• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence For And Against Evolution

McBell

Unbound
The following is a long article in wikibooks, but it does explain the constraining biological processes that constrain protein folding as process that as the article concludes; "We now know that while protein folding is not a random process . . . "

Please note "not a random process."

Structural Biochemistry/Proteins/Protein Folding - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

Determinants of Protein Folding
There are various interactions that help stabilize structures of native proteins. Specifically, it is important to examine how the interactions that form protein structures are organized. In addition, there are only a small amount of possible polypeptide sequences that allow for a stable conformation. Therefore, it is evident that specific sequences are used through evolution in biological systems.

Helices and Sheets Predominate in Proteins because They Efficiently Fill Space
On average, about sixty percent of proteins contain a high amount of alpha helices, and beta pleated sheets. Through hydrophobic interactions, the protein is able to achieve compact nonpolar cores, but they lack the ability to specify which polypeptides to restrict in particular conformations. As seen in polypeptide segments in the coil form, the amount of hydrogen boding is not lesser than that of alpha helices and beta pleated sheets. This observation demonstrates that the different kinds of conformations of polypeptides are not limited by hydrogen bonding requirements. Ken Dill has suggested that helices and sheets occur as a result of the steric hindrance in condensed polymers. Through experimentation and simulation of conformations with simple flexible chains, it can be determined that the proportion of beta pleated sheets and alpha helices increase as the level of complication of chains is increased. Therefore, it can be concluded that helices and sheets are important in the complex structure of a protein, as they are compact in protein folding. The coupling of different forces such as hydrogen bonding, ion pairing, and van der Waals interactions further aids in the formation of alpha helices and beta sheets.

Protein Folding is Directed by Internal Residues
By investigating protein modification, the role of different classes of amino acid residues in protein folding can be determined. For example, in a particular study the free primary amino groups of RNase A were derivatized with poly-DL-alanine which consist of 8 residue chains. The poly-Ala chains are large in size and are water-soluble, thus allowing the RNase's 11 free amino groups to be joined without interference of the native structure of the protein or its ability to refold. As a result, it can be concluded that the protein's internal residues facilitates its native conformation because the RNase A free amino groups are localized on the exterior. Furthermore, studies have shown that mutations that occur on the surface of residues are common, and less likely to change the protein conformation compared to changes of internal residues that occur. This finding suggests that protein folding is mainly due to the hydrophobic forces.

Protein Structures Are Hierarchically Organized
George Rose demonstrated that protein domains consisted of subdomains, and furthermore have sub-subdomains, and etc. As a result, it is evident that large proteins have domains that are continuous, compact, and physically separable. When a polypeptide segment within a native protein is visualized as a string with many tangles, a plane can be seen when the string is cut into two segments. This process can be repeated when n/2 residues of an n-residue domain is highlighted with a blue and red color. As this process is repeated it can be seen that at all stages, the red and blue areas of the protein do not interpenetrate with one another. The following link shows an X-ray structure of HiPIP (high potential iron protein) and its first n/2 residues on the n-residue protein colored red and blue. Furthermore, the subsequent structures shown in the second and third row show this process of n/2 residue splitting reiterated as shown where the left side of the protein has its first and last halves with red and blue while the rest of the chain colored in gray. Through this example, it is clearly seen that protein structures are organized in a hierarchical way, meaning that the polypeptide chains are seen as sub-domains that are themselves compact structures and interact with adjacent structures. These interactions forms a larger well organized structure largely due to hydrogen bonding interactions and has an important role in understanding how polypeptides fold to form their native structure.
I strongly suspect there are far to many facts and way to much actual science in this here quoted post
 

McBell

Unbound
Google the article, there are free pdf versions of the complete article that show the math.
I am not going on a wild goose hunt doing your homework.
You made the claim.
Support it or have it discarded as the bold empty claim it thus far is.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
The claim is that it could have not happened through Darwinian mechanisms...
For whatever it might be worth to you, the Darwinism that you’re questioning might not be part of the thinking of most researchers in evolution. Maybe you already knew that. Are you the one who told me that you’re just trying to understand some people’s ways of thinking? If so, I’d be interested in what you’ve learned. I came away from it thinking that most or all of it might be virtue signaling.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Then decide, what exactly is it what you are claiming

1 that behe was refuted
2 that his argument is un falsifiable
3 that behe hasn't support his claims

You are jumping from one argument to an other,
Yes. You have that correct. He is wrong on all three as everyone has shown you. But don't let us stop you, when you are in a good denial.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Google the article, there are free pdf versions of the complete article that show the math.

It is up to the one making the claim to post the math and explain it relative to the thread.

I brought up the article you cited and it does not have the probability math you claim it has. The following are the conclusions.

Conclusions

The supposed conflict between the classical and new views can be resolved by the realization that they touch on different but equally essential parts of the folding mechanism. Laboratory experiment is able to discern macroscopic molecular behavior, but it is blind to the microscopic thermally driven amino acid-level searching behavior that has been the domain of theoretical analysis. The disordered microscopic multitrack search envisioned in the paradigmatic new view model describes the initial stage amino acid-level search to form cooperative nativelike foldon structures, but not the final native state. Experiment displays an emergent foldon-based macroscopic behavior that provides the structural guidance and free energy bias for the ordered stepwise formation of discrete native-like intermediates in a folding pathway that leads to the native state. Folding in moderately small, separately cooperative units may be necessary for proteins to fold at all. A much larger step size would confront the Levinthal time scale problem; much smaller steps cannot assemble the energy bias required by the Zwanzig criterion for fast folding. Thus, as before for the microscopic view, it may be that there is no other viable choice. Efficient folding may well require foldon-based Englander and Mayne PNAS Early Edition | 7 of 8 PERSPECTIVE However, here a related constraint enters. Because the essential folding intermediates closely duplicate native structure, as perhaps they must in a reasonable pathway sequence, it seems that the same requirement has reciprocally shaped the foldon-based nature of native protein structure. In respect to foldon-based folding and foldon-based native structure, it seems that each necessitates the other, and that protein based biology may require both.

Nothing here on the probability math you claim. doubt seriously you understand the article.
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
Ok if not 10^77 then what is the correct probability based on the reaserch that you made?
What's the probability of your existence? YOU would not be YOU if any other of the 100,000,000 sperm your father ejaculated that fateful day made it's way to the egg first. There might be someone very much like you, but it would not be you.

Would you care to do the math back a few generations? The bottom line is that the possibility of your existence is essentially zero. Yet, here you are, droning on about possibilities.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I strongly suspect there are far to many facts and way to much actual science in this here quoted post
I only cited a small part that describes the deterministic factors of protein folding that make it NOT a random process subject to a low probability.
 

McBell

Unbound
I only cited a small part that describes the deterministic factors of protein folding that make it NOT a random process subject to a low probability.
I understand that.
But then, I have more than a first graders Pokemon understanding of the subject.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
As far as difference in definition of life regarding abiogenesis and evolution is certainly a serious issue because -- if "life" came about without divine process, then it is true that God is unnecessary.
Instead Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die" John 11:25.

Just a note: Science does not address whether life began by only physical processes, or whether God was involved or not.. Science could possibly determine the physical processes of how life came about, and this would not negate that God Created life by those processes.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
You probably believe that all gods, except the one you happen to believe in, are nothing more than the creations of man's imaginings.

You probably don't even realize how ridiculous that notion really is.
In the same way I belive that no woman is my wife, except for the one woman that I call wife.

That's a really sad unresponsive comment. You must be trying to avoid admitting that all "other" gods are man's fabrications while clinging to the idea the "your" god is actually something more. That must require a lot of rationalizing on your part.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
You probably believe that all gods, except the one you happen to believe in, are nothing more than the creations of man's imaginings.

You probably don't even realize how ridiculous that notion really is.

Hindus believe the same way you do.

You can't both be right, but you can both be wrong.

Bottom line - all gods are the creations of man's imaginings.
No they don't, there are significant differences between hindu gods and the Christian God.

Again, duck and dodge. I'm quite sure that you understood my comment referred to the fact that Hindus, like you, believe their gods are the real and true gods.

Why did you avoid responding to that?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Then decide, what exactly is it what you are claiming

1 that behe was refuted
2 that his argument is un falsifiable
3 that behe hasn't support his claims

You are jumping from one argument to an other,
Behe wrote Irreducible Complexity paper, but -
  1. it was never falsifiable (which disqualified it from have the status of “hypothesis”),
  2. never been tested (no evidence to support it),
  3. and IC has never been peer reviewed.

All three of the above, disqualified it from being “scientific theory”.

There was no ways Behe could present IC before his peers, because has no evidence that can verify his assumptions, so he decided to have his book published - Darwin’s Black Box - that will not be scrutinized by fellow scientists, writing his book for general readers whom he can fool.
You completely missed my point, the point that I made is that the diversity of life could be explained by completely natural mechanisms, am simply suggesting that the darwinian mechanism (random variation +natural selection) is not the only nor the most importan mechanism

Particularly, I am suggesting natural mechanisms such as NGE that produce fast, big and non random changes in the genome.

Natural Selection is already “non-random” mechanism, as well as purely “natural”.

The other evolutionary mechanisms:
  • Mutation
  • Genetic Drift
  • Gene Flow
  • Genetic Hitchhiking
...are all “natural” and “non-random”.

All five of them concern with “variations”, and they are all “non-random”.

As far as I know, Mutation itself isn’t “random”. The only thing random about Mutation, is when these mutations occur, hence the “timing” is random, and not the mechanism itself.

As to Natural Genetic Engineering, I really cannot comment on NGE, because I have not read enough about it to form any opinion regarding to this.

Until then, you might want to discuss NGE with @shunyadragon , @Valjean , @Polymath257 or anyone else with more knowledge on biology than I have.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
These evidently are necessary components for living matter, but -- to make cells replicate and continue replicating, is, frankly, unfathomable by my mind and scientists alike, which is why I believe scientists can't figure it out.

I do take it at its word -- that God made Adam from the dust, and Eve from Adam's rib


It may be unfathomable to your mind, but you are wrong when you say it is unfathomable to the minds of scientists.

It is unfathomable to your mind because you "do take it at its word -- that God made Adam from the dust, and Eve from Adam's rib".


No. I'm not "turning the lights" off on what you call sound science.

Yes, you are. The reason you must turn off the lights is what you stated above: "I do take it at its word -- that God made Adam from the dust, and Eve from Adam's rib". No one can hold two diametrically opposed beliefs. You choose to believe in the bible, therefore you must disbelieve those portions of science that conflict with the bible.

We all know this. That's the main reason that you arguments against science ring hollow.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
"There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. One popular definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. However, several other definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids."
Why do you care what science believes and doesn't believe or what scientists do or do not agree with each other about?

You think they are all wrong because they disagree with your bible.
 
Top