|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
8th February 2014, 06:11 AM | #1 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
Overwhelming evidence of Design in Molecular Biology?
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t150...r-biology#2192
Thanks to Philip Cunningham Overwhelming evidence of Design in Molecular Biology? Biochemical Pathway Maps http://web.expasy.org/cgi-bin/pathwa..._thumbnails.pl I showed that particular biochemical pathway chart to a Darwinist once when he asked me for ANY evidence of intelligent design in biology. His response upon seeing it was something along the lines of, ‘Just because it is horrendously complex does not prove it was designed.’. ,,, Well maybe so, but such ‘horrendous complexity’ certainly does not give comfort to the notion that such ‘horrendous complexity’ can be the accumulation of random genetic accidents either! Here is a ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathway chart: Map Of Major Metabolic Pathways In A Cell – Diagram http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/img/asse...s_6_17_04_.pdf Part of the ‘horrendous complexity’ inherent in metabolic pathways is gone over here: The 10 Step Glycolysis Pathway In ATP Production: An Overview – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kn6BVGqKd8 At the 6:00 minute mark of the following video, Chris Ashcraft, PhD – molecular biology, gives us an overview of the Citric Acid Cycle, which is, after the 10 step Glycolysis Pathway, also involved in ATP production: Evolution vs ATP Synthase – Molecular Machine – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012706 Glycolysis and the Citric Acid Cycle: The Control of Proteins and Pathways – Cornelius Hunter – July 2011 http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011...cid-cycle.html Moreover, the ATP molecular machine (which is found at the bottom of the metabolic pathway chart) is found to be 100% efficient: Thermodynamic efficiency and mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase – 2011 Excerpt:F1-ATPase is a nanosized biological energy transducer working as part of FoF1-ATP synthase. Its rotary machinery transduces energy between chemical free energy and mechanical work and plays a central role in the cellular energy transduction by synthesizing most ATP in virtually all organisms.,, Our results suggested a 100% free-energy transduction efficiency and a tight mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...08.short?rss=1 As well, metabolic pathways in general are found to be ‘optimal’: Metabolism: A Cascade of Design Excerpt: A team of biological and chemical engineers wanted to understand just how robust metabolic pathways are. To gain this insight, the researchers compared how far the errors cascade in pathways found in a variety of single-celled organisms with errors in randomly generated metabolic pathways. They learned that when defects occur in the cell’s metabolic pathways, they cascade much shorter distances than when errors occur in random metabolic routes. Thus, it appears that metabolic pathways in nature are highly optimized and unusually robust, demonstrating that metabolic networks in the protoplasm are not haphazardly arranged but highly organized. http://www.reasons.org/metabolism-cascade-design Making the Case for Intelligent Design More Robust Excerpt: ,,, In other words, metabolic pathways are optimized to withstand inevitable concentration changes of metabolites. http://www.reasons.org/making-case-i...gn-more-robust Such 100% efficiency and optimality being found in molecular biology is hard (impossible?) to explain on Darwinism given what was revealed in a paper that came out yesterday: Study demonstrates evolutionary ‘fitness’ not the most important determinant of success – February 7, 2014 – with illustration An illustration of the possible mutations available to an RNA molecule. The blue lines represent mutations that will not change its function (phenotype), the grey are mutations to an alternative phenotype with slightly higher fitness and the red are the ‘fittest’ mutations. As there are so few possible mutations resulting in the fittest phenotype in red, the odds of this mutation are a mere 0.15%. The odds for the slightly fitter mutation in grey are 6.7% and so this is far more likely to fix, and thus to be found and survive, even though it is much less fit than the red phenotype.,,, By modelling populations over long timescales, the study showed that the ‘fitness’ of their traits was not the most important determinant of success. Instead, the most genetically available mutations dominated the changes in traits. The researchers found that the ‘fittest’ simply did not have time to be found, or to fix in the population over evolutionary timescales. http://phys.org/news/2014-02-evoluti...t-success.html This headline sums up the preceding finding very nicely: Fittest Can’t Survive If They Never Arrive – February 7, 2014 http://crev.info/2014/02/fittest-can...-never-arrive/ Moreover, as if that were not ‘horrendously’ bad enough for Darwinists, metabolic pathways are found to operate on ‘Quarter Power Scaling’. i.e. Metabolic Pathways operate as if they were ‘four-dimensional’ Kleiber’s law Excerpt: Kleiber’s law,[1] named after Max Kleiber’s biological work in the early 1930s, is the observation that, for the vast majority of animals, an animal’s metabolic rate scales to the 3/4 power of the animal’s mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleiber%27s_law 4-Dimensional Quarter Power Scaling In Biology – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5964041/ Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini put the problem that Quarter Power Scaling presents to Darwinism this way: “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.” Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79 The reason why ’4-Dimensional’ metabolic pathways are impossible for Darwinism to explain is that Natural Selection operates on the 3-Dimensional phenotypes. ’4-Dimensional’ metabolic pathways are simply ‘invisible’ to natural selection. The fact that 4-Dimensional things are completely invisible to 3-Dimensional things is best illustrate by ‘flatland’: Flatland – 3D to 4D shift – Carl Sagan – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0 Quote, Verse and Music: “Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.” – Johannes Kepler Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, Unto The King Eternal – music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLPYRhOQcCU |
8th February 2014, 06:31 AM | #2 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
|
If you don't believe without evidence then you fail. Why do you keep trying to science?
|
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett "If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans "I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat |
|
8th February 2014, 06:36 AM | #3 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
8th February 2014, 06:38 AM | #4 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,057
|
He doesnt - he posted it in Religion and Philosophy.
This all reminds me of the bacterial flagellum. So many creationists were sure it was the ultimate "gotchya!". They were sure it was the smoking gun. Somebody remarked (it may have been Dawkins) that once the path had been solved, theyd simply move onto something else. And here we are. What say you Gibhor? If I simply give you the benefit of the doubt and grant you that science cannot explain these things, what will you do when and if science *does* explain it? Will you merely shift to the next "gotchya"? At what point will science fulfill your demands? How many individual cases will it take? Or will you merely continue to cut-n-paste the next "gotchya" you find online? |
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas |
|
8th February 2014, 06:39 AM | #5 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,057
|
|
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas |
|
8th February 2014, 06:49 AM | #6 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 28,766
|
If you are interested in horrendous complexity, I recommend clay chemistry.
Of course, you may say clay was designed, too; but why should the designs of an infinitely skilled and infinitely powerful designer be complex anyway ? Should we not expect elegant simplicity? |
8th February 2014, 06:58 AM | #7 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
I say, only who doesn't understand anything, just parrots what naturalist and darwinist popes like Dawkins, Pzmyers, etc. assert, as if it would be the ultimate truth.
Fact is, the flagellum argument has NOT been debunked. And there are MANY other examples of irreducible complexity in nature, which are not that much propagated. For example :
Quote:
|
8th February 2014, 07:00 AM | #8 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
8th February 2014, 07:03 AM | #9 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,057
|
|
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas |
|
8th February 2014, 07:06 AM | #10 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
|
|
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett "If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans "I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat |
|
8th February 2014, 07:14 AM | #11 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
|
|
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett "If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans "I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat |
|
8th February 2014, 07:27 AM | #12 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
8th February 2014, 07:28 AM | #13 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 28,766
|
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
|
8th February 2014, 07:29 AM | #14 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
8th February 2014, 07:39 AM | #15 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
8th February 2014, 07:42 AM | #16 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
8th February 2014, 08:12 AM | #17 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,147
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
8th February 2014, 08:34 AM | #18 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 28,766
|
|
8th February 2014, 08:57 AM | #19 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,901
|
Without excuse for what? To believe that God is like what some man says about him? All you do with the stuff you link is suggest that it's less likely that biological systems are random and that they started from nothing. I have no problem with that but it doesn't mean that what some other person claims about "god" is justified by the facts you presented.
Suppose instead that the designers of humanity are sociopaths that use humanity like sheep as sources of energy? What then? Does the design imply benevolence and good will toward the implementation? How much do you love your car? What do you do with it when it breaks down? You get rid of it and it's recycled. This is far more likely to be the way the world runs than some benevolent dictatorship that the silly christian religion is always promoting. |
__________________
In search of meaning and purpose for life. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2026 |
|
8th February 2014, 10:42 AM | #20 |
Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,181
|
As soon as you explain stuff ...
|
8th February 2014, 11:02 AM | #21 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
|
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
8th February 2014, 11:32 AM | #22 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
irreducible complexity was debunked a long time ago
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...2/article.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/...y-complex.html |
10th February 2014, 09:55 AM | #23 |
Formerly SilentKnight
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,134
|
|
__________________
We'll meet again, Don't know where, Don't know when But I know we'll meet again some sunny day Keep smiling through, Just like you always do Till the blue skies drive the dark clouds far away |
|
10th February 2014, 10:01 AM | #24 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
10th February 2014, 10:02 AM | #25 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Very good. It makes me wonder just what the OP is claiming was designed. Is it the chemical reactions? The structure of the atoms? The properties of space and time involved?
Did God make the universe and stars so that we might get the goodies needed in the periodic table for the recipe? Perhaps the argument from incredulity doesn't go far enough here. Believers aren't incredulous enough, nor in the right spots. |
10th February 2014, 10:07 AM | #26 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
|
Why do mitochondria and chloroplasts have a genetic code that differs from the cells they are present in?
Why do... ah, why would I even bother. Anyone working in biology or genetics can clearly see there is no design, as not even a drunk skunk would make the inept designs present in nature. Just because it works doesn't mean it's well designed. |
10th February 2014, 10:17 AM | #27 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
10th February 2014, 10:20 AM | #28 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
|
10th February 2014, 10:25 AM | #29 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
10th February 2014, 10:38 AM | #30 |
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 14,588
|
|
__________________
A man's best friend is his dogma. |
|
10th February 2014, 10:38 AM | #31 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
10th February 2014, 10:53 AM | #32 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
A rotary molecular motor that can work at near 100% efficiency.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692765/
Quote:
and there is more : http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1439-atp-synthase#2208
Quote:
|
10th February 2014, 10:58 AM | #33 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
Perhaps you missed the word "near" right there in the bolded part of your post?
|
10th February 2014, 11:07 AM | #34 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
10th February 2014, 11:19 AM | #35 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,108
|
This is what I was going to say. Even conceding that biology is mind-bogglingly complex, so what? Why, exactly, should that be taken as evidence for a designer?
And this is the most basic problem with the intelligent design argument - it is inherently circular. How do we know that this thing is designed? Because it is complex. How do we know that a designer would make things complex? Because we can see complexity in the things he has made. Round and round it goes. |
10th February 2014, 11:28 AM | #36 |
Man of a Thousand Memes
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
|
I would like to be upfront in saying I did not read the original post. With that out of the way, here is your answer:
|
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner. |
|
10th February 2014, 12:15 PM | #37 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
The circle is tighter than that. How do we know it's designed, well humans design complex stuff so when we see complex designed stuff we know something like a human designed it.
How do we know something is complex and designed? If the IDer doesn't understand it it's complex and designed. |
10th February 2014, 12:29 PM | #38 |
Dark Lord of the JREF
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
|
Gibhor, two things.
One: 'We don't know' does not equal 'goddidit'. Two: Having your conclusion (Goddidit), and then looking for evidence is not 'reason'. |
__________________
"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head." |
|
10th February 2014, 12:30 PM | #39 |
Ardent Formulist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
|
Everything designed by humans was built by natural processes, since we are part of nature.
The progression from horse-drawn cart to Corvette was just evolution going all meta. Given that, it's trivial to say that it all looks like it was designed. |
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens. |
|
10th February 2014, 12:32 PM | #40 |
Ardent Formulist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
|
|
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|