There is a fundamental flaw in your hypothesis in this video. paraphrased: Biological features are more adequately explained by ID. More adequately explained than what? Natural selection? Simply assume NS is false. Now what's your hypothesis? Your argument appears to be a false dichotomy.
Nothing seen so far that can not be explained by descent with modification. I suppose if magic was seen we would have to explain the magician but don't hold your breath.
So you don't think very wide neutral gaps would have to be crossed in order, say, for MgtE to evolve into FliG, a flagellar protein that shares only about 20% sequence similarity with MgtE, its closest homologue?
@FirstFreedomFighter Are you certain you know all the neutral gaps in all possible environments? With bacteria horizontal gene transfer and deletions could account for much of what we see today. I think the double nested hierarchy of life and things like atavisms are powerful evidence. Enough to avoid jumping to the conclusion of magic every time we don't totally understand something in biology. It looks to me tike you are grasping for straws to support some kind of dogma.
See a paper by Prijambada ID, Negoro S, Yomo T, and Urabe I, "Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution." They got P. aeruginosa to evolve the nylonase enzyme in a lab setting. Enzymes are very specified proteins: they have extremely high catalytic activity towards the compound they're specified for and virtually zero activity for everything else.
So now that ID has been falsified, what will you do next?
Nylonase evolved by a few point mutations. That's what I mean by "highly specified." In other words, the nylonase enzyme can evolve by a few unspecified point mutations in the parent enzymes. Not very many non-adaptive mutations must be crossed in order for that function to be realized.
"Not very many non-adaptive mutations must be crossed." That doesn't mean anything, its one step away from word salad.
I assure you there are a lot of mutations to that particular gene that would not produce nylonase. But put the bacteria in a broth containing nylon derivatives as the only nutrient source and you'll get exactly the right mutations.
I'm curious though, how many mutations are "enough" to get you to move the goalposts again?
You are correct, it was a frame-shift mutation. However, that's just one single mutation that resulted in a novel function. Thus, the origin of that function is easily explained by plain ole' population genetics. A single, beneficial mutation will occur in a short time in a large population of bacteria. The evolution of nylonase isn't that significant (contd).
@FirstFreedomFighter It's significant in that it gives a demonstrable naturalistic mechanism for the production of vast amounts of new and functional genetic information, nylonase was the result of over 2300 bits of new information.
I'm not saying that new and vast amounts of functional genetic information cannot be produced by mindless processes. Could you please cite a source that states that over 2300 new bits of information were produced when nylonase involved? Thanks.
You are calculating how much information arose based on the length of the nylonase enzyme. However, if we start with (for sake of argument) a 392aa long enzyme, and only one genetic locus was modified by mutation to produce nylonase, then you don't have 2,300+ NEW bits of genomic information, because you're already starting with a large number of bits.
@FirstFreedomFighter The frameshift produced the 392aa long chain and along with it there was an entirely new start codon. It was an entirely new gene that didn't exist before. It was initially only redundancy when it was a duplicate gene, but the reading error produced a brand new sequence.
Ah, okay. But your point? You see, I don't deny that gene duplication + subsequent modification by mutation produces new, functional genetic information.
Novel function is not always the product of design. Chloroquine resistance, antibiotic resistance, nylonase, antifreeze proteins, etc., are all novel functions but are not the product of teleology. However, biological functions that could only be realized by a the coordinated occurrence of several specific mutations are more adequately explained by teleology.
Just like Darwin could not explain how the biochemical processes behind eye function work, we cannot explain where the designer came from, because, at the moment, we don't have all the answers to that question. Perhaps intelligence can easily arise in black holes. We don't know. That's the simple answer. But not being able to say WHAT caused existence does not mean we cannot say that we exist.
@FirstFreedomFighter You're trying to have it both ways. You bring up genetic engineering etc. then when the fallacious ramification of that train of thought is pointed out you shift to a vague non-empirical intangible designer.
No, not really. I'm simply saying that we can conclude that a monolith on Mars is indicative of intelligence WITHOUT having to know where the designer is, how the designer originated, when the designer originated, or who the designer is.
@FirstFreedomFighter There are no practical naturalistic processes that can produce symmetrical monoliths, the same cannot be said for various arrangements of genetic material.
I don't attribute design to anything that produces function. Only particular biological functions are more adequately explained by teleology than a mindless process.
@FirstFreedomFighter They're not explained by teleology at all, it's a complete non-answer. Design gives absolutely no mechanism but ad hoc assertion as to the production of biological systems.
One could just as well argue that a hypothetical monolith on Mars is not explained by teleology at all, and that a teleological explanation for a Martian monolith is a complete non-answer.
@FirstFreedomFighter Except that we know monoliths can be and are produced by intelligence via known mechanisms. It's apples to apples, but analogizing an artificial non replicating structure to a living system is real apples to plastic oranges.
@FirstFreedomFighter Through natural means via natural intelligence, if you're saying this is the mechanism which initially produced life then it still has to be accounted for. Naturalistic design doesn't solve anything, it just moves the problem back one.
Well, you've just moved the topic of the debate. You said that Martian monolith is indicative of intelligence because it can be and is known to be constructed by intelligence. The same applies to various biological functions, DESPITE the fact that we don't know where the designer came from. Not knowing where the designer came from does not stop us from inferring teleology (contd).
All I've seen in this videos are arguments from ignorance and (weak) inductive reasoning. Arguments fro ignorance and (weak) inductive reasoning are by very definition not a good basis for any real scientific theory.
Sadly, inductive reasoning and arguing from ignorance is all there is to ID. That's why ID isn't a scientific theory. ID isn't scientific at all.
But ID indeed isn't falsifiable. You cannot actively proof ID by experiments, testing, observing and repeating. There is no experiment that could proof ID. Because ID is based on ignorance. it's not falsifiable.
Your version of how ID could be falsifiable is not scientific because it relies on ignorance. What you basically say is: We don't know how this specific protein could ever have been produced by evolution, therefor we assume it's intelligently designed.
Of which you've done an extremely poor job. ID is NOT falsifiable because for it to be falsifiable you would somehow have to obtain omniscience and prove that an intelligent creator doesn't exist.
@FirstFreedomFighter *Sigh* wrong again. Like I said. In order to falsify intelligent design, you would need to prove that there isn't a higher power. You are using a false dichotomy when you say it MUST be evolution OR creationism and if it isn't one, it's the other or vice versa. Proteins simply don't matter and in fact, the word world can be broken down. World Told Cold Fold Ford Cord Card Tard Fart Mart Art At It I
Your argument is ridiculous. It's like saying, "ID is falsified if you can prove evolution actually occurred so prove evolution actually occurred!" That's not how to falsify ID... for we don't know if an intelligent agent first created the cell.
I'm afraid you're the one making ridiculous arguments. I notice that you are unable to attack any of the premises I delineated, so I will repost them and let you refute it:
1. ID asserts that the origin of highly specified protein-based functions is more adequately explained by an intelligence.
2. To falsify the above assertion, all one needs is the real time evolution of a highly specified protein-based function (continued).
Do you or do you not agree that IF the real-time evolution of a highly specified protein-based function occurred, then the premise that the origin of highly specified protein-based functions is more adequately explained by an intelligence will no longer be true?
Really? You went from "world" to "told." Since this analogy is one based on substitution, not deletions, I am curious as to what happened to the "r" in "world." "Torld" is not a word, your know.
There is no rule that states that two mutations cannot happen simultaneously. I was also breaking it down to show you that the word world itself can be broken down to smaller words.
"If one substituted virtually any of the letters in [world], a meaningless word will result. So, in this simple analogy, deletions do not count. Obviously, this is just an analogy -- deletions and other types of mutations can occur in organisms.
They don't matter when you're trying to falsify intelligent design. You are saying that something else is entirely falsifiable and then claiming it's intelligent design.
"They don't matter when you're trying to falsify intelligent design."
Yes they do. ID argues that the origin of these proteins are more adequately explained by an intelligence. That assertion will be resoundingly falsified if a protein with a high level of functional specificity evolved. You cannot refute that.
"You are saying that something else is entirely falsifiable..."
@EternalSeptic77 ~Well max as you were informed many times before, Pasteur showed that microorganisms that spoil food or cause fermentation arise from contamination, no spontaneously. This has no connection to abiogenesis whatsoever. Pasteur wasn't investigating abiogenesis, wasn't looking for it, and didn't mention it. All you are doing is making yourself look like a fool.
@DishrackDarwin ~Please cite where I claimed DNA is an amino acid...YOu said adenine was a nucleic acid, when it is clearly an amino acid. Stop posting utter garbage.
@DishrackDarwin~ Deoxyribonucleic acid--DNA-- is a nucleic acid, hence the name. RNA is ribonucleic acid, also a nucleic acid, just single strand. You might look at the wiki article on protein, it is actually not too bad for wiki.
@DishrackDarwin ~"Proteins are biochemical compounds consisting of one or more polypeptides typically folded into a globular or fibrous form in a biologically functional way. A polypeptide is a single linear polymer chain of amino acids bonded together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of adjacent amino acid residues." Read it and weep.
@DishrackDarwin Did you bother to check what purine catabolism is? The whole process starts with polypeptide chains of nucleotides, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS PROTEINS. Catabolism, the breakdown of these chains involving enzymes in the presence of oxygen-containing compounds, results ultimately in purine metabolism.I simply started at the beginning of the process instead of starting virtually at the end, as you did in an effort to be deceptive.
I think Mr. Bill has been assaulted by Mr. Sluggo too many times; his brain is apparently reduced to mush and he is given over totally to religious delusion.
@DishrackDarwin ~Inflamation cuased by a buildup of uric acid crystals caused either by a diet having too much protein (see Henry VIII) or by metabolic defect allowing the equivalent; some medications can contribute by adversely affecting kidney function.
Is this vid 4 or against ID? This vid pointed out some STRONG arguments w/the protein 4 ID. How can it have coded anything if not 4 some intelligence 2 design the code and then place it in there? Can non-life think?
At the 1st of vid, the rocks were designed as rock n the wind, which was designed with a purpose, blew thus cause'n erosion 2 rock which caused rock 2 look that way.
1st Freedom Fighter? is this a fight against the truth? The lie is at war w/the truth. The truth just is.
@MrBillH60 ~Oh no!! Mr.Bill--Mr Sluggo is going to hurt you because you keep spouting your ridiculous biblical absolutisms that have been debunked a million times, or are so stupid that they need no debunking, such as stating that the rock was designed to look that way. Are you seriously out of your mind? Please get your delusions seen to--sooner or later they will morph into frank psychosis.
@pontecanis Nice try guy. The thing that evo'ist LOVES to do is try and act as if the truth, creation, is a lie. However the truth is unbeatable. 1 just has to look at nature to see INTELLIGENT DESIGN at work. There is nothing on this earth or existence that came by any other way then design. Man understands that nonlife can only be designed, car, yet when it comes 2 life which is more complicated 4 some reason the evo'ist gets dumb. Why is this? Is this 4 the evo'ist hates God?
@FirstFreedomFighter ~You need to understand that Mr. Bill has a problem when the word 'intelligent' is combined with any other word, as he has no intelligence, no knowledge of science, and is a creatobibliolator of the 1st magnitude. Compared to him Kent Hovind is a sage. Mr. Bill believes in the doctrine of 'Manifest Ignorance'--if I don't know it, it can't be true; if I don't understand it, it can't exist; if I don't accept it ,it must be false. He doesn't bother with evidence or research.
@pontecanis, you and freedom fighter are far more educated than most of us in this field of study but it doesnt take a genius to know that life was designed. ever wonder why all of these special materials code into anything that has a practical purpose? think about it, a recipe (DNA) is turned into protiens that build an entire creature of one sort or another and these creatures have specific features that give it all kinds of tactical advantages in this world.
@odinata, and it might take someone smarted than yourself to understand that i asserted that life was designed with evidence to back it up and i didnt just say it was designed just because i had asserted so. insult someone on the peanut butter video if thats all your good for. until you showed up the comments were rather polite.
@godrulztheearth ~ I doubt that any of us except the hardcore of atheists would doubt that there was a process of creation. The idea that there was a creator that micro designed everything in the universe and every living creature specifically to be as it is without ever changing over the history of its species is extraordinary. I find it difficult to conceive that an entity capable of organizing the universe would be so inefficient as to have to design every live form individually.
@pontecanis, speciation it a fact so there are some changes that happen in nature, i just dont believe that life could have created itself thru completely natural processes. how god went about building life in unkown but nature didnt do it as the protein synthesis is just too assembly line efficient and complex to have just built itself. obvious designsthat we see in nature point to a designer with an aptitude for artistry.
@godrulztheearth ~Remamber, though, that the simplest of organisms do not have this protein synthesis cycle developed to nearly the same as it is in humans. In the early prokariotes and unicells, the protein synthesis is very limited and involves only minimal amounts of protein for internal partitions and exterior shells.
@pontecanis, what if god gave each creature only what they needed to survive? that would explain the simpler protein production line in simpler creatures. a chevy cobalt is much less sophisticated than a cadillac but it was made that way because of a design choice to make a more economical car that didnt have all the bells and whistles.
@godrulztheearth ~Cars are man-made and good (mostly) examples of design. Living organisms started very simple--and an explanation is required to describe how they became more complex. That explanation is evolution.
Aaa,yeah. A big bang happened, energy that caused bang unknown. This bang cause such as rock that changed itself into planets (earth) then proceed to place that on itself that is needed for life (ie, air) then this rock proceed to be the cause of life. So rock is the god that brought forth the evo'ist and it's sustainer of life (rock controls the evo'ist life).
And u say I'm the 1 that lacks intelligence?
The evo'ist is a poster child for the need of Jesus.
@pontecanis, i dont think that rocks were designed to look a specific way but what about the octupus that can mimic a multi colored rock and do it perfectly? that would be proof of design and there is no way for me to believe that r.m plus n.s would have accidently made such an amazing and practical thing. the same goes for all life forms and their special appendages and what not but the octupus really stands out as being designed.
@DishrackDarwin~ "There are two kinds of nitrogen-containing bases - purines and pyrimidines. There are 4 purines and 4 pyrimidines that are of concern to us...Two amino acids are:
Adenine = 6-amino purine
Guanine = 2-amino-6-oxy purine
Adenine and guanine are found in both DNA and RNA." OH FUCK!! Wrong again max! How am I not surprised? Source: Medical Library, University of Utah. Author-Carol M. Angstadt PhD, Allegheny University of the Health Sciences. Looks like you are SOL again!
@DishrackDarwin ~ The basic difficulty is being unaware of biochemistry. Several terms are used to describe one thing- adenine is an amino acid due to it's formula and origin. It is also a Purine due to the shape and composition of the molecule. It is also a nucleobase as it is USED to form nucleic acids, both riboneucleic acids and deoxyribonucleic acids. Another group of amino acids relate to nutrition, and form the largest group of amino acids, usually referred to as essential.
There are 9 amino acids deemed essential from a nutritional standpoint, which must come from diet; 11 are synthesized in the body, which is where the mistaken idea of 20 amino acids "common to all life" comes from. Basically scientific nomenclature can be very confusing to lay people without training; it's bad enough when you have to study the stuff at first! But a nucleic acid is a chain of constituents known as nucleobases, which are amino acids by formula, 2 of which are purines.
I was talking about proteins in my video, not DNA and RNA. That said, have you decided that you were wrong when you said that the type iii secretory system is found in more types of bacteria than the number of bacteria the flagellum is found in?
@FirstFreedomFighter ~Nope. Your mistakes started at 0:52, when you repeated the error that " there are 20 amino acids common to all life" The 2nd last sentence says;"They are encoded in the cells' genetic bluepribnt(DNA)" This is another error. There are 20 DIETARY amino acids, 9 of which we cannot make and must be consumed. They are called Essential Amino Acids for this reason. NONE of the 20 appear in DNA or RNA, as they are dietary, not in either of DNA or RNA. The protein blather is useless
Similarly, the blather about intelligence is also useless, as it cannot be demonstrated a) that any creating or organizing intelligence ever existed and b) It must be demonstrated that it is not possible to account for amino acids, nucleosides, nucleotides, and proteins via basic biochemistry. Since both a and b are valid, and basic biochemistry easily explains all of the developments discussed, it leaves no room for ID. ID has also been invalidated and declared to be religion by US law.
It is becoming clear to me that your contention that adenine is an amino acid is nonsense. For example, check out "Prebiotic synthesis of adenine and amino acids under Europa-like conditions." In the abstract, the authors report that,
"We find that both adenine and guanine, as well as a simple set of amino acids dominated by glycine, are produced in substantial yields under these conditions."
I wonder why they made a distinction between adenine and amino acids in their paper...
I guess you didn't get past the title of the paper where it says:
"Prebiotic synthesis of adenine and amino acids under Europa-like conditions." Now THAT'S an interesting title for a paper considering that you claim that adenine is an amino acid. Curiouser and curiouser.
Change that to: "They are encoded BY the cell's genetic blueprint." A small grammatical error. Anyhew, do you still contend that there are more types of bacteria that contain the TTSS than the number of bacteria types that contain the flagellum?
@FirstFreedomFighter ~What, you don't pay attention? Only 11 of the 20 are encoded BY DNA. As I stated previously, I do not recall ever contending that there are more bacteria that have the T3SS than have flagella, although as I stated previously, since ALL bacteria capable of causing disease use a secretory apparatus, it would not be all that surprising. Certainly All gram-negative bacteria DO have the T3SS, and that includes the enterococci, one of the largest of the groups extant.
Haha, where did you learn molecular biology? There are codons for every one of the 20 amino acids. Do you know what this means? This means that (when the DNA molecule is transcribed) the RNA molecule codes for all 20 amino acids.
@FirstFreedomFighter ~"There are codons for every one of the 20 amino acids" Really? Please cite your source. Since 9 of the 20 cannot be produced by the human body, finding codons for them would be most interesting--BTW:"Adenine = 6-amino purine & Guanine = 2-amino-6-oxy purine" Neither are amino acids according to you? "We find that both adenine and guanine, as well as a simple set of amino acids dominated by glycine, are produced in substantial yields under these conditions." HAR HAR HAR
Unfortunately for you, you did not say "only 11 of the 20 are encoded BY DNA IN THE HUMAN BODY." In other words, you just failed spectacularly. All 20 amino acids are encoded by DNA, hence the fact that each amino acid is encoded by a codon.
@FirstFreedomFighter ~What they're going to be encode by DNA OUTSIDE the body??? 9 of the amino acids cannot be produced by the body. To claim there are codons for their production is nonsense. I notice you did not cite your source. I take it you have none, and made it up.
So you think there are absolutely no codons anywhere that code for those 9 amino acids? Oh boy, you're going to be getting into trouble with your professor I'm afraid.
@FirstFreedomFighter ~Grasping at straws now? Perhaps you might look it up: it includes COOH at some point in the formula, usually at the end. Check the diagrams, they are very useful for those with reading comprehension problems.
No, COOH doesn't appear anywhere in the molecular formula for adenine. Maybe you could provide that. Actually, I'd love it if you could cite a single source that says adenine is an amino acid.
@FirstFreedomFighter ~ Oh yes, I forgot you know nothing of chemical formulae...the molecular formula takes all the constituent molecules and clumps them by type..thus C5H5N5 is the basic molecular formula which covers the essential body of the isolated acid... to bond with the phosphate lattice of the RNA or DNA, it does so by forming a carbonyl bond with the lattice, resulting in the COOH you didn't see.
You claimed that only 11 of the amino acids are encoded by DNA. You did not say "in the human body." So may I ask you this: where do the other 9 amino acids come from if they have no codons coding for them anywhere in the world of life?
Thankfully, I am now well-rested (and it's not late at night) and I have come to my senses and realized that you don't know a thing about molecular biology or genomics, despite your pretentious display. So next time you make a comment regarding molecular biology please make sure you don't end up embarrassing yourself in front of everyone (continued).
"Really? Please cite your source. Since 9 of the 20 cannot be produced by the human body, finding codons for them would be most interesting."
A quick GenBank search of the human caspase 9 (protein involved in apoptosis) nucleotide sequence will reveal that the human genome contains the codons that code for some of the essential amino acids. For example, one of the essential amino acids is valine, and at positions 401-406 there are two GTG codons, which codes for valine...
I could cite literally dozens of different examples. The human genome does contain codons that code for the essential amino acids, contrary to what you claim. That you would make this egregious assertion demonstrates that your knowledge of even the most basic molecular biology is severely lacking. Please consider picking up an education in that field before revealing your ignorance on this thread. Thanks.
@FirstFreedomFighter Really..please cite for me where the body produces these 9 amino acids. I won't be waiting for a citation as you can't provide any...the codons to which you refer are related to the metabolism of amino acids, not the production; the body cannot make valine, it must be ingested, and then metabolized. Cysteine, taurine, tyrosine, histidine, and arginine are semiessential amino-acids in children, because of immature metabolic pathways.Revealing YOUR ignorance!
Last night you claimed that one would not find any codons for valine in the human genome. I ripped that claim apart today. Try again. I wanna see this dodge.
@FirstFreedomFighter No sale...that was regarding the PRODUCTION of essential amino acids, which are NOT coded for. There are definitely codons for metabolizing essential aminos or we wouldn't be able to do it! Don't forget, initally you claimed all 20 were coded in DNA, which only contains 4 : ACG&T. Then changed it to BY DNA, now you claim the codons are there for essentials as well as non-essentials--> I showed they were for the metabolism of the essentials:where will you put goalposts next?
@FirstFreedomFighter ~Nice splitting hairs. You cannot find codons for the production of the 9 simply because we cannot produce them, and production codons do not exist. We only have the ability to metabolze them, for which there is coding.BTW are you finally admitting that Adenine and Guanine are amino acids that are purines?
Does that sound familiar? It should, because that is exactly what you claimed last night. And that assertion is a blatant falsehood. The above statement is very easy to understand and not ambiguous at all. You did not make any clarification about the production and metabolizing of the amino acids. So what are you doing now? You're dodging. YOU are moving the goalposts.
@FirstFreedomFighter "There are two kinds of nitrogen-containing bases - purines and pyrimidines. There are 4 purines and 4 pyrimidines that are of concern to us...Two amino acids are:
Adenine = 6-amino purine
Guanine = 2-amino-6-oxy purine
Adenine and guanine are found in both DNA and RNA." Source: Medical Library, University of Utah. Author-Carol M. Angstadt PhD, Allegheny University of the Health Sciences.
@DishrackDarwin ~Why max, thank you for your demonstration of scientific ignorance. A purine is a reference to the chemical SHAPE of a substance, and the composition of that shape.The amino acids guanine and adenine are classed as purines. In DNA, these bases form hydrogen bonds with their complementary pyrimidines thymine and cytosine, respectively. This is called complementary base pairing. In RNA, the complement of adenine is uracil (U) instead of thymine. Maybe some study might help.
In other words you don't know how these proteins fold by a mindless process, and you already said that diseases are simply from mindless processes, so go ahead and insert a god to explain how the proteins fold.
I posted this video on Dennis Jones ID page on facebook and got this response:
"Mike McDavis This is based on IC. IC has been refuted numerous times. Other than that, the video discusses very little. Also, if falsifying IC falsifies ID, it's been done. Also, many species have slightly different homologues of proteins with very ...specific functions, so this video really falls apart on a scientific level."
@FirstFreedomFighter K I'll define it in my own words: Its the idea that a structure will not funtion if one of its parts is changed, removed, or if a new part was added to the mix..
By that definition, then yes, one could consider irreducible complexity to apply to proteins. However, I want to emphasize that virtually all biological functions are irreducibly complex. That is, in many biological functions, removal of one part results in a loss of function. However, many IC functions can evolve -- it depends on how many IC parts there are (continued).
Also note that many times the removal of a component will result in the loss of a particular function, but another function will be in its place. At the protein level however, this is a different story. In short: I wouldn't say this is completely the argument from irreducible complexity. Perhaps what I am talking about in this video should be called "specified irreducible complexity" to borrow the phrase from one of my colleagues.
@FirstFreedomFighter ~To borrow a phrase from Michael Behe? It's bogus...you gus remind me of the frantic hhops that were jumped through by geocenterists trying to resolve the apparent paradox of the retrograde motion of Mars in light of the heliocentric theory mathematically proven to be valid. The ideas got wilder and wilder and ever more "special' and complicated until eventually it became so asinine the whole thing collapsed. ID is religion, not science. It has no legitimacy.
Oh dear---As ID has already been falsified by Ken Miller destroying irreducible complexity, and buy Phillip Johnson admitting it was a a hoax to get religion into the classroom in violation of US law and the Constitution, any claim it is not falsifiable is pretty lame. "Intelligent design posits that the origin of certain features of the biological world is more adequately explained by an intelligence" What a laugh-then you post the asinine fantasy claim that 20 amino acids are common to all...
"then you post the asinine fantasy claim that 20 amino acids are common to all..."
Mmm. Did you every study basic biology? For example, the Wikipedia article on the Miller-Urey experiment states that,
"Miller's experiment was therefore a remarkable success at synthesizing complex organic molecules from simpler chemicals, ****considering that all life uses just 20 different amino acids****."
@FirstFreedomFighter Gee--formula for RNA: NH2CH H3PO4 COOH...4 amino acids in a phosphate lattice. Formula for cyanobacteria archaea: NH2 CH H3PO4 COOH---what a coincidence. Maybe you ought to have studied.
@FirstFreedomFighter I hate to tell you, the flagellum is not a bacterium---and the type 3 is definitely found in more than one bacterium. See the previous post about studying.
Thankfully, I never claimed the flagellum is a bacterium. You are capable of reading, correct? That aside, you did claim that that type iii secretory system was found in more types of bacteria than the number of types of bacteria the flagellum is found in. Yet another monumental error on your part.
@FirstFreedomFighter You might want to brush up on your grammar, the part about equivocation in meaning. I made no claim that the T3SS is found in more bacteria than those that have a flagellum, but it seems like a plausible idea, as the flagellar bacteria have the T3SS, and other bacteria and even viruses have the same kind of function as the T3SS, even HIV. It may not be an identical structure , but probably homologous as to function.
Please consider improving your memory. You stated that SINCE that type iii secretory system was found in more types of bacteria than the flagellum, then "ergo the type iii secretory system came first." I distinctly recall your saying that (or something to that effect), don't you?
life...REALLY??? The answer is a resounding NO...all life forms do NOT have 20 amino acids in common. As an example, RNA has 4 amino acids, as does DNA. Some of the early and simplest forms of life have NO proteins. Many have no organelles, where the proteins you describe do their work.
DNA has 4 amino acids? Mmm. Do your homework, please. Adenine, for example, doesn't have a -COOH group so to consider it an amino acid is laughable. That's quite a sophomoric error on your part.
Anyhew, we both know you're nitpicking on irrelevant stuff. This video wasn't intended to list all the exceptions but to provide basic information. Duh.
@FirstFreedomFighter ~Adenine is NOT an amino acid? Very interesting! I'll inform the Nobel Prize committee they awarded Tom Cech his 1989 Nobel in Chemistry by mistake...An alpha-amino acid has the generic formula H2NCHRCOOH, where R is an organic substituent; Other types of amino acid exist when the amino group is attached to a different carbon atom; for example, in gamma-amino acids (such as gamma-amino-butyric acid)
@FFF~"Adenine is one of the two purine nucleobases (the other being guanine) used in forming nucleotides of the nucleic acids. In DNA, adenine binds to thymine via two hydrogen bonds to assist in stabilizing the nucleic acid structures. In RNA, adenine binds to uracil. Adenine forms adenosine, a nucleoside, when attached to ribose, and deoxyadenosine when attached to deoxyribose. It forms adenosine triphosphate (ATP), a nucleotide, when three phosphate groups are added to adenosine".
"A purine nucleobase" is an amino acid, twit, as is guanine (or are you going to claim guanine is not an amino acid either?). It helps to FORM nucleic acids as a constituent.
--- mind, "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike" (Delos McKown).
In other words, the idea that it was a specific force such as an intelligence is one that requires its own justification. IF ID were to say merely that science is wrong about this particular topic, justifying such a claim by presenting a valid flaw in the scientific argument, then it would be taken seriously.
... Saying "It just doesn't seem likely, therefore it was magic man X" is not in the least scientific.
The falsifiability of the claim is there, yes... BUT it's tantamount to saying that the Earth could not have formed the way scientists posit that it did (without an intelligence), and therein claiming that the only way to falsify this is by observing another Earth-like planet form on its own.
The reasoning is flawed, plain and simple.
Further, to say that these structures are designed, or in fact that everything is designed, requires the ability to observe something NOT designed. Keep in ---
There is a fundamental flaw in your hypothesis in this video. paraphrased: Biological features are more adequately explained by ID. More adequately explained than what? Natural selection? Simply assume NS is false. Now what's your hypothesis? Your argument appears to be a false dichotomy.
estragon9 3 months ago
Nothing seen so far that can not be explained by descent with modification. I suppose if magic was seen we would have to explain the magician but don't hold your breath.
foxlake02 7 months ago 2
@foxlake02
So you don't think very wide neutral gaps would have to be crossed in order, say, for MgtE to evolve into FliG, a flagellar protein that shares only about 20% sequence similarity with MgtE, its closest homologue?
FirstFreedomFighter 7 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter Are you certain you know all the neutral gaps in all possible environments? With bacteria horizontal gene transfer and deletions could account for much of what we see today. I think the double nested hierarchy of life and things like atavisms are powerful evidence. Enough to avoid jumping to the conclusion of magic every time we don't totally understand something in biology. It looks to me tike you are grasping for straws to support some kind of dogma.
foxlake02 7 months ago 2
Ah! Proteins! Grilled to perfection and served with salad and a baked potatoe....
Now that's a "primary protein"!!
Lawborn2 10 months ago
Nylonase.
See a paper by Prijambada ID, Negoro S, Yomo T, and Urabe I, "Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution." They got P. aeruginosa to evolve the nylonase enzyme in a lab setting. Enzymes are very specified proteins: they have extremely high catalytic activity towards the compound they're specified for and virtually zero activity for everything else.
So now that ID has been falsified, what will you do next?
RichardMNixon 10 months ago
@RichardMNixon
Nylonase evolved by a few point mutations. That's what I mean by "highly specified." In other words, the nylonase enzyme can evolve by a few unspecified point mutations in the parent enzymes. Not very many non-adaptive mutations must be crossed in order for that function to be realized.
FirstFreedomFighter 10 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter
"Not very many non-adaptive mutations must be crossed." That doesn't mean anything, its one step away from word salad.
I assure you there are a lot of mutations to that particular gene that would not produce nylonase. But put the bacteria in a broth containing nylon derivatives as the only nutrient source and you'll get exactly the right mutations.
I'm curious though, how many mutations are "enough" to get you to move the goalposts again?
RichardMNixon 10 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@FirstFreedomFighter ''Nylonase evolved by a few point mutations.''
SO GLAD YOU ACCEPT EVOLUTION.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter 'That's what I mean by "highly specified
Firstly, it was a frame reading error. It sounds like you're going to attribute anything that produces function to specification/design.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You are correct, it was a frame-shift mutation. However, that's just one single mutation that resulted in a novel function. Thus, the origin of that function is easily explained by plain ole' population genetics. A single, beneficial mutation will occur in a short time in a large population of bacteria. The evolution of nylonase isn't that significant (contd).
FirstFreedomFighter 6 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter It's significant in that it gives a demonstrable naturalistic mechanism for the production of vast amounts of new and functional genetic information, nylonase was the result of over 2300 bits of new information.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I'm not saying that new and vast amounts of functional genetic information cannot be produced by mindless processes. Could you please cite a source that states that over 2300 new bits of information were produced when nylonase involved? Thanks.
FirstFreedomFighter 6 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter ncbi.nlm.nih(.)gov/pubmed/6585807
>indicated that the 392-amino acid-residue-long bacterial enzyme 6-aminohexanoic acid linear
There are 4 nucleotides so it would be log2(4) = 2 bits each amino acid is coded by 3 nucleotides so each amino acid is 6 bits. 6 x 392 = 2,352
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You are calculating how much information arose based on the length of the nylonase enzyme. However, if we start with (for sake of argument) a 392aa long enzyme, and only one genetic locus was modified by mutation to produce nylonase, then you don't have 2,300+ NEW bits of genomic information, because you're already starting with a large number of bits.
FirstFreedomFighter 6 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter The frameshift produced the 392aa long chain and along with it there was an entirely new start codon. It was an entirely new gene that didn't exist before. It was initially only redundancy when it was a duplicate gene, but the reading error produced a brand new sequence.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Ah, okay. But your point? You see, I don't deny that gene duplication + subsequent modification by mutation produces new, functional genetic information.
FirstFreedomFighter 6 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter I was originally under the impression that you were arguing novel function was necessarily a product of design.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Novel function is not always the product of design. Chloroquine resistance, antibiotic resistance, nylonase, antifreeze proteins, etc., are all novel functions but are not the product of teleology. However, biological functions that could only be realized by a the coordinated occurrence of several specific mutations are more adequately explained by teleology.
FirstFreedomFighter 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Just like Darwin could not explain how the biochemical processes behind eye function work, we cannot explain where the designer came from, because, at the moment, we don't have all the answers to that question. Perhaps intelligence can easily arise in black holes. We don't know. That's the simple answer. But not being able to say WHAT caused existence does not mean we cannot say that we exist.
FirstFreedomFighter 6 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter You're trying to have it both ways. You bring up genetic engineering etc. then when the fallacious ramification of that train of thought is pointed out you shift to a vague non-empirical intangible designer.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
No, not really. I'm simply saying that we can conclude that a monolith on Mars is indicative of intelligence WITHOUT having to know where the designer is, how the designer originated, when the designer originated, or who the designer is.
FirstFreedomFighter 6 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter There are no practical naturalistic processes that can produce symmetrical monoliths, the same cannot be said for various arrangements of genetic material.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I meant: "when nylonase EVOLVED*
FirstFreedomFighter 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I don't attribute design to anything that produces function. Only particular biological functions are more adequately explained by teleology than a mindless process.
FirstFreedomFighter 6 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter They're not explained by teleology at all, it's a complete non-answer. Design gives absolutely no mechanism but ad hoc assertion as to the production of biological systems.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
One could just as well argue that a hypothetical monolith on Mars is not explained by teleology at all, and that a teleological explanation for a Martian monolith is a complete non-answer.
FirstFreedomFighter 6 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter Except that we know monoliths can be and are produced by intelligence via known mechanisms. It's apples to apples, but analogizing an artificial non replicating structure to a living system is real apples to plastic oranges.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Similarly, molecular machines can be and are produced by intelligence via known mechanisms.
FirstFreedomFighter 6 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter Through natural means via natural intelligence, if you're saying this is the mechanism which initially produced life then it still has to be accounted for. Naturalistic design doesn't solve anything, it just moves the problem back one.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Well, you've just moved the topic of the debate. You said that Martian monolith is indicative of intelligence because it can be and is known to be constructed by intelligence. The same applies to various biological functions, DESPITE the fact that we don't know where the designer came from. Not knowing where the designer came from does not stop us from inferring teleology (contd).
FirstFreedomFighter 6 months ago
Dude, good ideas but the video moves way too fast. I had to pause at each slide and eventually just gave up.
Birdieupon 10 months ago
what applications in science, medicine, etc would you gain if ID is true?
MrMegatruth 11 months ago
All I've seen in this videos are arguments from ignorance and (weak) inductive reasoning. Arguments fro ignorance and (weak) inductive reasoning are by very definition not a good basis for any real scientific theory.
Sadly, inductive reasoning and arguing from ignorance is all there is to ID. That's why ID isn't a scientific theory. ID isn't scientific at all.
LucvdMortel 11 months ago
@LucvdMortel
The only real point of this video is to refute the claim that ID is not falsifiable.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter
But ID indeed isn't falsifiable. You cannot actively proof ID by experiments, testing, observing and repeating. There is no experiment that could proof ID. Because ID is based on ignorance. it's not falsifiable.
Your version of how ID could be falsifiable is not scientific because it relies on ignorance. What you basically say is: We don't know how this specific protein could ever have been produced by evolution, therefor we assume it's intelligently designed.
LucvdMortel 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter
Of which you've done an extremely poor job. ID is NOT falsifiable because for it to be falsifiable you would somehow have to obtain omniscience and prove that an intelligent creator doesn't exist.
verzen 11 months ago 2
@verzen
Apparently, you didn't watch the video. Watch it again, and refute the ACTUAL arguments I make. Thanks.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
verzen 11 months ago
@verzen
1. Intelligent design posits that the origin of certain protein-based functions is more adequately explained by an intelligence.
2.Thus, if the real-time evolution of such protein-based functions occurred, the above assertion will have been falsified.
Go ahead and refute those above points instead of adopting rhetorical strategies.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter
Your argument is ridiculous. It's like saying, "ID is falsified if you can prove evolution actually occurred so prove evolution actually occurred!" That's not how to falsify ID... for we don't know if an intelligent agent first created the cell.
verzen 11 months ago
@verzen
"Your argument is ridiculous."
I'm afraid you're the one making ridiculous arguments. I notice that you are unable to attack any of the premises I delineated, so I will repost them and let you refute it:
1. ID asserts that the origin of highly specified protein-based functions is more adequately explained by an intelligence.
2. To falsify the above assertion, all one needs is the real time evolution of a highly specified protein-based function (continued).
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@verzen
Do you or do you not agree that IF the real-time evolution of a highly specified protein-based function occurred, then the premise that the origin of highly specified protein-based functions is more adequately explained by an intelligence will no longer be true?
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@verzen
"The word "world" can be broken down."
Really? You went from "world" to "told." Since this analogy is one based on substitution, not deletions, I am curious as to what happened to the "r" in "world." "Torld" is not a word, your know.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter
There is no rule that states that two mutations cannot happen simultaneously. I was also breaking it down to show you that the word world itself can be broken down to smaller words.
verzen 11 months ago
@verzen
I stated in my video that,
"If one substituted virtually any of the letters in [world], a meaningless word will result. So, in this simple analogy, deletions do not count. Obviously, this is just an analogy -- deletions and other types of mutations can occur in organisms.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@verzen
"Proteins simply don't matter..."
What?
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter
They don't matter when you're trying to falsify intelligent design. You are saying that something else is entirely falsifiable and then claiming it's intelligent design.
verzen 11 months ago
@verzen
"They don't matter when you're trying to falsify intelligent design."
Yes they do. ID argues that the origin of these proteins are more adequately explained by an intelligence. That assertion will be resoundingly falsified if a protein with a high level of functional specificity evolved. You cannot refute that.
"You are saying that something else is entirely falsifiable..."
And, pray, tell me, what is that something else?
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@EternalSeptic77 ~Well max as you were informed many times before, Pasteur showed that microorganisms that spoil food or cause fermentation arise from contamination, no spontaneously. This has no connection to abiogenesis whatsoever. Pasteur wasn't investigating abiogenesis, wasn't looking for it, and didn't mention it. All you are doing is making yourself look like a fool.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@DishrackDarwin ~Please cite where I claimed DNA is an amino acid...YOu said adenine was a nucleic acid, when it is clearly an amino acid. Stop posting utter garbage.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@DishrackDarwin~ Deoxyribonucleic acid--DNA-- is a nucleic acid, hence the name. RNA is ribonucleic acid, also a nucleic acid, just single strand. You might look at the wiki article on protein, it is actually not too bad for wiki.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@DishrackDarwin ~"Proteins are biochemical compounds consisting of one or more polypeptides typically folded into a globular or fibrous form in a biologically functional way. A polypeptide is a single linear polymer chain of amino acids bonded together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of adjacent amino acid residues." Read it and weep.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@DishrackDarwin So much for your understanding...look it up.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@DishrackDarwin Did you bother to check what purine catabolism is? The whole process starts with polypeptide chains of nucleotides, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS PROTEINS. Catabolism, the breakdown of these chains involving enzymes in the presence of oxygen-containing compounds, results ultimately in purine metabolism.I simply started at the beginning of the process instead of starting virtually at the end, as you did in an effort to be deceptive.
pontecanis 11 months ago
I think Mr. Bill has been assaulted by Mr. Sluggo too many times; his brain is apparently reduced to mush and he is given over totally to religious delusion.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@DishrackDarwin ~Inflamation cuased by a buildup of uric acid crystals caused either by a diet having too much protein (see Henry VIII) or by metabolic defect allowing the equivalent; some medications can contribute by adversely affecting kidney function.
pontecanis 11 months ago
first define specifically what the "intelligence" is, and then test it
please define the "creator"
MrMegatruth 11 months ago
Is this vid 4 or against ID? This vid pointed out some STRONG arguments w/the protein 4 ID. How can it have coded anything if not 4 some intelligence 2 design the code and then place it in there? Can non-life think?
At the 1st of vid, the rocks were designed as rock n the wind, which was designed with a purpose, blew thus cause'n erosion 2 rock which caused rock 2 look that way.
1st Freedom Fighter? is this a fight against the truth? The lie is at war w/the truth. The truth just is.
MrBillH60 11 months ago
@MrBillH60 ~Oh no!! Mr.Bill--Mr Sluggo is going to hurt you because you keep spouting your ridiculous biblical absolutisms that have been debunked a million times, or are so stupid that they need no debunking, such as stating that the rock was designed to look that way. Are you seriously out of your mind? Please get your delusions seen to--sooner or later they will morph into frank psychosis.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis Nice try guy. The thing that evo'ist LOVES to do is try and act as if the truth, creation, is a lie. However the truth is unbeatable. 1 just has to look at nature to see INTELLIGENT DESIGN at work. There is nothing on this earth or existence that came by any other way then design. Man understands that nonlife can only be designed, car, yet when it comes 2 life which is more complicated 4 some reason the evo'ist gets dumb. Why is this? Is this 4 the evo'ist hates God?
YES! THEY DO.
MrBillH60 11 months ago
@MrBillH60
This video is arguing for intelligent design -- I am an intelligent design proponent.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter ~You need to understand that Mr. Bill has a problem when the word 'intelligent' is combined with any other word, as he has no intelligence, no knowledge of science, and is a creatobibliolator of the 1st magnitude. Compared to him Kent Hovind is a sage. Mr. Bill believes in the doctrine of 'Manifest Ignorance'--if I don't know it, it can't be true; if I don't understand it, it can't exist; if I don't accept it ,it must be false. He doesn't bother with evidence or research.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
Ah it's good to know you're around pontecanis, 'cause I believe I've got something nice cooked up for you.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@pontecanis, you and freedom fighter are far more educated than most of us in this field of study but it doesnt take a genius to know that life was designed. ever wonder why all of these special materials code into anything that has a practical purpose? think about it, a recipe (DNA) is turned into protiens that build an entire creature of one sort or another and these creatures have specific features that give it all kinds of tactical advantages in this world.
godrulztheearth 11 months ago
@godrulztheearth
It might take someone a bit smarter than yourself to understand that just because you assert that life was designed doesn't make it so.
odinata 11 months ago
@odinata, and it might take someone smarted than yourself to understand that i asserted that life was designed with evidence to back it up and i didnt just say it was designed just because i had asserted so. insult someone on the peanut butter video if thats all your good for. until you showed up the comments were rather polite.
godrulztheearth 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@godrulztheearth
You haven't provided ANY evidence to back up your assertions.
Not a single one.
So the question is, why are you being dishonest?
odinata 11 months ago
@godrulztheearth
I've read over all your posts.
They are assertions of opinion--not a lsingle fact to back any of them.
Why are you being dishonest?
odinata 11 months ago
@godrulztheearth ~ I doubt that any of us except the hardcore of atheists would doubt that there was a process of creation. The idea that there was a creator that micro designed everything in the universe and every living creature specifically to be as it is without ever changing over the history of its species is extraordinary. I find it difficult to conceive that an entity capable of organizing the universe would be so inefficient as to have to design every live form individually.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis, speciation it a fact so there are some changes that happen in nature, i just dont believe that life could have created itself thru completely natural processes. how god went about building life in unkown but nature didnt do it as the protein synthesis is just too assembly line efficient and complex to have just built itself. obvious designsthat we see in nature point to a designer with an aptitude for artistry.
godrulztheearth 11 months ago
@godrulztheearth ~Remamber, though, that the simplest of organisms do not have this protein synthesis cycle developed to nearly the same as it is in humans. In the early prokariotes and unicells, the protein synthesis is very limited and involves only minimal amounts of protein for internal partitions and exterior shells.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis, what if god gave each creature only what they needed to survive? that would explain the simpler protein production line in simpler creatures. a chevy cobalt is much less sophisticated than a cadillac but it was made that way because of a design choice to make a more economical car that didnt have all the bells and whistles.
godrulztheearth 11 months ago
@godrulztheearth ~Cars are man-made and good (mostly) examples of design. Living organisms started very simple--and an explanation is required to describe how they became more complex. That explanation is evolution.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
Aaa,yeah. A big bang happened, energy that caused bang unknown. This bang cause such as rock that changed itself into planets (earth) then proceed to place that on itself that is needed for life (ie, air) then this rock proceed to be the cause of life. So rock is the god that brought forth the evo'ist and it's sustainer of life (rock controls the evo'ist life).
And u say I'm the 1 that lacks intelligence?
The evo'ist is a poster child for the need of Jesus.
MrBillH60 11 months ago
@MrBillH60
Your ignorance is astounding.
odinata 11 months ago
@odinata CAUSE N EFFECT "A big bang happened, energy that caused bang unknown" Name the cause of the BIG BANG
"This bang cause such as rock that changed itself into planets (earth)" What was the cause that gave the earth its shape?
"then proceed to place that on itself that is needed for life (ie, air)" What was the cause that placed air on this earth
"then this rock proceed to be the cause of life" what was the cause of that u claim 2 change n2 life 2b placed on this earth?
MrBillH60 11 months ago
@MrBillH60
Not sure what that incoherent rant was supposed to mean, but you don't have your facts straight, your terminology straight,or your logic straight.
Of course your conclusion is whacky.
Your lack of understanding is not evidence for your personal religious opinion.
odinata 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata *Your ignorance is astounding* Enlighten me.
CAUSE AND EFFECT
1. Name the cause of the BIG BANG
2. What was the cause that gave the earth its shape?
3. What was the cause that placed air on this earth
4. What was the cause of that u claim 2 change n2 life 2b placed on this earth?
Are do you prefer to just avoid these "hard" questions by try'n 2 discredit he who ask the "hard" questions?
MrBillH60 11 months ago
You've never taken a biology course, have you Bill?
odinata 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter
Then FirstFreedomFighter is fighting for freedom.
The lie is the chain of bondage. Truth is the force that breaks this chain.
HOSEA 4:6 My people are destroyed for LACK OF KNOWLEDGE...
Bring forth this force that destroys this chain of bondage.
Let this FREEDOM be the FIRST of the FIGHTER who seeks to free those in captive of ignorance.
JOHN 8:32 ...And ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free...
MrBillH60 11 months ago
@pontecanis, i dont think that rocks were designed to look a specific way but what about the octupus that can mimic a multi colored rock and do it perfectly? that would be proof of design and there is no way for me to believe that r.m plus n.s would have accidently made such an amazing and practical thing. the same goes for all life forms and their special appendages and what not but the octupus really stands out as being designed.
godrulztheearth 11 months ago
@DishrackDarwin Yes max, confession is good for the soul...I understand you know nothing about science and won't do any proper research..
pontecanis 11 months ago
@DishrackDarwin ~This is what happens when you knoew fuck-all about science, Max.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@DishrackDarwin~ "There are two kinds of nitrogen-containing bases - purines and pyrimidines. There are 4 purines and 4 pyrimidines that are of concern to us...Two amino acids are:
Adenine = 6-amino purine
Guanine = 2-amino-6-oxy purine
Adenine and guanine are found in both DNA and RNA." OH FUCK!! Wrong again max! How am I not surprised? Source: Medical Library, University of Utah. Author-Carol M. Angstadt PhD, Allegheny University of the Health Sciences. Looks like you are SOL again!
pontecanis 11 months ago
@DishrackDarwin ~ The basic difficulty is being unaware of biochemistry. Several terms are used to describe one thing- adenine is an amino acid due to it's formula and origin. It is also a Purine due to the shape and composition of the molecule. It is also a nucleobase as it is USED to form nucleic acids, both riboneucleic acids and deoxyribonucleic acids. Another group of amino acids relate to nutrition, and form the largest group of amino acids, usually referred to as essential.
pontecanis 11 months ago
There are 9 amino acids deemed essential from a nutritional standpoint, which must come from diet; 11 are synthesized in the body, which is where the mistaken idea of 20 amino acids "common to all life" comes from. Basically scientific nomenclature can be very confusing to lay people without training; it's bad enough when you have to study the stuff at first! But a nucleic acid is a chain of constituents known as nucleobases, which are amino acids by formula, 2 of which are purines.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
I was talking about proteins in my video, not DNA and RNA. That said, have you decided that you were wrong when you said that the type iii secretory system is found in more types of bacteria than the number of bacteria the flagellum is found in?
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter ~Nope. Your mistakes started at 0:52, when you repeated the error that " there are 20 amino acids common to all life" The 2nd last sentence says;"They are encoded in the cells' genetic bluepribnt(DNA)" This is another error. There are 20 DIETARY amino acids, 9 of which we cannot make and must be consumed. They are called Essential Amino Acids for this reason. NONE of the 20 appear in DNA or RNA, as they are dietary, not in either of DNA or RNA. The protein blather is useless
pontecanis 11 months ago
Similarly, the blather about intelligence is also useless, as it cannot be demonstrated a) that any creating or organizing intelligence ever existed and b) It must be demonstrated that it is not possible to account for amino acids, nucleosides, nucleotides, and proteins via basic biochemistry. Since both a and b are valid, and basic biochemistry easily explains all of the developments discussed, it leaves no room for ID. ID has also been invalidated and declared to be religion by US law.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
It is becoming clear to me that your contention that adenine is an amino acid is nonsense. For example, check out "Prebiotic synthesis of adenine and amino acids under Europa-like conditions." In the abstract, the authors report that,
"We find that both adenine and guanine, as well as a simple set of amino acids dominated by glycine, are produced in substantial yields under these conditions."
I wonder why they made a distinction between adenine and amino acids in their paper...
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter ~Very simple. Adenine and Guanine do not contain glycine.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
I guess you didn't get past the title of the paper where it says:
"Prebiotic synthesis of adenine and amino acids under Europa-like conditions." Now THAT'S an interesting title for a paper considering that you claim that adenine is an amino acid. Curiouser and curiouser.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@pontecanis
Change that to: "They are encoded BY the cell's genetic blueprint." A small grammatical error. Anyhew, do you still contend that there are more types of bacteria that contain the TTSS than the number of bacteria types that contain the flagellum?
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter ~What, you don't pay attention? Only 11 of the 20 are encoded BY DNA. As I stated previously, I do not recall ever contending that there are more bacteria that have the T3SS than have flagella, although as I stated previously, since ALL bacteria capable of causing disease use a secretory apparatus, it would not be all that surprising. Certainly All gram-negative bacteria DO have the T3SS, and that includes the enterococci, one of the largest of the groups extant.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
"Only 11 of the 20 are encoded BY DNA."
Haha, where did you learn molecular biology? There are codons for every one of the 20 amino acids. Do you know what this means? This means that (when the DNA molecule is transcribed) the RNA molecule codes for all 20 amino acids.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter ~"There are codons for every one of the 20 amino acids" Really? Please cite your source. Since 9 of the 20 cannot be produced by the human body, finding codons for them would be most interesting--BTW:"Adenine = 6-amino purine & Guanine = 2-amino-6-oxy purine" Neither are amino acids according to you? "We find that both adenine and guanine, as well as a simple set of amino acids dominated by glycine, are produced in substantial yields under these conditions." HAR HAR HAR
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
Oh boy, nice dodge there. You said,
"Only 11 of the 20 are encoded BY DNA."
Unfortunately for you, you did not say "only 11 of the 20 are encoded BY DNA IN THE HUMAN BODY." In other words, you just failed spectacularly. All 20 amino acids are encoded by DNA, hence the fact that each amino acid is encoded by a codon.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter ~What they're going to be encode by DNA OUTSIDE the body??? 9 of the amino acids cannot be produced by the body. To claim there are codons for their production is nonsense. I notice you did not cite your source. I take it you have none, and made it up.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
Oh my God. This guy doesn't know of such a thing as bacteria living outside the body. Where did you learn biology?
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@pontecanis
So you think there are absolutely no codons anywhere that code for those 9 amino acids? Oh boy, you're going to be getting into trouble with your professor I'm afraid.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FirstFreedomFighter So you think there are absolutely no codons anywhere that code for those 9 amino acids? Yep, Prove me wrong.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
I don't see any carboxyl group in that formula you presented. Sorry about that.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter ~Grasping at straws now? Perhaps you might look it up: it includes COOH at some point in the formula, usually at the end. Check the diagrams, they are very useful for those with reading comprehension problems.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
No, COOH doesn't appear anywhere in the molecular formula for adenine. Maybe you could provide that. Actually, I'd love it if you could cite a single source that says adenine is an amino acid.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter ~ Oh yes, I forgot you know nothing of chemical formulae...the molecular formula takes all the constituent molecules and clumps them by type..thus C5H5N5 is the basic molecular formula which covers the essential body of the isolated acid... to bond with the phosphate lattice of the RNA or DNA, it does so by forming a carbonyl bond with the lattice, resulting in the COOH you didn't see.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
I gotta go to bed. We will continue our biochemistry lesson tomorrow.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter ~Maybe you'll be able to learn something then. Max, of course is incapable.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
"Really? Cite your source."
Any molecular biology text book will tell you that there are codons for every one of the 20 amino acids.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter ~"Any molecular biology text book" Nope, you made the claim, cite the source. I've provided mine...
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
You claimed that only 11 of the amino acids are encoded by DNA. You did not say "in the human body." So may I ask you this: where do the other 9 amino acids come from if they have no codons coding for them anywhere in the world of life?
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@pontecanis
Thankfully, I am now well-rested (and it's not late at night) and I have come to my senses and realized that you don't know a thing about molecular biology or genomics, despite your pretentious display. So next time you make a comment regarding molecular biology please make sure you don't end up embarrassing yourself in front of everyone (continued).
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@pontecanis
You said,
"Really? Please cite your source. Since 9 of the 20 cannot be produced by the human body, finding codons for them would be most interesting."
A quick GenBank search of the human caspase 9 (protein involved in apoptosis) nucleotide sequence will reveal that the human genome contains the codons that code for some of the essential amino acids. For example, one of the essential amino acids is valine, and at positions 401-406 there are two GTG codons, which codes for valine...
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
I could cite literally dozens of different examples. The human genome does contain codons that code for the essential amino acids, contrary to what you claim. That you would make this egregious assertion demonstrates that your knowledge of even the most basic molecular biology is severely lacking. Please consider picking up an education in that field before revealing your ignorance on this thread. Thanks.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter Really..please cite for me where the body produces these 9 amino acids. I won't be waiting for a citation as you can't provide any...the codons to which you refer are related to the metabolism of amino acids, not the production; the body cannot make valine, it must be ingested, and then metabolized. Cysteine, taurine, tyrosine, histidine, and arginine are semiessential amino-acids in children, because of immature metabolic pathways.Revealing YOUR ignorance!
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
Last night you claimed that one would not find any codons for valine in the human genome. I ripped that claim apart today. Try again. I wanna see this dodge.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter No sale...that was regarding the PRODUCTION of essential amino acids, which are NOT coded for. There are definitely codons for metabolizing essential aminos or we wouldn't be able to do it! Don't forget, initally you claimed all 20 were coded in DNA, which only contains 4 : ACG&T. Then changed it to BY DNA, now you claim the codons are there for essentials as well as non-essentials--> I showed they were for the metabolism of the essentials:where will you put goalposts next?
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
Here's the deal:
I said,
"There are codons for every one of the 20 amino acids.
You denied that when you said,
"Really? Please cite your source. Since 9 of the 20 cannot be produced by the human body, finding codons for them would be most interesting."
I implore you to open up a molecular biology textbook and do some homework.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter ~Nice splitting hairs. You cannot find codons for the production of the 9 simply because we cannot produce them, and production codons do not exist. We only have the ability to metabolze them, for which there is coding.BTW are you finally admitting that Adenine and Guanine are amino acids that are purines?
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
"Only 11 of the 20 are encoded BY DNA."
Does that sound familiar? It should, because that is exactly what you claimed last night. And that assertion is a blatant falsehood. The above statement is very easy to understand and not ambiguous at all. You did not make any clarification about the production and metabolizing of the amino acids. So what are you doing now? You're dodging. YOU are moving the goalposts.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@pontecanis
Adenine and guanine are NOT amino acids. Cite one source that say they are.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FirstFreedomFighter "There are two kinds of nitrogen-containing bases - purines and pyrimidines. There are 4 purines and 4 pyrimidines that are of concern to us...Two amino acids are:
Adenine = 6-amino purine
Guanine = 2-amino-6-oxy purine
Adenine and guanine are found in both DNA and RNA." Source: Medical Library, University of Utah. Author-Carol M. Angstadt PhD, Allegheny University of the Health Sciences.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@DishrackDarwin ~Why max, thank you for your demonstration of scientific ignorance. A purine is a reference to the chemical SHAPE of a substance, and the composition of that shape.The amino acids guanine and adenine are classed as purines. In DNA, these bases form hydrogen bonds with their complementary pyrimidines thymine and cytosine, respectively. This is called complementary base pairing. In RNA, the complement of adenine is uracil (U) instead of thymine. Maybe some study might help.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@FranksVoice That is why a god who was his own father and his own son is a FAR better idea.
HonestTechnoAtheist 11 months ago
In other words you don't know how these proteins fold by a mindless process, and you already said that diseases are simply from mindless processes, so go ahead and insert a god to explain how the proteins fold.
HonestTechnoAtheist 11 months ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist "so go ahead and insert a god to explain how the proteins fold."
So go ahead and insert mutations to explain how the proteins fold.
9pt9 11 months ago
@9pt9 Yes but mutations actually occur, where as gods waving magical wands do not.
HonestTechnoAtheist 11 months ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist You're right, God doesn't have a magic wand. He simply speaks things into existence.
9pt9 11 months ago
@9pt9 Yep and he is fictional either way.
HonestTechnoAtheist 11 months ago
I posted this video on Dennis Jones ID page on facebook and got this response:
"Mike McDavis This is based on IC. IC has been refuted numerous times. Other than that, the video discusses very little. Also, if falsifying IC falsifies ID, it's been done. Also, many species have slightly different homologues of proteins with very ...specific functions, so this video really falls apart on a scientific level."
lol
4thcoming 11 months ago
so...in other words your argument is basically irreducible complexity in terms of just proteins...?
Landofjello 11 months ago
@Landofjello
The term "irreducible complexity" gets thrown around a lot, so would you care to define it? Thanks.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter K I'll define it in my own words: Its the idea that a structure will not funtion if one of its parts is changed, removed, or if a new part was added to the mix..
Landofjello 11 months ago
@Landofjello
By that definition, then yes, one could consider irreducible complexity to apply to proteins. However, I want to emphasize that virtually all biological functions are irreducibly complex. That is, in many biological functions, removal of one part results in a loss of function. However, many IC functions can evolve -- it depends on how many IC parts there are (continued).
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@Landofjello
Also note that many times the removal of a component will result in the loss of a particular function, but another function will be in its place. At the protein level however, this is a different story. In short: I wouldn't say this is completely the argument from irreducible complexity. Perhaps what I am talking about in this video should be called "specified irreducible complexity" to borrow the phrase from one of my colleagues.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter ~To borrow a phrase from Michael Behe? It's bogus...you gus remind me of the frantic hhops that were jumped through by geocenterists trying to resolve the apparent paradox of the retrograde motion of Mars in light of the heliocentric theory mathematically proven to be valid. The ideas got wilder and wilder and ever more "special' and complicated until eventually it became so asinine the whole thing collapsed. ID is religion, not science. It has no legitimacy.
pontecanis 11 months ago
Oh dear---As ID has already been falsified by Ken Miller destroying irreducible complexity, and buy Phillip Johnson admitting it was a a hoax to get religion into the classroom in violation of US law and the Constitution, any claim it is not falsifiable is pretty lame. "Intelligent design posits that the origin of certain features of the biological world is more adequately explained by an intelligence" What a laugh-then you post the asinine fantasy claim that 20 amino acids are common to all...
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
"then you post the asinine fantasy claim that 20 amino acids are common to all..."
Mmm. Did you every study basic biology? For example, the Wikipedia article on the Miller-Urey experiment states that,
"Miller's experiment was therefore a remarkable success at synthesizing complex organic molecules from simpler chemicals, ****considering that all life uses just 20 different amino acids****."
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter Gee--formula for RNA: NH2CH H3PO4 COOH...4 amino acids in a phosphate lattice. Formula for cyanobacteria archaea: NH2 CH H3PO4 COOH---what a coincidence. Maybe you ought to have studied.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
Gee whiz -- I am talking about proteins in this video. Maybe you should have read more carefully.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter No, you are supporting the fictional intelligent design using proteins as an example. And you git it wrong.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
Wait. Are you the same guy who claimed that the type iii secretory system is found in more types of bacteria than the flagellum? Oh dear...
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter I hate to tell you, the flagellum is not a bacterium---and the type 3 is definitely found in more than one bacterium. See the previous post about studying.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
Thankfully, I never claimed the flagellum is a bacterium. You are capable of reading, correct? That aside, you did claim that that type iii secretory system was found in more types of bacteria than the number of types of bacteria the flagellum is found in. Yet another monumental error on your part.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter You might want to brush up on your grammar, the part about equivocation in meaning. I made no claim that the T3SS is found in more bacteria than those that have a flagellum, but it seems like a plausible idea, as the flagellar bacteria have the T3SS, and other bacteria and even viruses have the same kind of function as the T3SS, even HIV. It may not be an identical structure , but probably homologous as to function.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
Please consider improving your memory. You stated that SINCE that type iii secretory system was found in more types of bacteria than the flagellum, then "ergo the type iii secretory system came first." I distinctly recall your saying that (or something to that effect), don't you?
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
life...REALLY??? The answer is a resounding NO...all life forms do NOT have 20 amino acids in common. As an example, RNA has 4 amino acids, as does DNA. Some of the early and simplest forms of life have NO proteins. Many have no organelles, where the proteins you describe do their work.
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
DNA has 4 amino acids? Mmm. Do your homework, please. Adenine, for example, doesn't have a -COOH group so to consider it an amino acid is laughable. That's quite a sophomoric error on your part.
Anyhew, we both know you're nitpicking on irrelevant stuff. This video wasn't intended to list all the exceptions but to provide basic information. Duh.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter ~Adenine is NOT an amino acid? Very interesting! I'll inform the Nobel Prize committee they awarded Tom Cech his 1989 Nobel in Chemistry by mistake...An alpha-amino acid has the generic formula H2NCHRCOOH, where R is an organic substituent; Other types of amino acid exist when the amino group is attached to a different carbon atom; for example, in gamma-amino acids (such as gamma-amino-butyric acid)
pontecanis 11 months ago
@pontecanis
Adenine is a nucleic acid, for your information.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FFF~"Adenine is one of the two purine nucleobases (the other being guanine) used in forming nucleotides of the nucleic acids. In DNA, adenine binds to thymine via two hydrogen bonds to assist in stabilizing the nucleic acid structures. In RNA, adenine binds to uracil. Adenine forms adenosine, a nucleoside, when attached to ribose, and deoxyadenosine when attached to deoxyribose. It forms adenosine triphosphate (ATP), a nucleotide, when three phosphate groups are added to adenosine".
-wikipedia
pontecanis 11 months ago
"A purine nucleobase" is an amino acid, twit, as is guanine (or are you going to claim guanine is not an amino acid either?). It helps to FORM nucleic acids as a constituent.
pontecanis 11 months ago
Text goes too fast. Have to continually pause.
JMcH 11 months ago
I love how people claim something isn't falsifiable and then go on to try to falsify it.
owchywawa 11 months ago
--- mind, "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike" (Delos McKown).
In other words, the idea that it was a specific force such as an intelligence is one that requires its own justification. IF ID were to say merely that science is wrong about this particular topic, justifying such a claim by presenting a valid flaw in the scientific argument, then it would be taken seriously.
... Saying "It just doesn't seem likely, therefore it was magic man X" is not in the least scientific.
SilenceTheIDiots 11 months ago
The falsifiability of the claim is there, yes... BUT it's tantamount to saying that the Earth could not have formed the way scientists posit that it did (without an intelligence), and therein claiming that the only way to falsify this is by observing another Earth-like planet form on its own.
The reasoning is flawed, plain and simple.
Further, to say that these structures are designed, or in fact that everything is designed, requires the ability to observe something NOT designed. Keep in ---
SilenceTheIDiots 11 months ago
When did you work on this? It seems different from your others.
Lawborn 11 months ago
@Lawborn
During the weekend I worked on this. It might seem different because I'm using a different program to get the text and all on the video.
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
@FirstFreedomFighter, good work bro!
godrulztheearth 11 months ago
@godrulztheearth
Thanks bro!
FirstFreedomFighter 11 months ago
I rather enjoy your taste in music. Great theme.
Lawborn 11 months ago