 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
No thanks. I said mainstream ophthalmology journal. If I wanted to read religious scripture, I'd much rather pick up the Bible.
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
You're totally wrong. You don't know anything about protein structure, do you? Beta sheets are an obvious counterexample to your claim. |
Beta sheets? Nonsense. Linus Pauling nonsense. How in the world do Beta sheets counter my example?[/quote]
They don't counter your example. They ARE a counterexample to your absurd claim that taking three aminos out of a protein will have disasterous consequences.
You could take literally HUNDREDS of aminos out of a large beta sheet, and you probably wouldn't change its function AT ALL. Do you understand why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
No thanks. I said mainstream ophthalmology journal. If I wanted to read religious scripture, I'd much rather pick up the Bible.
Thats the only place you'll find Theological Scripture I might add. (Atheism is a religion per the Supreme Court as well!) But not so much in the Scientific sections of one of the largest mainstream Creation Science Journals on the web today. Your argument is a fallacy because it bases stuff regarding one of the different functions of the journal, and assumes that thats the only thing that the journal is actually utilizing. I believe this is a Composition fallacy on your behalf.
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
You're totally wrong. You don't know anything about protein structure, do you? Beta sheets are an obvious counterexample to your claim. |
Beta sheets? Nonsense. Linus Pauling nonsense. How in the world do Beta sheets counter my example? |
They don't counter your example. They ARE a counterexample to your absurd claim that taking three aminos out of a protein will have disasterous consequences. - Pseudogenes have functions believe it or not.
You could take literally HUNDREDS of aminos out of a large beta sheet, and you probably wouldn't change its function AT ALL. Do you understand why?[/quote]
I understand that I'm not allowing you to take 100s of aminos out of my beta sheets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: | Pseudogenes have functions believe it or not.
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
I understand that I'm not allowing you to take 100s of aminos out of my beta sheets. |
Are you just randomly throwing jargon back at me?
I know FOR A FACT that Beta sheets are EXTREMELY robust, and would survive even if you took MANY (probably in the hundreds) of aminos out of them. I can even explain why. Can you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: | Pseudogenes have functions believe it or not.
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
I understand that I'm not allowing you to take 100s of aminos out of my beta sheets. |
Are you just randomly throwing jargon back at me?
I know FOR A FACT that Beta sheets are EXTREMELY robust, and would survive even if you took MANY (probably in the hundreds) of aminos out of them. I can even explain why. Can you? |
You mean..you wish to beg the question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
You mean..you wish to beg the question. |
What I mean is that I'm trying to have a scientific debate here (like you keep claiming you want to do), but whenever I try, you just throw sophistry back in my face.
You don't know anything about beta sheets, do you? For that matter, you don't know anything about proteins, do you?
Here's another little quiz: what is the current best method for predicting protein folding?
And I REALLY want you to answer this one: what are the regions of DNA found upstream of many genes called?
These are EASY questions if you are who you say you are. If you're not, then you're just not going to answer them. I predict that this is what you're going to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
You mean..you wish to beg the question. |
What I mean is that I'm trying to have a scientific debate here (like you keep claiming you want to do), but whenever I try, you just throw sophistry back in my face.
You don't know anything about beta sheets, do you? For that matter, you don't know anything about proteins, do you? False and false.
Here's another little quiz: what is the current best method for predicting protein folding? Well in 5 years, it will be the Blue Gene supercomputer. I know it takes living cells less than a second to actually fold one though.
And I REALLY want you to answer this one: what are the regions of DNA found upstream of many genes called? [b]The eukaryotic promoter binding protein and (they are separate) the enhancer-binding proteins are upstream, downstream or even in intronic regions of eukaryotic genomes or the gene that they control. This also follows for many other t ypes of genes as well.
These are EASY questions if you are who you say you are. If you're not, then you're just not going to answer them. I predict that this is what you're going to do. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
It may be simplistic P, but it is hardly wrong. The folding of these proteins is really not as complicated as you are making it out to be. Granted, my undertstanding of the process involved here is indeed rudementry, by the principles are not hard to figure out.
|
Actually, protein folding is EXTREMELY complicated. Even with the most powerful supercomputers we cannot predict how an arbitrary string of aminos will fold. We have even developed a hierarchy for studying protein folding, and it has four levels!
In any case, what does the COMPLEXITY of protein folding have to do with any of this?
| Trinity1 wrote: |
The foldings of a protein are no more different, using another analogy, then the different wways you can place a letter. You sit an A straight up and down, upsidedown, sideways – left or right, and it still is the letter “A”. You can only do some man yt things with it though, and by itself, it will never become a B, C, or P. (No pun intended of course)
|
Trinity, what are you talking about? A protein A CAN become a different protein. I've explained how in painstaking detail in my previous posts. All you need is ONE (and I really mean that, just ONE) mutation in the genome. If one base is changed, it changes the codon, which changes the protein that is coded for. What you're saying here is objectively false.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
| Quote: |
In nature, this happens over many, many generations, and many mutations cause death, but many also add benefits. So over time these beneficial mutations build up in B and add new functionality by doing whatever p(B) does. |
Stop right there. Everything up until this point was… is reasonable. Now, by stating ‘over time’ you are stepping outside of observational science and into inference and conjecture… not observational science.
|
No, Trinity. It is DEFINITELY observational science in the sense that it has been OBSERVED many, many, many times. What do you think the geneticists messing around with bacteria and fruit flies do all day?!? Do you have any idea how many tens of thousands of times scientists have done EXACTLY what I'm talking about? I am not conjecturing AT ALL. Scientists in labs all over the world watch genes mutate and ADD functionality to an organism every single day. I'm not making this stuff up!
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Resistances are normally the result of a loss of functionality in a gene… not the introduction of a new set of genes all set up and ready to resist the virus. Sorry, you are mistaken about this. I do know that! THis is not the result of an increase of functionality. Perhaps a change in the difference in which the gene performs a function, always to it degradation of its original function BTW.
|
Here you are partly right. SOME antibiotic resistance is caused by a loss of functionality. But this is not the ONLY way. Like I've been saying, mutations can change codons which change the amino acid being expressed, which changes the protein, which changes its function. This can create new antibiotic resistance. You are mistakenly assuming that because SOME antibiotic resistance is caused by a loss of information, ALL of it is. This is not correct.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
| Quote: | | This is CLEARLY not like randomly messing around with strings of English or monkeys and typewriters as you described in your analogy about War and Peace. It is a false analogy which just confuses the issues. |
No it is not. It is playing a statistic game of maybe.. possibly… could happen…. just might result in, all the while avoiding the cruel hard facts that it hasn't been observed that it does happen, or even can happen.
|
It has been observed MANY times, and when I get back from my trip I'll find you a scientific publication which proves it to you.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
You would have to bring up the fruit fly example. If this is the example you want to go with... great.
Here we have 1000s of generations of observational evidence that began with a fruit fly, and we have at the end of the day… a fruit fly. And then, you want to tell me that that somehow demonstrates that a single celled organism, left alone and not subjected to these false inflections of ‘climate changes’ spurring on their evolution, can change into a human being. It is false dogma P based ON THE EVIDENCE. Your philosophy runs contrary to the evidence. Your philosophy spites the evidence. It is not real science. |
Trinity, you've conveniently shifted what we're debating about. I never said that scientists have observed fruit flies evolve into something else. I brought up fruit flies to rebut your claim that mutations can only cause a loss in information. They are a VERY GOOD counterexample to your claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unverified wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: |
And I REALLY want you to answer this one: what are the regions of DNA found upstream of many genes called?
|
[b]The eukaryotic promoter binding protein and (they are separate) the enhancer-binding proteins are upstream, downstream or even in intronic regions of eukaryotic genomes or the gene that they control. This also follows for many other t ypes of genes as well. |
Just for the record, the regions of DNA are NOT called "eukaryotic promoter binding proteins". They are called something else.
It's pretty funny that I asked for DNA and he responded by giving proteins! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
