Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 121 to 126 of 126

Thread: Designer enzymes

  1. #121
    tWebber HMS_Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Thinking
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,061
    Amen (Given)
    51
    Amen (Received)
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    No, I asked some questions which have not yet been answered.
    You deflected and ran from the question you were asked so fast you left skid marks.

    Here is the question again. Try to answer it honestly for a change:

    Where are the effects of feedback from natural selection accounted for in your "calculations"?

    HINT: the answer is you didn't include the effects at all because your "calculations" are based on the usual Creationist science-free stupidity. That's why they are completely worthless.

    I just want to see how far you'll go to deny the obvious. Exposing Creationist dishonesty is always a win for the pro-science side.

  2. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  3. #122
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,088
    Amen (Given)
    318
    Amen (Received)
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The bottomline is taking into the natural determining factors that constrain the influence of the randomness of the occurence of each mutation event greatly increases the probability of the processes of evolution.
    Quote Originally Posted by HMS_Beagle
    Where are the effects of feedback from natural selection accounted for in your "calculations"?
    I selected a biomolecule that is not self-replicating, so it has to form randomly. You need replication and competition for natural selection, for evolution to work.

    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)

  4. #123
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,001
    Amen (Given)
    1490
    Amen (Received)
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    I selected a biomolecule that is not self-replicating, so it has to form randomly. You need replication and competition for natural selection, for evolution to work.
    Huh?!?!!?

    Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=biomolecule+definition&oq=biomolecule&aqs=chrome.2.0j69i57j0l4.10039j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


    biomolecule -A biomolecule or biological molecule is a loosely used term for molecules and ions present in organisms that are essential to one or more typically biological processes, such as cell division, morphogenesis, or development.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Biomolecules do not act alone in the biological processes of replecation. No, the formation of biomolecules are determined by chemistry of physiology not randomness. They do not form randomly.

    Still the question has not been answered. Where are the effects of feedback from natural selection accounted for in your "calculations"?

    Apparently you are changing the subject, not clear, 'arguing from ignorance' concerning what you perceive as unknown in abiogenesis concerning biomolecules(?) and not the science of evolution. In the physiology of life there is nothing random about biomolecules and role in the physiology and replication of cells.

    Even in the chemical processes in the biomolecules the cause and effect evts are all that is random. The resulting reactions and products are determined by the Laws of Nature via the laws of chemistry. I mentioned before the limited reactions to achieve the desired geometry of organic chemistry is not random, would also be true in abiogenesis.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; Today at 03:50 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.

  5. #124
    tWebber HMS_Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Thinking
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,061
    Amen (Given)
    51
    Amen (Received)
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    I selected a biomolecule that is not self-replicating, so it has to form randomly.
    No you didn't. You posted a 2001 paper you didn't read and don't understand describing the origin of self-replication

    The RNA world hypothesis regarding the early evolution of life relies on the
    premise that some RNA sequences can catalyze RNA replication. In support of
    this conjecture, we describe here an RNA molecule that catalyzes the type of
    polymerization needed for RNA replication.
    The paper said nothing about the molecule having to form randomly by falling together all at once like your IDiot "calculations" require. That was your lie.

    Keep up the lying for Jesus Lee. You'll guarantee your spot in Heaven.

  6. #125
    tWebber HMS_Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Thinking
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,061
    Amen (Given)
    51
    Amen (Received)
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Huh?!?!!?

    Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=biomolecule+definition&oq=biomolecule&aqs=chrome.2.0j69i57j0l4.10039j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


    biomolecule -A biomolecule or biological molecule is a loosely used term for molecules and ions present in organisms that are essential to one or more typically biological processes, such as cell division, morphogenesis, or development.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Biomolecules do not act alone in the biological processes. No, the formation of biomolecules are determined by chemistry of physiology. They do not form randomly.

    Still the question has not been answered. Where are the effects of feedback from natural selection accounted for in your "calculations"?
    Lee has on his "Pants on Fire" hat today. He's busted and he knows it.

  7. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  8. #126
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,001
    Amen (Given)
    1490
    Amen (Received)
    953
    If you are shifting the subject to the issue of abiogenesis and biomolecules. Well, yes there are many unknowns, which is a given concerning abiogenesis. . . . but yes, there are many advances in the science of abiogenesis that explain the role of the biomolecules in the primitive forms that lead to the first life forms as follows in this reference.

    Source: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum



    Researchers may have solved origin-of-life conundrum

    By Robert F. ServiceMar. 16, 2015 , 12:15 PM

    The origin of life on Earth is a set of paradoxes. In order for life to have gotten started, there must have been a genetic molecule—something like DNA or RNA—capable of passing along blueprints for making proteins, the workhorse molecules of life. But modern cells can’t copy DNA and RNA without the help of proteins themselves. To make matters more vexing, none of these molecules can do their jobs without fatty lipids, which provide the membranes that cells need to hold their contents inside. And in yet another chicken-and-egg complication, protein-based enzymes (encoded by genetic molecules) are needed to synthesize lipids.

    Now, researchers say they may have solved these paradoxes. Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules—nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids—needed for the earliest form of life to get its start. Although the new work does not prove that this is how life started, it may eventually help explain one of the deepest mysteries in modern science.

    “This is a very important paper,” says Jack Szostak, a molecular biologist and origin-of-life researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not affiliated with the current research. “It proposes for the first time a scenario by which almost all of the essential building blocks for life could be assembled in one geological setting.”

    Scientists have long touted their own favorite scenarios for which set of biomolecules formed first. “RNA World” proponents, for example suggest RNA may have been the pioneer; not only is it able to carry genetic information, but it can also serve as a proteinlike chemical catalyst, speeding up certain reactions. Metabolism-first proponents, meanwhile, have argued that simple metal catalysts, as opposed to advanced protein-based enzymes, may have created a soup of organic building blocks that could have given rise to the other biomolecules.

    The RNA World hypothesis got a big boost in 2009. Chemists led by John Sutherland at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom reported that they had discovered that relatively simple precursor compounds called acetylene and formaldehyde could undergo a sequence of reactions to produce two of RNA’s four nucleotide building blocks, showing a plausible route to how RNA could have formed on its own—without the need for enzymes—in the primordial soup. Critics, though, pointed out that acetylene and formaldehyde are still somewhat complex molecules themselves. That begged the question of where they came from.

    For their current study, Sutherland and his colleagues set out to work backward from those chemicals to see if they could find a route to RNA from even simpler starting materials. They succeeded. In the current issue of Nature Chemistry, Sutherland’s team reports that it created nucleic acid precursors starting with just hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ultraviolet (UV) light. What is more, Sutherland says, the conditions that produce nucleic acid precursors also create the starting materials needed to make natural amino acids and lipids. That suggests a single set of reactions could have given rise to most of life’s building blocks simultaneously.

    Sutherland’s team argues that early Earth was a favorable setting for those reactions. HCN is abundant in comets, which rained down steadily for nearly the first several hundred million years of Earth’s history. The impacts would also have produced enough energy to synthesize HCN from hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen. Likewise, Sutherland says, H2S was thought to have been common on early Earth, as was the UV radiation that could drive the reactions and metal-containing minerals that could have catalyzed them.

    That said, Sutherland cautions that the reactions that would have made each of the sets of building blocks are different enough from one another—requiring different metal catalysts, for example—that they likely would not have all occurred in the same location. Rather, he says, slight variations in chemistry and energy could have favored the creation of one set of building blocks over another, such as amino acids or lipids, in different places. “Rainwater would then wash these compounds into a common pool,” says Dave Deamer, an origin-of-life researcher at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who wasn’t affiliated with the research.

    Could life have kindled in that common pool? That detail is almost certainly forever lost to history. But the idea and the “plausible chemistry” behind it is worth careful thought, Deamer says. Szostak agrees. “This general scenario raises many questions,” he says, “and I am sure that it will be debated for some time to come.”

    © Copyright Original Source

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •