Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 150

Thread: Designer enzymes

  1. #81
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,022
    Amen (Given)
    1494
    Amen (Received)
    953
    Quote 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.

  2. #82
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,290
    Amen (Given)
    85
    Amen (Received)
    493
    Quote 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."

  3. #83
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,099
    Amen (Given)
    320
    Amen (Received)
    159
    Quote 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)

  4. #84
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,290
    Amen (Given)
    85
    Amen (Received)
    493
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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:

    Quote 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."

  5. #85
    tWebber HMS_Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Thinking
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,067
    Amen (Given)
    51
    Amen (Received)
    447
    Quote 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.

  6. #86
    tWebber rossum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    London.
    Faith
    Buddhist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    59
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    26
    Quote 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?

  7. #87
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    113
    Amen (Given)
    80
    Amen (Received)
    7
    Quote 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''.

  8. #88
    tWebber HMS_Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Thinking
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,067
    Amen (Given)
    51
    Amen (Received)
    447
    Quote 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!

  9. #89
    tWebber rossum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    London.
    Faith
    Buddhist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    59
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    26
    Quote 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.

  10. #90
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    113
    Amen (Given)
    80
    Amen (Received)
    7
    Quote 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 at 03:09 AM.

Posting Permissions

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