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: 30
28
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

You can't read.

I said phrase your question as a question. One that is actually intelligable.

You are shifting the goal posts. Now its about prediction being a problem. Yet you started it talking about a theoretical, element. Make you your mind.

Oh and you did not provide answers. Oh and dismissing my answer to your poorly formed question as rambling really shows you are not understanding what you asked.

So until you reframe the question, or show why a theroretical element was important (a paper will do). No. I'm not going to answer. Because I am pretty sure you don't know what the answer is, but you have something to cut and paste, to my hand typed answers.




posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I provided you with all the information you needed to answer specific questions the element 173 was just random because of the questions I could have chosen many others the answers would be the same if I had...
The last question which the answer has not been provided for you has something to do with information you have introduced as having full knowledge of...
This is why you have been asked this question...
So know you are the one being made fun of but in a much different way than with lame unrealistic insults...
I’m on my phone so not writing by hand I never cite anything because anything I ever say on here is just from memory...

Oh and I know you didn’t provide any of the answer to my questions I did after you rambled on about the information you were given to answer the questions I did ask...
edit on 11-8-2019 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 09:08 PM
link   


Yikes well I hope the best for you. Be careful with judging others, it returns to you like a boomerang.
a reply to: cooperton

Says the guy who has been boomeranged a thousand times.

You have no evidence. You have no credibility. Get over it. Or get a pill. The pill is probably a better option.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

You have no evidence. You have no credibility.


That is a lie. I cite my claims with evidence, as shown in these posts:


originally posted by: cooperton

Every experiment that has experimented with artificial selection is an attempt to evolve a species. None have succeeded, which you mistake as them never trying. Just like antibiotic resistance in microbes - they originally claimed to have evolved an organism, but the trait was actually reversible in just a few generations, demonstrating it was not evolution.

antibiotic resistance is quickly reversible


originally posted by: cooperton

2,3-BPG is no easy protein to code for either. It is over 750 base pairs (citation) (DNA units) in length.


originally posted by: cooperton

peptide bonds are by definition non-spontaneous, because they require ATP... Spontaneous reactions don't require external energy. Non-spontaneous reactions do. A Peptide bond is a dehydration synthesis reaction:

"A dehydration synthesis is an endergonic (or 'energy in') type of reaction that cannot take place without the input of energy from somewhere else. It is non-spontaneous, and by the second law of thermodynamics will not take place on its own."

source




You stopped responding about spontaneous reactions because you realized you were wrong. You've now given up on debating with me, and instead resort to baseless claims.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

You really are missing the point. I asked Coop directly, a question, that a chemist would have learned in either their first or second year of ecducation. In compulsory classes. You however mixed and matched stuff, and did not read what I said in return.

But one more time. Don't like it, refute it. Point by point, with citations.

I typed this, not cut and pasted it. I also did it based on my education, then looked for conformation I was correct. Oh and lastly. This is Biochemistry, not chemistry, just incase you try to get funny here. It is also not genetyics. Genetics would be interested in Primary structures of nucleic acids.


Can you answer this question? At approximately element 173 it becomes almost impossible based on its sequence and environment to predict the tertiary secondary and quaternary structure of a polyribonucleic acid sequence? What RNA process is this question dealing with? What are the electrons doing that makes this prediction a problem?

Above is what was asked. Verbatim. It is clearly a snipe hunt. To try and distract, or perhaps more.

We start with a non-sequitur factoid from theoretical atomic theory. Its also stated as a question. It’s a statement. Its also nonsensical. Because the shell structure of element 173 has nothing to do with the structure of RNA (so called a polyribonucleic acid, oh but no one ever calls it that, its RNA, if you are talking about monomers, you use the name of the individual nucleic acids (guanine, uracil, adenine, and cytosine). It would be like someone calling water “dihydrogen monoxide”. Non one in science does that, unless they are being silly.

Next was apparently the question. About a polyribonucleic acid (telling me this was cut and paste, not typed directly). But it was a cut and paste job from two places I am guessing.
As you go from Primary structure to quaternary structure, its like going from a fine up close focus on a microscope, to a far shot with binoculars. Primary structure quite literally (as I have said) is what nucleic acids are involved. Primary structure is your genetic code laid bare.
Secondary structure is based on through space interactions such as base pairing (uracil and adenine always pair up, and thymine and guanine always form up). These interactions are hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonding is always weak, when compared to covalent bonds.

Now the structure of RNA and DNA is different. The ribose in RNA (its what the R stands for) has an extra OH (and hence more hydrogen bonding chances) than the deoxyribose in DNA (Deoxy, means with out oxygen, its an OH less than ribose). This is best seen with DNA almost always forming a double helix, and RNA almost always forming a single strang. As a consequence RNA actually has more forms it can take, making it harder to predict.

Tertiary structure is governed by geometrical and steric (space) constraint. You get a handedness (ones natural one is not) you get the length of helix turn in DNA etc. In RNA you can have triplexes (not just double helices). So while this is getting less defined, it is getting more complex. We for example know what the codes for each amino acid in DNA. So TGT, TGC both code for Cystine (for example). Its simple, its predictable. Though its reading a book one letter at a time in many ways. But now at tertiary structure, for RNA you have multiple shapes it can take (because in part of the secondary structure, but also other reasons, like steric hinderance). So we only can be about 75% accurate with predicting RNA tertiary structure. (1) Even our computers struggle to do this.

Lastly Quaternary structure. A fuzzy snap shot of the RNA or DNA from a far, you are looking at the level of a ribosme here.

But if you really are interested. Try reading the next citation. (2) But quick summary, its not almost impossible to predict secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures in RNA. That is a miss statement. It is increasingly difficult to do so. The electrons from the extra OH in ribose, is what lends us to this problem, as it makes the options for secondary and tertiary structure more complex (which in turn makes the quaternary more complex).

Works Cited
1. Walter, A.E., et al. "Coaxial stacking of helixes enhances binding of oligoribonucleotides and improves predictions of RNA folding". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1994,
2. Li, H., et al. Characteristics and Prediction of RNA Structure. Biomed Res Int. 2014.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Oh and lastly. I noticed you went to the accusation my replies were Phages. Then stopped. This confirmed you tried to set up a snipehunt up.

Word to the wise, most of us you are arguing with, know how to do our own research.

In the words of S J TUcker.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I didn’t say your replies were from Phage go find where I said that...
You can’t get anything straight...
No need to refute the information you just introduced because it didn’t answer the question...
And I already said what type of chemistry it is and more...



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle



You most certainly did imply the replies were not mine.


a reply to: Noinden

Why did you give phage a star for doubting the speed of light being exceeded?
How many times did you pm phage to get involved for clues so you could search for the answer?
Why didn’t you know that the question was about RNA folding?
Why didn’t you know what the electron was doing?
And why is this a problem for the prediction?



You did not ask an intelligible question, so don't moan you did not get an answer back. I also in hind sight answered your questions. In my so called ramble. You don't know your arse from your elbows as evidenced below.

It was multiple electrons. I am pretty sure there are no radical reactions involved here. The interactiosn are non bonding, through space hydrogen bonding ones. Not single electrons, but many. Because RNA is a macromolecule.

I mentioned RNA folding. What do you think tertiary structure is? Don't tell me you just scanned and looked for the word? Thats not very systematic


Oh and Biochemistry is not chemistry. Its also erroneously known as molecular biology. But no its a separate discipline. The difference between biochemistry and chemistry boils down to the emphasis in each:

Chemistry generally looks at small molecules.
Biochemistry generally looks (when yuou are talking the chemistry side of it) very large ones.

So yes I have qualifications in both. I work in the field of chemsitry however.
edit on 11-8-2019 by Noinden because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2019 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

This is the same garbage you make up as you go along. You have no evidence. You pick and choose pieces of a research paper with zero context. It's your opinion. You have no evidence. You only have an opinion. And your opinion is DEAD WRONG.



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I read the paper, and a couple others, regarding bacterial resistance. They are all quoting epigenetic resistance, which I’m sure you know does not affect the actual genome of the organism, just it’s genetic expression. As soon as the environmental change is removed the bacteria revert back to their original state in most cases. This does not disprove evolution. In fact, it confirms it.

This is taken from a repeat study of the same experiment:



Conclusion: In this report we describe the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria mediated by the epigenetic inheritance of variant gene expression patterns. This provides proof in principle that epigenetic inheritance, as well as DNA mutation, can drive evolution.

bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com...

cooperton, you have to get serious now and stop this nonsense. By trying to disprove a process - even if you actually manage to achieve this, which you haven’t - does not mean that the explanation reverts to creation by default. Creation is fiction.

Prove creation. Don’t try to disprove the natural world.



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: TerraLiga



Prove creation.


You first.

Prove non-living matter evolved into the modern human today.

Not a theory, but empirical believable scientific proof, not might have, should have, could have, but real proof.
edit on 12-8-2019 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You have no evidence. You pick and choose pieces of a research paper with zero context.


You are still lying. And unlike you when you claim I am lying, I actually have samples to prove you are being dishonest. Below are all 3 examples where I properly cite evidence and explain the context of how it fits my point:


originally posted by: cooperton

Every experiment that has experimented with artificial selection is an attempt to evolve a species. None have succeeded, which you mistake as them never trying. Just like antibiotic resistance in microbes - they originally claimed to have evolved an organism, but the trait was actually reversible in just a few generations, demonstrating it was not evolution.

antibiotic resistance is quickly reversible


originally posted by: cooperton

2,3-BPG is no easy protein to code for either. It is over 750 base pairs (citation) (DNA units) in length.


originally posted by: cooperton

peptide bonds are by definition non-spontaneous, because they require ATP... Spontaneous reactions don't require external energy. Non-spontaneous reactions do. A Peptide bond is a dehydration synthesis reaction:

"A dehydration synthesis is an endergonic (or 'energy in') type of reaction that cannot take place without the input of energy from somewhere else. It is non-spontaneous, and by the second law of thermodynamics will not take place on its own."

source



That is how real scientific discussion happens. You ran away from the conversation regarding reaction spontaneity because you realized you were wrong. You came back a couple pages later insulting me without context. It's a lame game you play. Phantom indeed, disappearing and reappearing, yet never having actual substance.


originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

I read the paper, and a couple others, regarding bacterial resistance. They are all quoting epigenetic resistance, which I’m sure you know does not affect the actual genome of the organism, just it’s genetic expression. As soon as the environmental change is removed the bacteria revert back to their original state in most cases. This does not disprove evolution. In fact, it confirms it.



No because there are no new genes being formed through mutations, it is just an increased expression of a detox pump. It's not evolution. It uses mechanisms that are already existent in the genome. Which is exactly my point. No novel genes created through random mutations, and microbes remain microbes.
edit on 12-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Did you read the papers you cited?

Lets start with that last one. To begin with, its not a citation, its a low level page, from a college. Surely you could find an actual citation? Anyhow you are confusing kinetic and thermal stability here.

A peptide, or more correctly AMIDE bond formation, generates a more stable bond. The universe leans towards thermal stability. Thermodynamics beats kinetics. Someone trained in chemistry would get why its more stable. You do understand resonance right? All reactions, spontaneous or not, require the energy of activation to be provided, again thats thermodyanmics bucko.

Next (and still working backwards) the paper you cited (which is from 1983) does not support what you are saying. In 1983, it was (I am told) a pain in the rear to sequence proteins, just like it was DNA. Oh and 750 base pairs is nothing. But no where do they talk about the ease of coding the protien. A chemist would have read that. I am pretty sure you did not even read the abstract (in italics under here)

The complete amino acid sequence of human erythrocyte diphosphoglycerate mutase, comprising 239 residues, was determined. The sequence was deduced from the four cyanogen bromide fragments, and from the peptides derived from these fragments after digestion with a number of proteolytic enzymes. Comparison of this sequence with that of the yeast glycolytic enzyme, phosphoglycerate mutase, shows that these enzymes are 477o identical. Most, but not all, of the residues implicated as being important for the activity of the glycolytic mutase are conserved in the erythrocyte diphosphoglycerate mutase. Key words: bisphosphoglycerate/2,3-diphosphoglycerate/ mutase/sequence/synthase

Ok lastly your first paper. Lets see, The abstract states indeed that they have found in the lab that antibiotic resistance is reversible when the antibiotics are removed. But you misrepresent the experiment as an attempt to create a new species, they also state (I am bolding it) H"... the precise mechanisms by which inheritance and variability govern adaptive resistance, and what processes cause its reversibility remain unclear.". If you had read the whole paper (look at the Figure 4 text) "... This shows that hte evolutionary process does not reach a stationary state (or a fixed point) in the presence of antibiotic." no where do they state that this is not evolutionary. You are adding that, from your conformation bias.

In the discussion section they state ""...In this study we present a theoretical framework that identifies the essential mechanisms for the emergence, evolution and reversibility of adaptive resistance."

Quite a lot of use of the word Evolution there neighbour.

Now poking around other publications (becaue you are picking and choosing, and thats not scientific). Another paper was published around the time of the one you cited (its as if you did not do the leg work). It points out that in practice the reversibility of antibiotic resistance (which would help the species, given we are running out of antibiotics for some infections, and I see almost no new antibiotics being made, most of the contracts we sign up to at work, are trying for different classes of anti microbial chemicals) is not easy in practice. But again, there is no mention of this, invalidating evolution, or even hinting at that. I am sure you will claim it is scientists hiding from the truth. Again your conformation bias is showing.

Using Google scholar (as I am sure you do not have access to Scifidner or other search engines). There are about 333 results for the exact phrase (with the "') "antibiotic resistance" and "evolution".

Have fun, finding your papers to "prove" your strange ideas.



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Uh uh. Coop and you lot keep saying that evolution has to handle how life started. WE keep going over this.

Evolution is how life changes. Not how it started. It is a theory in science, meaning it has proof enough to be tested.

Coop started this thread (named Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible) meaning he is after evolution, not one of the biogenic hypotheses. You can't shift the goal posts, no matter how much you try. The thread names evolution, thus that is where it stays.

TerraLiga is asking Coop to prove his stance of "God did it". He can't.



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden

A peptide, or more correctly AMIDE bond formation


Bad start for you. Peptide bonds refer to the formation of polypeptides, whereas amide bonds usually refer to shorter length strands. Considering I was referring to long functional protein sequences (polypeptides), peptide bond is more correct.



The universe leans towards thermal stability.


Last I checked the universe leans towards increasing entropy. Peptide bonds breaking increases entropy, whereas peptide bonds forming decreases entropy. Therefore, the universe leans towards peptide bonds breaking, and therefore would not lean towards spontaneous polypeptide formation.


Someone trained in chemistry would get why its more stable.


You have an unhealthy obsession with your degree. Get over your self.




Next (and still working backwards) the paper you cited (which is from 1983) does not support what you are saying.


No it said exactly what I wanted it to say. I used it to support the claim:

"(2,3-BPG) is over 750 base pairs (DNA units) in length. "

Which is what the paper said.



But no where do they talk about the ease of coding the protien.


I did not use it to support such a claim



But you misrepresent the experiment as an attempt to create a new species


No the paper discussed that antibiotic resistance, which was initially thought to be an evolved trait, was actually just an increase of expression of a particular detox pump. I used it as an example to show that organisms do not evolve outside of their genetic bounds. Which is exactly the implications of that paper



"... This shows that hte evolutionary process does not reach a stationary state (or a fixed point) in the presence of antibiotic." no where do they state that this is not evolutionary.


Of course they don't. Don't you understand yet? You can't get published if you defy evolution, that's how the evolutionist cabal self-perpetuates, despite all the evidence that shows it is impossible. The evolutionist cabal doesn't allow any dissenting opinion, but the empirical evidence speaks for itself if you know how to interpret it.


The thread names evolution, thus that is where it stays.


Abiogenesis is also irreducibly complex. Meaning that the spark of life would have required all components to be present for a lifeform to function, because it cannot survive without all necessary functions. Even the most basic bacterium has a laundry list of required proteins, nucleic acid sequences, homeostatic mechanisms, metabolism, cell barrier, and so on.

Both evolution and abiogenesis are impossible.
edit on 12-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Once again you show you are not a chemist. Peptide bonds are amide bonds. I'm not sure you understand what you shared, you shared a paper on bond formation. QED we are thus talking about bonds. IF you want to talk about the macro molecule. Indeed to quote you directly "peptide bonds are by definition non-spontaneous" You are dodgint the thermodynamic stability. Because you don't know the difference between a kinetic product and a Thermodynamic one. So no, you are no chemist, its as if you are lying about your qualifications.YOU have claimed an education in Chemistry. Yet you can't even do the very basics of it. Where did you get your degree I wonder? You remind me of some of the creationists in Milwaukee



You then cite a paper to support your claim of 750 units being far too long to have evolved. It does NOT claim that. You need a paper to support that 750 base pairs is unimpeachable. Otherwise we assume you are asking this to be taken on faith. That is not how it works. To begin with, humans have around 3 billion base pairs. 750 is 0.000025% of that. Is that a lot? Nope.

You make statements about what can and can't get published. You don't know. You have never been published. On top of this, you act as though you've talked to the scientists. You can email them directly you know.

Oh and here we go, you are back to the abiogenesis talk, in an evolution thread.



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Oh and come now Bryan, you really are not doing a very good job here
If one claims a back ground in something, one should know the basics. Not Wikipedia it.



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton
Peptide bonds are amide bonds.


Yes but peptide bonds refer more specifically to a polymerizing polypeptide chain, which is what I was referring to initially. You are the one who tried to correct me saying it was more accurate to call it an amide bond. I wouldn't argue semantics, but you were the one who brought it up.

Are you sure you're a chemist? Because you keep getting this wrong




You then cite a paper to support your claim of 750 units being far too long to have evolved.


No, I told you I only cited that source to show how many base pairs were in its sequence. Nothing more, nothing less. You're creating a strawman argument.



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Once more with shifting the goal posts, when you can't make the kick. You said a peptide bond. Not anything else. It is still an amide bond. As a chemist would know. They are used interchangably. As a chemsit would know.

Oh and you don't have proof of your claim about 750 amino acids (even if you keep saying base pairs) being too much. You are just saying it is so. Provide evidence, or your argument is the statesman not me. You provided a paper for evidence, that is not so. It is also from as I said 1983, there are far more modern ones you could have cited. Not that you read it to begin with.



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton
You said a peptide bond. Not anything else. It is still an amide bond. As a chemist would know. They are used interchangably. As a chemsit would know.


Ok if they are interchangeable why did you say this:


A peptide, or more correctly AMIDE bond formation


???

Yet that statements not even true. Because as I said before, and will again, a peptide bond is usually in reference to polypeptide bonds, which is what I was referring to.

You were wrong initially, and now you're trying to backtrack, but you're still wrong.


Oh and you don't have proof of your claim about 750 amino acids (even if you keep saying base pairs)


Dude you keep making your self look silly to any scientists who is reading this. It was over 750 base pairs, not amino acids. There were around 239 amino acid residues according to the paper that I cited. This, when including the promoter region, start and stop codon, etc, will require over 750 base pairs. Not 750 amino acids.

Maybe I'm the idiot for wasting my time explaining this to you.
edit on 12-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join