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: 31
28
<< 28  29  30   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Because it is correctly an amide bond. A peptide is connected by amide bonds. Yes they can be used interchangeably, but they are still aminde bonds. Cross linking in a protein or peptide is not an aminde usually. A chemist would know this. Its first year organic nomenclature.

So I am not back tracking. YOU are not a scienst. Chances are you teach science, to kids, in a religious school.

You are correct I made a mistake with amino acids vs base pairs. I am due my afternoon coffee, after not sleeping with a sick child to comfort. It however does not mean your paper shows you anything. Beyond what they thought in 1983.

Further If you really want to say someone is looking stupid. You are talking about Bisphosphoglycerate mutase (aka BPGM not 2,3-BPG (which is a chemical)
edit on 12-8-2019 by Noinden because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 10:32 PM
link   
from the opening post

a reply to: cooperton

snip


So, if we can find examples of functions that rely on other functions, organs that relies on another organs, cells that rely on other cells, etc, then we can demonstrate clearly that evolutionary theory is invalid. The examples I am about to show are some of the countless mechanisms in biological organisms that fall under this category called "irreducibly complex".
snip


Irreducibly complex was a term coined by some IDiots, anyways the lies were exposed here. More about head IDiot michael behe here which includes him showing himself up in court. The irreducibly complex nonsense is taken apart moreso here oooh videos


So no, it's not time for us to start thinking past evolution.



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

So lets talk Peptide Bond Formation. It s a condensation reaction (meaning it will result in a water molecule being generated for every bond formed)

A chemist would know that every reaction (spontaneous or not) has an activation energy. The formation of a peptide to form an maide bond consumes energy. Said energy in a cell, is derived from ATP (Adenosine triphosphate). Anyone who has taken some biochemistry knows that ATP is what provides energy in the cell. There is nothing special, about the ATP requirement. This is simple thermodynamics. End of story. Bond formation (assembly) requires energy, in the cell this has evolved to be provided by ATP. Again your lack of education in sciences is showing.



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Y'all might want to try reading up on the gene you are waving around here neighbour. Like I said you cited an old (1983) paper. Like I said, its not showing what you think it is.

Similarly I am not sure you know the difference between a gene, and an enzyme, or the chemicalwhich it makes.

So lets make it simple is BPGM the gene or the enzyme? Which chromosome is the gene found in for Homo sapiens?



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 04:37 AM
link   

edit on 13-8-2019 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: contextual

Irreducibly complex was a term coined by some IDiots


Well then you must be the super-genius that has found a mechanism for how interdependent components could have evolved in synchrony! Please show me the empirical evidence that shows this possibility so I may go and change my mind.


originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Because it is correctly an amide bond. A peptide is connected by amide bonds. Yes they can be used interchangeably


Then why did you say this a couple pages back:


originally posted by: Noinden

A peptide, or more correctly AMIDE bond formation


You can't even keep up with your own head, let alone keep up with a conversation. You claimed my sources did not back up my claim, but they did. the information about bisphosophgylcerate mutase that I posted was only meant to show the base pair length, so yes, it showed exactly what I wanted to show. So did the other links. The rest of your posts are ramblings that have nothing to do with the conversation.


edit on 14-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You've asked this I answered. IF you were a chemist you would know. QED You are not trained in chemistry Bryan.



posted on Aug, 14 2019 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You've asked this I answered. IF you were a chemist you would know. QED You are not trained in chemistry Bryan.


I have no idea what you are talking about. Get it together man. No one's out to get you.

The fact is, nucleic acid chains don't spontaneously polymerize into protein-coding length strands. It has never been observed. It does not happen. Evolution is a lie.
edit on 14-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2019 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Thanks for confirming. You do not know wjhat you are talking about neighbour.'

SO lets make it easy for you, because you made it easy for me.

(a) You got uppity over me insisting that a bond between two amino acids, is most correctly an Aminde bond (it is), it is acceptable to call it a peptide bond. But since you decided to sya that its not an amide bond, I decided to go IUPAC on your arse.

(b) You just switched int talking about nucleic acids. Which is a non sequitur for the discussion of protien bonds.

(c) You don't understand Macromolecules.

(d) Nothing you have shown invalidatesw evolution. You and your cabal are stuck on abiogenesis, yet attacking Evolution. This illustrates your lack of critical thinking.

Cheers Bryan thans for playing.

Slan leat



posted on Aug, 15 2019 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Thanks for confirming. You do not know wjhat you are talking about neighbour.'


I was referring to your paranoia about a guy named Bryan. It's freaky.


But since you decided to sya that its not an amide bond


I never said it wasn't an amide bond. I said it is more accurate to call a polymerizing polypeptide a peptide bond. That is true. This all started because I correctly cited a paper to support my claim that bisphosphoglycerate mutase has over 750 base pairs. Which I cited correctly.

You constantly have to side-track with appeals to semantics to avoid the fact that you are wrong.
edit on 15-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

No you balked at the idea. You said it was not an amide bond but a peptide one. Which means you have no back ground in chemistry. Which is evidenced by your illiteracy in the language

End of story.



posted on Aug, 20 2019 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

When your wrong, semantic gymnastics is all you have left to fight with, and hope people will side with your perspective, if you can build a case that sounds plausible the crew that has a bias will always support it.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 28  29  30   >>

log in

join