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.

 

Protein structures and intelligent design

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
The information below is from an old-earth creationist web-site which I highly recommend(believers and non). These men are real scientists, not the pseudo types that are often seen in the creationist set, and IMO they present a logical and scientific approach to intelligent design that both the believer and non believer can appreciate.Reasons To Believe



Protein Structures Reveal Even More Evidence for Design
By Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana, Ph.D.IN FULL HERE


Recent structural characterization of three proteins, RNA polymerase II, thioredoxin reductase (from E. coli), and chloroplast F1-F0 ATPase, provides exciting additional evidence for Design at the subcellular level.1, 2, 3 These three proteins possess, as part of their architectural make-up, components that are literally machine parts. These new discoveries add to the growing list of molecular motors (enzyme assemblies responsible for cellular movement) and other enzyme systems that are direct analogs to man-made devices


Chains with jaws and hinges:

RNA polymerase II has remarkable machine-like character.9 RNA polymerase II subunits form a channel that houses the chain-like DNA template. “Jaws” help grip the DNA template holding it in place during RNA synthesis. The newly formed RNA chain locks into place a hinge clamp as it exits the RNA polymerase II channel. A funnel-like pore delivers the small subunit molecules to the RNA polymerase II channel. Then the small subunit molecules in the channel are added to the growing end of the RNA chain.


Ball and socket joint:

In a similar vein, structural characterization at 3.0 Å resolution reveals that thioredoxin reductase function is built around a ball and socket joint.10 This enzyme, isolated from the bacterium E. coli, assists in the transfer of electrons between molecules. During the catalytic cycle, the enzyme undergoes a conformational rearrangement that involves the 67° rotation of one of its domains around a clearly defined swivel surface.



Rotary motors:

Finally, recent image analysis by a team from Germany and Switzerland using atomic force microscopy has revealed structural information about chloroplast F1-F0 ATPase. On the basis of this work, we can now add this enzyme to the growing list of ATPase enzymes that are rotary motors.11 As with the other rotary motor ATPases, chloroplast ATPase has a rotor, stator, and turbine.


The watchmaker Arguement, originally from William Paley in 18th century, basically says: as a watch needs a maker, so nature does also.


Skeptics have long argued that nature and a watch are sufficiently dissimilar so that the conclusion drawn from the Watchmaker argument is unsound.
The discovery of enzymes with domains that are direct analogs to man-made devices addresses this concern, because of the striking similarity between the machine parts of these enzymes and man-made devices. Furthermore, as the list of enzymes with machine parts grows, the conclusion of the Watchmaker analogy grows even more certain. Experts in inductive thinking will point out that the more objects taking part in an analogy, the more sound the conclusion arrived at through analogical reasoning.



Seems interesting, that these very small, things have such "designed qualities"......A question: Are these seemingly designed mechanisms believed to have been apart of the original forms of life soon after abiogenesis, and how is this explained in evolutionary theory.










[edit on 25-4-2005 by Rren]




posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
.
perhaps but,

the same kind of argument has been used on the eyeball, "How could nature have ever created such a perfect mechanism for sight?"

In fact primative organisms have light sensors.
A slightly concave curved [i suppose a convex curve would also work] to garner direction of shadow and light. [BTW i think flies went the convex eye curve route, which didn't work as well ultimately] More concave curve, better directionality. Finally you get the camera obscura eyeball many higher lifeforms have giving clear sharp inverted images at the back of the retina.

A fun experiment is blocking all light in a room then making a pinhole in the covering over the window, on the far wall the outside world will be an upside down image on the blank wall.
.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   

As Charles Darwin was considering possible objections to his theory of evolution by natural selection in The Origin of Species he discussed the problem of the eye in a section of the book appropriately entitled "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication." He realized that if in one generation an organ of the complexity of the eye suddenly appeared, the event would be tantamount to a miracle. Somehow, for Darwinian evolution to be believable, the difficulty that the public had in envisioning the gradual formation of complex organs had to be removed.

Darwin succeeded brilliantly, not by actually describing a real pathway that evolution might have used in constructing the eye, but rather by pointing to a variety of animals that were known to have eyes of various constructions, ranging from a simple light sensitive spot to the complex vertebrate camera eye, and suggesting that the evolution of the human eye might have involved similar organs as intermediates.

But the question remains, how do we see? Although Darwin was able to persuade much of the world that a modern eye could be produced gradually from a much simpler structure, he did not even attempt to explain how the simple light sensitive spot that was his starting point actually worked. When discussing the eye Darwin dismissed the question of its ultimate mechanism
In full here

Goes back to my earlier question how do we get these structures via evolution if the simpler structures they evolved from could not have been functional..



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   
.
Having a simple light sensing spot makes sense, because if you are getting light on it and suddenly it goes dark something, probably an animal has moved in front of it. This would be very useful information for avoiding predation, preying on another animal or for fighting for sexual competition.

In the Universe of the blind the critter with a simple light sensor is king.

it has all its original senses such as smell, taste and tactile senses (water currents/waves) but it is able to respond to some degree with this very primative 'vision' at a further distance, while its competition is just bumbling around in total dark.
.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   

posted by slank:Having a simple light sensing spot makes sense, because if you are getting light on it and suddenly it goes dark something, probably an animal has moved in front of it. This would be very useful information for avoiding predation, preying on another animal or for fighting for sexual competition.


That does make more sense to me, I assume you mean that the light sensitive spot was some sort of mutation that turned out to be beneficial, and so it was kept and evovled from there.

I do have a problem understanding this to be honest, it still seems to imply that these organisms/cells understand their environment and adapt as if they were programmed(for lack of a better word) to do so.

Again it goes back to my original question. How long after abiogenesis do we think that these things became so complex(the protein structures resembling machine parts), and essentially setient? Without having been designed.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Just because we're on this topic already I have a question i'd like someone who knows more about biology then me to answer. My question is that can the amino acids essential for the body to thrive concentrate enough to support evolution??



A key component of the RNA world hypothesis, adenine, has its own problems:

1. Adenine synthesis requires HCN concentrations of at least 0.01 M. It is completely unreasonable to expect these concentrations on the prebiotic earth.

2. Adenine is susceptible to hydrolysis (the half-life for deamination at 37°C, pH 7, is about 80 years). Therefore, no adenine would ever be expected to accumulate in any kind of "prebiotic soup."

3. The adenine-uracil interaction is weak and nonspecific, and, therefore, would never be expected to function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a "prebiotic soup."



Here's the full article. Sorry im not trying to hijack the thread but I dont think its worthy enough of a brand new post


www.godandscience.org...



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I'd like to offer up

www.talkdesign.org...

as a website that deals with supposed 'design science' from a scientific perspective.

as does this:
www.talkreason.org...


Rren
The watchmaker Arguement, originally from William Paley in 18th century, basically says: as a watch needs a maker, so nature does also.


Darwin's ideas, however, seem to specifically refute this. Adaptation via natural selection acting upon variation seems to allow 'design', solutions to 'problems'.


Are these seemingly designed mechanisms believed to have been apart of the original forms of life soon after abiogenesis, and how is this explained in evolutionary theory.

As far as I understand it, no. " RNA polymerase II, thioredoxin reductase (from E. coli), and chloroplast F1-F0 ATPase" and such are not thought to have been formed in the abiogenesis event. They are not thought to be part of the Ur-ganism.

However, I would state that, science does not have any sort of real answer for what the mechanism of abiogenesis is. It doesn't have very clear ideas about it, and the field is wide open. I don't think that man's current inability to get at an answer means that man must default to miracles tho.


Goes back to my earlier question how do we get these structures via evolution if the simpler structures they evolved from could not have been functional..

Thats just the point tho. Simpy because we are ignorant of the use of the earlier structures does not mean that they had no function. In darwin's day, a simpler eye was thought of as being immpossible. Yet today, there are series of 'parts' of eyes that are functional, from slight clumps of proteins that are barely light sensative, to varyingly complex eyes. Darwin wasn't being unscientific when he made his hypothesis that the eye could form from simpler structures (regardless of the fact that he ultimately was correct), modern man, similarly, isn't being unscientific by hypothesizing about abiogenesis.

See this succinct response, and this one for a related topic.



I do have a problem understanding this to be honest, it still seems to imply that these organisms/cells understand their environment and adapt as if they were programmed(for lack of a better word) to do so

Consider it this way. Darwin made some observations.


  1. Populations of Organisms are Variable
  2. Traits are inheritable
  3. There is are more individuals born each generation than can survive to reproduction


Given that, and given that some individuals will be better suited to their environment than other members of the same population, you will have natural selection.

IE, consider a population of finches on an island (the classic example). Some members of the species have slightly smaller beaks, others have thicker beaks, others have more crooked, thinner, longer, shorter, more ornate, more edged, sharper, blunter, beaks. The population is variable. Birds with big beaks tend to produce birdlings with big beaks, etc. There is a drought for a long while, and the plants that survive have seeds with thick shells to protect them. If you are a finch with a thick big beak, you can crack the shells and eat. Other members of your population with slightly less big and thick beaks can, of course, survive too, but you do better, you get more food easier. You produce lots of birdlings, all with thick big beaks, the other guys produce less birdlings.
Now the new generation looks more like you, there are more big beaked birds. So now we have a population of birds that in general have big beaks.
But while traits are inheritable, they are also variable in the population. So this later population of finches with big beaks is going to vary. Some are going to, by chance and mutation, have smaller beaks. Others are going to, for the same reason, have bigger beaks. There's still a drought, so now the process repeats, the ones with the bigger beaks do better, produce more offspring, and the future generation has lots of members that have even bigger beaks.
Needing to crack thick strong seed-shells is the selection. The random variation in the population is from mutation and inheritance. Selection 'acts' on variation, to produce adaptation. The adaptation is the unusually big, thick, strong beaks. Thats evolution.
Obviously, there's lots of stuff that can result in success in such a situation. Having more muscles in teh jaw, more reinforced bones in he skull to anchor the jaw muscles. Having ridges on the beak to better crack the nuts. Anything. All of them can be 'selected' at once. Eventually, the finches can become so different, so bizzare, that they are a different species.

So natural selection, acting on variation, is the mechanism by which adaptations are formed.

This, btw, if I am thinking correctly, is 'anagenesis', change within a lineage, where the whole species changes. If, say, the species was spread over a bunch of islands, and only one island was having a drought and this process played out, then much of the original species would be unchanged, and it wouldn't be anagenesis.


How long after abiogenesis do we think that these things became so complex(the protein structures resembling machine parts), and essentially setient?

I'm sure a lot of people would like some answers to that, not the least of which being the people researching it! I don't think it has anything to do with sentience tho.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LinuxA key component of the RNA world hypothesis, adenine, has its own problems


Its entirely possible then that adenine had nothing to do with it and the RNA hypothesis is a bad hypothesis.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by LinuxA key component of the RNA world hypothesis, adenine, has its own problems


Its entirely possible then that adenine had nothing to do with it and the RNA hypothesis is a bad hypothesis.


Ok but doesn't the arguement still stand, consider other amino acids. Would the half life of the others suggest a flaw in the entire concept? Im not an expert but wouldnt an abundant supply of all these chemicals need to be readily available?



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   
An abundant supply, yes, however, there are chemical reactions that can concentrate them, amino acids can also concentrate on minerals like certain clays. Generally, all we can say is that it'd be difficult. We can specifically reject certain hypotheses because of stuff like that, but not go from that to being able to conclude 'abiogenesis cannot occur'.



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by:Nygdan: Consider it this way. Darwin made some observations.
-Populations of Organisms are Variable
-Traits are inheritable
-There is are more individuals born each generation than can survive to reproduction


I have no problem understanding/accepting natural selection, by which an organism has the ability to acclimate to its environment. But species to species evolution is a different theory(is it not?). Where sigle cell begets fish begets amphibian begets reptile begets mammal and then into man.

There are many animals alive today previously thought extinct and many known to still exist(such as insects) that we have in the geologic record, which seem to show no change in species over millions(and some hundreds of millions) of years, other than minor adaptations but never changing species.

As a christian its easy for me to see GOD as the creator making sure his creations had the ability to adapt and survive, or in other words, IMO, I dont see how natural selection is a counter to intelligent design(and I think we would both agree it doesn't explain abiogenesis).

I do realize science can't prove GOD exists(GOD says it takes faith and proof would negate that IMO), but given the complex nature of the single cell and its apparent drive to improve itself lead us to believe it was designed to do so? Can science prove design?

It just seems to me that right from the beginning(as we know it), they were complicated and sentient(in the sense that were aware enough to make adaptations, keep the good mutations and discard the bad).

I realize complexity and sentience at some point turns into the "what came first the chicken or the egg" debate, but hows does an organism realize it needs cogs and levers and rotary motors, even if it happened by chance how did it know to keep it.....without having been programmed(for lack of better word)to do so.

Thanks for all the input.....and for not flaming me for bringing GOD and science into the same thread...I tried not to say that anything here shows God as the designer(that's just my opinion), but that design is entirely probable and that you can use science to explore that.


[edit on 27-4-2005 by Rren]



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
But species to species evolution is a different theory(is it not?).

Thats the thing, its not. The genetics of populational evolution are the same, more of less, whether its looking at demes within a species or a population 'transforming' into another species.


Where sigle cell begets fish begets amphibian begets reptile begets mammal and then into man.

Thing is, each of those points are big steps in a very fine continuum. Its thousands of thousands of populations changing and speciating.


which seem to show no change in species over millions(and some hundreds of millions) of years, other than minor adaptations but never changing species.

It shouldn't be expected that things are allways going to change, however, in those instances, it is a different species. The modern coelocanth, for example, is a different species (i think its even a different genus) than the fossil representative, its a different animal.


, I dont see how natural selection is a counter to intelligent design

They're antithetical. Natural Selection = appearance of design thru natural processes. Intelligent Design = actual crafting by a superior being. In NS, there is no 'planning' or conception, in ID, there is intent and such. Both are different ways of explaining the appearnce of design. ID is supernatural, NS is natural.


(and I think we would both agree it doesn't explain abiogenesis).

Indeed, however, natural selection was part of the concern here.



I do realize science can't prove GOD exists[...but]Can science prove design?

I say, no, it can't demonstrate supernatural design. We can look at an airplane and say 'well duh, its designed' and ask 'why not apply that to organisms?". Its not applicable to organisms because airplanes aren't natural living populations that reproduce and change on their own over time. If there were flocks of airplanes out there, living and reproducing and evolving, then it wouldn't be reasonable to state that they used to change thru a process other than the one thats they're observed to undergo.


It just seems to me that right from the beginning(as we know it), they were complicated

Indeed, it is an issue. But merely because something is complicated doesn't mean it had to be intelligently designed.


and sentient(in the sense that were aware enough to make adaptations, keep the good mutations and discard the bad).

But that happens automatically, not by sentience. An organism with 'bad' mutations suffers from them, thats why the mutations are bad. The population 'gets rid of bad mutation' 'by' having individuals with bad mutations suffer, reproduce less, and eventually die off. There's no actual 'actor' doing this tho. Its like sifting dirt, the sifter isn't sentiently deciding 'this is too big a grain, this is small enough a grain'; it happens automatically. To extend, if we saw a bunch of piles of sand, sorted according to size of grains(say large to small), was it design that accomplished this? Or was it nature that sorted the grains by say, flowing water and gravity, with big grains falling out first, and small ones being carried further, like in an alluvial fan or river delta?


Thanks for all the input.....and for not flaming me for bringing GOD and science into the same thread.

Thanks for not slamming me as some sort of christian hating lunatic!



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana, Ph.D presents a pretty unconvincing argument using a paradigm of "this has a function and therefore it's Intelligent Design!" That's wrong... by his analogy, a quartz crystal is the product of intelligent design and not "the only way that those will fit in a regular lattice structure."

He then tries to do some smoke and mirrors with the "design" of the components (the "jaws" he mentions don't actually LOOK like jaws nor do they work exactly like jaws.)

He pushes his case with the only bit of logic that he can find to stand his case on and fails to mention any "null hypothesis" -- a detail that's actually critical to any scientific theory:


Experts in inductive thinking will point out that the more objects taking part in an analogy, the more sound the conclusion arrived at through analogical reasoning.


He then abuses inductive thinking. Using his form of simplistic inductive reasoning, we can also argue:
* rabbits are carbon based life forms just like humans
* rabbits run around on land just like humans
* rabbits eat vegetables just like humans
* rabbits breathe air just like humans
* rabbits hear sounds just like humans
* rabbits are found in human households just like humans
*** THEREFORE - Rabbits Are Humans

The only reason he's getting away with such shoddy logic is that he tosses out biochemical names. There's a superficial similarity in the structures and processes, yes, but they're about as alike (if you really know this stuff) as humans and rabbits.

(edited to add... looked up his CV. I do see some research work, yes, but most of his publications are religious. I don't see any scientific papers since 1987-ish.)

[edit on 27-4-2005 by Byrd]



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I'm just waiting for mattison to crash thru the window, swinging a baseball bat that says "Methodological Naturalism Gangbusters"!


"whack to your epistemological assumptions of an inability to detect preter-natural design"

external image
"your ontologoical ideology cannot save you now, nor can your headbang and loose pants"



(all in jest/all in fun)



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
First off as to Dr. Rana's credentials(for Byrd)

Dr. Rana attended West Virginia State College, then Ohio University, where he earned a Ph.D. in Chemistry. His post-doctoral work was conducted at the Universities of Virginia and Georgia. He was a Presidential Scholar, was elected into two honors societies, and won the Donald Clippinger Research Award twice at Ohio University. Dr. Rana worked for seven years on product development for Procter & Gamble before joining Reasons To Believe.

Dr. Rana has published over 15 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and delivered over 20 presentations at international scientific meetings. Dr. Rana co-authored a chapter on anti-microbial peptides for Biological and Synthetic Membranes.
Link to credentials for all RTB contributors


originally posted by:Byrd

He then abuses inductive thinking. Using his form of simplistic inductive reasoning, we can also argue:
* rabbits are carbon based life forms just like humans
* rabbits run around on land just like humans
* rabbits eat vegetables just like humans
* rabbits breathe air just like humans
* rabbits hear sounds just like humans
* rabbits are found in human households just like humans
*** THEREFORE - Rabbits Are Humans


I do admit I'm a layman, but can you really do that, is that example honestly analageous to protein structures being "machine-like", its seems to me your being a little deceptive there yourself.....IMO

(edit)- sorry Byrd didn't see your edit, wanted to reply to your comment that Dr. Rana had no idea what he was talking about(I believe you said he had no idea about biology), and didnt notice you had taken the time to do it yourself, and edit that out


[edit on 27-4-2005 by Rren]

[edit on 27-4-2005 by Rren]



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
What Byrd said:

He then abuses inductive thinking. Using his form of simplistic inductive reasoning, we can also argue:
* rabbits are carbon based life forms just like humans
* rabbits run around on land just like humans
* rabbits eat vegetables just like humans
* rabbits breathe air just like humans
* rabbits hear sounds just like humans
* rabbits are found in human households just like humans
*** THEREFORE - Rabbits Are Humans



This is what Dr. Rana said:

Experts in inductive thinking will point out that the more objects taking part in an analogy, the more sound the conclusion arrived at through analogical reasoning.
from my original post top

Isn't the key here "the more objects taking part in an analogy" you had rabbits and humans in your example, am I missing something here? Doesn't he base his conclusion on inductive thinking 'protocols' and there are many of these structures not just a couple examples, so does that not add further weight to his analogy?

Thanks for the feedback not tryin to bust your ***** here, your obviously more educated about this than I am, I really would like to learn more.Thanks



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
The difficulties involved in accounting for the abiogenesis of the first cell.




First of all, polymerization of chemicals monomers under simillated primordial conditions contains no more than "information" input defined by physical and chemical parameters. It does not start new life processes as self reproducing systems. It is analogous to the self assembling process of a computer which operates only insofar as the informational input dictates. Secondly, it will be difficult to account for the switch to internal control which is a characteristic of the cell when the polymerization process of chemical monomers triggered by external forces finally brings about a truly self reproducing system. Thirdly, the probability of achieving complexity from simple starting materials will be decreased drastically (geometrically) as the systems become more and more complex. This will lead to the conclusion that the abiogenesis of a cell with its highest level of complexity as a selfreproducing unit is extremely improbable.


Evolution above the species level is poorly documented empirically.



The chemostat experiment mentioned earlier can allow the observation of numerous generations of bacterial evolution in a relatively short period of time. However, only varieties within a species but not new species have been detected.12 Empirical documentation of evolution above the species level is not yet forthcoming. It can be argued that since macroevolution happened over a long period of time, it cannot be observed empirically in one's lifetime. Nonetheless, the theory of macroevolution would be without a firm empirical foundation if it were divorced from the empirical documentation of the theory of microevolution. It will be seen in the following section that the mechanism operative in microevolution is insufficient to account for macroevolution.


My point is not evolution is wrong therefore ID is right, but rather isn't there as many assumptions and educated guessing involved in evolutionary theory with regards to abiogenesis.


: Originally posted by Rren
But species to species evolution is a different theory(is it not?).



Nygdans' reply:
Thats the thing, its not. The genetics of populational evolution are the same, more of less, whether its looking at demes within a species or a population 'transforming' into another species.



Rren: Where sigle cell begets fish begets amphibian begets reptile begets mammal and then into man.



Nygdan reply:
Thing is, each of those points are big steps in a very fine continuum. Its thousands of thousands of populations changing and speciating.


Hate to disagree here, as you know this far better than I do, but, is not the scientific proof of evolution shown in micro-evolution(I know this as natural selection) whereas macro-evolution predicts/speculates. I thought the two were different and that proof of one does not mean proof of the other...correct?


Non ATS quotes from here

Hope i'm not annoying you mods, you've probably had this discussion many times before....I certainley appreciate the time and effort put into "learnin' this layman"Thanks guys







posted on May, 1 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Evolution above the species level is poorly documented empirically.

?? What would one document above the level of a species? Species are real bioligical entities, they have something of an objective existence (without getting too technical and without look at some of the exceptions). What would one look at above the level of a species? You mean like a genus or a family? I'd think thats asking quite a bit, to have families and orders arising in the short time that people have even been looking for this sort of thing.

And also, its important to remeber, all thats ever really going on is one species changing into another. When that process has gone on long enough, and man can look at the different enndpoints, one can say that theres a new family. But in reality, all thats ever been happening is one species changing into another. The 'families' and 'orders' (like 'bird', or 'mammal') are concepts, not hard and fast biological absolutes.



My point is not evolution is wrong therefore ID is right, but rather isn't there as many assumptions and educated guessing involved in evolutionary theory with regards to abiogenesis.

I don't think we can say that about evolution compared to abiogenesis. There is no 'theory of abiogenesis' there's only a lot of different hypotheses, there's not a consensus on the issue. On evolution there is a consensus, and much evidence to support it. The basic work in abiogensis is only just being done, where'as evolution hasn't changed much since the begining of the last century, and has been around in general since 1865.


Hate to disagree here, as you know this far better than I do, but, is not the scientific proof of evolution shown in micro-evolution(I know this as natural selection) whereas macro-evolution predicts/speculates. I thought the two were different and that proof of one does not mean proof of the other...correct?

Its a complicated situation. For my own part, when and if I am distinguihing between micro and macro evolution, I think of it as this. Micro evolution is the sort of stuff that we can see in the lab and its all about changes within a lineage and what not. Macro evolution is the sort of thing that only the fossil record can record, adaptive radiations, 'progression', major transitions, 'the evolution of the mammals' and the like. And if it differs from 'microevolution' at all, its only in ways that are brought about by long time scales and processes operating at those 'deep time' levels. This, please note, is not the usual distinction, and I normally don't even try to distinguish between 'micro-macro' evolution. Its a false dichotomy I think really. Because whether one is talking about a herd of bison (as opposed to all bison in the world) undergoing evolution, or the evolution of one species of bison into another, or the orign of what we think of as 'bison-ness' from 'non-bison-like animals", its all the same thing, the changing of gene frequencies in populations over generational time, resulting in adaptation via a mechanism of natural selection. It can lead to a new species given time, or it can lead to some slighyl different bison in one region, or any thing.

What most people mean when they talk about micro/macro evolution tho is a spereation between 'change within population in a species' and 'actual speciation'. There are lots of observed instances of speciation. Of course, man hasn't seen a species of fish evolve into something like an amphibian, and thats what some creationists refer to as 'inter-kind' evolution. Honestly, its more of a shifting of the requirements than anything. We can observe speciation in fish and flys, but, then we hear 'a fish is a fish, a fly is a fly'. Doesn't matter that they are still fish and flies, they're different species. If someone could find some sort of mechanism that prevents the processes involved in observed speciation from eventually resulting in a new 'kind' of animal, that'd be interesting. But a 'kind' (as in bird-kind, reptile-kind), is simply not a real group, its a human concept, the organism isn't aware of it and the genes don't say 'i can't develop in that direction, because i'd be a different kind of animal'.

Hope i'm not annoying you mods, you've probably had this discussion many times before....

Dear god, don't say that, this is a place where we all come to discuss these things. Also, moderators aren't 'experts' or anything either, don't take anything any of us say as on 'authority' or anything. Heck, don't take anything anyone says on authority!



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Again it goes back to my original question. How long after abiogenesis do we think that these things became so complex(the protein structures resembling machine parts), and essentially setient? Without having been designed.


This is one thing i dont understand....

If something doesnt support the theory of evolution, then people automatically credit intelligent design. I dont think it should work that way?...Is that a fasle dilemma?

Just becasue it doesnt support or provide proof for evolution, how is that proof of creation?....you still havent given proof for creation



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs

Originally posted by Rren
Again it goes back to my original question. How long after abiogenesis do we think that these things became so complex(the protein structures resembling machine parts), and essentially setient? Without having been designed.


This is one thing i dont understand....

If something doesnt support the theory of evolution, then people automatically credit intelligent design. I dont think it should work that way?...Is that a fasle dilemma?

Just becasue it doesnt support or provide proof for evolution, how is that proof of creation?....you still havent given proof for creation



I do agree with you, that if, for some unknown reason, the scientific community came out tomorrow and announced "we were wrong about evolution" that in no way proves design.

I also agree, have stated this allready, that you cannot use science to prove GOD created anything, that is a matter of faith.

As for 'proof of design', I am saying that the complicated nature of single-celled life and there apparent sentience can be a cause of them having been designed/created. I do realize that the field of abogenesis research is fairly new, and that simply because they don't have all the answers, doesn't mean that they someday wont find a natural explanation to these questions.

Now back to the protein structures, I found a web-site where researchers have built the first man-made protein structures:


“At each position, you can have one of the twenty amino acids, and for each of those amino acids you can have on the order of ten different shapes,” he said. “So, you have two hundred different possible shapes for each piece. With those restrictions, it may be that there are some outlines to this jigsaw puzzle that you just cannot achieve. So you need to have a way of changing the boundary to find a protein that can actually be made, because the main constraint is that the side chains fit together perfectly in the interior of the protein.

“Thus, the problem is that the number of alternatives can be huge. Even for one fixed backbone conformation, you have an astronomical number of possible amino acid sequences,” said Baker. “So, we needed a computational approach to search the huge space of possible conformations and possible amino acid sequences efficiently.”
from here

So here, in a scientific study, they had to use many powerfull computers and 'protein structure-prediction algorithms ' to make the simplest of protein structures. Now I guess the naturalistic argument is probably, IMO, that the computers are doing what billions upon billions of years of evolution did naturally, so aren't we just assuming its natural? So why can't I assume design, the mathematicall probabilities, and our own lab work seems to support it........correct?

I say that this is 'evidence' that you need a designer, in this case the researchers serve the function of designer. They have not correlated yet, how these computer/algorithms could have occured naturally. Then in supposition, IMO, they have they have shown proof that abiogenesis(as pertains to protein structures) is a product of intelligent design, and not of natural process.

I am making no statements of fact, I am simply supposing that the 'evidence' thus far does not show a naturalistic cause to abiogenesis and sentience, is seems to be showing us that a designer is neccesary.

Isn't abiogenesis analageous to the big bang, IOW, abiogenesis is the biological 'big bang'. Science cannot tell us what preceded the 'big bang', physics break down at the singularity, and science cannot tell us what happened prior to abiogenesis. So why can't I, as a christian who believes in science, assume that life and in fact the entire universe were designed/created.

Again I accept that science cannot prove there is a GOD, but why can't we conclude from what we do know, that design is still probable and even go so far as to say likely? Not just because there are no, as of yet, naturalistic explanations, but because these single-cells and even DNA, have designed qualities.

I know most don't like the use of chance and probability to disprove macro-evolution and abiogenesis,....but a what point to we consider something impropable to have occured naturally, without design? IOW if it's proved that it could not have happened naturally, then why can't we deduce it was designed?



[edit on 2-5-2005 by Rren]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join