Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design Symposium Review
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 14 (222469)
07-07-2005 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Mammuthus
09-29-2004 4:41 AM


Mammuthus
This from a biochemist? Why the hell would the entire protein need to be complementary to interact? I guess he did not clear this up either? Most protein protein interactions are via specific domains
What makes you say he was trying to make the whole protein complemntary? I'd be surprised if he worked with any more than two single domain proteins?
...hell, they can even be linked by a few disulfide bonds
That's trivial as we all know and crucially not specific. It's not easy to get two proteins to form a complex, disulfide bonds aside. He was clearly trying to do it without disulfides! Using pahge-display we all know it takes tens of billions of attempts.
He's trying to generate high affinity not non-spcific binding!
..sounds like Behe confused proteins with DNA
You clearly should have realized that you are on the wrong track here. Behe IS a biochemist so your thoughts here are utterly impossible!
..not to mention dimers and trimers made up of mutliple copies of the same protein..no need for complementary changes in the DNA...on the other hand, I am sure Phillip Johnson was very impressed
But getting SPECIFIC dimerization is NOT trivial. Of course any hydorphobic protein will dimerise but not *specifically* (for itsself ahead of other hydrophobic proteins) without design or billions of steps. And dimerization is much easier tha ngetting two differnt proteins to bind that don't already do so!
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-07-2005 09:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 09-29-2004 4:41 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-11-2005 3:11 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 14 (223068)
07-11-2005 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Tranquility Base
07-07-2005 9:06 PM


^ Bump for Mammuthus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-07-2005 9:06 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024