you have discussed here. If those papers are relevant, to include the Japanese paper, then you must describe how they support your case.

I think once again you're taking research work completely out of context, creating a bogus story around it and expect no one to notice.

Explain in detail how those papers support whatever it is you're trying to sell.




edit on 7-8-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join