Interesting article which describes the way cells make proteins. Good movies too.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/85/8508cover.html
Real science at work!!
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/85/8508cover.html
Real science at work!!
The Making of a Protein
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
Skeptic said:
No, because you were not there. You can not observe it or repeat it. Let's say that you take inorganic compound A and mixed it with inorganic compound B. Then hit with an electrical charge - and you get a protein. What have you discovered - that a protein can be made in such a fashion. That can NEVER tells us if that is how proteins actually came about.
Yet we routinely put people to death based on events that no one was around to witness, no one was around to observe, and no one can repeat. I hope you disagree with punishing people for crimes that no one was around to witness. That would be the only consistent position.seer said:
Skeptic
New member
But such an experimental result would tell us that a natural process such as that was a possible candidate for how the first proteins were made. Such a result would add further evidence to support the abiogenesis hypothesis.seer said:
In order to rationally claim that abiogenesis was probable, science does not have to know exactly how the first proteins or life forms were actually made. They only have to know that there are natural physical processes that could have resulted in the first proteins or life forms. Given this information, abiogenesis becomes a much more likely candidate for the origin of life than supernatural poofing, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
Johnny said:
Routinely? Hardly. Great sums and great turmoil surrounds the taking of the life of a murderer in this country.
What you fail to realize is that what you are doing is far worse.
When a person dies "before their time" we see this as a great tragedy. Yet many fail to see that when a person dies without believing in Jesus Christ it is an infinitely greater tragedy.
You seem to be oblivious to the fact that your actions encourage people here to continue to disbelieve in Jesus Christ.
If the Bible is not true and Jesus Christ was not God and did not die for our sins then all belief is in vain. We will all die and that will be the end of it. This is why many who disbelieve in Jesus Christ believe that physical death is the greatest enemy and consider it to be the greatest tragedy, while ignoring the greater enemy and the infinitely greater tragedy.
Skeptic said:
Whenever an atheist wants to strengthen their position for abiogenesis, they refer to the possibility that God designed the first cell as "poofing".
They do this because they have absolutely no rational basis for concluding that "natural" laws could accomplish such an enormously complex task.
God did not "poof" a cell into existence like a magician.
He said He formed it out of natural materials, and after viewing the site and the videos which I linked to to start this thread, YOU have to decide which is the most logical alternative: 1) natural materials "poofing themselves" into molecular machines with all the other auxiliary molecular machines that such a complex formation process takes just to get a single protein (and thousands are needed to make a cell), or 2) design by an intelligent agent.
Abiogenesis is absurd.
God is good. :cloud9:
Skeptic said:
seer said:
seer said:
Your reasoning was that the details couldn't be pieced together because no one was there to observe it and it couldn't be repeated. But now you tell me with another historical event (crime), there is a way to piece together what happened without observing or repeating it. And this method is so reliable we put people to death for it. The question then arises, why is it impossible that there may be some method to determine how the original proteins were made as skeptic asked? You said it couldn't be done because it couldn't be observed and repeated. But then you turned around and told us that a historical event could be pieced together despite the fact that no one could observe or repeat it. So that can't be your reason -- at least not if you wish to be consistent.seer said:
On average one person every 10 days. If you want to quibble over whether or not this constitutes "routine" that's fine, but my point was that we have executed people for an event no one except the murderer and the victim ever observed.bob b said:
"If evolution is true, then the Bible is not true." John L. Groenlund, ICR Back to Genesis Report No. 78, June 1995bob b said:
Actually, dear Bob, I do not encourage anyone to disbelieve in Jesus Christ. You can thank the modern Church for instilling in everyone's mind that you have to chose between evolution and Jesus Christ.
"It has been my experience in talking to agnostics and atheists that many were raised in fundimentalist churches and that the denial of the physical evidence that those churches engaged in was a significant reason for them leaving Christ." - Robert Morphis, What Harm is done by Creation Science?
"If you are a Christian, you should care because this stuff is being taught in Christian schools (students from Judah Christian School in Champaign, Illinois were taken to the Answers in Genesis seminar). What happens when these children learn more about science and find out that they were lied to - that dinosaurs and man could never have coexisted, that there is abundant evidence for an old earth and no evidence whatsoever for a young one, and that the fossil record does not support a Biblical flood model? Will they conclude that they were lied to about other things as well? Lied to about Jesus Christ and the resurrection?" - Steven Schimmrich
lee_merrill
New member
Neat stuff!
"The universe is about 15 billion years old. This means that less than one trillionth of the time has passed that would be needed to make even one of the 250-350 gene products necessary for minimal life, or one of the 1500 gene products necessary for independent life."
Blessings,
Lee
And Hubert Yockey's results give an estimate of about 1 in 1075 chance of making 1 molecule of cytochrome C on earth. Oops.Skeptic said:
"The universe is about 15 billion years old. This means that less than one trillionth of the time has passed that would be needed to make even one of the 250-350 gene products necessary for minimal life, or one of the 1500 gene products necessary for independent life."
Blessings,
Lee
Johnny said:
Yes Johnny, with finger prints and DNA one could get a pretty good idea who the trigger man was. Back to my point - what if we could take a few inorganic compounds and create organic compounds - how do you KNOW this is the way it actually happened? Be specific please...
So what you're actually saying is that even though no one observed, saw, or repeated the event, we can reconstruct the event with enough confidence to bet someone's life on it. I guess then your answer to skeptic isn't really valid anymore. After all, your primary argument was that science can't find out because it's not observable or repeatable. But now you've just told me that in fact, being observable and repeatable isn't universally required to ascertain what really happened. Now the burden is on you to justify why this is the case necessarily with protein evolution.seer said:
We don't. I never said it was. I was simply responding to your claim that science could never know.seer said:
Johnny said:
Johnny are you saying that court room rules are the same as scientific rules? Does not the scientific method depend on that which is observable and repeatable?
They can't Johnny. I have have already proved that. So I will ask you again - even if you could turn inorganic matter into organic matter how do you KNOW that is how it actually happened. You can't - all you can do is assert, and that is not proof.
lucaspa
Member
seer said:
Not apples and oranges. What you are doing is using "the present is the way it is because the past was the way it was".
The objections of creationists to abiogenesis is never how it actually happened, is it? No, the objection is that abiogenesis could not possibly happen by any material means.
If a means is found where non-living material can form a living entity, then the creationist objection to abiogenesis is answered.
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
That's one possible way to get life from non-life. There are others and the actual path might have been a combination of two or more of the possible paths. But that the paths exist means creationists cannot claim that God must have zapped the first cell.
lucaspa
Member
bob b said:
yeah, pretty cool. Some more "real science" at work:
4. Margaret E. Saks, Jeffrey R. Sampson, John Abelson Evolution of a transfer RNA gene through a point mutation in the anticodon. Science, 279, Number 5357 Issue of 13 March 1998, pp. 1665 - 1670
"The transfer RNA (tRNA) multigene family comprises 20 amino acid-accepting groups, many of which contain isoacceptors. The addition of isoacceptors to the tRNA repertoire was critical to establishing the genetic code, yet the origin of isoacceptors remains largely unexplored. A model of tRNA evolution, termed "tRNA gene recruitment," was formulated. It proposes that a tRNA gene can be recruited from one isoaccepting group to another by a point mutation that concurrently changes tRNA amino acid identity and messenger RNA coupling capacity. A test of the model showed that an Escherichia coli strain, in which the essential tRNAUGUThr gene was inactivated, was rendered viable when a tRNAArg with a point mutation that changed its anticodon from UCU to UGU (threonine) was expressed. Insertion of threonine at threonine codons by the "recruited" tRNAArg was corroborated by in vitro aminoacylation assays showing that its specificity had been changed from arginine to threonine. "
7. P S Chimmel and R Alexander, All you need is RNA. Science 281:658-659, Jul. 31, 1998.
"fragments of the ribosome (the organelle that executes the algorithm of the genetic code) containing only RNA are sufficient to catalyze peptide bond synthesis between amino acids, adding weight to the idea that early life systems could have emerged from a world in which RNA molecules coupled amino acids to make peptides" "The most rigorous way to achieve this objective is to test a synthetic RNA derived from the gene for 23S rRNA. Such an RNA, never having been exposed to any of the ribosomal proteins, would be guaranteed to be free of their activities.... Now, Nitta et al. have made a new contribution by taking advantage of the organized domain structure of 23S rRNA. They made transcripts corresponding to each domain of 23S rRNA and found, remarkably, that a mixture of all six domains was active, but only when domain V was present--the very domain that contains the transferase center. In fact, domain V by itself proved active, whereas none of the other domains had significant activity alone."
Johnny said:
This means to me that we must work ever harder to get the news out that "molecules to man" has been shown to be absurd by the scientific advances of the past 50 years or so.
BTW, this Steven Schimmrich you quoted writes for talk.origins, the atheist website.