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

  • #46
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    So far, evolution and human design seem to be on a par.
    Based on what?

    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    And I think the extrapolation is entirely justified.
    Based on what? He wasn't saying anything about the source of enzymes, he didn't explain whether his statement had any limits to its applicability, etc. And yet you're applying it to the origin of all life.

    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    And an unknown designer that does better than we can would not be magic.
    How does it differ from unicorns? Gremlins? Odin? There's an equal amount of evidence indicating that any of them were involved.

    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, there is evidence for both, in the latter case, in the origin of the interactome.
    I hesitate to ask this, but wtf? How is the interactome evidence for anything regarding design?


    EDITED TO ADD: I noticed you've run right past the issue that your basic argument is "if something fails, then it's evidence that it must have succeeded."
    Last edited by TheLurch; 07-01-2019, 12:34 PM.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Sure they are, . . .
      No they are not.

      . . . and why not?
      It has nothing to do with the hypothesis of their research. They are not trying to simulate nor do better than natural evolution environments, nor processes like natural selection. On the other hand scientists researching abiogenesis are working on the simulation of the environments and chemistry of the origins of life. Not do better, but to determine how these environments and chemistry functions in the origins of life.


      Right, they're trying to do the best they can, which might be better than undirected evolution can produce.
      No as described above.
      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


      • #48
        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
        Based on what?
        Based on a paper I can't find now, and then the following article, which describe its results as being on a par with natural enzyme efficiency.

        Source: The Scientist

        Now, the group has used XNAs to encode and produce artificial enzymes that, once again, function just as well as natural molecules, capable of constructing and breaking down other compounds, according to research published this week (December 1) in Nature.

        Source

        © Copyright Original Source



        Based on what? He wasn't saying anything about the source of enzymes, he didn't explain whether his statement had any limits to its applicability, etc. And yet you're applying it to the origin of all life.
        Based on the reasonableness of saying we should be able to do better than a blind process can attain to. I'm not sure what this has to do with origin-of-life.

        How does it differ from unicorns? Gremlins? Odin? There's an equal amount of evidence indicating that any of them were involved.
        Not so, fulfilled prophecy gives us a good candidate for a supernatural being.

        How is the interactome evidence for anything regarding design?
        Because it's so unlikely that random processes could come up with it.

        I noticed you've run right past the issue that your basic argument is "if something fails, then it's evidence that it must have succeeded."
        If human design fails to substantially exceed nature, then that's evidence for a designer. I don't think this fits your statement here.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        Last edited by lee_merrill; 07-04-2019, 09:50 PM.
        "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


        • #49
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          They are not trying to simulate nor do better than natural evolution environments, nor processes like natural selection.
          Source: The Scientist

          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.

          Source

          © Copyright Original Source



          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


          • #50
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Source: The Scientist

            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.

            Source

            © Copyright Original Source



            Blessings,
            Lee
            I am familiar with this. They letting things take place naturally in the lab, which is not trying to do one better than evolution, but simply demonstrating one aspect of evolution in the lab.
            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


            • #51
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              If human design fails to substantially exceed nature, then that's evidence for a designer. I don't think this fits your statement here.
              No. It is evidence that in some cases nature can substantially exceed human design.

              Human design tends to be a serial process: design -> test -> tweak -> repeat. Evolution is a massively parallel process. There are 7 billion humans, all with their own individual mutations running in parallel. Bacterial populations are a lot larger: there are well over a trillion bacteria in your gut alone.

              Some problems are better suited to serial solutions. Other problems are better suited to parallel solutions. All you might be doing here is determining what type of problem you are dealing with: serial or parallel, not anything more significant.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by rossum View Post
                No. It is evidence that in some cases nature can substantially exceed human design.

                Human design tends to be a serial process: design -> test -> tweak -> repeat. Evolution is a massively parallel process. There are 7 billion humans, all with their own individual mutations running in parallel. Bacterial populations are a lot larger: there are well over a trillion bacteria in your gut alone.

                Some problems are better suited to serial solutions. Other problems are better suited to parallel solutions. All you might be doing here is determining what type of problem you are dealing with: serial or parallel, not anything more significant.
                Nice to see you around.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  Based on a paper I can't find now, and then the following article, which describe its results as being on a par with natural enzyme efficiency.

                  Source: The Scientist

                  Now, the group has used XNAs to encode and produce artificial enzymes that, once again, function just as well as natural molecules, capable of constructing and breaking down other compounds, according to research published this week (December 1) in Nature.

                  Source

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  Once again, i can only recommend that you take the time to learn some biology before trying to comment on it. Here's the paper that that's based on:

                  https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13982

                  One, these are not enzymes in the traditional sense; they're the equivalent of ribozymes, but made with artificial bases. But, more critically for the argument here, they weren't designed. From the abstract itself, with bolding added:
                  "Here we report the discovery of such XNAzymes, elaborated in four different chemistries (arabino nucleic acids, ANA5; 2′-fluoroarabino nucleic acids, FANA6; hexitol nucleic acids, HNA; and cyclohexene nucleic acids, CeNA7) directly from random XNA oligomer pools."

                  Once again, i have to ask you: do you not care about the truth? Because you consistently show evidence that you don't.

                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  Based on the reasonableness of saying we should be able to do better than a blind process can attain to.
                  While we're on the topic of honesty, why don't you just accept that this is your argument, not his, and stop trying to pin it on him? It's not clear from the context whether he was serious or joking, but it's clear that he wasn't making a scientific prediction, and none of had anything to do with whether there was a designer. That's your argument. You're dragging a scientist's name into it in the hope to give your argument unjustified credibility. Again, if you were interested in being honest, you'd stop.

                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  Not so, fulfilled prophecy gives us a good candidate for a supernatural being.
                  Excuse me, did i miss something? "Prophecy" has now been quantified and measured, and provides support for scientific arguments?

                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  Because it's so unlikely that random processes could come up with it.
                  Well, given you're making a probability argument, i assume you've done the calculations to back that up and can show your work. I'll anxiously await seeing your math.

                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  If human design fails to substantially exceed nature, then that's evidence for a designer. I don't think this fits your statement here.
                  And yet it does. You said yourself that human design supports ID by analogy. Therefore, failure of human design by analogy indicates failure of intelligent design. Your own logic, stated above, demands that. Yet you reject it, purely because it's an answer you don't like.
                  "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by rossum View Post
                    Some problems are better suited to serial solutions. Other problems are better suited to parallel solutions. All you might be doing here is determining what type of problem you are dealing with: serial or parallel, not anything more significant.
                    Yet people are able to use massive parallelism (e.g. controlled evolution) to assist in their designs.

                    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


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                      "Here we report the discovery of such XNAzymes, elaborated in four different chemistries (arabino nucleic acids, ANA5; 2′-fluoroarabino nucleic acids, FANA6; hexitol nucleic acids, HNA; and cyclohexene nucleic acids, CeNA7) directly from random XNA oligomer pools."
                      Yet they are designing the XNA, are they not?

                      You're dragging a scientist's name into it in the hope to give your argument unjustified credibility.
                      He made a clear statement, and the scientist Marcos Eberlin saw that this provided an opportunity to test for design.

                      Excuse me, did i miss something? "Prophecy" has now been quantified and measured, and provides support for scientific arguments?
                      You're shifting the goalposts now, but prophecy is indeed measurable, and provides evidence for a supernatural being behind them when they succeed.

                      Well, given you're making a probability argument, i assume you've done the calculations to back that up and can show your work. I'll anxiously await seeing your math.
                      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.

                      And yet it does. You said yourself that human design supports ID by analogy. Therefore, failure of human design by analogy indicates failure of intelligent design. Your own logic, stated above, demands that. Yet you reject it, purely because it's an answer you don't like.
                      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.

                      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


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        Yet they are designing the XNA, are they not?
                        No they are not.

                        What part of "random" do you have a problem with? It was right there in "random XNA oligomer pools".

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by rossum View Post
                          No they are not.

                          What part of "random" do you have a problem with? It was right there in "random XNA oligomer pools".
                          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.”

                          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


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            Yet people are able to use massive parallelism (e.g. controlled evolution) to assist in their designs.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            NOT parallelism, except possibly breeding plants and animals for human purposes instead of natural selection in evolution.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-06-2019, 07:51 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


                            • #59
                              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.
                              No evolution is not directed, and scientists used scientific methods to design and make things, and not natural selection in response to changing environments.

                              And then they are looking forward to more "tailor-made enzymes", which speaks of choices being made:
                              Humans use scientific methods based on the Laws of Nature to design and make things, and not natural selection based on the changing environment over billions of years.

                              In evolution no 'choices' are being made to design and make things as in evolution, your spouting is too anthropomorphic.

                              “And because we can modify chemistry at least to some extent to our hearts’ content, we can make tailor-made enzymes for particular purposes.”
                              Scientists use chemistry to make and design things, and not change change chemistry, Evolution takes place in nature over billions of years based on changing environments.

                              These are two very different processes.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-06-2019, 07:49 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


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                Yet they are designing the XNA, are they not?
                                No

                                He made a clear statement, and the scientist Marcos Eberlin saw that this provided an opportunity to test for design.
                                No, he did not make a clear statement concerning anything such, and Marc Eberlin unethically cited him out of context to justify his agenda.

                                You're shifting the goalposts now, but prophecy is indeed measurable, and provides evidence for a supernatural being behind them when they succeed.
                                No, prophecy is not measurable nor provides for a supernatural being behind them when they succeed, because of the many different interpretations of prophecy, and the interpretations are highly subjective and anecdotal. For example Jews radically disagree with the interpretation of the prophecies, and many times they are closer to being correct.


                                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.
                                Not relevant.

                                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.
                                It is virtually impossible for human scientists to exceed billions of years of natural abiogenesis through evolution to the vast complexity of life, and humanity.

                                There is absolutely no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural designer.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 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