p-value testing will never be the same again

[lee_merrill]

This has been done - the two examples i know of are use of a scaffolding protein to build a large complex, followed by its loss, and the duplication and diversification of a single gene that forms a polymeric complex.

Can you provide details on these? Thanks...

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

I don't need to do any such thing.

Well, you certainly do, if you're going to propose scaffolding as the method of evolution of the flagellum.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

The purpose of the evolution of the scaffolding of the flagellum. There was no need to evolve a more complex structure with a different purpose. The same is true for the eye. It evolved from the very simple to the complex eye through different pathways of evolution, but once the complex eye evolved to serve its purpose it evolved no further.

But evolution of the eye as you describe it does not involve scaffolding.

Misrepresentation of the reference. Please explain. The article you cite does not support your assertions. In fact it refutes them completely.

I'm speaking of the generation of the first protein, which presumably had to come about randomly.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

But evolution of the eye as you describe it does not involve scaffolding.


I'm speaking of the generation of the first protein, which presumably had to come about randomly.

No, it would not come about randomly. It would come about naturally based on the laws of nature. The contemporary research has demonstrated polymerization of amino acids to form proteins, and it is caused by the laws of nature. Randomness would not be the cause, because it is only the observed variation in the outcome of cause and effect events.

The following is a good summary of the hypothesis concerning the polymerization of amino acids to proteins in abiogensis including the chemistry and geologic environments.It is very extensive and includes many references on the research.



More references to follow . . .

[shunyadragon]

Research in real science focuses on the natural mechanisms of polymerization, and not the bogus Intelligent Design approach of juggling all or nothing 'randomness' in the misuse of probability.

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01731368

The role of metal ions in chemical evolution: Polymerization of alanine and glycine in a cation-exchanged clay environment

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Well, you certainly do, if you're going to propose scaffolding as the method of evolution of the flagellum.

The scientific references and research demonstrate the natural evolution of the flagellum in significant detail.

[shunyadragon]

But evolution of the eye as you describe it does not involve scaffolding.


I'm speaking of the generation of the first protein, which presumably had to come about randomly.

Blessings,
Lee

Did not say it does, but it involves evolution in stages from the simple to the complex, with specific purpose in the steps, and confirmed by the genetics of eye evolution as is the case with the flagellum.

[Roy]

Well, you certainly do, if you're going to propose scaffolding as the method of evolution of the flagellum.

I'm not going to propose that.

How about you stop asking others to support claims they haven't made, and instead support the claims you have made?

You can start by supporting (or retracting) your claim that the paper Shunyadragon referenced is about generating the first proteins.

[TheLurch]

Can you provide details on these? Thanks...

Blessings,
Lee

Sure.

Scaffolding: Let's say that a bunch of proteins involved in the same biological process work most efficiently when in proximity. So, if a protein develops affinity for two of them, it would be evolutionarily favored. Adding affinities for more proteins would increase the favorability. While the proteins are in proximity, they can also evolve affinities for each other. Once that happens, the original scaffolding protein can be lost with no effect. But, lose any of the remaining proteins, and the complex falls apart.

Duplication/diversification: This is what seems to have happened with a protein degrading complex. In archaea, it's a complex of 12 (i think) identical proteins, all produced from the same gene. But duplicate the gene, and it can start to evolve more specialized functions. Duplicate these genes some more, and you grow the number of proteins in the complex, all while maintaining interactions among them. As a result of a similar process, the eukaryotic version of the complex is (again, going from memory, could be wrong) is still 12 proteins, but they now come from 6 different genes. Loss of any of these genes causes the complex to fall apart.

[shunyadragon]

Well, their conclusion is in some dispute, even in evolutionary circles.

You are selectively quote mining and misinterpretation of the article based on your agenda. The article did not dispute the steps nor the process of the natural evolution of the flagellum, but as is normal in science critiques the research and conclusions cited.

Source: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(07)01338-3

So we evolutionists need not take on the impossible challenge of pinning down every detail of flagellar evolution. We need only show that such a development, involving processes and constituents not unlike those we already know and can agree upon, is feasible.

© Copyright Original Source

Now I wonder why Liu and Ochman above didn't make this point. And a homologous structure does not demonstrate how one might change into the other, through selectable steps.

It is common that researchers over state their conclusions, and it is normal in science for peer review to bring things back to reality. Over time this process confirms the reliability of science as science.

You re still faced with the problem that the scientists that support Intelligent Design HAVE NOT proposed a falsifiable hypothesis to support Intelligent Design. As with your unfortunate selectively citing the partial paper referring to "highly optimal" sets of amino acids based on a religious agenda. The paper indeed offered a viable hypothesis for the natural process for the evolution of an 'optimal' set of 20 amino acids.

Still waiting . . .

[TheLurch]

https://www.cell.com/current-biology...22(07)01338-3)

So, is it a failure of reading comprehension, or simply extremely selective processing of information?

[lee_merrill]

Sure.

Scaffolding: Let's say that a bunch of proteins involved in the same biological process work most efficiently when in proximity. So, if a protein develops affinity for two of them, it would be evolutionarily favored. Adding affinities for more proteins would increase the favorability. While the proteins are in proximity, they can also evolve affinities for each other. Once that happens, the original scaffolding protein can be lost with no effect. But, lose any of the remaining proteins, and the complex falls apart.

This doesn't sound IC to me though, losing a protein means the process works less efficiently, right?

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

https://www.cell.com/current-biology...22(07)01338-3)

Yes, but even granted their scenario, they have not explained the generation of these two proto-proteins.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but even granted their scenario, they have not explained the generation of these two proto-proteins.

Blessings,
Lee

Classic 'arguing from ignorance.' The Creation fundamentalist modus operandi. It is well past time for them to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis instead of playing 'shell games.'

[The Barbarian]

No, if the focus is on an event before it happens, then the probability can vary from 100%. For example, if you pick one snowflake pattern, and then look for that to occur, then the probability is 10²⁵⁰⁰ (according to their calculations).

The same argument could be made for poker hands. I don't think God is designing poker hands.