Nice defense of Evolution

[Seeker]

[Seeker]

Please feel free to share any insights and/or comments.

[shunyadragon]

Excellent review of the evidence for evolution and the billions of years of history, which would be very much in agreement with 99% of all scientists in the relevant fields from biology, organic chemistry, evolution, geology to cosmology.

[Seeker]

Errata: ''[...]believing something today AND ANOTHER tomorrow if a[...]

[lee_merrill]

If you look at only one enzyme you have no idea what has happened in the last 4 billion years. But if you put the pieces together, looking at this change here, that one there, the fossil remains, the similarities and differences in today's species, and so forth, all of this together is immense evidence for evolution...

Let's take this quote, which seems to me to be handwaving. How does this demonstrate evolution of enzymes?

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Let's take this quote, which seems to me to be handwaving. How does this demonstrate evolution of enzymes?

Blessings,
Lee

The scientific research references cited concerning the role of enzymes in abiogenesis and evolution have been demonstrated many many times in previous threads, but you choose to self-imposed ignorant based on a religious agenda.

[Seeker]

Let's take this quote, which seems to me to be handwaving. How does this demonstrate evolution of enzymes?

Blessings,
Lee

You mean the evolution of increased enzyme specificity? If so, that can be explained too, although it can get a bit technical.

[shunyadragon]

Let's take this quote, which seems to me to be handwaving. How does this demonstrate evolution of enzymes?

Blessings,
Lee

One point you never have been able to comprehend in terms of the role of enzymes in abiogenesis and evolution, despite numerous scientific references provided in previous threads, is that enzymes themselves do not evolve. The scientific literature previously cited demonstrated the increased specificity of enzymes in the process of abiogenesis and evolution. If an enzyme or a particular combination of enzymes works the process selected for that enzyme or combination. When the enzyme or combination did not work it was selected against that enzyme or combination. It has been demonstrated that new enzymes are produced in the process of the selectivity of natural evolution.

Source: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0fff/2c3f5e604bd8928611182d531507d74b752d.pdf

The nature of chemical innovation: new enzymes by evolution*

© Copyright Original Source

One comment often dishonestly misrepresented and misused by Creationists is the use of 'directed' in scientific literature. 'Directed' here refers to natural chemical and structural nature that cause the result, and not outside 'directed' cause of the natural chemical processes.

[shunyadragon]

You mean the evolution of increased enzyme specificity? If so, that can be explained too, although it can get a bit technical.

One problem with the creationist arguments is rooted in the following:

As for the [creationist] statement you asked me to counter:

'' [...] we don't see random changes doing that to enzymes (increasing their specificity) on a scale which could possibly account for all of life's specified complexity ''.

The problem is that the only thing that is 'random' is the outcome of the individual cause and effect events within a limited range limited by the Laws of Nature. The variation in the range of possible outcomes of individual cause and effect results is described as fractal in what we know as Chaos Theory. The outcome of the chain of cause and effect outcomes is not random, but determined within the limits of the Laws of NAture, environment and the circumstances surrounding the chain of cause and effect outcomes.

This relates to the use of the terminology 'directed' in scientific literature. The outcome of the series of cause and effect outcomes in nature is 'directed' by the Laws of NAture, environments, chemical and structural properties of chemical in nature.

[TheLurch]

Let's take this quote, which seems to me to be handwaving. How does this demonstrate evolution of enzymes?

Easiest way is just sequence comparisons. So, take a current antibiotic resistance enzyme or nylonase or something like that, figure out what proteins it is most closely related to, then compare their genes. See which mutations occurred, make the intermediate proteins, and test those. You'll eventually figure out the pathway that took it from the past to the present.

Now, you could object that we don't actually see each individual step take place, but we don't see each individual step involved with a seed growing into mature tree, but nobody seems to object to growth being the explanation - there's no "tree creationism."

[rogue06]

As TL has mentioned we have actually seen enzymes evolve.

[rogue06]

While "creationists" will use the term "evolutionist" their favorite by far is "Darwinist" or "Darwinism." It's like calling gravitational theory "Newtonism" or atomic theory "Daltonism."

Just plain silly.

[lee_merrill]

Easiest way is just sequence comparisons. So, take a current antibiotic resistance enzyme or nylonase or something like that, figure out what proteins it is most closely related to, then compare their genes. See which mutations occurred, make the intermediate proteins, and test those. You'll eventually figure out the pathway that took it from the past to the present.

Well, with nylonase it appears to be essentially two selectable mutations, which no one disputes can happen. But to have a path of many mutations requires a search of protein space, which Dougas Axe has shown to be prohibitive.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Well, with nylonase it appears to be essentially two selectable mutations, which no one disputes can happen. But to have a path of many mutations requires a search of protein space, which Dougas Axe has shown to be prohibitive.

Blessings,
Lee

Douglas Axe may believe this, but virtually all the other scientist in Biology do not, and his bias is apparent as a devoted follower of the Discovery Institute. He has done any actual research nor not published or submitting anything related to evolution in a peer reviewed biology journal outside the Discovery Institute.

Much of this work like the rest of the discovery institute base their work on the dishonest misuse of statistics and probability to justify a religious agenda, with a heavy dose of 'arguing from ignorance' and not the sound scientific research in the biological science related to the field of organic chemistry and evolution.

It is an unsubstantiated claim, and has not been shown to be prohibitive in the peer reviewed literature in the biological sciences..

[TheLurch]

Well, with nylonase it appears to be essentially two selectable mutations, which no one disputes can happen. But to have a path of many mutations requires a search of protein space, which Dougas Axe has shown to be prohibitive.

No, what he showed was that if you have no selection on intermediate steps, then proteins frequently get disabled after several mutations. But nobody's proposing that proteins stop being under selection when evolving - with a few exceptions, the exact opposite occurs.

I'm not even sure what Axe's experiment is relevant to; it resembles nothing like anybody is suggesting happens in biology.

On a more general note: don't argue based on material from the Discovery Institute - they are invariably wrong.