Specified complexity

[Seeker]

I am sorry I started this thread and confused everybody.

[Roy]

So you're saying one does have nothing to do with the other?

Right. They're very different concepts. An enzyme that acts on a large family of molecules can have a highly constrained amino-acid sequence, while a highly specific enzyme (one that catalyses only a single reaction) could have scope for amino-acid variation, especially outside it's active region.

The number and type of reactions an enzyme is involved in is not related to the amount of variability in its constituent amino-acids.

[shunyadragon]

I am sorry I started this thread and confused everybody.

The only one with self inflicted confusion is lee_merrill.

i believe that Roy and The Lurch have responded very specifically to refute anything lee_merrill posted.

[Seeker]

Right. They're very different concepts. An enzyme that acts on a large family of molecules can have a highly constrained amino-acid sequence, while a highly specific enzyme (one that catalyses only a single reaction) could have scope for amino-acid variation, especially outside it's active region.

The number and type of reactions an enzyme is involved in is not related to the amount of variability in its constituent amino-acids.

Then what we do to refute quotes such as this:

Phillip Bell from CMI said: ''Mutations (that some (certainly not all) evolutionists claim are responsible for creating novel proteins) should be known that do more than simply duplicate existing base pair sequences or reduce the specificity of the active site of an enzyme (so that, in spite of being less able to do its job, can digest a related substrate)''.

???

[shunyadragon]

Then what we do to refute quotes such as this:

Phillip Bell from CMI said: ''Mutations (that some (certainly not all) evolutionists claim are responsible for creating novel proteins) should be known that do more than simply duplicate existing base pair sequences or reduce the specificity of the active site of an enzyme (so that, in spite of being less able to do its job, can digest a related substrate)''.

???

This statement is not meaningful without the full context of Philip Bell's point he is trying to conclude. It sounds like what Behe and others try to do as limit the potential influence of mutations in creating genetic diversity, and evolve. I will have to look more closely at Bell's work, but on the surface it is Creationist ENRON bookkeeping.

I gave specific references where research has demonstrated that mutations can and do create fitness, evolve and result in new species resulting in microbes with increased resistance to antibiotics, which essentially refutes Bell's claim. That is why I posted the references concerning the evolution of microbes in response to lee_merrill making similar unfounded bogus claims.

[Roy]

Then what we do to refute quotes such as this:

Phillip Bell from CMI said: ''Mutations (that some (certainly not all) evolutionists claim are responsible for creating novel proteins) should be known that do more than simply duplicate existing base pair sequences or reduce the specificity of the active site of an enzyme (so that, in spite of being less able to do its job, can digest a related substrate)''.

???

"They are. cf Nylonase."

It's quite likely that Bell is referring nylonase anyway, in which case you could also point out not only that the nylonase enzyme was more than simply a duplication and it created a new protein and later mutations increased the enzyme's specificity and Bell's ultra-specific wording suggests he knows all this and is lying by omission.

[Seeker]

This statement is not meaningful without the full context of Philip Bell's point he is trying to conclude. It sounds like what Behe and others try to do as limit the potential influence of mutations in creating genetic diversity, and evolve. I will have to look more closely at Bell's work, but on the surface it is Creationist ENRON bookkeeping.

I gave specific references where research has demonstrated that mutations can and do create fitness, evolve and result in new species resulting in microbes with increased resistance to antibiotics, which essentially refutes Bell's claim. That is why I posted the references concerning the evolution of microbes in response to lee_merrill making similar unfounded bogus claims.

[tabibito]

So - most evolutionary development results from picking up additional genes along the way? Inserted perhaps by viruses and such?

[shunyadragon]

Mutations (that some (certainly not all) evolutionists claim are responsible for creating novel proteins) should be known that do more than simply duplicate existing base pair sequences or reduce the specificity of the active site of an enzyme (so that, in spite of being less able to do its job, can digest a related substrate).

First, I believe Roy answered the previous citation well in bold. Second, the above is an example of a Creationist non-scientific view of evolution. Third, there is no 'burden of proof' in science, and science does not 'elevate to the status of proof' anything. Fourth, Randomness (purely random? Yuck! Yuck!) does not cause anything, the only thing that is random in anything is the variation of the outcome of single events. The cause of all cause and effect outcomes in the natural world is the laws of nature and the environment. Science does not 'prove' if falsifies and determines predictability of theories and hypothesis. We have problems here on the fundamental level of the nature and purpose of science,

There is a problem of taking this 'snippit' out of context and drawing conclusions below.

Very severe problem of unethical taking citations out of context.

The mutation in cancer are selective to promote the survival of the cancer, and not to make it 'easier to treat nor cure.' This line of reasoning is the height of ridiculous of the Creationist egregious use of of science

[shunyadragon]

I thought I would add the most important issue of the Fundamentalist Creationist arguments like those of Phillip Bell. It is that the premise of Fundamentalist Creationism arguments is the same as their conclusion.

[Seeker]

The mutation in cancer are selective to promote the survival of the cancer, and not to make it 'easier to treat nor cure.' This line of reasoning is the height of ridiculous of the Creationist egregious use of of science

Sorry if my question is ignorant, but isn't the cancer disadvantegous for the organism? Therefore, how can it be selected for ''promotion of survival'' via mutations?

[Seeker]

Also, is there any difference between protein and enzyme specificity? At least in the way these expressions are used by the YEC's.

[Roy]

Also, is there any difference between protein and enzyme specificity? At least in the way these expressions are used by the YEC's.

No. Many enzymes are proteins. But given Wieland's confusion above, I can't guarantee some YECs think they mean different things.

[Roy]

It certainly does.

There are lots of specific examples of errors in genetic transmission resulting in 'new information,' aka never-before-seen alleles. The Milan Apolipoprotein mutation, for example.I'm going to dismiss it immediately as an argument from authority (a fallacy) which may also be a quote-mine.

I've met Philip Bell, seen his presentations, and checked his sources before. I don't trust him.

[shunyadragon]

Sorry if my question is ignorant, but isn't the cancer disadvantegous for the organism? Therefore, how can it be selected for ''promotion of survival'' via mutations?

Yes the cancer is disadvantagous to the host us, but it is up to the human to evolve in response to developing resistance against cancer. The cancer is the organism that changing to be resistant to the treatments to kill the cancer and survive, and not the hust the human. It is a contradiction in evolution for the cancer to evolve to more easily treated.