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
See more
See less

Designer enzymes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    But I can't believe that their approach was totally random, they did directed evolution, right?
    This. This encapsulates your problems with everything in these discussions: you value your personal intuitions more highly than you value facts. The authors say they discovered activities in a pool of random oligos, and you simply refuse to believe the plain wording of the sentence because it goes against your intuitions.

    Once, just once, i'd like to see some evidence that you would consider the possibility that your intuitions are wrong.


    Nature has changed the system i use to get access to their papers. It's late and i'm tired, so i'll give a more substantial response to this and your other posts tomorrow, when i figure out how the new system works.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      This. This encapsulates your problems with everything in these discussions: you value your personal intuitions more highly than you value facts. The authors say they discovered activities in a pool of random oligos, and you simply refuse to believe the plain wording of the sentence because it goes against your intuitions.
      No, I was instead gearing off this statement: "Philipp Holliger of the U.K.’s MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology and his team showed that these nucleic acids can replicate and evolve just like the real 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


      • #63
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        No, I was instead gearing off this statement: "Philipp Holliger of the U.K.’s MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology and his team showed that these nucleic acids can replicate and evolve just like the real thing."
        That showed that there are many chemicals that are different from the chemicals life uses, that can act in the same way. It says nothing about design; merely that one set of chemicals acts like a different set of similar chemicals.

        Comment


        • #64
          There's a quote from the paper, pasted in here for you, that clearly said the source was random. (Looking at the paper, in at least one case, they literally started with a string of 40 random bases). You chose not to believe that. Here, you're blaming your choice on this statement:
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          No, I was instead gearing off this statement: "Philipp Holliger of the U.K.’s MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology and his team showed that these nucleic acids can replicate and evolve just like the real thing."
          Which says absolutely nothing about the randomness of the source. But on the last page, you blamed it on this:
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          But I can't believe that their approach was totally random, they did directed evolution, right? Which implies some (designed) constraints.

          And then they are looking forward to more "tailor-made enzymes", which speaks of choices being made:

          “And because we can modify chemistry at least to some extent to our hearts’ content, we can make tailor-made enzymes for particular purposes.”
          Again, you're misunderstanding what you're quoting. But more significantly, you seem to adjust your justification for your beliefs each time you get called out for ignoring the paper itself. Forgive me for concluding that you're just scrambling for ways of justifying yourself, and that your blatant misunderstanding of the quotes you're mangling is strategic, rather than inadvertent.

          More generally, why do you keep insisting on using secondary sources instead of the actual research? Find the papers, and you're much less likely to deal with the vague language that seems to be repeatedly allowing you to lead yourself astray.


          In any case, the other post that i didn't have a chance to get to over the weekend.
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          He made a clear statement, and the scientist Marcos Eberlin saw that this provided an opportunity to test for design.
          Then talk about Eberlin's interpretation. That's what this is.

          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          You're shifting the goalposts now, but prophecy is indeed measurable, and provides evidence for a supernatural being behind them when they succeed.
          I'm not shifting goalposts. This is the Natural Science section; you're trying to claim ID is scientific. Why would i want anything but scientific evidence? Which prophecy certainly doesn't provide.

          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Not all probabilities are the result of a calculation, we can speak of it being probable that if I jump off a cliff I will die, but not be able to do math to show it.
          We can speak of it, but it wouldn't be a scientific conclusion. And, in this case, it's a probability based on nothing more than your personal perception of things, which has been shown repeatedly to be wrong.

          To answer this question, fundamentally you'd have to at least start within knowing the probability that any two random proteins would interact with each other. If you can't tell me that probability, then you don't even have the beginning of a scientific argument.

          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          I said "If human design fails to substantially exceed nature, then that's evidence for a designer." And surely we have to accept that there are limits to human design, some problems are beyond us. This does not mean that a supernatural designer cannot do better.
          Again, this is scientifically flawed on multiple levels:
          — It discounts the power of evolution for no reason other than your personal predilections, in that without evidence you deny that evolution is capable of doing things that humans currently can't.
          — it assumes that near-current human capabilities are the end point, rather than viewing them tentatively and subject to change (which they undoubtedly will).
          — it claims that a failure of a design process is evidence for the success of a design process.
          — As demonstrated earlier in this thread, you've set things up that no matter what happens, you'll be able to claim ID is supported.
          — Again, it assumes a supernatural entity that there's no scientific evidence for, and the evidence outside of science is clearly ambiguous, given the nature of belief.

          In sum, you repeat yourself as often as you'd like, but if you can't address these issues, you're argument's going to remain badly flawed.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Not so, fulfilled prophecy gives us a good candidate for a supernatural being.
            Your so called "fulfilled prophecy" was exposed as having failed in the very thread you linked to.
            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


            • #66
              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
              Again, you're misunderstanding what you're quoting. But more significantly, you seem to adjust your justification for your beliefs each time you get called out for ignoring the paper itself.
              So what did "replicate and evolve" mean here, then?

              This is the Natural Science section; you're trying to claim ID is scientific. Why would i want anything but scientific evidence? Which prophecy certainly doesn't provide.
              I would say a prediction that comes true is scientific. But if all your truth has to be measured by a thermometer, you'll have precious little truth!

              To answer this question, fundamentally you'd have to at least start within knowing the probability that any two random proteins would interact with each other.
              Wait, why do I need to come up with this probability in order to talk about possible limits to human design of enzymes?

              — It discounts the power of evolution for no reason other than your personal predilections, in that without evidence you deny that evolution is capable of doing things that humans currently can't.
              Well, I think evolution has been given a fair chance, but the question here is whether humans can do better than evolution has (putatively) done? Whether evolution can do better is not my concern here.

              — it assumes that near-current human capabilities are the end point, rather than viewing them tentatively and subject to change (which they undoubtedly will).
              No, I'm saying if all human efforts in the future fail to best what we see, then that's evidence for design.

              — it claims that a failure of a design process is evidence for the success of a design process.
              Well, yes, failure of design by one agent can be evidence of design by another. You're making it sound like the same agent is involved.

              — As demonstrated earlier in this thread, you've set things up that no matter what happens, you'll be able to claim ID is supported.
              If design is true, then all the evidence could reasonably support ID.

              — Again, it assumes a supernatural entity that there's no scientific evidence for, and the evidence outside of science is clearly ambiguous, given the nature of belief.
              Predicting an event that comes to pass is not so very ambiguous!

              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


              • #67
                Originally posted by Roy View Post
                Your so called "fulfilled prophecy" was exposed as having failed in the very thread you linked to.
                And the Ottoman Empire is not the Egyptian nation, if you have further things to say, you may of course revive that thread!

                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


                • #68
                  Originally posted by rossum View Post
                  That showed that there are many chemicals that are different from the chemicals life uses, that can act in the same way. It says nothing about design; merely that one set of chemicals acts like a different set of similar chemicals.
                  But we're talking about directed evolution, right? So then this is not merely observing two similar chemical reactions.

                  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


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    But we're talking about directed evolution, right?
                    No we are not. We are talking about one specific science paper.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      So what did "replicate and evolve" mean here, then?
                      Please explain why you've used different justifications on consecutive pages.

                      As for your question, this may shock you given your lack of experience with science, but papers can contain more than one experiment. So it's possible to derive poorly functional enzymes from a random starting pool, and then evolve them into better functionality, and put both experiments into a single paper. In fact, it's often difficult to publish just a single result because it's considered insignificant.

                      Put simply: you're looking at a quote about a different part of the paper, but lack a sufficient understanding of the science to realize that. And to give that secondary source primacy, you're ignoring a quote from the paper itself.

                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      I would say a prediction that comes true is scientific. !
                      You would say it's true. Roy would clearly say it's not. The language is ambiguous. And that's not even getting into the fact that other religions have their own prophetic traditions that they claim have come true. How do you objectively determine which is right?

                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      But if all your truth has to be measured by a thermometer, you'll have precious little truth!
                      And here we have it. When it comes down to things, you don't actually care about science. Which is fine - you're allowed to not care. But just accept that you don't and leave those of us who do in peace.

                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Wait, why do I need to come up with this probability in order to talk about possible limits to human design of enzymes?!
                      Because, if you actually paid attention to yourself, you'd know you were making claims about the probability of the interactome evolving. But i guess that's too much to ask for.

                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Well, I think evolution has been given a fair chance, but the question here is whether humans can do better than evolution has (putatively) done? Whether evolution can do better is not my concern here.!
                      But it is. Again, you're not paying attention to your own arguments. We already have a known mechanism that can seemingly explain the diversity of proteins and their interactions in a cell. Your basic premise is that it's insufficient to do so.

                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      No, I'm saying if all human efforts in the future fail to best what we see, then that's evidence for design.
                      But human efforts likely won't stop while our species exists. Therefore, you're essentially saying that the only point this becomes evidence for design is when no humans are around to care. Do you even think before writing this stuff?

                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Well, yes, failure of design by one agent can be evidence of design by another. You're making it sound like the same agent is involved.!
                      That only works if we know we have a designed object with two possible designers. In the case of life, we don't know that. There's an entire section in the Dover decisions about setting up false dichotomies - you should read it.

                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      If design is true, then all the evidence could reasonably support ID.
                      Scientific predictions are not set up so that only a single outcome is possible.

                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Predicting an event that comes to pass is not so very ambiguous!
                      And yet you already know that it is, given that you and Roy can't agree on how to objectively evaluate that prediction.


                      Since it may get buried in the back and forth, i want to reiterate a question above: please explain why you gave different justifications for a false belief on consecutive pages of this discussion.

                      Your reply to me is littered with internal contradictions and the inability to remember what your own arguments are. I can't tell whether this is strategic - you're trying to throw so much confusing garbage at us that we give up and go away - or you just type out replies without thinking carefully about them. In either case, it's showing no respect for those of us who are trying to engage in a discussion honestly. And, more significantly, it's showing no respect for yourself - if you have sufficient self awareness, you'd be horribly embarrassed by what you're doing here. So, separate from all our disagreements, as one human being to another, please stop and think before typing.
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        No, I was instead gearing off this statement: "Philipp Holliger of the U.K.’s MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology and his team showed that these nucleic acids can replicate and evolve just like the real thing."

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        Again, all this research showed is what can take place naturally in a given suitable environment. They were not trying to better evolution.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                          Put simply: you're looking at a quote about a different part of the paper, but lack a sufficient understanding of the science to realize that. And to give that secondary source primacy, you're ignoring a quote from the paper itself.
                          So they did do directed evolution, as well as random selection. I guess we're both right.

                          And that's not even getting into the fact that other religions have their own prophetic traditions that they claim have come true. How do you objectively determine which is right?
                          Well, many OT prophecies are "forever" prophecies, such as "the Egyptian nation will never rise again to rule the nations", or "Babylon will never be rebuilt or reinhabited". These are admittedly more difficult to fulfill than one-time prophecies. But I would be interested in hearing about other prophetic traditions...

                          And here we have it. When it comes down to things, you don't actually care about science. Which is fine - you're allowed to not care. But just accept that you don't and leave those of us who do in peace.
                          But how did you make this conclusion? Without resorting to using a thermometer. Most important decisions are judgement calls.

                          Because, if you actually paid attention to yourself, you'd know you were making claims about the probability of the interactome evolving. But i guess that's too much to ask for.
                          I only note that no one seems to be making proposals about how the interactome evolved!

                          We already have a known mechanism that can seemingly explain the diversity of proteins and their interactions in a cell. Your basic premise is that it's insufficient to do so.
                          I don't think I've been making that point--if I'm understanding you correctly.

                          But human efforts likely won't stop while our species exists. Therefore, you're essentially saying that the only point this becomes evidence for design is when no humans are around to care.
                          Well, Baker's quote implies a timeframe, does it not? Say several generations of scientists.

                          That only works if we know we have a designed object with two possible designers.
                          No, there could be multiple designers in ID, I don't refuse that conclusion here.

                          Scientific predictions are not set up so that only a single outcome is possible.
                          But that doesn't mean both A and not A could be evidence for B.

                          Since it may get buried in the back and forth, i want to reiterate a question above: please explain why you gave different justifications for a false belief on consecutive pages of this discussion.
                          I am I think allowed to abandon a weaker argument for a stronger one.

                          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


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Again, all this research showed is what can take place naturally in a given suitable environment. They were not trying to better evolution.
                            Sure, they are! Humans will try to do the best they can, why should we stop when we get to the ability to do what nature can do?

                            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


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              So they did do directed evolution, as well as random selection. I guess we're both right.
                              Your entire post is the same old confused garbage, so i'm going to help you and my own sanity by focusing on one thing at a time.

                              No, we are not "both right", because you explicitly stated the following: "I can't believe that their approach was totally random" after being shown a quote from the actual paper saying that they started with random sequences. And the quote was provided in response to you saying "Yet they are designing the XNA, are they not?"

                              You should either acknowledge you were in error, or apologize for using phrasing that was misleading.

                              We can get to the next point once we're clear on this one.
                              Last edited by TheLurch; 07-10-2019, 11:51 AM.
                              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                                We can get to the next point once we're clear on this one.
                                Not holding my breath.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X