Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[code1211]

I have seen nothing to believe it is possible.

Did you see the quote from DR. Crick concerning the origins of life this is an evolutionist. He is also one who worked on prebiotic evolution and pleads ignorance on the origins quetion.

Protien created outside the cell: Voila!



A new wrinkle in evolution -- man-made proteins





IMAGE: The three-dimensional structure (ribbon diagram) of protein DX as a crystallogrpahic dimer. The zinc metal ion is shown in orange and the chloride anion at the dimer interface in red,...
Click here for more information.

A new wrinkle in evolution -- man-made proteins

Nature, through the trial and error of evolution, has discovered a vast diversity of life from what can only presumed to have been a primordial pool of building blocks. Inspired by this success, a new Biodesign Institute research team, led by John Chaput, is now trying to mimic the process of Darwinian evolution in the laboratory by evolving new proteins from scratch. Using new tricks of molecular biology, Chaput and co-workers have evolved several new proteins in a fraction of the 3 billion years it took nature.

Their most recent results, published in the May 23rd edition of the journal PLoS ONE, have led to some surprisingly new lessons on how to optimize proteins which have never existed in nature before, in a process they call ‘synthetic evolution.’

"The goal of our research is to understand certain fundamental questions regarding the origin and evolution of proteins," said Chaput, a researcher in the institute’s Center for BioOptical Nanotechnology and assistant professor in Arizona State University’s department of chemistry and biochemistry. "Would proteins that we evolve in the lab look like proteins we see today in nature or do they look totally different from the set of proteins nature ultimately chose" By gaining a better understanding of these questions, we hope to one day create new tailor-made catalysts that can be used as therapeutics in molecular medicine or biocatalysts in biotechnology."

Yep,you are ignoring it took intelligence to achieve this goal. Another problem they can't form a cell that will form other cells ,nice try.

The Cell Theory states: •All living organisms are composed of cells. They may be unicellular or multicellular.

•The cell is the basic unit of life.

•Cells arise from pre-existing cells.

Cell Theory

Thank you for playing.

Your assertion was not that cells could reproduce. Your assertion was that protein could not be created outside of a cell.

Protien can be and has been created outside of a cell.

 

[code1211]

What is the mechanism for evolution ?

The mechanism is in the interaction of the individuals within species. We, as race of humans are taller and more numerous than we were even 200 years ago.

That is evolution. If you are white and your children are white, that is evolution. Sameness, as well as difference is evolution. It is the path on which a species changes, but the species knows not the path nor does it know the direction or the destination.

We, as humans exist within societies and those societies swell as our ancestors contribute to evolution. The crippling illness of today was the fatal illness of yesterday. Conversely, the fatal illness of today may have been a dormant curiosity in the past.

Life is change and change is what evolution is.

What is the mechanism ? please don't say natural selection all that does is eliminate creatures that can't adapt to their enviornment,That happens rarely because ,the biggest culprit is man.

If it is not natural selection, then it's artificial selection. Perhaps I don't understand your question.

If there are differences between individuals of a species and those differences, no matter how slight, provide advantage to one and disadvantage to another in terms of survival or procreation within the current environment, this may result in a longer life or more off spring for the advantaged.

By this, evolution occurs. Maybe a particular strain of corn is drought resistant or an animal has a particular kind of immunity to a disease that is entering the territory. Maybe it's an astigmatism in the eye sight and a predator cannot be seen. A better sense of smell.

Could be that a new predator enters the territory and one type of prey fits the predator's tastes while another does not. This is literally natural selection.

Maybe the seeds of a plant have the ability to remain dormant for years between rain in the desert.

There are millions and millions of variations that add up to make a species and probably an equal number the add up to make an individual. All of these differences could be the difference between triumph and disaster.

 

[code1211]

If we go with your theory--I was taught that evolution is just a bit more complicated than that but we'll use your definition here--let's return to the topic of the thread. Is the evolution we can observe all strictly a process of random chance? Or are there other dynamics involved? And if there are other dynamics involved, is it within the range of rational possibility that evolution is part of a larger dynamic that could be called Intelligent Design?

If you don't mind me butting in here......I think it is, of course, possible that evolution was created or is continuously directed by an intelligence. For me, at least, my problems with ID stem only from the claim it is a scientific field of study, or perhaps some of the arguments used as evidence for a creator; I won't argue that a designer may exist.

Now, I might argue against your particular idea of what that designer is. But accepting the possibility is part of admitting both my personal ignorance and humanity's ignorance about so many things.

Thank you for butting in. Seriously!!! An open mind is so rare and so refreshing in what should be a philosophical discussion of possibilities.

I agree that neither Creationism nor Intelligent Design--and I do not see that these have to be either mutually exclusive nor do they have to be the same thing--can legitimiately be taught as science. I think any scientist and any science teacher is perfectly okay with saying that there is no scientific proof or theory for Intelligent Design and there is no known scientific method that can test such a concept.

But I think nobody can truly call himself a scientist, and no science teacher is worthy to be in the classroom, who will say that Intelligent Design does not exist BECAUSE there is no scientific proof or theory and/or that there is no known scientific method that can test such a concept.

What might that method be?

 

[code1211]

If you are a creationist you would be right, but you are an evolutionist try again.

That's extremely stupid.

Try to do better.

Here I will give you another hint so we can get to the meat and potatoes of this issue.

Look up Neo Darwinism and get back to me. But really your answer is correct for a creationist ,variations in a kind come through sexual reproduction because of the vast gene pool. Genes are passed from your parents and their parents. The strange thing is humans and every organism only have the DNA to reproduce what they are.

This really has nothing to do with anything in this discussion, but I thought it was interesting.

We share 50% of our DNA with a banana.

Back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's extremely stupid.

Try to do better.

Here I will give you another hint so we can get to the meat and potatoes of this issue.

Look up Neo Darwinism and get back to me. But really your answer is correct for a creationist ,variations in a kind come through sexual reproduction because of the vast gene pool. Genes are passed from your parents and their parents. The strange thing is humans and every organism only have the DNA to reproduce what they are.

But it only takes one mutation in one individual to set a segment of the population on the road to being something different. How many times has that happened in a billion years? I think you have the myopia of relating everything to human or historical timeframes without grasping what a billion years really is.

That is totally false, mutations are copying errors. There are several mechanisms that correct these errors. One mechanism is polymerase with proofreading ability. All mutations come at a loss of the origional DNA information that is why it is a mutation.

For a new gene to spread through the entire population is slim to none. It takes two parents that have the same gene to pass it on to the offspring that is rare. We have so many faulty genes in our gene pool and that is why we have so many genetic disorders. But these defective genes have not passed on to the entire gene pool or we would all suffer from these genetic disorders.

Faulty genes not solidified in the gene pool eventually get corrected other then a family line that keeps the gene going in their family line. That is exactly why it is against the law to have children with relatives that are too closely related because there is a better chance that offspring from the same family would carry that faulty gene and then pass it on to their offspring.

You have to have a long line of the same error being passed on to become a permenent trait within a family. But family members when they have offspring with other family lines that family line must carry the same defective gene.

To prove mutations cause this permanent change in the population you must show that a particular gene came from a mutation then you must prove that the DNA information did not already exist in the gene pool.

Can you point out one trait in the human population that came about by a mutation and then prove it did not already exist in the gene pool ? that is what you are up against to prove mutations do what you say.

I have studied so many different mutations that happened naturally and forced mutations in flies and I never saw once a new trait being passed on to the population of flies.


First you can't prove billions of years secondly I responded to you in the other thread. You don't need just one mutation you need millions of mutations that spread through the population.

We have over 5,000 genetic disorders floating around in the gene pool,why is not the whole population not affected by these disorders ? if it's that easy for new genes to pass through the entire population as you say.

But for us to go any further you must be able to answer my question because if not you are only speculating.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Protien created outside the cell: Voila!



A new wrinkle in evolution -- man-made proteins





IMAGE: The three-dimensional structure (ribbon diagram) of protein DX as a crystallogrpahic dimer. The zinc metal ion is shown in orange and the chloride anion at the dimer interface in red,...
Click here for more information.

A new wrinkle in evolution -- man-made proteins

Nature, through the trial and error of evolution, has discovered a vast diversity of life from what can only presumed to have been a primordial pool of building blocks. Inspired by this success, a new Biodesign Institute research team, led by John Chaput, is now trying to mimic the process of Darwinian evolution in the laboratory by evolving new proteins from scratch. Using new tricks of molecular biology, Chaput and co-workers have evolved several new proteins in a fraction of the 3 billion years it took nature.

Their most recent results, published in the May 23rd edition of the journal PLoS ONE, have led to some surprisingly new lessons on how to optimize proteins which have never existed in nature before, in a process they call ‘synthetic evolution.’

"The goal of our research is to understand certain fundamental questions regarding the origin and evolution of proteins," said Chaput, a researcher in the institute’s Center for BioOptical Nanotechnology and assistant professor in Arizona State University’s department of chemistry and biochemistry. "Would proteins that we evolve in the lab look like proteins we see today in nature or do they look totally different from the set of proteins nature ultimately chose" By gaining a better understanding of these questions, we hope to one day create new tailor-made catalysts that can be used as therapeutics in molecular medicine or biocatalysts in biotechnology."

Yep,you are ignoring it took intelligence to achieve this goal. Another problem they can't form a cell that will form other cells ,nice try.

The Cell Theory states: •All living organisms are composed of cells. They may be unicellular or multicellular.

•The cell is the basic unit of life.

•Cells arise from pre-existing cells.

Cell Theory

Thank you for playing.

Your assertion was not that cells could reproduce. Your assertion was that protein could not be created outside of a cell.

Protien can be and has been created outside of a cell.

Maybe i didn't make myself clear enough a cell could not form under natural conditions one reason is free oxygen would prevent it. Then the cell must be complete so it can produce more cells. Creating a cell in the lab does not qualify because they don't know the conditions of the planet when the first cell come into condition. This was not achieved from a natural process it was done through intelligence. a designer get it ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The mechanism is in the interaction of the individuals within species. We, as race of humans are taller and more numerous than we were even 200 years ago.

That is evolution. If you are white and your children are white, that is evolution. Sameness, as well as difference is evolution. It is the path on which a species changes, but the species knows not the path nor does it know the direction or the destination.

We, as humans exist within societies and those societies swell as our ancestors contribute to evolution. The crippling illness of today was the fatal illness of yesterday. Conversely, the fatal illness of today may have been a dormant curiosity in the past.

Life is change and change is what evolution is.

What is the mechanism ? please don't say natural selection all that does is eliminate creatures that can't adapt to their enviornment,That happens rarely because ,the biggest culprit is man.

If it is not natural selection, then it's artificial selection. Perhaps I don't understand your question.

If there are differences between individuals of a species and those differences, no matter how slight, provide advantage to one and disadvantage to another in terms of survival or procreation within the current environment, this may result in a longer life or more off spring for the advantaged.

By this, evolution occurs. Maybe a particular strain of corn is drought resistant or an animal has a particular kind of immunity to a disease that is entering the territory. Maybe it's an astigmatism in the eye sight and a predator cannot be seen. A better sense of smell.

Could be that a new predator enters the territory and one type of prey fits the predator's tastes while another does not. This is literally natural selection.

Maybe the seeds of a plant have the ability to remain dormant for years between rain in the desert.

There are millions and millions of variations that add up to make a species and probably an equal number the add up to make an individual. All of these differences could be the difference between triumph and disaster.

konradv understood my question.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's extremely stupid.

Try to do better.

Here I will give you another hint so we can get to the meat and potatoes of this issue.

Look up Neo Darwinism and get back to me. But really your answer is correct for a creationist ,variations in a kind come through sexual reproduction because of the vast gene pool. Genes are passed from your parents and their parents. The strange thing is humans and every organism only have the DNA to reproduce what they are.

This really has nothing to do with anything in this discussion, but I thought it was interesting.

We share 50% of our DNA with a banana.

Back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

That is exactly right but similarity proves nothing all that proves is the designer was able to create all the diversity we see with the same substances. The major difference is the DNA information. If we are all that closely related and were actually really as closely related as evolutionist want you to believe there would be nothing preventing us from reproducing some strange offspring.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let me point out an article dealing with the mutation mechanism.

Chapter 7: Are Mutations Part of the

 

[Parsifal]

as evolutionist want you to believe there would be nothing preventing us from reproducing some strange offspring.

Are you so stupid that you actually "think" that is true or are you lying?

If you "think" that bit of bullshit is true you have no business attempting to discuss anything having to do with biology.

No Biologist (or "evolutionist as you idiots call them) has ever said anything like that?

 

[Youwerecreated]

as evolutionist want you to believe there would be nothing preventing us from reproducing some strange offspring.

Are you so stupid that you actually "think" that is true or are you lying?

If you "think" that bit of bullshit is true you have no business attempting to discuss anything having to do with biology.

No Biologist (or "evolutionist as you idiots call them) has ever said anything like that?

Why should I waste my time with trying to teach you something when you didn't even know the mechanism that evolution claims causes the change in DNA ?

Well if mutations are the answer then answer the questions I raised. If you look at how close our DNA is to many groups of organism's don't you think we should be able to reproduce some strange offspring. That was an exaggeration on my part sorry you could not see the sarcasm.

 

[Youwerecreated]

as evolutionist want you to believe there would be nothing preventing us from reproducing some strange offspring.

Are you so stupid that you actually "think" that is true or are you lying?

If you "think" that bit of bullshit is true you have no business attempting to discuss anything having to do with biology.

No Biologist (or "evolutionist as you idiots call them) has ever said anything like that?

Look if any of you are gonna use the similarity of our DNA to other organism's to show how closely related we are by your reasoning we should be able to reproduce some pretty strange offspring no ?

I wouldn't be calling the teacher stupid if I were you.

 

[code1211]

Yep,you are ignoring it took intelligence to achieve this goal. Another problem they can't form a cell that will form other cells ,nice try.

The Cell Theory states: •All living organisms are composed of cells. They may be unicellular or multicellular.

•The cell is the basic unit of life.

•Cells arise from pre-existing cells.

Cell Theory

Thank you for playing.

Your assertion was not that cells could reproduce. Your assertion was that protein could not be created outside of a cell.

Protien can be and has been created outside of a cell.

Maybe i didn't make myself clear enough a cell could not form under natural conditions one reason is free oxygen would prevent it. Then the cell must be complete so it can produce more cells. Creating a cell in the lab does not qualify because they don't know the conditions of the planet when the first cell come into condition. This was not achieved from a natural process it was done through intelligence. a designer get it ?

The atmosphere of Earth has not always had oxygen. Life was required to change the air around us into one that has "free oxygen". The very reason that we, as a animals, could not have lived then is why it might have been possible for the first forms of life to occur.

Again, if all of the conditions existed and there were billions of years for all of the elements to be mixed up in various combinations at various temperatures in trillions of occasions, the chances that it could have happened seem to be enhanced.

The Origin of Oxygen in Earth's Atmosphere: Scientific American

<snip>
"What it looks like is that oxygen was first produced somewhere around 2.7 billion to 2.8 billon years ago. It took up residence in atmosphere around 2.45 billion years ago," says geochemist Dick Holland, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. "It looks as if there's a significant time interval between the appearance of oxygen-producing organisms and the actual oxygenation of the atmosphere."
<snip>

 

[Parsifal]

Why should I waste my time with trying to teach you something when you didn't even know the mechanism that evolution claims causes the change in DNA ?

I do know the mechanism.....Why are you lying?

Look if any of you are gonna use the similarity of our DNA to other organism's to show how closely related we are by your reasoning we should be able to reproduce some pretty strange offspring no ?

Um......You're not smart enough to understand this stuff.

I wouldn't be calling the teacher stupid if I were you.

My knowledge of this stuff is vastly superior to the bullshit you're posting.

You don't know enough Biology to be discussing this stuff.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why should I waste my time with trying to teach you something when you didn't even know the mechanism that evolution claims causes the change in DNA ?

I do know the mechanism.....Why are you lying?

Look if any of you are gonna use the similarity of our DNA to other organism's to show how closely related we are by your reasoning we should be able to reproduce some pretty strange offspring no ?

Um......You're not smart enough to understand this stuff.

I wouldn't be calling the teacher stupid if I were you.

My knowledge of this stuff is vastly superior to the bullshit you're posting.

You don't know enough Biology to be discussing this stuff.

I have a degree that say's otherwise. Are you serious you could not come up with the answer of mutations who are you trying to B.S. ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your assertion was not that cells could reproduce. Your assertion was that protein could not be created outside of a cell.

Protien can be and has been created outside of a cell.

Maybe i didn't make myself clear enough a cell could not form under natural conditions one reason is free oxygen would prevent it. Then the cell must be complete so it can produce more cells. Creating a cell in the lab does not qualify because they don't know the conditions of the planet when the first cell come into condition. This was not achieved from a natural process it was done through intelligence. a designer get it ?

The atmosphere of Earth has not always had oxygen. Life was required to change the air around us into one that has "free oxygen". The very reason that we, as a animals, could not have lived then is why it might have been possible for the first forms of life to occur.

Again, if all of the conditions existed and there were billions of years for all of the elements to be mixed up in various combinations at various temperatures in trillions of occasions, the chances that it could have happened seem to be enhanced.

The Origin of Oxygen in Earth&apos;s Atmosphere: Scientific American

<snip>
"What it looks like is that oxygen was first produced somewhere around 2.7 billion to 2.8 billon years ago. It took up residence in atmosphere around 2.45 billion years ago," says geochemist Dick Holland, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. "It looks as if there's a significant time interval between the appearance of oxygen-producing organisms and the actual oxygenation of the atmosphere."
<snip>

Uh we have a problem with what you posted a cell needs oxygen for respiration.diffusion,and osmosis just more evidence of a designer.

The other problem is if oxygen did not come into existence until 2.8 billion years ago how did life begin 3.6 billion years ago ?

Why is oxygen found in rocks dated much later then when oxygen began ?

See what speculating does to a theory that is not backed by solid data.

 

[Parsifal]

I have a degree that say's otherwise.

Your degree doesn't matter. Your ignorance of basic Biology is profound.

Our DNA is very similar to that of the great apes. That doesn't mean that our offspring are monkeys.

It's the same thing with cats.......Feline DNA is very similar due to common ancestry.

The reason we share so much of the same DNA as great apes is due to common ancestry.

You can't comprehend even the most basic Biology.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have a degree that say's otherwise.

Your degree doesn't matter. Your ignorance of basic Biology is profound.

Our DNA is very similar to that of the great apes. That doesn't mean that our offspring are monkeys.

It's the same thing with cats.......Feline DNA is very similar due to common ancestry.

The reason we share so much of the same DNA as great apes is due to common ancestry.

You can't comprehend even the most basic Biology.

You argue with a theory as evidence

We are discussing things you know little about,just man up and admit you don't know enough specifics to debate this issue.

 

[code1211]

Maybe i didn't make myself clear enough a cell could not form under natural conditions one reason is free oxygen would prevent it. Then the cell must be complete so it can produce more cells. Creating a cell in the lab does not qualify because they don't know the conditions of the planet when the first cell come into condition. This was not achieved from a natural process it was done through intelligence. a designer get it ?

The atmosphere of Earth has not always had oxygen. Life was required to change the air around us into one that has "free oxygen". The very reason that we, as a animals, could not have lived then is why it might have been possible for the first forms of life to occur.

Again, if all of the conditions existed and there were billions of years for all of the elements to be mixed up in various combinations at various temperatures in trillions of occasions, the chances that it could have happened seem to be enhanced.

The Origin of Oxygen in Earth&apos;s Atmosphere: Scientific American

<snip>
"What it looks like is that oxygen was first produced somewhere around 2.7 billion to 2.8 billon years ago. It took up residence in atmosphere around 2.45 billion years ago," says geochemist Dick Holland, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. "It looks as if there's a significant time interval between the appearance of oxygen-producing organisms and the actual oxygenation of the atmosphere."
<snip>

Uh we have a problem with what you posted a cell needs oxygen for respiration.diffusion,and osmosis just more evidence of a designer.

The other problem is if oxygen did not come into existence until 2.8 billion years ago how did life begin 3.6 billion years ago ?

Why is oxygen found in rocks dated much later then when oxygen began ?

See what speculating does to a theory that is not backed by solid data.

Do you have a link for the oxygen in the rocks?

According to the link, The life that started first was life that required no oxygen.

In any event, your assertion to which this was a response was that Free Oxygen would have inhibited the formation of proteins. Since there was no free oxygen at the time, this would not have been a consideration.

By the by, I enjoy discussions like this as it requires additional learning to carry on the discussion. Thank you.

 

[Parsifal]

You argue with a theory as evidence

You don't know what a scientific theory is and I'm pointing out facts.

There are mountains of evidence that show that similarity of DNA indicates common ancestry.....You don't know anything.

We are discussing things you know little about,just man up and admit you don't know enough specifics to debate this issue.