Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Irreducible complexity- the challenges have been rebutted (if not refuted)
Xzen
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 112 (62374)
10-23-2003 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by sidelined
10-19-2003 1:52 PM


Sidelined,
Check out this sight and it might answer your question. I don’t know how much you know about quantum physics so I would suggest reading the whole thing however pay extra attention to the section on fig. 5 http://www.flash.net/~russ3/quantameta.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by sidelined, posted 10-19-2003 1:52 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 10-23-2003 10:42 PM Xzen has not replied

  
Xzen
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 112 (62378)
10-23-2003 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Loudmouth
10-19-2003 3:28 PM


LoudMouth,
You’ve nearly proven my point by saying :
Actually, I have personally made proteins outside of cells. Well not exactly, I used E. coli lysate devoid of DNA to produce protein from an introduced plasmid. It's known as in vitro protein expression . The system I used was from Roche, read more here. It still uses systems derived from DNA, but is done in the absence of cells, or in a "primordial soup" situation.
LoundMouth You are an entity that posses intelligence and if you had not made these proteins in this primordial soup it never would have happened without your external influence, without your intelligence and ability to create. If you could show me an account in which this has happened without an intelligent entity causing it to happen I would honestly appreciate it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Loudmouth, posted 10-19-2003 3:28 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Loudmouth, posted 10-23-2003 1:39 PM Xzen has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 112 (62379)
10-23-2003 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Xzen
10-23-2003 1:28 PM


Xzen,
You argued that protein production could only happen inside of a cell. This is not true. The site I referred to should show that. So you agree that protein production does not have to occur in the cell? It could happen outside of a cell given the right conditions?
Although whole E. coli lysates are used, simpler systems could be used, as per your list of transcriptases and ribosomes. It's not a stretch of imagination that simpler and simpler versions of those enzymes could produce the needed outcome, or even catalytic RNA. My post was alluding to the fact that a cell membrane is not needed.
I would also understand that you read the rest of my previous post (#96), care to comment on ID and IC now that speciation has been observed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Xzen, posted 10-23-2003 1:28 PM Xzen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Mike Doran, posted 10-23-2003 5:36 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Mike Doran
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 112 (62408)
10-23-2003 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Loudmouth
10-23-2003 1:39 PM


There is a a two parts answer of which only
one you give one. That is, not only is there the potential for pre cellular protein evolution but there is in addition a manner of how pre cellular proteins evolved--what was the mechanism, the selective pressures and the manner in which complexity met that pressure.
The creationism not only comes up w/ the implausability argument but also offers God in the place of mechanism.
This gets back to cirrus clouds--and a very specific idea of surface conductivities and proteins. There is a type of filter used in the tropical fish hobby industry called a protein skimmer. The way it works is bubbles lift up the proteins, which trap the air bubbles in the proteins, and cause them to be lighter than the ocean water. This is interesting because then winds would more simply lift the proteins into the clouds to take part in the sorting I have described in the thread below called "The Living Earth". That sorting occurs like electrophoresis, between cloud top and ionosphere behaving like cathode and anode, and causes cirrus with a charge to "band" and then feedback infra red heat in ways that not only feeds back wind and rain, but also causes sorting in the way that the nucleotides/proteins fall from the sky back down to repeat the process. Finally, it should be noted that proteins are able to carry charges of both positive and negative, whereas the nucleotides can only carry a net negative charge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Loudmouth, posted 10-23-2003 1:39 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Loudmouth, posted 10-23-2003 7:00 PM Mike Doran has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 112 (62426)
10-23-2003 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Mike Doran
10-23-2003 5:36 PM


Re: There is a a two parts answer of which only
This gets back to cirrus clouds--and a very specific idea of surface conductivities and proteins. There is a type of filter used in the tropical fish hobby industry called a protein skimmer. The way it works is bubbles lift up the proteins, which trap the air bubbles in the proteins, and cause them to be lighter than the ocean water. This is interesting because then winds would more simply lift the proteins into the clouds to take part in the sorting I have described in the thread below called "The Living Earth". That sorting occurs like electrophoresis, between cloud top and ionosphere behaving like cathode and anode, and causes cirrus with a charge to "band" and then feedback infra red heat in ways that not only feeds back wind and rain, but also causes sorting in the way that the nucleotides/proteins fall from the sky back down to repeat the process. Finally, it should be noted that proteins are able to carry charges of both positive and negative, whereas the nucleotides can only carry a net negative charge.
The only thing I am skeptical about is the medium in which the proteins are sorting. First, if banding were to occur they would have to carry an overall neutral charge (also called the isoeletric point or pI). In the lab, pI gradients are artificially constructed before protein banding occurs. The gradients are usually set up with small molecular weight acids and bases with varying pKa values that are at higher concentrations than the protein. I don't know the chemical composition of clouds, but it seems improbable that sorting could happen at an appreciable level.
Secondly, I don't know if clouds as a medium would be conducive to transporting proteins by electrostatic charge. You would have to show how winds, charges within the clouds themselves, and gravity will not disrupt sorting. That, and you usually need a continous liquid medium for this to happen instead of a nebulous water vapor.
My experience with meterological cycles and phenomena are not that great, but those are some of the hurdles I see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Mike Doran, posted 10-23-2003 5:36 PM Mike Doran has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Mike Doran, posted 10-23-2003 10:00 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Mike Doran
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 112 (62450)
10-23-2003 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Loudmouth
10-23-2003 7:00 PM


Re: There is a a two parts answer of which only
"The only thing I am skeptical about is the medium in which the proteins are sorting. "
I am not so sure that the sorting was independant of the nucleotides. My view is it would NOT be independant.
Think of the ionosphere and the cloud top as cathode and anode, and cirrus particles first as water droplets with the nucleotide/protein molecules in a rising mass of air. As they reach a thinning atmosphere, they cool and freeze. The particle, now frozen, is water, protein, and nucleotide. If the particle is light AND carries a charge, it stands to levitate better than a particle that is heavier and less charge. Levitating, the particle then begins, along with other similar weighted and charged particles, to trap infra red heat and cause further updrafts of warm, moist air underneath it. The structure of the protein will cause it to "fly" or fall in the gravitational field opposing the friction of air.
Where I think proteins gain most of their importance in connection with the growing complexity with nucleotide sorting is that proteins will rise to the surface of water by trapping air bubbles, allowing for them to be blown back into the air. Again, will the particle fly or fall. They may be as a nucleotide/protein particle to attrack water vapor and further gain phase energies to the surrounding air, causing uplift. I think this is where some of the folding can be a surviving trait.
"First, if banding were to occur they would have to carry an overall neutral charge (also called the isoeletric point or pI). In the lab, pI gradients are artificially constructed before protein banding occurs."
I am not sure how this matters. The particle will have a mass and an ability to hold a charge, and will be sorted as such. Similar massed and wieghted particles will behave in a manner where they will levitate opposing gravity in the same way. The mechanical process of electrophoresis and what I am discussing, thus, probably differs. It is true that at the cloud top there will be a mass "charge" or mass electrical state but that doesn't mean that each particle within that mass will have the exact same charge. Individual particles that have a tendency to lose an electron to another in the mass of particles will lose it--and then move accordingly in relation to the ionosphere and cloud top above and below the particle, and, of course, move in relation to its mass and gravity and size in the winds.
"The gradients are usually set up with small molecular weight acids and bases with varying pKa values that are at higher concentrations than the protein. I don't know the chemical composition of clouds, but it seems improbable that sorting could happen at an appreciable level."
Again, the process you are describing is without consideration of gravity and how the particle interacts with the winds or air pressure . . .
"Secondly, I don't know if clouds as a medium would be conducive to transporting proteins by electrostatic charge. You would have to show how winds, charges within the clouds themselves, and gravity will not disrupt sorting. That, and you usually need a continous liquid medium for this to happen instead of a nebulous water vapor."
The water vapor condenses on particles and moves with updrafts up into the higher atmosphere, where it freezes, releasing phase change energies into the air and warming it further. If the particle further traps infra red heat, the air further warms under the cirrus. However, if the process stops feeding it, the particle begins to lose water directly from ice to water vapor and that TAKES phase change energies from the air and causes the air mass to cool and to become dense and fall. It is a complex process but none-the-less electrical movements would find feedbacks that would further the sorting processes and feedback more powerful cloud making heat.
"My experience with meterological cycles and phenomena are not that great, but those are some of the hurdles I see."
No hurdles have been put up, but perhaps I don't understand what you are talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Loudmouth, posted 10-23-2003 7:00 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3216 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 112 of 112 (62473)
10-23-2003 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Xzen
10-23-2003 1:23 PM


Xzen, some further reading for you
First off, that site was a rather simplified representation of several of the differnt multidimensional hypothesis (hypothesises sp??) used to explain the observed reality of the deviation of "quantum physics" from "classical Physics" with an added aspect of the "Goddidit" syndrome. The last is totally without any support from data, although I have to admit that several other theories as to WHY quantum mechanics acts as it does are also more than a little short on data. If you are REALLY interested in quantum physics and its realtionship to biolog you should read a book called Quantum Evolution by John McFadden. While some of the things are , IMO, wrong (bacterial mutation w.r.t. Lactose utilization is probably not quantum dependent as he mentions in one section but rather due to the physical structure of the DNA in the operons region) he gives a very good description of an area in Quantum Physics called Decoherence. It basically makes the ideas in the site that you cited totally irrelevant.
And speaking of irrelevant, did you read the problems that I posted w.r.t. Behe and his Irreducible (not) complexity. Call or fold.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
and my family motto
Transfixus sed non mortis
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Xzen, posted 10-23-2003 1:23 PM Xzen 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