-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
The Elshamah mega-thread
- Thread starter Elshamah
- Start date
Rumraket
Active Member
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Yep, this is exactly right. I just can't be bothered any more. Particularly the lengths I went to with trying to get it through that mysterious impenetrable barrier that lets him accept that I'm not an advocate of the RNA-world-hypothesis for the origin of life.Dragan Glas said:
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Greetings,
Kindest regards,
James
Greetings,
I think you've found the perfect response - just keep posting the same answer you've been doing so far.Rumraket said:
Kindest regards,
James
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Nice. Feel free then to explain how fatty acid synthesis could be a process that evolved. And please do not forget to address my end remarks, and the argument, that following parts had to be all present, and work in a interdependent manner :
I conclude that the make of essential fatty acids, ingredients of cell membranes, requires interdependent irreducible complex procedures, several different metabolic pathways in order to make the substrates and produce the energy used in the process, several enzymes, the whole machinery to make the assembly proteins and enzymes. Since this constitutes a complex interlocked process, it could not be due to step by step evolutionary manner. Fatty acids, constituents of the cell membranes, had to exist right from the start for life to arise. This fact makes the design inference the most rational one. Once its granted that a series of other cell parts had to be present and were indispensable in order for the cell to be able to synthesize fatty acids , parts which i all listed, its clear evidence that a designer is the best explanation. How do you suggest would these parts form independently, initially without function, because by their own, there is no function for them, to then by magic start interacting and become interdependent and starting working in a factory like manner, producing fatty acids? To worse the situation, the cell membrane is required in order for these procedures to be able to happen. So in order to make fatty acids, a cell membrane is required. The cell membrane however is made of fatty acids. Thats a catch22 situation.
Following parts are involved direct or indirectly in fatty acid synthesis, and must exist in order for fatty acids to be able to be synthesized :
the cytosol
NADPH.
enzymes of the Pentose phosphate pathway enzymes :
Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase
6-phosphogluconolactonase
Phosphogluconate dehydrogenase
Ribose-5-phosphate isomerase
Phosphopentose epimerase
Transketolase
Transaldolase
of the glycolysis pathway, at least : hexokinase enzymes
oxaloacetate
phophopantetheinyl transferases
citrate
mitochondria
The citrate carrier (CiC)
the nucleus
malate dehydrogenase enzymes or pyruvate carboxylase enzymes
acetyl-CoA carboxylase enzymes
Acyl Carrier Proteins
FAS fatty acid synthase proteins
The citric acid cycle
ATP
red said:
Nice. Feel free then to explain how fatty acid synthesis could be a process that evolved. And please do not forget to address my end remarks, and the argument, that following parts had to be all present, and work in a interdependent manner :
I conclude that the make of essential fatty acids, ingredients of cell membranes, requires interdependent irreducible complex procedures, several different metabolic pathways in order to make the substrates and produce the energy used in the process, several enzymes, the whole machinery to make the assembly proteins and enzymes. Since this constitutes a complex interlocked process, it could not be due to step by step evolutionary manner. Fatty acids, constituents of the cell membranes, had to exist right from the start for life to arise. This fact makes the design inference the most rational one. Once its granted that a series of other cell parts had to be present and were indispensable in order for the cell to be able to synthesize fatty acids , parts which i all listed, its clear evidence that a designer is the best explanation. How do you suggest would these parts form independently, initially without function, because by their own, there is no function for them, to then by magic start interacting and become interdependent and starting working in a factory like manner, producing fatty acids? To worse the situation, the cell membrane is required in order for these procedures to be able to happen. So in order to make fatty acids, a cell membrane is required. The cell membrane however is made of fatty acids. Thats a catch22 situation.
Following parts are involved direct or indirectly in fatty acid synthesis, and must exist in order for fatty acids to be able to be synthesized :
the cytosol
NADPH.
enzymes of the Pentose phosphate pathway enzymes :
Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase
6-phosphogluconolactonase
Phosphogluconate dehydrogenase
Ribose-5-phosphate isomerase
Phosphopentose epimerase
Transketolase
Transaldolase
of the glycolysis pathway, at least : hexokinase enzymes
oxaloacetate
phophopantetheinyl transferases
citrate
mitochondria
The citrate carrier (CiC)
the nucleus
malate dehydrogenase enzymes or pyruvate carboxylase enzymes
acetyl-CoA carboxylase enzymes
Acyl Carrier Proteins
FAS fatty acid synthase proteins
The citric acid cycle
ATP
SpecialFrog
New Member
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Also, the demand that someone else address all of your points is a nice touch.
So you claim your explanation must be correct unless someone can provide an alternative one. In what way is that not another argument from ignorance?Elshamah said:
Also, the demand that someone else address all of your points is a nice touch.
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Given there are books on biology which go through the detail, it is not necessary to burden others with hundreds of thousands of words to tell them what they already know.
Your claim is that design is the better explanation. On the contrary. The steps leading to your quoted material are only necessary because evolutionary principles were at play to produce a complex process. A competent designer would bypass inefficiencies and come up with something exquisitely simple.
You seem to keep forgetting that what you repeatedly quote are able to be observed in other organisms preceding those of greater complexity. And we know this because we find it in DNA. A designer does not need DNA.
The evolutionary path which has led to you existing was equally in place to for the processes which you outlined, but were unable to explain.Elshamah said:
Given there are books on biology which go through the detail, it is not necessary to burden others with hundreds of thousands of words to tell them what they already know.
Your claim is that design is the better explanation. On the contrary. The steps leading to your quoted material are only necessary because evolutionary principles were at play to produce a complex process. A competent designer would bypass inefficiencies and come up with something exquisitely simple.
You seem to keep forgetting that what you repeatedly quote are able to be observed in other organisms preceding those of greater complexity. And we know this because we find it in DNA. A designer does not need DNA.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Greetings,
This idea of organisms being irreducibly complex and being unexplainable through (the theory of) evolution is false.
Firstly, as has been pointed out, the theory of evolution predicts irreducibly complex systems.
Equally, the analogy of the Jumbo Jet - where all the parts have to be present and put together simultaneously for it to work - is a silly idea. Aircraft don't just appear in the sky past the point-of-no-return. ID actually denies the possibility that an aircraft can take off and fly to the point-of-no-return and beyond.
This is a non-sensical idea.
There's also the notion that one has a separate blue-print from which to make parts. Chemists - like Behe - tend to think of atoms (parts) coming together to form molecules. Similarly, engineers tend to think of parts coming together to form a machine. They can be forgiven for getting the wrong notion and using the wrong analogy of parts coming together.
Biologists, however, dealing with actual biological systems, see that the blue-print - more correctly, the recipe (DNA) - lies within the system: not apart from it.
Secondly, the "parts" grow in situ.
An organism is a complete system and process unto itself.
ID and it's flagship claim - irreducible complexity - is a utter failure as it can't explain anything that we see today or from the past.
Kindest regards,
James
Greetings,
This idea of organisms being irreducibly complex and being unexplainable through (the theory of) evolution is false.
Firstly, as has been pointed out, the theory of evolution predicts irreducibly complex systems.
Equally, the analogy of the Jumbo Jet - where all the parts have to be present and put together simultaneously for it to work - is a silly idea. Aircraft don't just appear in the sky past the point-of-no-return. ID actually denies the possibility that an aircraft can take off and fly to the point-of-no-return and beyond.
This is a non-sensical idea.
There's also the notion that one has a separate blue-print from which to make parts. Chemists - like Behe - tend to think of atoms (parts) coming together to form molecules. Similarly, engineers tend to think of parts coming together to form a machine. They can be forgiven for getting the wrong notion and using the wrong analogy of parts coming together.
Biologists, however, dealing with actual biological systems, see that the blue-print - more correctly, the recipe (DNA) - lies within the system: not apart from it.
Secondly, the "parts" grow in situ.
An organism is a complete system and process unto itself.
ID and it's flagship claim - irreducible complexity - is a utter failure as it can't explain anything that we see today or from the past.
Kindest regards,
James
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Had you read and understood my article , you would acknowledge that my assertion that the listed parts are required to make fatty acids is not taken from hot air, but is based on scientic evidence, information i got from mainstream , peer reviewed papers. So you have to deal with the quest how these parts were able to emerge simultanously, and got interconnected in a functional way. And there is still the catch22 situation.....
SpecialFrog said:
Had you read and understood my article , you would acknowledge that my assertion that the listed parts are required to make fatty acids is not taken from hot air, but is based on scientic evidence, information i got from mainstream , peer reviewed papers. So you have to deal with the quest how these parts were able to emerge simultanously, and got interconnected in a functional way. And there is still the catch22 situation.....
Rumraket
Active Member
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
This is how evolution works. It takes what already exists and changes it over time, duplicating and making new connections between parts that already exist. This is how irreducibly complex structures and pathways evolve, we have seen it happen.
Except they didn't have to emerge simultaneously. They each evolved independently, at different times, and had alterior functions in their ancestral stages from what they are doing now. Your teeth used to be scales on jawless fish, your arms and legs used to be fins, what is today your ears used to be part of the jaws and gills on later fish and so on and so forth.Elshamah said:
This is how evolution works. It takes what already exists and changes it over time, duplicating and making new connections between parts that already exist. This is how irreducibly complex structures and pathways evolve, we have seen it happen.
SpecialFrog
New Member
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
You can dress it up in as much copy pasta as you want but this is still the crux of your argument.
And it is a fallacy.
I suspect you know this since you keep trying to shift the argument away from this point.
Even if you weren't ignoring the evidence that evolution can and does produce interconnected and "irreducibly complex" systems (which of course you are) you are still pretending that your claim is valid if I can't demonstrate an alternative claim.Elshamah said:
You can dress it up in as much copy pasta as you want but this is still the crux of your argument.
And it is a fallacy.
I suspect you know this since you keep trying to shift the argument away from this point.
MarsCydonia
New Member
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
That s/he is arguing from ignorance has been pointed out numerous times and s/he appears to have done nothing to show s/he isn't.
From the person who has argued for "justified special pleading", I think that Elshamah simply does not know what is an argument from ignorance.SpecialFrog said:
That s/he is arguing from ignorance has been pointed out numerous times and s/he appears to have done nothing to show s/he isn't.
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Major metabolic pathways and their inadequacy for origin of life proposals
According to geneticist Michael Denton, the break between the nonliving and the living world ‘represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature.
And John Lennox writes in his book has science buried God ?
It is hard for us to get any kind of picture of the seething, dizzyingly complex activity that occurs inside a living cell, which contains within its lipid membrane maybe 100 million proteins of 20,000 different types and yet the whole cell is so tiny that a couple of hundred could be placed on the dot in this letter ‘i’.
The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore, no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.’
This view is supported by Nobel Prize-winner Jacques Monod, whom Denton cites. ‘We have no idea what the structure of a primitive cell might have been. The simplest living system known to us, the bacterial cell… in its overall chemical plan is the same as that of all other living beings. It employs the same genetic code and the same mechanism of translation as do, for example, human cells. Thus the simplest cells available to us for study have nothing “primitive” about them… no vestiges of truly primitive structures are discernible.’ Thus the cells themselves exhibit a similar kind of ‘stasis’ to that referred to in the previous chapter in connection with the fossil record.
Its interesting to try to figure out what that supposed last universal common ancestor ( LUCA ) was, in order to understand what kind of biochemical mechanisms, metabolism, enzymes, co-factors, proteins and genome information would have to be explained, and its origin.
From a biochemist’s perspective, life at the cellular level can be defined as a network of integrated and carefully regulated metabolic pathways, each contributing to the sum of activities that a cell must carry out. Cellular metabolism is a complex process involving about a thousand chemical reactions catalyzed by globular proteins, enzymes.
In the scientific paper: The Enzymatic and Metabolic Capabilities of Early Life, the author states that several independent studies have used comparative bioinformatics methods to identify taxonomically broad features of genomic sequence data, protein structure data, and metabolic pathway data in order to predict physiological features that were present in early, ancestral life forms. We survey modern metabolic pathways to identify those that maintain the highest frequency of metaconsensus enzymes. Using the full set of modern reactions catalyzed by these metaconsensus enzyme functions, we reconstruct a representative metabolic network that may reflect the core metabolism of early life forms.
Their research revealed the mind blowing complexity of Luca, and its metabolic pathways:
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2174-the-enzymatic-and-metabolic-capabilities-of-early-life
According to another research paper : Evolution of the first metabolic cycles, There are two alternatives concerning the origin of life: the origin may be either heterotrophic or autotrophic. The paper : Analysis of the Intermediary Metabolism of a Reductive Chemoautotroph gives a idea of the complexity of it:
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2147-the-naturalistic-approach-of-origin-of-life-scenarios
No wonder, do the authors of the paper: How Life Began: The Emergence of Sparse Metabolic Networks , openly admit that: " The process by which the network of extant metabolism emerged is one of the major puzzles in the origin of life field." Another paper admits that " An open question for scientists is when and how cellular metabolism, the network of chemical reactions necessary to produce nucleic acids, amino acids and lipids, the building blocks of life, appeared on the scene." The pathways for synthesis of most of the twenty amino acids used in proteins and the four nucleotides used in RNA are identical or nearly identical in Archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes, suggesting that these pathways were inherited from the LUCA. metabolic network. Thus, it appears that that the LUCA had the ability to synthesize the critical building blocks of life and did not rely on exogenous sources of these compounds. This supposition is supported by bioinformatic reconstructions of the genome of the LUCA. Biosynthetic pathways in extant organisms clearly resemble those in the LUCA. In the scientific paper : In The Ancient Ocean, Did Metabolism Precede The Origin Of Life?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2004-major-metabolic-pathways-and-their-inadequacy-for-origin-of-life-proposals
the author writes :
The observed chemical reactions occurred in the absence of enzymes but were made possible by the chemical molecules found in the Archean sea. Finding a series of reactions that resembles the "core of cellular metabolism" suggests that metabolism predates the origin of life. This implies that, at least initially, metabolism may not have been shaped by evolution but by molecules like RNA formed through the chemical conditions that prevailed in the earliest oceans.
Whether and how the first enzymes adopted the metal-catalyzed reactions described by the scientists remain to be established.
Its easily observable the hudge gap between the just so, almost helpless explanation attempts of the origin and arise of essential metabolic pathways, and their complexity observed even in the simplest cells.
This made the leading Origin of Life researcher Leslie Orgel say following:
The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth
Leslie E Orgel†
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060018
Almost all proposals of hypothetical metabolic cycles have recognized that each of the steps involved must occur rapidly enough for the cycle to be useful in the time available for its operation. It is always assumed that this condition is met, but in no case have persuasive supporting arguments been presented. Why should one believe that an ensemble of minerals that are capable of catalyzing each of the many steps of the reverse citric acid cycle was present anywhere on the primitive Earth, or that the cycle mysteriously organized itself topographically on a metal sulfide surface? The lack of a supporting background in chemistry is even more evident in proposals that metabolic cycles can evolve to “life-like” complexity. The most serious challenge to proponents of metabolic cycle theories—the problems presented by the lack of specificity of most nonenzymatic catalysts—has, in general, not been appreciated. If it has, it has been ignored. Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own.
Major metabolic pathways and their inadequacy for origin of life proposals
According to geneticist Michael Denton, the break between the nonliving and the living world ‘represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature.
And John Lennox writes in his book has science buried God ?
It is hard for us to get any kind of picture of the seething, dizzyingly complex activity that occurs inside a living cell, which contains within its lipid membrane maybe 100 million proteins of 20,000 different types and yet the whole cell is so tiny that a couple of hundred could be placed on the dot in this letter ‘i’.
The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore, no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.’
This view is supported by Nobel Prize-winner Jacques Monod, whom Denton cites. ‘We have no idea what the structure of a primitive cell might have been. The simplest living system known to us, the bacterial cell… in its overall chemical plan is the same as that of all other living beings. It employs the same genetic code and the same mechanism of translation as do, for example, human cells. Thus the simplest cells available to us for study have nothing “primitive” about them… no vestiges of truly primitive structures are discernible.’ Thus the cells themselves exhibit a similar kind of ‘stasis’ to that referred to in the previous chapter in connection with the fossil record.
Its interesting to try to figure out what that supposed last universal common ancestor ( LUCA ) was, in order to understand what kind of biochemical mechanisms, metabolism, enzymes, co-factors, proteins and genome information would have to be explained, and its origin.
From a biochemist’s perspective, life at the cellular level can be defined as a network of integrated and carefully regulated metabolic pathways, each contributing to the sum of activities that a cell must carry out. Cellular metabolism is a complex process involving about a thousand chemical reactions catalyzed by globular proteins, enzymes.
In the scientific paper: The Enzymatic and Metabolic Capabilities of Early Life, the author states that several independent studies have used comparative bioinformatics methods to identify taxonomically broad features of genomic sequence data, protein structure data, and metabolic pathway data in order to predict physiological features that were present in early, ancestral life forms. We survey modern metabolic pathways to identify those that maintain the highest frequency of metaconsensus enzymes. Using the full set of modern reactions catalyzed by these metaconsensus enzyme functions, we reconstruct a representative metabolic network that may reflect the core metabolism of early life forms.
Their research revealed the mind blowing complexity of Luca, and its metabolic pathways:
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2174-the-enzymatic-and-metabolic-capabilities-of-early-life
According to another research paper : Evolution of the first metabolic cycles, There are two alternatives concerning the origin of life: the origin may be either heterotrophic or autotrophic. The paper : Analysis of the Intermediary Metabolism of a Reductive Chemoautotroph gives a idea of the complexity of it:
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2147-the-naturalistic-approach-of-origin-of-life-scenarios
No wonder, do the authors of the paper: How Life Began: The Emergence of Sparse Metabolic Networks , openly admit that: " The process by which the network of extant metabolism emerged is one of the major puzzles in the origin of life field." Another paper admits that " An open question for scientists is when and how cellular metabolism, the network of chemical reactions necessary to produce nucleic acids, amino acids and lipids, the building blocks of life, appeared on the scene." The pathways for synthesis of most of the twenty amino acids used in proteins and the four nucleotides used in RNA are identical or nearly identical in Archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes, suggesting that these pathways were inherited from the LUCA. metabolic network. Thus, it appears that that the LUCA had the ability to synthesize the critical building blocks of life and did not rely on exogenous sources of these compounds. This supposition is supported by bioinformatic reconstructions of the genome of the LUCA. Biosynthetic pathways in extant organisms clearly resemble those in the LUCA. In the scientific paper : In The Ancient Ocean, Did Metabolism Precede The Origin Of Life?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2004-major-metabolic-pathways-and-their-inadequacy-for-origin-of-life-proposals
the author writes :
The observed chemical reactions occurred in the absence of enzymes but were made possible by the chemical molecules found in the Archean sea. Finding a series of reactions that resembles the "core of cellular metabolism" suggests that metabolism predates the origin of life. This implies that, at least initially, metabolism may not have been shaped by evolution but by molecules like RNA formed through the chemical conditions that prevailed in the earliest oceans.
Whether and how the first enzymes adopted the metal-catalyzed reactions described by the scientists remain to be established.
Its easily observable the hudge gap between the just so, almost helpless explanation attempts of the origin and arise of essential metabolic pathways, and their complexity observed even in the simplest cells.
This made the leading Origin of Life researcher Leslie Orgel say following:
The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth
Leslie E Orgel†
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060018
Almost all proposals of hypothetical metabolic cycles have recognized that each of the steps involved must occur rapidly enough for the cycle to be useful in the time available for its operation. It is always assumed that this condition is met, but in no case have persuasive supporting arguments been presented. Why should one believe that an ensemble of minerals that are capable of catalyzing each of the many steps of the reverse citric acid cycle was present anywhere on the primitive Earth, or that the cycle mysteriously organized itself topographically on a metal sulfide surface? The lack of a supporting background in chemistry is even more evident in proposals that metabolic cycles can evolve to “life-like” complexity. The most serious challenge to proponents of metabolic cycle theories—the problems presented by the lack of specificity of most nonenzymatic catalysts—has, in general, not been appreciated. If it has, it has been ignored. Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own.
Rumraket
Active Member
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Why is he being allowed this mindless copy-pasta? He has 10 threads already that he abandoned and he's still spamming this forum with nonsense he just copy-pastes from his website. WHen we respond to it in any detail, he just posts memes and acts like a clown, typing "haha you believe that? Fine fairytale..." to all of it. There is no debate, it's childish and ridiculous.
Why is he being allowed this mindless copy-pasta? He has 10 threads already that he abandoned and he's still spamming this forum with nonsense he just copy-pastes from his website. WHen we respond to it in any detail, he just posts memes and acts like a clown, typing "haha you believe that? Fine fairytale..." to all of it. There is no debate, it's childish and ridiculous.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Greetings,
Rumraket has pointed this out a number of times - and, if you look up a couple of posts before your, at best, naive question, you'd see that the last person to do so was SpecialFrog.
Kindest regards,
James
Greetings,
A number of posters - if you actually bothered to take-in what they've written.Elshamah said:
Rumraket has pointed this out a number of times - and, if you look up a couple of posts before your, at best, naive question, you'd see that the last person to do so was SpecialFrog.
Kindest regards,
James
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Re: Proteintransport into Mitochondria is irreducible comple
Greetings,
Kindest regards,
James
Greetings,
True - I didn't want to tax him too much by pointing out that it is in every thread of his.Rumraket said:
Kindest regards,
James