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

  • #76
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    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
    Do what nature can do? Only in terms of whatever we do in science and technology we can only do what the Laws of Nature will allow, but we do not do better than what the Laws of Nature allow.

    As far as evolution goes, science does investigate how evolution took place, and we sometimes try and replecate the natural processes to determine how evolution takes place, but it is ridiculous that science tries to do better than evolution. Evolution took place over billions of years, and no we cannot doo better than nature, and do not try.

    Evolution takes place through natural environmental processes like natural selection over millions if years. Research methods to produce designer enzymes do not use the natural processes in natural environments. They develop designer enzymes with laboratory methods to develop commercial product, which they have already succeeded in doing. Just like they do with synthetic fabrics, oil, or food.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-10-2019, 07:15 PM.
    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


    • #77
      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      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.
      I acknowledge that I was wrong about the XNAs being non-random. However, they did do some directed evolution...

      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


      • #78
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        I acknowledge that I was wrong about the XNAs being non-random.
        So why did you keep arguing it, even after a direct quote was shown to you? And change your justification while doing so? If you'd just acknowledge that you were wrong, the entire conversation could move on instead of getting bogged down in stupidity like this one has.

        In any case, why don't you stop and think about the implications of that? ID folks often point to individual catalytic activities and say "oh, they're improbable, and therefore couldn't have come from a random source." Well, here, in a single randomized library, researchers have discovered multiple catalytic activities. Kinda suggests the ID people are just making stuff up.

        Relevant to the rest of our conversation, this is also why keep insisting that quantifying probability is essential if you're going to base an argument on it.

        In any case, on to the next point:
        But how did you make this conclusion? Without resorting to using a thermometer. Most important decisions are judgement calls.
        Look, i love Beethoven, can't stand Mozart. That's not based on anything quantifiable. But it's also not science, and i don't pretend that it is. In contrast, you keep pretending that your ID-favorable contentions are scientific. In fact, in another thread, i specifically asked why you didn't just accept that you like ID for theological reasons and leave it at that. You said because you felt there was scientific evidence supporting it. So you're the one trying to make this science, but refusing to accept that your arguments are bound any of the rules of science.

        In other words, you're trying to dress something up in a way that borrows the credibility, but doing it in a way that avoids any of the systems that allow science to produce credible information. And, well, i'm going to call that out, because it's misleading people.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          I acknowledge that I was wrong about the XNAs being non-random. However, they did do some directed evolution...

          Blessings,
          Lee
          No, they did research and development to develop designer enzymes for commercial and industrial purposes. No natural processes of evolution like natural selection were used.
          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


          • #80
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            No, they did research and development to develop designer enzymes for commercial and industrial purposes.
            No, that's not right either. The abstract was linked here; why does nobody seem to want to read it.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
              No, that's not right either. The abstract was linked here; why does nobody seem to want to read it.
              link did not work.
              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


              • #82
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                link did not work.
                https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13982

                There it is again. Just worked for me a second time.
                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  ID folks often point to individual catalytic activities and say "oh, they're improbable, and therefore couldn't have come from a random source." Well, here, in a single randomized library, researchers have discovered multiple catalytic activities.
                  But ID people acknowledge that nature can do some things. Improbability comes into play as the complexity goes up. You have apparently concluded that ID is wrong, that evolution can produce all enzymes, and I might turn the tables and ask for your probability calculations.

                  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


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    But ID people acknowledge that nature can do some things. Improbability comes into play as the complexity goes up. You have apparently concluded that ID is wrong, that evolution can produce all enzymes, and I might turn the tables and ask for your probability calculations.
                    Not all ID people acknowledge it - many focus on what they claim is the complete improbability of the original formation of enzymes and the like.

                    In any case, in answer to your question:
                    What's the probability that evolution can produce novel proteins? 1.
                    What's the probability that evolution can generate protein interactions? 1.
                    What's the probability that evolution can generate structures with multiple interacting parts? 1.

                    Evolution is a successful theory because we know a lot about what it's capable of doing.

                    So, with that out of the way, we can move on to the next point.

                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    I only note that no one seems to be making proposals about how the interactome evolved!
                    Which is simple to handle: you're lying. Here's what originally was said:

                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    That last bit - extremely effective designer(s) - requires piling a lock of evidence on top of a lack of evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of any designers. Then, you want to posit said nonexistent designers were involved in the origin of life on Earth, something for which there is also no evidence.
                    Well, there is evidence for both, in the latter case, in the origin of the interactome.
                    You're clearly making the case that there is evidence for a designer in the origin of the interactome. That is in no way equivalent to saying "nobody's talking about its evolution."

                    Please acknowledge that you're being misleading, apologize for doing so, and we can move on.
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Improbability comes into play as the complexity goes up.
                      No Lee. That is a flat out lie pushed by the ID creationists as a rhetorical ploy to sway dirt-ignorant laymen like yourself. With a feedback process like evolution there is nothing improbable at all about evolving complexity when evolving complexity is rewarded by a greater chance of reproductive success. There's also the big problem for the IDiots none of them have the ability to calculate any accurate probabilities for anything in biological life. They count on people's erroneous "gut feel" that since any specific outcome of evolutionary processes is improbable that means getting any result at all must be too improbable to happen naturally.

                      You should be embarrassed to be snookered by such a lame argument as the IDiot "it's too improbable!!" ruse. But given your track record you won't be.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        Improbability comes into play as the complexity goes up.
                        How complex is the Intelligent Designer? Anything with intelligence presumably has to be complex, not simple. What designed your proposed designer?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by rossum View Post
                          How complex is the Intelligent Designer? Anything with intelligence presumably has to be complex, not simple. What designed your proposed designer?
                          Jonathan Sarfati answers the question in the following way:

                          ''A number of skeptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’

                          So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

                          Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
                          The universe has a beginning.
                          Therefore the universe has a cause.
                          Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time.
                          The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause''.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Seeker View Post
                            Jonathan Sarfati answers the question in the following way:

                            ''A number of skeptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’
                            But but but the IDiots told us in no uncertain terms ID is not about religion or the Christian God. Honest!

                            Oops!

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Seeker View Post
                              Jonathan Sarfati answers the question in the following way:

                              ''A number of skeptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’

                              So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

                              Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
                              The universe has a beginning.
                              Therefore the universe has a cause.
                              Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time.
                              The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause''.
                              So, your complex designer was not itself designed. Hence falsifying ID; the designer is an example of a complex entity that was not designed.

                              If one complex entity can exist without being designed, then it is in principle possible for other complex entities to also not be designed. How do we distinguish between a designed complex entity and an undesigned complex entity?

                              The ID claim that certain forms of complexity must be designed is falsified by applying ID's own analysis to their proposed designer.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by rossum View Post
                                So, your complex designer was not itself designed. Hence falsifying ID; the designer is an example of a complex entity that was not designed.

                                If one complex entity can exist without being designed, then it is in principle possible for other complex entities to also not be designed. How do we distinguish between a designed complex entity and an undesigned complex entity?

                                The ID claim that certain forms of complexity must be designed is falsified by applying ID's own analysis to their proposed designer.
                                Good reply, but it's not ''my designer''. I am no IDer or creationist. I am also not a Christian, though I was born and raised in a Catholic family.

                                I am just ''seeking'' to see both sides of the question (hence my alias); in order to hopefully get to the best and most correct conclusion (in my own view/opinion, of course).
                                Last edited by Seeker; 07-13-2019, 05:09 AM.

                                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