Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
p-value testing will never be the same again
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostI don't need to do any such thing.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe 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.
Misrepresentation of the reference. Please explain. The article you cite does not support your assertions. In fact it refutes them completely.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostBut 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.
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 . . .
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostBut 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
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, you certainly do, if you're going to propose scaffolding as the method of evolution of the flagellum.
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.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostCan you provide details on these? Thanks...
Blessings,
Lee
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."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWell, their conclusion is in some dispute, even in evolutionary circles.
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.
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 . . .Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-05-2019, 11:23 AM.
Comment
-
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?"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostSure.
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.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostYes, but even granted their scenario, they have not explained the generation of these two proto-proteins.
Blessings,
Lee
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostNo, 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).
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 05-28-2024, 01:19 PM
|
18 responses
100 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-30-2024, 05:13 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
9 responses
91 views
2 likes
|
Last Post 05-27-2024, 05:48 AM |
Comment