The Elshamah mega-thread

[Rumraket]

Blast-searching the sequence of Protochlorophyllide oxireductase I'm getting protein sequences that differ by more than 40% of the amino acid sequence. Sure as fuck not a particularly conserved sequence that enzyme is laboring under, it seems to be extremely tolerant to mutations while still retaining some sort of biologically useful function.

You were saying about "checking" again? You were blatheing about functional protein sequences being rare and irreducibly complex? Right? Hello, you there? What are you going to copy-paste next? Bible verses?

 

[Elshamah]

You didn't check shit. I rest my case.

haha. After this, you might can.....


Outline of chlorophyll a biosynthesis from glutamate. The enzymes that catalyze the individual numbered reactions are

(1) glutamyl-tRNA synthetase;
(2) glutamyl-tRNA reductase;
(3) glutamate 1-semialdehyde aminotransferase;
(4) porphobilinogen synthase;
(5) hydroxymethylbilane synthase;
(6) uroporphyrinogen III synthase;
(7) uroporphyrinogen III decarboxylase;
(8 )coproporphyrinogen III oxidative decarboxylase;
(9) protoporphyrinogen
IX oxidase;

following are the last eight steps :

(10) protoporphyrin IX Mg-chelatase;

http://www.genome.jp/dbget-bin/www_bget? ec:6.6.1.1
[th]Pathway[/th]
ec00860 Porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism
ec01100 Metabolic pathways
ec01110 Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites

(11) S-adenosyl-L-methionine:Mg-protoporphyrin IX methyltransferase;

http://www.genome.jp/dbget-bin/www_bget?ec:2.1.1.11
[th]Pathway[/th]
ec00860 Porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism
ec01100 Metabolic pathways
ec01110 Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites

(12)–(14) Mg-protoporphyrin IX monomethyl ester oxidative cyclase;

http://www.genome.jp/dbget-bin/www_bget?ec:1.14.13.81
[th]Pathway[/th]
ec00860 Porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism
ec01100 Metabolic pathways
ec01110 Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites

(15) divinyl (proto)chlorophyllide 4-vinyl reductase;

http://www.genome.jp/dbget-bin/www_bget?ec:1.3.1.75
[th]Pathway[/th]
ec00860 Porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism
ec01100 Metabolic pathways
ec01110 Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites

(16) light-dependent NADPHrotochlorophyllide oxidoreductase or light-independent protochlorophyllide reductase;

http://www.genome.jp/dbget-bin/www_bget?ec:1.3.7.7
[th]Pathway[/th]
ec00860 Porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism
ec01100 Metabolic pathways
ec01110 Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites

(17) chlorophyll synthase.

http://www.genome.jp/dbget-bin/www_bget?ec:2.5.1.62
[th]Pathway[/th]
ec00860 Porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism
ec01100 Metabolic pathways
ec01110 Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites

:lol:

 

[Rumraket]

LOL. Congratulations, you have now linked the individual enzymes.

Where is your "checking for related enzymes"? You haven't chechecked shit. Nobody is impressed by your mere ability to list stuff.

 

[Rumraket]

Lol. Every single one of those "unique" enzymes belong to well-characterised protein superfamilies or have domains recurring in many other enzymes and proteins.

They all have protein relatives.

What was it you checked? Really?

 

[Elshamah]

LOL. Congratulations, you have now linked the individual enzymes.

Where is your "checking for related enzymes"? You haven't chechecked shit. Nobody is impressed by your mere ability to list stuff.

You are a bad loser, Rumraket.

But what else should i expect from someone, that has not the education and decency to debate like a adult , without resorting to name calling and insults ?

Since if have the spirit of Christ, i am not laughing at you or feeling vindicated. I hope one day you will exchange the delusion of naturalism with good science. Good science will bring you to Christ, and Christ will give you a intellectually satisfying world view.

have a nice day.

 

[Rumraket]

And we have not yet even addressed the problem of how the first proteins evolved. Remember the proponents of evolutions standard explanation for how proteins evolved is by gene duplication and subsequent divergence. But that requires the pre existence of other types of proteins. In other words, the question of how proteins evolve in the first place has been swept under the rug.

FUCK ME, now you're copy-pasting your own already debunked posts:

Rumraket on November 18, 2015 at 12:40 pm said:

otangelo: http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2062-proteins-how-they-provide-striking-evidence-of-design?highlight=proteins
How do proteins evolve?

From other proteins, or some times de novo as ORFan genes from junk or noncoding DNA.

otangelo: Contrary to early notions that protein sequences were extremely flexible, science is now telling us the opposite.

False. A more accurate statement would be that it depends.

Some protein sequences are highly flexible and can mutate alot while retaining function, others are extremely sensitive to change. You cannot derive a universal statement about all of protein sequence space in the way you are trying to do.

otangelo:This indication that viable protein sequences occupy a tiny sliver of sequence space suggests that they are difficult to evolve.

That doesn’t even follow. Even if the premise is true the conclusion doesn’t follow. Outright non-sequitur fallacy.

Besides, how difficult is “difficult to evolve”? What a vague and useless statement.

The Szostak lab found functional proteins (four different ones) in a pool of about 10^11 random sequence proteins (sequences that were 80 amino acids in length). And they only tested for one function (bind ATP), they could have tested for thousands of additional functions, such as chemical catalysts and binding to countless other molcules. They also only tested at one temperarure. Who’s to say what else could be found in that pool of random sequence proteins if they had tested at other temperatures, at different ion/salt concentrations or tested for binding to other molecules or even for the presence of weak chemical catalysts?

It is trivial and easy to find functiona proteins in random sequence space. The Szostak lab proved this experimentally back in the late 90’s and early 2000’s and showed it to be true both for proteins and RNA’s:
szostakweb/Keefe_Szostak_Nature_01.pdf

Functional proteins from a random-sequence library
Anthony D. Keefe & Jack W. Szostak
“Functional primordial proteins presumably originated from random sequences, but it is not known how frequently functional, or even folded, proteins occur in collections of random sequences. Here we have used in vitro selection of messenger RNA displayed proteins, in which each protein is covalently linked through its carboxy terminus to the 39 end of its encoding mRNA1 , to sample a large number of distinct random sequences. Starting from a library of 6 x 10^12 proteins each containing 80 contiguous random amino acids, we selected functional proteins by enriching for those that bind to ATP. This selection yielded four new ATPbinding proteins that appear to be unrelated to each other or to anything found in the current databases of biological proteins. The frequency of occurrence of functional proteins in random sequence libraries appears to be similar to that observed for equivalent RNA libraries2,3.”

80 random amino acids strung together into a protein. Generate 6×10^12 different, random copies, test them all for a single (and extremely biologically important) function: Bind ATP.

Among that starting pool of random proteins 80 amino acids in length, there were four (4) different, unrelated proteins found that could do it. That gives about 1 in every 10^11 proteins capable of binding ATP. Which strongly indicates that as an absolute minimum there is at least one biologically relevant function in every 10^11 80-amino-acid long proteins. (I could stop here already, this is enough to render all of creationism bunk).

Notice how only a single function was tested for for that pool of random proteins. They could have tested millions of different functions (bind other biologically important molecules, tested for catalysis of thousands of different chemical reaction, stabilize phospholipid membranes etc. etc.) – but they only tested for one and found it already to begin with.

The simple fact is that Sean Pitman, the creationist liar for doctrine from which you probably copy-pasted this religiously motivated drivel, is talking out of his religiously biased ass, based on a couple of studies where he wildly extrapolates the results into areas the data don’t support. For example, the Discovery Institute paid their liar propaganda laboratory to mutate a functional protein until it stopped working (at what it was doing), then they tried to derive a general rule for the rarity of function in protein sequence space on this stupid experiment. It’s true, it only required relatively few mutations to destroy the function of the protein in question, and as a result they computed that functional proteins are supposed to exist at a rate of approximately 1 in every 10^77 proteins. Which if true, would entail that functional proteins were, as you go on to copy-paste, exceptionally rare. But does their experiment really warrant that kind of conclusion? They mutated a protein until it stopped working (again, at what it was doing). Even then, that is still not any guarantee that the protein in question is entirely nonfunctional. It is entirely possible that you can mutate a specific protein fold that, say, catalyzes some chemical reaction until it stops catalyzing that chemical reaction. But who’s to say that protein can’t do something else now? It might be able to catalyze a different but related chemical reaction now. You actually have to test for that, you can’t just declare it nonfunctional and then extrapolate from a test of your single fold into every function for every protein in every environment ever. Obviously.

otangelo:If you ask a proponent of evolutionhow a protein evolved, you will likely hear the standard answer: via gene duplication and subsequent divergence. In other words, the protein arose from a different type of protein that was pre existing. The gene for that protein duplicated, and then mutated until landing on a new protein that was helpful. And of course this story must have repeated itself thousands of times to create the many different proteins in biology.

And it did. We have phylogenetic evidence that it did.

otangelo: It is an unlikely, just-so, story

No, it is an evidentially derived conclusion. A provable fact forced the researchers to draw that conclusion(see above), it was not some stupid story anyone just made up.

otangelo: for viable protein sequences are hard to find.

How hard is “hard to find”? The szostak lab found four functional ATP binding proteins in a pool of random ones. Turns out however hard you imagine “hard” to be really isn’t that hard after all.

otangelo What would be needed are long trails of intermediate, functional, proteins connecting the different types of proteins. These proteins would not only need to be functional, their particular function would have to be useful at the time.

Actually no, that does not follow. Non-sequitur fallacy. It is entirely possible that there are proteins that evolved de novo from non coding sequences, or passed through periods of nonfunctionality or just lower fitness.

otangelo And why would the known proteins just happen to be fortuitously connected by these trails?

To ask “why” presumes without reason that there must BE a reason, a why, a purpose, as if that is a requirement. It isn’t, you’re asking meaningless questions.

otangelo Science gives us no reason to think such a lucky circumstance is built into the protein world.

You’re arguing against yourself now by trying to have your cake and eat it too. First you argue that proteins are rare in sequence space and functionally and/or sequentially disconnected from each other, and that this is evidence of design (because then life could not have evolved you argue). Now you’re arguing the opposite, that if the circumstances of the ability of evolution to happen at all are such that it can, then that is ALSO evidence for design, because then the entire world must have been designed to allow evolution to happen.

Ask yourself, how could one ever falsify your view? All options, even diametrically opposite ones, you interpret to be evidence of design. There’s a colossal and gaping wound in your philosophy, it is all conclusion first and rationalizations 2nd.

otangelo So either there are no such trails, which means evolution has a problem, or there are such trails which means someone has monkeyed with the fundamentals of protein chemistry.

And there we have it, all the basic fallacies of godbelief shoved into the same sentence.
False dichotomy, non-sequitur and question-begging all in one. It does not follow that because evolution is possible and happens that the laws of physics must have been set up to allow evolution to be possible and happen.

It is a useless philosophy you have if it does not even allow for the possibility that you might be wrong. It means you have set it up such that even if you are wrong, you have rendered yourself unable to discover if this is in fact the case, because all facts about the world you might discover are taken and refitted post-hoc into some rationalization for how it must have been the result of design.

otangelo And we have not yet even addressed the problem of how the first proteins evolved. Remember the proponents of evolutions standard explanation for how proteins evolved is by gene duplication and subsequent divergence. But that requires the pre existence of other types of proteins. In other words, the question of how proteins evolve in the first place has been swept under the rug.

Nobody is sweeping anything under any rugs. Rather traditionally the answer has been: We don’t know.

That’s not functionally equivalent to “sweeping it under the rug”. That’s just honesty. One should not claim to know when one doesn’t.

Regardless, the Szostak lab’s experiments runs a freight-train through this laughable assertion that there is some intrinsic difficulty with functional protein arising de novo instead of by duplication from already existing and functional structures.

In conclusion: Your entire case is based on failures in correct logical reasoning, claims contrary to demonstrable fact and a hefty dose of volitional ignorance. That last one because, manifestly, I’ve already explained all of this to you here.

Dude, I already answered all that crap, both at the skepticalzone and ON THIS VERY FORUM. Look at my very last sentence there.

You can't run away from it, you're just mindlessly spamming shit that has already been debunked.

 

[Rumraket]

It gets even worse. Check out this utter horseshit that Elsamah wrote over on theskepticalzone:

otangelo on November 18, 2015 at 3:46 pm said:

Alan Fox: Perhaps we can taunt him a second time with those then, rather than considering banning anyone.

well, my threads and topics are still being debated at League of Reason, and i am still having fun debunking the pseudo-scientific crap of the deluded ones, of which rumraket is a proeminent participant .

http://theleagueofreason.co.uk/view...id=c2ea621c041dde2c73ee1ccf163d3c91&start=180

I mean look at it. Look at what he claims is going on. He seriously thinks, apparenly, that he's "debunking pseudo-scientific crap of the deluded ones".

The entire world cannot contain enough facepalms for this. But wait, I'm not done. The sheer gall of this one:

otangelo on November 18, 2015 at 3:59 pm said:

Then he turned up over on sandwalk, still mindlessly copy-pasting stuff he at best half-way understands at most one quater of the time, constantly with the idiotic “haha you can’t refute this” crap attitude attached.

Larry Moran has be of particular fun. Before i started refuting his nonsense crap at his blog, he showed up at my Facebook timeline where he thought that he could make his points with a attitude of superiority. When i debunked one argument of his after the other, and he were not able to convince me with his superficial drivel, he started with personal attacks, calling me a liar , amongst many other insults. When i asked him about how the Spliceosome evolved, he just posted a bunch of links, thinking that he made a point. When i confronted him with what his links actually said, namely that science has no idea how it evolved, he left the debate. Happened more than once. Particularly fun was when i mentioned Topoisomerase II enzymes. He came up with the escape that they were a recent novelty. When i showed him that they had to be there when replication began, he stopped answering me. In the end, i posted following prove that cell’s cannot be the result of natural mechanisms :

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2221-the-hardware-and-software-of-the-cell-evidence-of-design

he acused me of promoting my forum at his blog, and deleted the post. Thats when i decided to leave…..

say hello to Larry. I miss debunking his crap and superficial pseudo science.

Somebody explain this to me. How is this possible? How can he get himself to sit there and type this out?

I WANT ANSWERS!

 

[SpecialFrog]

Reading Orac's blog, I came across a good quote that seems to apply to Elshamah: hubris is the enemy of skepticism.

 

[Elshamah]

The Szostak lab proved this experimentally back in the late 90’s and early 2000’s and showed it to be true both for proteins and RNA’s:
szostakweb/Keefe_Szostak_Nature_01.pdf

Functional proteins from a random-sequence library
Anthony D. Keefe & Jack W. Szostak.

That refutes your claim straightforward :

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2062-proteins-how-they-provide-striking-evidence-of-design#4421

but :

your entire post is just pathetic and exposes your bias.

First of all, for obvious reasons, you just moved the goal posts ; rather than acknowledging that the eight last enzymes the of chlorophyll biosynthesis pathway could not have been co-opted from somewhere else, since they are only used in that pathway, you just moved to another issue, evolution of proteins. But let us reason that subject to the end. So these enzymes could not have been co-opted. So why after all are they there ? Let us not forget that without chlorophyll, you would not be here. Neither i. Nor any advanced life. So there would be no reason for these enzymes to arise, EVEN if chlorophyll were synthesized.

http://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway/map/map00195.html

In photosynthesis , 26 protein complexes and enzymes are required to go through the light and light independent reactions, a chemical process that transforms sunlight into chemical energy, to get glucose as end product , a metabolic intermediate for cell respiration. A good part of the protein complexes are uniquely used in photosynthesis. The pathway must go all the way through, and all steps are required, otherwise glucose is not produced. Also, in the oxygen evolving complex, which splits water into electrons, protons, and CO2, if the light-induced electron transfer reactions do not go all the five steps through, no oxygen, no protons and electrons are produced, no advanced life would be possible on earth. So, photosynthesis is a interdependent system, that could not have evolved, since all parts had to be in place right from the beginning. It contains many interdependent systems composed of parts that would be useless without the presence of all the other necessary parts. In these systems, nothing works until all the necessary components are present and working. So how could someont rationally say, the individual parts, proteins and enzymes, co-factors and assembly proteins not present in the final assemblage, all happened by a series of natural events that we can call ad hoc mistake "formed in one particular moment without ability to consider any application." , to then somehow interlink in a meaningful way, to form electron transport chains, proton gradients to " feed " ATP synthase nano motors to produce ATP , and so on ? Such independent structures would have not aided survival. Consider the light harvesting complex, and the electron transport chain, that did not exist at exactly the same moment--would they ever "get together" since they would neither have any correlation to each other nor help survival separately? Repair of PSII via turnover of the damaged protein subunits is a complex process involving highly regulated reversible phosphorylation of several PSII core subunits. If this mechanism would not work starting right from the beginning, various radicals and active oxygen species with harmful effects on photosystem II (PSII) would make it cease to function. So it seems that photosynthesis falsifies the theory of evolution, where all small steps need to provide a survival advantage.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1555-photosynthesis?highlight=photosynthesis

You do not acknowledge God as the best explanation , not because its not the most rational position, but because you do not WANT that option to be true, for reasons only you ( and God ) know. Based on rational ground , it can't be.

But back to your drivel about protein evolution. A minimal set of proteins had to be there , interlocked and fully working, in order to start life. I posted that at Larry-boy's blog. Here we go again, in a shorter verstion:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2110-what-might-be-a-protocells-minimal-requirement-of-parts

A primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria - one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex.

Following the E. coli model, a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum:

A cell wall of some sort to contain the cell
A genetic blueprint for the cell (in the form of DNA)
DNA polymerase capable of copying information out of the genetic blueprint to manufacture new proteins and enzymes
Ribosomes capable of manufacturing new enzymes, along with all of the building blocks for those enzymes
An enzyme that can build cell walls
An enzyme able to copy the genetic material in preparation for cell splitting (reproduction)
An enzyme or enzymes able to take care of all of the other operations of splitting one cell into two to implement reproduction (For example, something has to get the second copy of the genetic material separated from the first, and then the cell wall has to split and seal over in the two new cells.)
Enzymes able to manufacture energy molecules to power all of the previously mentioned enzymes

These proteins require many proteins to be synthesized :

“The ‘Catch-22’ of the origin of life is this: DNA can replicate, but it needs enzymes in order to catalyse the process. Proteins can catalyse DNA formation, but they need DNA to specify the correct sequence of amino acids.” (p. 420) Indeed, the origin of the genetic code is a vicious circle: protein machines are needed to read the DNA, but these protein machines are themselves encoded on the DNA. Furthermore, they use energy, which requires ATP, made by the nano-motor ATP synthase. Yet this is encoded on the DNA, decoded by machines needing ATP. The proteins are the machinery, and the DNA is the reproductive material, yet both are needed at the same time for the cell to function at all. And of course, this would be useless without any information to reproduce (see p. 224).

This is a unsolved riddle.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Study offers insight into the origin of the genetic code, team reports

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Elshamah]

Greetings,

Study offers insight into the origin of the genetic code, team reports

Kindest regards,

James

yawn......

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2057-origin-of-translation-of-the-4-nucleic-acid-bases-and-the-20-amino-acids-and-the-universal-assignment-of-codons-to-amino-acids#3528

 

[Rumraket]

The Szostak lab proved this experimentally back in the late 90’s and early 2000’s and showed it to be true both for proteins and RNA’s:
szostakweb/Keefe_Szostak_Nature_01.pdf

Functional proteins from a random-sequence library
Anthony D. Keefe & Jack W. Szostak.

That refutes your claim straightforward :

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2062-proteins-how-they-provide-striking-evidence-of-design#4421

No it doesn't.

There is no citation given to prove this claim: "The probability of randomly assembling a functional protein with complex enzymatic activity is about 1 chance in 10[sup]65[/sup] per try for a protein made up of 100 amino acid residues."

It is a fucking lie, a straight up lie and on even a cursory investigation it is obvious. Among other reasons because no refence is given that supports the claim. The very next sentence after the one I reproduced here is "The amino acid sequence of the cytochrome c enzyme has been determined for many species. The twenty-seven amin acids are present at the same location in all species studied.[sup]35[/sup]".

BUT THAT CLAIM AND IT'S REFERENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE FIRST SENTENCE. The first sentence is a straight up lie without support.

Also, what is meant by "the twenty-seven amino acids"? Which twenty-seven amino acids are they talking about? The core catalytic site of the enzyme? Or what? The enzyme is about 100 amino acids long. Who GIVES EVEN THE SLIGHTEST SHIT whether they can find 27 that are universally conserved?

Also, it is NOT defined what a "complex enzymatic activity" is. What makes an enzymatically catalyzed reaction "complex"? It is not explained anywhere. The word "complex" is simply stuffed in there in a dishonest fashion to give it some sort of weight. Obviously in order to misleadingly try to separate their particular cytochrome c example from the result achieved by the Szostak Lab.

The particular claim about 100 amino acid proteins is also immediately nonsensical seen in the light of the preceding sentence: "The probability of randomly assembling a functional protein with minimal enzymatic activity, the ability to adhere to a small organic molecule, is about 1 chance in 10[sup]11[/sup] per try for a small protein composed of 80 amino acid residues.[sup]30[/sup]"

Why the hell would the probability go from 1 in 10[sup]11[/sup] for 80 amino acids, to 1 in 10[sup]65[/sup] for 100 amino acids? Why would that confer a jump in improbability of FIFTY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE? That's absurd already on the face of it.
The absolutely most rudimentary and basic knowledge of protein biochemistry utterly sinks that inference. With another 20 amino acids you can add another 1 or two alpha helices or beta sheets to the protein. There's simply no conceivable reason why this should make it LESS probable to find a functional protein.

Reference 30 is the Szostak Lab paper I have been citing here multiple times. Notice how the filthy lie-filled book you quote says the results of the Szostak Lab is a "functional protein with minimal enzymatic activity".

Why is it "MINIMAL", but cytochrome c is "COMPLEX" ? It is not explained or defined anywhere. These words are just stuffed in there for rethorical gain. They are insubstantive qualifiers without any merit. If you dispense with them the text actually reads more clearly, and the flaw in the argument of the book becomes more obvious.

The people who wrote that book disgust me because they are dishonest liars and I just proved it. I read FOUR sentences from that book you quote and I have in that span of words already proven the book authors are lying rethoricians with an agenda besides the truth, not honest scientists.

 

[Elshamah]

The people who wrote that book disgust me because they are dishonest liars and I just proved it. I read FOUR sentences from that book you quote and I have in that span of words already proven the book authors are lying rethoricians and religioust apologists, not honest scientists.

cool. And the rest of post is conveniently ignored... :lol:

 

[Rumraket]

your entire post is just pathetic and exposes your bias.

k...

First of all, for obvious reasons, you just moved the goal posts

No I did not, and what obvious reasons would that be? I have moved no goalposts, I have directly and demonstrably refuted your central assertion.

rather than acknowledging that the eight last enzymes the of chlorophyll biosynthesis pathway could not have been co-opted from somewhere else, since they are only used in that pathway, you just moved to another issue

I did not acknowledge this BECAUSE I FACTUALLY REFUTED IT WITH DIRECT REFERENCES FROM THE PRIMARY LITERATURE.

That's not "moving the goalposts". That's WINNING THE GAME BY SCORING ALL THE GOALS.

I arbitrarily picked one of the proteins you CLAIM DOES NOT HAVE ANY RELATIVES and SHOWED THAT ASSERTION TO BE FALSE. Then you brought a list of the enzymes in the entire pathway (I don't know for what reason, you claim to have "checked" if they had related enzymes, but then that "checking" you said you have done must have been REMARKABLY incompetent).

I CHECKED THE AMINO ACID SEQUENCE OF EVERY SINGLE ONE on with a simple protein sequence blast, and found they all belong to well-characterised protein superfamilies. Let's remind ourselves what a protein superfamily is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_superfamily

A protein superfamily is the largest grouping (clade) of proteins for which common ancestry can be inferred (see homology). Usually this common ancestry is based on structural alignment[1] and mechanistic similarity even though no sequence similarity is evident.[2] Superfamilies typically contain several protein families which show sequence similarity within the family. The term protein clan is commonly used for protease superfamilies based on the MEROPS protease classification system.[2]

So now we know that a proteins superfamily is huge group of proteins that are related by common descent, let's go through the list you provided, taking the last one first:
(17) chlorophyll synthase.
Belongs to the: UbiA prenyltransferase family.
So it has ancestral and related enzymes. So your claim is false.

(16) light-dependent NADPHrotochlorophyllide oxidoreductase or light-independent protochlorophyllide reductase;
Has significant sequence homology to nitrogenase.
So it has ancestral and related enzymes. So your claim is false.

(15) divinyl (proto)chlorophyllide 4-vinyl reductase;
Belongs to the NADB_Rossmann superfamily.
So it has ancestral and related enzymes. So your claim is false.

(12)–(14) Mg-protoporphyrin IX monomethyl ester oxidative cyclase;
Belongs to the Ferritin-like superfamily.
So it has ancestral and related enzymes. So your claim is false.

(11) S-adenosyl-L-methionine:Mg-protoporphyrin IX methyltransferase;
Belongs to the AdoMet_MTases superfamily.
So it has ancestral and related enzymes. So your claim is false.

(10) protoporphyrin IX Mg-chelatase;
Belongs to the P-loop_NTPase superfamily.
So it has ancestral and related enzymes. So your claim is false.

Seriously. Seriously. Seriously. STOP POSTING, you are making a fool of yourself.

 

[Rumraket]

Consider the light harvesting complex, and the electron transport chain, that did not exist at exactly the same moment--would they ever "get together" since they would neither have any correlation to each other nor help survival separately?

They both sit in the chloroplast membrane. They can't not "get together". They are unavoidably in immediate proximity to one another.

The electron transport chain predates the light harvesting complex. The light harvesting complex evolved by cooption of already existing Heme binding globins and by gradual extension of the heme biosynthesis pathway. The very first Porphyrin was already an intensely flourescing molecule that could capture light and use it to catalyze chemical reactions by pushing electrons around.

All this was explained in the paper I brought earlier. The paper from 1965. The paper that means we've had this knowledge that you are demonstrably unaware of for over 50 fucking years.

For anyone reading this: Elsamah is your brain on creationism. Just say no!

 

[Elshamah]

So now we know that a proteins superfamily is huge group of proteins that are related by common descent, let's go through the list you provided, taking the last one first:
(17) chlorophyll synthase.
Belongs to the: UbiA prenyltransferase family.
So it has ancestral and related enzymes. So your claim is false.
.

Of course it is not false. What i claimed is that the specific enzyme is only used in that pathway. If it belongs to a superfamily or not, is a completely different issue. You even chose a wrong enzyme, and sang victory because it was used somewhere else, LOL....

nice try , moving the goal posts. Nice red herring.

my claim remains true. Now go figure out my other questions..... :lol:

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Just to add some further comments on the "impossible odds" claims that creationists, including Elshamah, tend to trot out as "proof" that evolution can't work...

The game of chess is estimated to have 10[sup]120[/sup] possible positions.

To borrow the claims that are being made...

""The probability of randomly assembling a functional protein with complex enzymatic activity getting a position in chess is about 1 chance in 10[sup]120[/sup] per try for a protein made up of 100 amino acid residues."

Sounds impossible, doesn't it?

However, I - or anyone - has only to set up the chessboard for a game of chess to blow these "impossible odds" out the window.

Why?

Because no position in chess is "random" - the rules mean that the board can only be set up in a specific way at the start of the game; only certain moves are possible in each position; players don't move the pieces randomly - they're moved with a purpose in mind, etc.

The point being - chess isn't "random".

And it's the same with evolution - it's not "random"; everything happens within certain constraints, from mutations ("random" within the laws of chemistry) to speciation (selection of individuals according to their "fitness" resulting in a trend in the alleles passed on).

Merely calculating the maximum possible number - even if the factors were known, which they're not more often than not - is not how probabilities are calculated or work.

For the most part, the probabilities are incalculable simply because no one knows how many parameters there are.

Secondly, the path to a particular feature - such as the human eye - is both unknown and not random.

Trotting out "impossible odds" calculations is meaningless and misleading.

This has been pointed out to you before, yet you keep doing this.

You wrongly accuse Rumraket of bias, yet seem unaware of your own - does "the mote and the beam" sound familiar?

You continue to cite Behe, Meyer, et al, who simply are wrong, and have been shown to be wrong by a number of specialists in their fields.

When someone makes a false statement, as you have been doing, there are only two possibilities; either the person doesn't know what they're talking about - which casts doubt on their competence - or, they are bearing false witness - which casts doubt on their integrity.

I'm prepared to extend you the benefit of the doubt.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Elshamah]

[ Elsamah is your brain on creationism. Just say no!

yep. But to any just so nonsense story, no matter how much evidential support it has, just say yes. Because it supports your fantasy and wishful thinking....

Say yeah !! :lol: :lol:

 

[Elshamah]

Greetings,

Just to add some further comments on the "impossible odds" claims that creationists, including Elshamah, tend to trot out as "proof" that evolution can't work...

The game of chess is estimated to have 10[sup]120[/sup] possible positions.

To borrow the claims that are being made...

""The probability of randomly assembling a functional protein with complex enzymatic activity getting a position in chess is about 1 chance in 10[sup]120[/sup] per try for a protein made up of 100 amino acid residues."

Sounds impossible, doesn't it?

However, I - or anyone - has only to set up the chessboard for a game of chess to blow these "impossible odds" out the window.

Why?

Because no position in chess is "random" - the rules mean that the board can only be set up in a specific way at the start of the game; only certain moves are possible in each position; players don't move the pieces randomly - they're moved with a purpose in mind, etc.

The point being - chess isn't "random".

And it's the same with evolution - it's not "random"; everything happens within certain constraints, from mutations ("random" within the laws of chemistry) to speciation (selection of individuals according to their "fitness" resulting in a trend in the alleles passed on).

Merely calculating the maximum possible number - even if the factors were known, which they're not more often than not - is not how probabilities are calculated or work.

For the most part, the probabilities are incalculable simply because no one knows how many parameters there are.

Secondly, the path to a particular feature - such as the human eye - is both unknown and not random.

Trotting out "impossible odds" calculations is meaningless and misleading.

This has been pointed out to you before, yet you keep doing this.

You wrongly accuse Rumraket of bias, yet seem unaware of your own - does "the mote and the beam" sound familiar?

You continue to cite Behe, Meyer, et al, who simply are wrong, and have been shown to be wrong by a number of specialists in their fields.

When someone makes a false statement, as you have been doing, there are only two possibilities; either the person doesn't know what they're talking about - which casts doubt on their competence - or, they are bearing false witness - which casts doubt on their integrity.

I'm prepared to extend you the benefit of the doubt.

Kindest regards,

James

throw your probability number in a prebiotic scenario, where the molecules had to come together in a meaningful way to make the first self replicating cell - there was no evolution , no mutations, no natural selection yet....... all you are left with, is random chance.

 

[Rumraket]

[ Elsamah is your brain on creationism. Just say no!

yep. But to any just so nonsense story, no matter how much evidential support it has, just say yes. Because it supports your fantasy and wishful thinking....

Say yeah !! :lol: :lol:

No. Never just say yeah, to anything. You should always look into the evidence.

For example, when someone claims none of the enzymes in a particular pathway have any relatives anywhere else in life, you should double-check.