Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 107

Thread: Designer enzymes

  1. #71
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,960
    Amen (Given)
    1487
    Amen (Received)
    952
    Quote 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.

  2. #72
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,081
    Amen (Given)
    317
    Amen (Received)
    159
    Quote 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)

  3. #73
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,081
    Amen (Given)
    317
    Amen (Received)
    159
    Quote 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)

  4. #74
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,287
    Amen (Given)
    85
    Amen (Received)
    491
    Quote 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 at 09:51 AM.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  5. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  6. #75
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,549
    Amen (Given)
    615
    Amen (Received)
    1436
    Quote 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.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

  7. #76
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,960
    Amen (Given)
    1487
    Amen (Received)
    952
    Quote 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 at 05:15 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.

  8. #77
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,081
    Amen (Given)
    317
    Amen (Received)
    159
    Quote 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)

  9. #78
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,287
    Amen (Given)
    85
    Amen (Received)
    491
    Quote 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."

  10. #79
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,960
    Amen (Given)
    1487
    Amen (Received)
    952
    Quote 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.

  11. #80
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,287
    Amen (Given)
    85
    Amen (Received)
    491
    Quote 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."

Posting Permissions

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