Why protein folding permits "small changes" but prohibits macroevolution.

Vision in Verse

New member
If you find some "wall" to evolution which doesn't allow for a specific string of DNA coding to be changed via mutation. The way I see it now, any part of the DNA is susceptible to mutation, therefore macroevolution is definitely possible and fits at least the majority of the fossil record. If you say it's impossible, you need to show why the changes in DNA are not possible.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Vision in Verse said:
If you find some "wall" to evolution which doesn't allow for a specific string of DNA coding to be changed via mutation. The way I see it now, any part of the DNA is susceptible to mutation, therefore macroevolution is definitely possible and fits at least the majority of the fossil record. If you say it's impossible, you need to show why the changes in DNA are not possible.

You seem to have missed the whole point of this thread.

True, a mutation may be able to occur in any portion of the genome.

But did you realize that DNA only contains the "pattern" for the proteins, which comprise the active mechanisms which supports life?

The DNA is sort of like memory in a computer. But the computer is the thing that is active in carrying out computations according to the instruction patterns stored in its memory. If the instruction patterns contain "bugs", what happens?

Get it?

(my MS Word software "hangs" so often I have sometimes wondered if it was coded by a bunch of evolutionists who think that making changes to it at random might improve it).
 

Vision in Verse

New member
bob b said:
But did you realize that DNA only contains the "pattern" for the proteins, which comprise the active mechanisms which supports life?
Yes. 2 base pairs of DNA is one amino acid. Amino acids make up the proteins. Proteins work in the body to control development, and all that good stuff.
bob b said:
The DNA is sort of like memory in a computer. But the computer is the thing that is active in carrying out computations according to the instruction patterns stored in its memory. If the instruction patterns contain "bugs", what happens?
If the bug breaks the machine, it breaks. If the bug, changes the machine so that it doesn't break, it doesn't break.
bob b said:
(my MS Word software "hangs" so often I have sometimes wondered if it was coded by a bunch of evolutionists who think that making changes to it at random might improve it).
Hmm... Maybe that's why evolution takes so long to happen. You have to admit that it is a possibility that these mutations happened.
 

Johnny

New member
Vision in Verse said:
Yes. 2 base pairs of DNA is one amino acid. Amino acids make up the proteins. Proteins work in the body to control development, and all that good stuff.
It's 3 bases / amino acid (technically 3, but the 5' end of the anticodon isn't always specific, which means that the 3rd base pair can vary and still produce the same amino acids). These are called "codons".
 

Vision in Verse

New member
Johnny said:
It's 3 bases / amino acid (technically 3, but the 5' end of the anticodon isn't always specific, which means that the 3rd base pair can vary and still produce the same amino acids). These are called "codons".
Yes, that's right. I hadn't proofread what I wrote. Thanks.

Anyways, bob b? Do you have anything against the fact that it is possible, ignoring our differing views on probability, that macroevolution can occur.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Vision in Verse said:
Anyways, bob b? Do you have anything against the fact that it is possible, ignoring our differing views on probability, that macroevolution can occur.

I have tried to convey why I believe that protein folding and the resultant limitation of functional proteins is what makes macroevolution impossible via random mutations.

I presented an analogy with English language sentences to aid in seeing this.

But opinions pro or con will not settle it.

There is currently underway in the biological community research efforts to understand and ultimately to predict when and how proteins fold properly and hence become functional.

When these efforts prove to be successful, as I am sure they ultimately will, the answer will be known. Until then each person will have to predict the outcome as best they can.

Care to guess what my prediction is?
 

Vision in Verse

New member
bob b said:
I have tried to convey why I believe that protein folding and the resultant limitation of functional proteins is what makes macroevolution impossible via random mutations.
So, your stance is that proteins are impossible to change past a certain point? Or is your argument: if proteins get randomly mutated, they stop functioning therefore kill the animal?
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Vision in Verse said:
So, your stance is that proteins are impossible to change past a certain point? Or is your argument: if proteins get randomly mutated, they stop functioning therefore kill the animal?

Evolutionists always reword what I say, probably so that they have a convenient "straw man" to knock down.

I said what I said.

I don't expect those who deny God to understand, because God said that such people are "blind". My target audience is people who still believe in God but who are being tempted by the siren song of evolution.

But thanks for acting as a convenient "foil" for my postings. ;)
 

Vision in Verse

New member
You're being paranoid. I asked you for clarification because I don't understand you. Can you please answer the question?

Do you think

A)DNA changes to protein cannot happen

or

B)All DNA changes to protein are negative

or

C)Any change to protein function would kill the creature
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Vision in Verse said:
You're being paranoid. I asked you for clarification because I don't understand you. Can you please answer the question?

Do you think

A)DNA changes to protein cannot happen

or

B)All DNA changes to protein are negative

or

C)Any change to protein function would kill the creature

None of the above. :kookoo:

I told you that you were blind.
 

Vision in Verse

New member
Interesting. I seem to have missed your point entirely, yet you make no effort to tell me what is actually being communicated. Either you are inept at communication, or you have purposely made your argument incomprehensible.

Could you at least make an effort to communicate why the fact that proteins fold to create their shapes in anyway hinder the concept of macroevolution?
 

Johnny

New member
bob b said:
I told you that you were blind.
I think his poor understanding of your position is a direct reflection on just how well you've articulated and described your position. Reading over your past few posts I still can't find where you've described with any detail other than analogy the limitations of mutation. It's almost as if you're deliberately refusing to be clear.

You were asked to describe in detail why you believe protein folding falsifies macroevolution. Your response? This jumbled mess of nothingness:

bob b said:
I have tried to convey why I believe that protein folding and the resultant limitation of functional proteins is what makes macroevolution impossible via random mutations."

I presented an analogy with English language sentences to aid in seeing this.

But opinions pro or con will not settle it.

And I must comment on your misuse "strawman". Consider what ViV actually said,

ViV said:
"So, your stance is that proteins are impossible to change past a certain point? Or is your argument: if proteins get randomly mutated, they stop functioning therefore kill the animal?"

He was asking clarification on your position (because you have yet to articulate it). Then you accuse him of strawmanning. Asking clarification on your ideas is not a strawman, even if he presents to you an inaccurate portrayal of your argument. In fact, it's the exact opposite of a strawman. He is presenting to you his understanding of your argument so that you can clarify before he proceeds.

Your response to his call for clarification?

bob b said:
Evolutionists always reword what I say, probably so that they have a convenient "straw man" to knock down.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Johnny said:
I think his poor understanding of your position is a direct reflection on just how well you've articulated and described your position. Reading over your past few posts I still can't find where you've described with any detail other than analogy the limitations of mutation. It's almost as if you're deliberately refusing to be clear.

You were asked to describe in detail why you believe protein folding falsifies macroevolution. Your response? This jumbled mess of nothingness:



And I must comment on your misuse "strawman". Consider what ViV actually said,



He was asking clarification on your position (because you have yet to articulate it). Then you accuse him of strawmanning. Asking clarification on your ideas is not a strawman, even if he presents to you an inaccurate portrayal of your argument. In fact, it's the exact opposite of a strawman. He is presenting to you his understanding of your argument so that you can clarify before he proceeds.

Your response to his call for clarification?

Gosh, Johnny, I'm beginning to think that you may be blind also.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Vision in Verse said:
Interesting. I seem to have missed your point entirely, yet you make no effort to tell me what is actually being communicated. Either you are inept at communication, or you have purposely made your argument incomprehensible.

Could you at least make an effort to communicate why the fact that proteins fold to create their shapes in anyway hinder the concept of macroevolution?

Do you think that it is easy to understand why changing a letter at random in a meaningful sentence would only very, very rarely ever produce a new meaningful sentence?

Justin, who believes in evolution, said that it would probably never happen or at least it would be extremely rare.

Does this give you a clue as to why a random change to a single amino acid in a functional protein might only very, very rarely ever produce a new functional protein?

Try taking off your dark glasses while reading this.
 

Vision in Verse

New member
bob b said:
Do you think that it is easy to understand why changing a letter at random in a meaningful sentence would only very, very rarely ever produce a new meaningful sentence?
Very rarely, I agree.
bob b said:
Justin, who believes in evolution, said that it would probably never happen or at least it would be extremely rare.
Yes.
bob b said:
Does this give you a clue as to why a random change to a single amino acid in a functional protein might only very, very rarely ever produce a new functional protein?
No. The analogy only goes so far. Codons are 3 letter words. Then there are 27 amino acids that make up all the proteins in the world. Once a functional protein is produced, (very rarely, yes), it doesn't go away. An entire population can maintain the presence of beneficial mutations through natural selections. So, even if a new functional protein is created every 1 thousand years, macroevolution is still possible.
bob b said:
Try taking off your dark glasses while reading this.
Right, ok.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Vision in Verse said:
The analogy only goes so far. Codons are 3 letter words. Then there are 27 amino acids that make up all the proteins in the world. Once a functional protein is produced, (very rarely, yes), it doesn't go away. An entire population can maintain the presence of beneficial mutations through natural selections. So, even if a new functional protein is created every 1 thousand years, macroevolution is still possible.Right, ok.

Well I could nitpick and point out that there are 20 not 27 but I won't stoop that low like evolutionists do.

At the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time I will say that analogies of course only go so far.

But if meaningful sentences are so rare, compared to the unmeaningful ones, then do you think that it might be possible that functional proteins are rare compared to the non-functional (or even less functional) ones are?

How many unmeaningful sentences might there be in a string of letters as long as my example sentence: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL ? (28 positions)

We can easily calculate how many letter strings 28 long are possible.
It is 27 (26 letters plus a space) multiplied by itself 28 times I think (check me on this SUTG).

This is a pretty big number. Greater than the number of atoms in the entire universe.

Switching to proteins, most are around 1000 amino acids in length and there are 20 possible amino acids in each position.

So the number of possible strings of amino acids 1000 in length would also be a very large number.

20 multiplied by itself 1000 times.

Now let us assume for a second that there are a million species and each one has an average of 10,000 different functional proteins. So the world as we know today might contain somewhere around 10 billion functional proteins.

This number is very much smaller than 20 multiplied by itself 1000 times. For example 10 multiplied by itself 1000 time is 10 with 1000 zeros after it.

Now before anyone says it, let me say that maybe there are a lot more functional proteins possible than just the ones that are in creatures living today.

I am sure that is true, but are there enough to change the odds in the "game".

Functional proteins may still be rare compared to the number of strings of amino acids that would be possible to construct by changing a single amino acid at random when starting with a protein which is functional.
 

Vision in Verse

New member
bob b said:
I am sure that is true, but are there enough to change the odds in the "game".
I find it difficult to believe that you can calculate those odds accurately. But, even at the prospect, how would you go about doing so?
bob b said:
Functional proteins may still be rare compared to the number of strings of amino acids that would be possible to construct by changing a single amino acid at random when starting with a protein which is functional.
Single amino acid changes are not the only type of mutation that can occur. Deletions can occur, inversions, insertions, duplications, and others... Are you taking that into account as well?
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
BioEd Online (http://www.BioEdOnline.org)
December 21, 2006

Silent mutations speak up
Overlooked genetic changes could impact on disease.
by Helen Pearson
news@nature.com

Biologists have realized that the genetic code harbours a layer of information that they have largely ignored. Again.

This time, the focus is on 'silent' mutations, single letter changes that were, as their name suggests, generally thought to have little impact on that gene's instructions for making protein.

But a study published in Science this week shows that two silent mutations are nothing of the sort. They seem to change the rate at which a drug-pumping protein folds and may help decide whether certain cancers become drug resistant.

Silent also called synonymous mutations arise because of the rules of the genetic code. Three chemical letters of DNA, called a codon, instruct the cell to insert a particular amino acid into the string that makes up a protein. But often several different codons code for the same amino acid.

A silent mutation is one that changes the triplet, but leaves the amino acid unchanged. "We were all educated that silent mutations should be ignored, and people really don't pay attention to them," says Chava Kimchi-Sarfaty at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. But it is becoming clear that proteins made of identical amino acids can nevertheless behave differently.

Toxin pump
Kimchi-Sarfaty and her colleagues studied three mutations, of which two are silent, which crop up frequently in a human protein that pumps toxins out of cells. Some versions of this protein make cancer cells resistant to chemotherapy by ridding cells of the drug; there have been hints that silent mutations might be involved.

The team showed that proteins containing at least one of the silent mutations have a subtly different shape compared with normal proteins. In tests on cells in the lab dish, those with mutations were not blocked by drugs that normally inhibit the toxin pump.

The two silent mutations Kimchi-Sarfaty's team studied turned out to replace common triplets with much rarer ones. The body's machinery isn't as quick and adept at translating the less common bits of code. This pause in protein production could allow the protein to fold slightly differently, Kimchi-Sarfaty suggests, so that it works in a different way.

Quiet killer
Some researchers proposed nearly 20 years ago that silent mutations could fine-tune protein folding and function. And studies have shown how artificially engineering silent mutations into a protein can affect its folding. But "nobody was paying attention", says Anton Komar who studies the phenomenon at Cleveland State University, Ohio. The new study confirms that naturally occurring silent mutations can also have such an effect.

Silent mutations are known to have other effects. For example, they can change the way that RNA, the molecule that bridges DNA to protein production, is cut and spliced together. A team led by Francisco Baralle at the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology in Trieste, Italy, last year showed that many silent mutations in the gene responsible for the lung disease cystic fibrosis can cause splicing changes that inactivate the protein.

Baralle says that geneticists who screen people for mutations in disease-causing genes are discounting these and similar mutations. "Many patients might be misdiagnosed because of this problem," he says.

Silent mutations with important functions could be scattered across the human genome, Komar says. Researchers now need to re-examine mutations in numerous genes that were previously brushed aside, he says. Understanding these mutations could one day help doctors to personalize medicines to match a patient's genetic profile.


1 Kimchi-Sarfaty C., et al. Science, doi:10.1126/science.1135308 (2006).

2 Pagani F., et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 102. 6368 - 6372 (2005).
 
Last edited:
Top