PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Protein translation
       Is it chemistry or not?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In another thread Lester stated that, No DNA is coded information. It tells the cell what proteins to make and in what quantities they are needed and where they are needed. It is not chemistry. If you weren’t so evolutionized, it would be as plain as the nose on your face.  

My response is to create a new thread, and ask Lester (Mustrum waves to Lester) to explain what part of the translation process of mRNA to a protein is not chemical in nature.

A quick overview of translation to get the ball rolling:  When proteins are created based on a DNA sequence, one the stage of the process called translation.  It is during this stage that the codons contained in mRNA are translated into amino acids and linked together into polypeptide chains via the ribosomes.  The process is well understood by folks who actually know this stuff (those nasty biologists and chemists that creationists don't like).  In fact, it is such a mechanical process that computer programs have been written that can mimic the process.  

However, Lester states it is not chemistry, and implies that there is something supernatural occurring during this process.  So I'd like to know what this unknown process (to me, at least) is and how it influences the translation process.  




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 3:25 PM on August 26, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes it is chemistry Lester--sorry.  In fact, dehydration synthesis is the chemical reaction that takes place to bond two amino acids.  The carboxyl group on one end of the amino acid looses I believe 2 O atoms and the amide group of the other amino acid looses a H atom to make H2O (or the other way around).  Any way it makes a water molecule.  That's why it is called "dehyration synthesis."

However, there are a couple of little under-propagated facts here.  The first one is enzymes.  None of this would happen without them--they catalyze (initiate) the reactions so it all happens in a systematic way--not like in a test tube when you mix stuff--it is all very controlled.  

DNA itself is copied and split by enzymes (helicases).  mRNA, is "transcribed" from the DNA by enzymes.   Then it self transports to the ribosome for protein translation (formation).  Dehydration synthesis which bonds the acids is catalyzed by enzymes in the ribosome.  

After the protein is made it goes to the golgi apparatus to be further shaped (so it fits where it is going to) by enzymes.  Looks like brainless protein enzymes sure know what they are doing. How?  Well evolution did it (okay).

The other thing is how does mRNA (messenger RNA) transport itself to the ribosome, and at the same time a tRNA (transfer RNA) is bringing only ONE proper amino acid (there are twenty to choose from) to the ribosome where the mRNA has interlocked like a little ticker tape.

Now the amino acid the tRNA brings matches the codon (which is a three amino acid sequence in the mRNA) in the mRNA perfectly--no trial and error here.  And it will do it right thousands of time for one protein!  

There's no wires or radio waves--how does that happen-- it is a very sophisticated machine.  Far surpassing our technology.  

Evolutionists believe in miracles--just without God.

I won't even go into the structure of protein, because I don't have time--but that in itself is a mathematical miracle!

(Edited by AFJ 8/26/2009 at 9:21 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:18 PM on August 26, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

AFJ -

The other thing is how does mRNA (messenger RNA) transport itself to the ribosome, and at the same time a tRNA (transfer RNA) is bringing only ONE proper amino acid (there are twenty to choose from) to the ribosome where the mRNA has interlocked like a little ticker tape.


No mystery here.  Each tRNA carries a specific amino acid via an anticodons.  During Translation there would be numerous of these tRNA with attached amino acid present.  Each amino acid/tRNA would be attracted to a specific codon on the DNA.  

Now the amino acid the tRNA brings matches the codon (which is a three amino acid sequence in the mRNA) in the mRNA perfectly--no trial and error here.  And it will do it right thousands of time for one protein!


So... simple chemistry at work.  What's your problem?  As a kid I produced a test tube of hydrogen when I performed the electrolysis of water.  I applied a lighted match and ... pop - I started a simple reaction of hydrogen bonding with oxygen to form water.  This involved millions of molecules of hydrogen and oxygen - and guess what?  I expect they got it right every time to form water!    

Don't get me wrong, I think the whole process of Translation is facinating.  But I don't think we need to invoke a supernatural enity in the evolution of the process.

Evolutionists believe in miracles--just without God.


Life is truly amazing, I think everyone will agree with that, but no miracles from God are required.  

I won't even go into the structure of protein, because I don't have time--but that in itself is a mathematical miracle!


Why do you call structures of proteins mathematical miracles?  Is it because each protein has a particular shape/structure that allows it to perform its job perfectly?  Is that it?

You are trying to present an after-the-fact assessment of probability. You look at a protein shape and say "Oh look, if that protein wasn't the perfect shape that it was, it wouldn't be able to perform its function.  It's a mathematical miracle because the odds of evolution getting it right are infinitestimally tiny.  Thus this is proof that God exists!"

Nonsense.

Did you ever stop to think that Life used what protein shapes/structures were available?  That there could be a countless number of different proteins that could perform the same job?  The same task?  

As mathematician and computer scientist David H Bailey points out:

there are countless variants of the alpha hemoglobin chain that perform the essential function of oxygen transport, since these variants successfully serve that function in various other animal species. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids can be changed without altering this basic oxygen transport function. The process of evolution long ago settled on one particular sequence for humans, but many others might have been selected without loss of essential function.


From here:
Evolution and Probability

A very nice article explaining why Creationists arguments using probability are often flawed.

Want another example?

From here:
Scientist Evolve New Protein from Scratch

In this example, researchers produced a new ATP binding protein from scratch by mimicking a natural selection process in the lab.  Notice that they began by starting with a completely random 80-amino acid sequence - selected totally at random from a possible 400 trillion possible combinations.  Using a selection process in the lab they:

Chaput's group decided to speed up protein evolution once again by randomly mutating the parental sequence with a selection specically designed to improve protein stability. The team upped the ante and added increasing amounts of a salt, guanidine hydrochloride, making it harder for the protein fragment to bind its target (only the top 10 percent of strongest ATP binders remained). After subjecting the protein fragments to several rounds of this selective environmental pressure, only the 'survival of the fittest' ATP binding protein fragments remained.

Furthermore:
The remaining fragments were identified and amino acid sequences compared with one another. Surprisingly, Chaput had bested nature's designs, as the test tube derived protein was not only stable, but could bind ATP twice as tight as anything nature had come up with before.

So you see, your notions about probablility and evolution are entirely flawed.  No miracles are necessary.  Natural Selection is the basic driving force behind the 'miracle' of Life.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:26 AM on August 27, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, do you have anything to contribute to this discussion?  Are you going to drop the idea that genetics is somehow operating on more than a chemical level?


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 2:28 PM on August 27, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well hi Mustrum,
Lets get started -it's a long story so we'll take it in portions so you can attempt to shred it along the way.


Each little protein molecule does the most
incredible things. It carries out complicated tasks which require great intelligence. The problem is there is not a nerve cell anywhere in its body. No brains. How can it do what it does? Each protein has a very complex structure; yet, because there are literally thousands of different protein structures, it would appear to be impossible,by random chance, to produce even one.
(Perhaps intelligence in a lab at vast expense might manage to produce one but remember you have to get them to do what they need to do.)

By their own definition, evolutionists declare
that evolutionary processes are always random, always purposeless, totally lacking in any planned intelligent design, yet the cause of everything in earth and sky.
However, these shuffling, bungling methods of
random chance could never produce the intricate formula for even one amino acid, much less a protein that many amino acids are constructed from.

Chemical evidence indicates that the hemoglobin molecule has four atoms of iron, so the total molecular weight must be about 67,000. Four atoms of iron, with a total weight of 4 x 55.85, comes to 0.34 percent of such a molecular weight. Therefore, hemoglobin must contain about 574 amino acids.

This is what is in the blood protein called serum albumin:
It contains 15 glycines, 45 valines, 58 leucines,
9 isoleucines, 31 prolines, 33 phenylalanines, 18 tyrosines, 1 tryptophan, 22 serines, 27 threonines, 16 cystines, 4 cysteines, 6 methionines, 25 arginines, 16 histidines, 58 lysines, 46 aspartic acids,
and 80 glutamic acids. That is a total of 526 amino acids of 18 different types of amino acids, all built into a single protein. The only common amino acid not in serum albumin is alanine.

The written formula for serum albumin: Gly15 Val45 Leu58 Ileu9 Pro31 Phe33 Tyr18 Try1 Ser22 Thr27 CyS32 CySH4 Met6 Arg25 His16 Lys58 Asp46 Glu80.
That is what is in one (just one) protein of serum albumin. There are trillions upon trillions of proteins in each animal, and thousands of different kinds. Keep in mind that serum albumin is only an average-size protein; many are much larger.

(Could evolutionary development ever invent a workable protein with a new, different formula? Yet the theory says that proteins, like everything else, are supposed to have originated by mindless chance.)

There could only be one correct arrangement
of each protein,—yet there are millions of
wrong ways it could be arranged.
The utter randomness of evolution could never
come up with the one right combination for each protein.But consider this: Even if, just one time, evolution could produce one correct protein,—it could never repeat that success again, which it would have to do in order to replicate that correct protein in making millions more of it.
After that, evolution would have to set to work
to invent the thousands of other protein formulas used in plants and animals.
But now, let us return to those 19 amino acids
of serum albumin: The number of possible arrangements, in which 19 amino acids can be placed in a chain (even assuming that only one of each is used—and this is never, never true!), comes to nearly 120 million billion. If you find this hard to believe, try multiplying 19 times 18 times 18 times 16, and so on, down to 1. These are all the possible arrangements.
Yet, in just one average-sized protein, such as
serum albumin, we have more than 500 amino acids.
Most proteins contain all 20 amino acids.

The individual amino acids are lined up in no obvious order.There are no periodic repetitions. Everything is an apparent jumble of amino acids in each sequence;—
yet these proteins work.
Where did these useable proteins come from, if
evolution did not produce them? They did not make themselves surely. Each protein is carefully assembled by another
protein, from materials lying around. And
it never makes a mistake.
This tiny, mindless thing, a single protein, moves around, picking up amino acids here and there and sticking them together. Higher and higher goes the assembly, until that little protein has made another complete protein! But how can this be, since there are no brains in non-neuron cells? There surely are none in that little protein which always carries
out this construction project alone. Yet the little fellow does it in a few seconds.
When protein is eaten, it is broken down in the
stomach into amino acids. These are absorbed by the lacteals in the small intestine and pass into the blood stream. They are then carried to the liver, for processing, and to cells throughout the body. Passing
into the cells, they are assembled into proteins—within the cells.
What assembles them? Other microscopic proteins which were themselves assembled only a short time before. Who taught a protein how to assemble another protein? Think about that awhile.
And you say you are still an atheist?
If the constructor protein finds he does not have the right  amount and combination of amino acids lying around, he tells another protein to bring him some more! The messenger goes to the edge of the cell and tells the gatekeeper (another protein) to bring them in, which he does.
Keep in mind that each protein consists of hundreds of amino acids, all arranged in a totally complicated order; and each, different protein has a completely different structural sequence than all the others!
Without several days of intense concentration,
neither you nor I would be able to memorize the sequence of even one average-sized protein.
Where is the brain in the cell to be able to do
this? We are here viewing something that cannot be done; yet it is being done, millions of times a minute, in every cell in your body. If it were to stop for even a minute, you would die.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:39 AM on August 28, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, are you aware that plagiarism is a crime, as well as being dishonest?

Trying to pass off other people's work as your own is contemptable.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 07:54 AM on August 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, are you aware that plagiarism is a crime, as well as being dishonest?

Trying to pass off other people's work as your own is contemptable.


On what basis do you suppose you can justify your own exemplary standard of morality, Yehren. You are after all an evolved fish so why bother? It's all dog eat dog out there so don't attempt to pretend to sound rational - Your brain neurons are misfiring.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:30 AM on August 28, 2009 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, got all that from here did you?
http://evolution-facts.org/New-material/Protein-wonder1.htm

"It is impossible for man to synthesise amino acids, without producing a and equal number of  left-handed (L) and right handed (D) amino acids."

What a load of bollocks! Do a simple search for
optically pure L-amino acid synthesis:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112594085/abstract
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7445057_Optically_pure_N-hydroxy-O-triisopropylsilyl-alpha-L-amino_acid_methyl_esters_from_AlCl3-assisted_ring_opening_of_chiral_oxaziridines_by_nitrogen_containing_nucleophiles (sorry for the long link)

"Yet animals can only use the left-handed form" "There is a little mystery here: Why are only L-amino acids found in animals?"- oh dear:
http://www.pnas.org/content/68/10/2484.full.pdf

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/D-Amino-Acids-in-Sequences-of-Secreted-Peptides-of-Multicellular-Organisms/P-Jolles/e/9783764358143

http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/reprint/173/1/252.pdf

"Without several days of intense concentration,
neither you nor I would be able to memorize the sequence of even one average-sized protein.
Where is the brain in the cell to be able to do
this?"

Its encoded in the DNA!!
proteins are created based on a DNA sequence, one the stage of the process called translation.  It is during this stage that the codons contained in mRNA are translated into amino acids and linked together into polypeptide chains via the ribosomes.

Hang on, hasn't someone already said that in this thread? Oh yeah, in the first bloody post!

Lester, you sound like you're going to cut and paste more of this page, which I've just shown is factually incorrect. So please, if youre going to use other peoples "work" instead of coming up with your own arguements, then at least find out if what you're using is actually correct.


-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 5:51 PM on August 28, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Barbarian observes:
Lester, are you aware that plagiarism is a crime, as well as being dishonest?

Trying to pass off other people's work as your own is contemptable.

On what basis do you suppose you can justify your own exemplary standard of morality, Yehren.


It's not exactly "exemplary" to avoid stealing the work of others.   It's a basic sense of decency.   God gave you a sense of right and wrong to know better.

You are after all an evolved fish so why bother?


My body is the result of billions of years of evolution.  My soul was given to me immediately by God.

It's all dog eat dog out there so don't attempt to pretend to sound rational - Your brain neurons are misfiring.


Christians are supposed to be honest.   You don't measure up, Lester.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 6:39 PM on August 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's not exactly "exemplary" to avoid stealing the work of others.   It's a basic sense of decency.   God gave you a sense of right and wrong to know better.


Well the problem is, Mr Morality, that initially I was going to quote directly but then I didn't want to use only one source nor the quote in it's entirety. I also wanted to add my own comments and extras so, in effect, it is my own discussion of what cannot be considered to be chemical about DNA and proteins. I think your problem is that the truth terrifies you and you don't want Mustrum influenced by something he obviously knows nothing about so why don't you calm down or go somewhere else while I continue. If you want to critisize, make it a factual criticism about something real.

My body is the result of billions of years of evolution.  My soul was given to me immediately by God.


That's really weird, that's not the way God got men to write it down but then maybe you have another god that I don't know about. Maybe you have another Bible too but then that's your choice.

Christians are supposed to be honest.   You don't measure up, Lester.


Christians are fallen creatures like the rest of mankind Yehren so maybe you should stop trying to elevate yourself at my expense, it's quite silly really. I hope you've never ever said anything dishonest in your life Yehren otherwise that would make you a hypocrite and I'm sure you wouldn't like to be one of those!

God gave you a sense of right and wrong to know better.


Serious evolutionists don't believe that God exists nor that there is any need for God whatsoever Yehren. That's why they do origin of life experiments, to prove that God is irrelevant and did absolutely nothing. And who are you to have a soul, proper 'scientific'evolutionists don't believe in anything supernatural so away with your unnecessary soul. You can't pick and choose. You either believe in completely naturalistic evolution or you believe in a supernatural creator -you can't have your cake and eat it too. Do you think God produced your soul but left matter to organize itself? Why? What kind of a god is your god. Sounds like an idol made in your preferred image, but that's just what it sounds like to me. Now we don't just have the 'Word of God' but the 'Word of God as rewritten by Yehren'.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:06 AM on August 29, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Inside the cell random mutations produced a device that copies a precise segment of a DNA molecule for the express purpose of producing a particular protein. The segment is approximately 1/100,000th of the length of the DNA molecule. The copy bears no physical resemblance whatever to the molecule that it will be used to manufacture. It is nothing but pure code, pure logic. And the logic is separate from the arrangement of the atoms that carry the code - like the information contained on this page is separate from the pixels on your computer screen. It is separate in the same way that a chemical formula written on 4 pages of an encyclopedia is separate from the type and the ink on the pages. The type and the ink is of little relevance. It is the logic, the meaning conveyed by the ink that carries the substance, not the ink itself. This meaning and the logic and the structure of the code that conveys the meaning is non-physical and therefore not subject to to any mutation.
Inside the cell, a copy of the code is transferred to another device, which is operated through another encoded mechanism that reads the meaning of the code and then retrieves the necessary atoms and molecules described by the code and assembles them in the proper sequence to produce the protein molecule that the code describes. So we find one accidentally formed code reading another accidentally formed code to enable every cell in your body to constantly manufacture (molecule by molecule) all of the 100,000 different protein molecules that you need.
If you are an evolutionist, you believe that all of this was created by happenstance and dying animals. And if you believe this, then perhaps you will believe anything.

Extremely complex and coordinating structures, like the nuclear DNA code, the transcription process, the messenger DNA traveling outside the cell nucleus to "do work", and the ribosomes to read the code and produce proteins from it, not to mention the raw materials for the proteins or the information contained in the DNA code, are examples.  This problem of extreme complexity in functional systems is akin to having to produce a self-reproducing computer-controlled robotic machine and the required power systems and software to make it all work, all by random and purposeless events!

For Yehren:
This comes from two different sources but at the time that I saved it, I saved it purely for my own information and did not note the source. Between old moral you and Galileo, I'd appreciate your help in finding where these came from so that we can inform the other participants so that they won't think that I arrived at these details from my own personal research. Thank-you.
If there's anything here that's not true, then we'd all benefit from being informed.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:17 AM on August 29, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well the problem is, Mr Morality, that initially I was going to quote directly but then I didn't want to use only one source nor the quote in it's entirety.


So you stole someone else's work and presented it as your own.   Do you see why it's hard to believe you're a Christian?

Barbarian observes:
My body is the result of billions of years of evolution.  My soul was given to me immediately by God.


That's really weird


God doesn't seem to think so.   Let Him be God, Lester.

Maybe you have another Bible too but then that's your choice.


Mine says not to steal.  What does yours say, Lester?

Barbarian observes:
Christians are supposed to be honest.   You don't measure up, Lester.


Christians are fallen creatures like the rest of mankind Yehren


I don't steal.   How hard is it to avoid stealing other people's work?

Serious evolutionists don't believe that God exists


I teach it.   I'm as serious about it as they come, and I know God exists.

nor that there is any need for God whatsoever Yehren.


Without God we wouldn't even exist.

That's why they do origin of life experiments, to prove that God is irrelevant and did absolutely nothing.


God says that life was brought forth from the Earth.  So far, the evidence accords very well with that.

And who are you to have a soul, proper 'scientific'evolutionists don't believe in anything supernatural


Nothing in science denies the supernatural.  It's just that science can't say anything about the supernatural.   But scientists can.

so away with your unnecessary soul. You can't pick and choose. You either believe in completely naturalistic evolution or you believe in a supernatural creator


God thinks you can accept both.  There is no conflict between God and His creation.

Do you think God produced your soul but left matter to organize itself?


God is intimately connected to every particle of nature.  If He took his attention from it, it would cease to exist.

Theologically and morally, you have very little in common with the God of Abraham.




 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 07:34 AM on August 29, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

God doesn't seem to think so.   Let Him be God, Lester.


I do, that's why I respect his word and don't feel the need to improve on it. I also don't think scientists need to tell us how God did it when he's already told us and it's a complete different order to the way they have imagined it.

Christians are supposed to be honest.   You don't measure up, Lester.


Abject shame shook Lester to the core. "Thank-you Yehren! Without you I would be nothing. God is surely using you to impact my life." (a look of suffocating happiness radiated from Lester's guilty and chastened face.) "By showing me your perfection, I am inspired to follow and do likewise!!"

God says that life was brought forth from the Earth.  So far, the evidence accords very well with that.


(Quote from Bible - no evil plagiarism here. )"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. "(Genesis 1:27)


Sounds like he created humans right in the beginning Yehren! Male and female -not hermaphrodite converting to male and female or any other crazy story.

Another quote from the Bible Yehren -this is Jesus speaking now - "Haven't you read," he replied 'that at the beginning the creator made them male and female."


Not billions of year later , not even hundreds of millions of years later, just 'at the beginning'. So like it says in Genesis and like it is confirmed in Matthew, it was in the beginning.

Then God said "I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the creatures that move on the ground -everything that has the breath of life in it - I give every green plant for food. And it was so."

So you see there was a purpose and a plan and people were given food to eat unlike that first little unicellular organism of evolution that had nothing to eat!


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:55 AM on August 29, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:17 AM on August 29, 2009 :
Inside the cell random mutations produced a device that copies a precise segment of a DNA molecule for the express purpose of producing a particular protein. The segment is approximately 1/100,000th of the length of the DNA molecule. The copy bears no physical resemblance whatever to the molecule that it will be used to manufacture. It is nothing but pure code, pure logic. And the logic is separate from the arrangement of the atoms that carry the code - like the information contained on this page is separate from the pixels on your computer screen. It is separate in the same way that a chemical formula written on 4 pages of an encyclopedia is separate from the type and the ink on the pages. The type and the ink is of little relevance. It is the logic, the meaning conveyed by the ink that carries the substance, not the ink itself. This meaning and the logic and the structure of the code that conveys the meaning is non-physical and therefore not subject to to any mutation.
Inside the cell, a copy of the code is transferred to another device, which is operated through another encoded mechanism that reads the meaning of the code and then retrieves the necessary atoms and molecules described by the code and assembles them in the proper sequence to produce the protein molecule that the code describes. So we find one accidentally formed code reading another accidentally formed code to enable every cell in your body to constantly manufacture (molecule by molecule) all of the 100,000 different protein molecules that you need.
If you are an evolutionist, you believe that all of this was created by happenstance and dying animals. And if you believe this, then perhaps you will believe anything.


From:

http://www.creationdesign.org/english/if%20you%20believe.html

Extremely complex and coordinating structures, like the nuclear DNA code, the transcription process, the messenger DNA traveling outside the cell nucleus to "do work", and the ribosomes to read the code and produce proteins from it, not to mention the raw materials for the proteins or the information contained in the DNA code, are examples.  This problem of extreme complexity in functional systems is akin to having to produce a self-reproducing computer-controlled robotic machine and the required power systems and software to make it all work, all by random and purposeless events!


From: http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/NewsletterArchive/2009.08.20.htm



Thank-you.
If there's anything here that's not true, then we'd all benefit from being informed.


No problem.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:01 AM on August 29, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you have an answer to this Apoapsis?

For instance, when messenger RNA is in the nucleus, why does it do what it does and go back out of the nucleus to the cytoplasm carrying it's coded message? Why doesn't it just react with something chemically and be done with it? Who gives it instructions to leave with the coded message and take it to the ribosome?

Why is everything so coordinated ? Why does there seem to be a purpose to what goes on during protein manufacture? Who or what is directing the process? This is just not chemical -you have to be truly blind not to notice that.

(Edited by Lester10 9/2/2009 at 06:21 AM).


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:18 AM on September 2, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Based on the evidence, Eukaryotic cells result from an Archean ancestor which absorbed other organisms.  The resulting fused organism was more competitive.  This is the reason that maternal lineage can be trace using mitochondrial DNA.  The mitochondria retain their DNA line through the mother since a sperm cell contains nuclear DNA only.  Early on, they think there was some interference that led to the development of the nucleus.   There was some nice work on this recently.



In the article, William Martin from the University of Dusseldorf and Eugene V. Koonin from the NIH propose that the nucleus evolved to physically segregate the production and processing of RNA from the act of translating the RNA into proteins.

So why was this necessary?

They contend that the mitochondrial ancestor must have carried parasitic genes that can copy and paste themselves within the mitochondrion genome. Similar genes, or disarticulate group II introns, have been found in some modern eubacteria. Fortunately these parasites when in their RNA form, can splice themselves out of any RNA transcripts. (RNA + catalytic power = Ribozymes!) OK lets get back to the story ... after being swallowed, mitos replicated and some inevitably died (step#2). The genomes of the dead mitos were then absorbed into the what was the archeabacterial genome (step#3). But now comes the crunch ... mito based parasitic DNA could spread into the archea based genome. Sometimes the junk would mutate and lose the ability to self-splice, however these could still be spliced out by other functional parasitic junk. Apparently there is data that functional group II introns can splice out other introns that have lost the ability to self-splice. These catalytic RNAs became essential and gave rise to the eukaryotic splicing machinery ... aka the snRNAs. The last problem faced was that RNA splicing is much slower than RNA translation. To prevent translation from occurring on unspliced RNAs, the two machineries were segregated into separate compartments: RNA processing in the nucleus and RNA translation in the extra-nuclear, or cytoplasmic, space (step#4).

Origin of the nucleus


(Edited by Apoapsis 9/2/2009 at 07:13 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 06:52 AM on September 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In the article, William Martin from the University of Dusseldorf and Eugene V. Koonin from the NIH propose that the nucleus evolved to physically segregate the production and processing of RNA from the act of translating the RNA into proteins.

So why was this necessary?

They contend that the mitochondrial ancestor must have carried parasitic genes that can copy and paste themselves within the mitochondrion genome.


This is a story based on the religion of naturalism, Apoapsis, thus this is a religious story but unlike the Bible which was inspired by God, these stories are made up in man's very active imagination. Despite all of this, your source makes it sound like the cell was thinking for itself and needed to make a plan and thus figured it out. If chemistry and natural law explains everything, chemicals should just be reacting with whatever is nearby, not making a plan to stay away from this or that portion of the cell for this or that reason.
I think we should put together a new bestseller -"The Big book of Evolutionary Fairytales and other Fabulous stories."

Early on, they think there was some interference that led to the development of the nucleus.   There was some nice work on this recently.


I don't think this is nice work at all - you think because your stories of the past sound 'scientific' that makes them more real than what actually happened in the past as recorded in the book of Genesis. That must be why it says you must become as a little child because children get it and adults imagine that they are too clever to be fooled - pride elevates them to imaginary heights and they just can't see what's right in front of them anymore. Look out the window Apoapsis! There's a created world out there -it didn't fall together by chance and random happenings.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:31 AM on September 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:17 AM on August 29, 2009 :

For Yehren:
This comes from two different sources but at the time that I saved it, I saved it purely for my own information and did not note the source.


Funny - this from the fellow that wrote to me in a nother thread to explain something to him in my "own words"...

Hypocrite.





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:50 PM on September 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:18 AM on September 2, 2009 :
Do you have an answer to this Apoapsis?

For instance, when messenger RNA is in the nucleus, why does it do what it does and go back out of the nucleus to the cytoplasm carrying it's coded message? Why doesn't it just react with something chemically and be done with it?


You really should learn the very basics of this material if you are going to attempt to discuss it (not to mention desperately claim that you are right about everything premised on what some plagiarized creationist website tells you).

Start by looking up 'complementary base pairing'.



Who gives it instructions to leave with the coded message and take it to the ribosome?

Nobody.

Who gives water instructions to follow a path of least resistence to fill in a depression that is, darn it, just the right size for the amount of water that fills it?


Why is everything so coordinated ?

Why do only 2 hydrogens bond to one oxygen to form water?


Why does there seem to be a purpose to what goes on during protein manufacture?

Post-hoc rationalization and wishful thinking by those who want to see purpose where none is evident.


Who or what is directing the process?

Nobody.


This is just not chemical -you have to be truly blind not to notice that.


Such arrogance coupled with such clear ignorance - a common characteristic of the religious reich.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:55 PM on September 2, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No mystery here.  Each tRNA carries a specific amino acid via an anticodons.  During Translation there would be numerous of these tRNA with attached amino acid present.  Each amino acid/tRNA would be attracted to a specific codon on the DNA.


By what mechanism are they attracted orion?  As I said there are no wires.  They do not form a chain by trial and error--they bring the right A. A.  How?  The tRNA is completely independent of the mRNA.  The mRNA has the code.  The tRNA bring the proper amino acid to match each codon--without being connected--it is bringing the acid very quickly from another part of the cell with 100% EFFICIENCY.

Secondly you are oversimplifying this.  Each codon and corresponding tRNA/amino acid is meeting in the ribosome one at a time at THE PROPER TIME.  The mRNA is a chain, it is interconnected.  But the tRNA is an independent molecule which transports the corresponding acid.  IT IS NOT CONNECTED but it brings the right acid to match the corresponding codon on the mRNA chain WITHOUT MAKING A MISTAKE.
.  

So... simple chemistry at work.  What's your problem?  As a kid I produced a test tube of hydrogen when I performed the electrolysis of water.  I applied a lighted match and ... pop - I started a simple reaction of hydrogen bonding with oxygen to form water.  This involved millions of molecules of hydrogen and oxygen - and guess what?  I expect they got it right every time to form water!
   

Chemistry is involved.  But there is always a catalyzing agent in the cell--the enzyme--without it none of this chemistry would happen.

When you produced the test tube of hydrogen you were the initiator and organizer of the experiment--you were technically the catalyst of the chemical reaction. if you had not been there it would not have happened.

Don't get me wrong, I think the whole process of Translation is facinating.  But I don't think we need to invoke a supernatural entity in the evolution of the process.
 

Is that why there are theistic evolutionists?  Or why agnostics don't rule God out, though they don't include him either.  Because something got it all going.

Life is truly amazing, I think everyone will agree with that, but no miracles from God are required.


And with that attitude you will never get one, but God can change your attitude too.  You just need an impasse or crisis that you can't handle and He'll be your last resort. "You will seek me and you will find me when you seek me with all your heart."

Why do you call structures of proteins mathematical miracles?  Is it because each protein has a particular shape/structure that allows it to perform its job perfectly?  Is that it?


No.  Actually it starts with the elemental table and the rule of 8 pattern of chemistry.  This causes valence in the different elements.  Then in different molecules you have various attractions and bonding.  You have hydrogen bonding, covalent bonding, ionic bonding, van der waals forces (in molecules), etc.  This is the elementary principles before we get to protein.

Then you have DNA which has a code--a blueprint for protein.  mRNA, tRNA, rRNA the ribosome and amino acid molecules.

When the polypeptide chain is made it begins to fold in upon itself, causing a secondary structure, this is caused by all the elemental attractions that were discussed previously.  Then many proteins have a tertiary structure because of hyphobic and hydrophilic side chains.

"The elements of secondary structure are usually folded into a compact shape using a variety of loops and turns. The formation of tertiary structure is usually driven by the burial of hydrophobic residues, but other interactions such as hydrogen bonding, ionic interactions and disulfide bonds can also stabilize the tertiary structure." Wikipedia

Then some such as hemoglobin have a quaternary structure, such as a "dimer."

This is all very mathematical and the fact that these complex molecules have attraction sites which bond to corresponding proteins makes the probability of "unguidedness" in the sequence of amino acids and the properties of the elemental table itself zero.  It is guided by intelligence.

Did you ever stop to think that Life used what protein shapes/structures were available?

 That there could be a countless number of different proteins that could perform the same job?  The same task?
 

That is one of the craziest things I've ever heard.  in fact many times I've read the complete opposite.  That deformed proteins cause severe known conditions and even death.  

Proteins fit together and they correspond.  You can't just change one part and expect that it will fit.  Just like a transmission in a ford and a transmission in a chevy do the same job.  but you can't connect a ford transmission onto a chevy engine--it doesn't fit.

There might be variants, but if they were all the same in every species, we would never here the end of "the exact homology of hemoglobin in all species is proof of common descent."





(Edited by AFJ 9/6/2009 at 11:40 PM).

(Edited by AFJ 9/6/2009 at 11:49 PM).

(Edited by AFJ 9/6/2009 at 11:58 PM).

(Edited by AFJ 9/7/2009 at 12:03 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 11:35 PM on September 6, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Funny - this from the fellow that wrote to me in a nother thread to explain something to him in my "own words"...


Derwood, the points you make are so petty, it seems barely worth responding to but let me explain this to you in any case.
I don't mind quotes from other people, I have nothing against them in principle but sometimes evos have this tendency to avoid giving a clear and unambiguous answer by throwing in a long article that does not address the point at issue. I assume they hope we'll forget the initial question or the point in dispute and make us go away with a whole hash of technical details that they want us to sift through and preferably get lost in.

Articles written by other people are very often useful as are quotes; but sometimes it is good to see whether the person (eg. you) has any real clue himself as to what the direct answer to the question is and is not just throwing out a distractor. That's when I ask you to answer directly in your own words. I hope this clarifies the problem.

Such arrogance coupled with such clear ignorance - a common characteristic of the religious reich.


Derwood, I would honestly classify you as the most arrogant bombastic full of it person on this forum -you are about as close to the "reich" mentality as anyone I have ever dealt with. You obviously have no idea how you come across or perhaps you don't care. You are full of ad hominems and very little scientific substance and I have mentioned that
before so when you accuse me of arrogance coupled with ignorance, I have to reserve your favoured word for you and that word is 'hypocrite.'

I would like to answer your posts more often but it is just so offputting to deal with your blatent rudeness that I tend to ignore you instead.

(Edited by admin 9/7/2009 at 06:51 AM).


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:44 AM on September 7, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By what mechanism are they attracted orion?  As I said there are no wires.  They do not form a chain by trial and error--they bring the right A. A.  How?  The tRNA is completely independent of the mRNA.  The mRNA has the code.  The tRNA bring the proper amino acid to match each codon--without being connected--it is bringing the acid very quickly from another part of the cell with 100% EFFICIENCY.

So your claim is that it's magic...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 07:54 AM on September 7, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38

So your claim is that it's magic...


Forgive me if I'm wrong AFJ but I think rather than magic, you are talking about coding or programming that gets the job done. It's when the different parts do these things randomly and with no plan that we call it magic -that's how evos think the job gets done.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:46 AM on September 7, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For instance, when messenger RNA is in the nucleus, why does it do what it does and go back out of the nucleus to the cytoplasm carrying it's coded message?


It's the nature of any chemical to diffuse from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration.   DNA can't leave the Nucleus, because it is too large to get through the nuclear pores.

Why doesn't it just react with something chemically and be done with it?


Sometimes, it does.   But it's more stable than unpaired RNA, unless it encounters a ribozome.

Who gives it instructions to leave with the coded message and take it to the ribosome?


No one at all.   It's just chemistry.



 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 10:45 PM on September 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 11:35 PM on September 6, 2009 :
When you produced the test tube of hydrogen you were the initiator and organizer of the experiment--you were technically the catalyst of the chemical reaction. if you had not been there it would not have happened.


And when water shows up in an interstellar molecular cloud, did Orion cause that too?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:35 AM on September 8, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 2:35 PM on September 8, 2009 :
Quote from AFJ at 11:35 PM on September 6, 2009 :
When you produced the test tube of hydrogen you were the initiator and organizer of the experiment--you were technically the catalyst of the chemical reaction. if you had not been there it would not have happened.


And when water shows up in an interstellar molecular cloud, did Orion cause that too?



Nooo. GodDidIt!


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 08:45 AM on September 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Water masers within the G 333.2-0.6 giant molecular cloud

Abstract
   We report the results of a blind search for 22 GHz water masers in two regions, covering approximately half a square degree, within the G 333.2–0.6 giant molecular cloud. The complete search of the two regions was carried out with the 26 m Mount Pleasant radio telescope and resulted in the detection of nine water masers, five of which are new detections. Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) observations of these detections have allowed us to obtain positions with arcsecond accuracy, allowing meaningful comparison with infrared and molecular data for the region. We find that for the regions surveyed there are more water masers than either 6.7 GHz methanol, or main-line OH masers. The water masers are concentrated towards the central axis of the star formation region, in contrast to the 6.7 GHz methanol masers which tend to be located near the periphery. The colours of the GLIMPSE point sources associated with the water masers are slightly less red than those associated with methanol masers. Statistical investigation of the properties of the 13CO and 1.2 mm dust clumps with and without associated water masers shows that the water masers are associated with the more massive, denser and brighter 13CO and 1.2 mm dust clumps. We present statistical models that can predict those 13CO and 1.2 mm dust clumps likely to have associated water masers.

Astrophysical masers and their environments: proceedings of the International Astronomical Union Symposium 242, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia, 12-16 March 2007 / Jessica M. Chapman and Willem A. Baan (eds.), Vol. 3, pp. 144-145




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:42 AM on September 8, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Forgive me if I'm wrong AFJ but I think rather than magic, you are talking about coding or programming that gets the job
done.


Where is this programming?  Why don't we see any evidence of it?  We know how chemistry works, no coding or programming needed.  So where is this programming?  

It's when the different parts do these things randomly and with no plan that we call it magic -that's how evos think the job gets done.

Except it's not random, you still don't know what that word means when it comes to chemistry and biology!  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 09:51 AM on September 8, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where is this programming?  Why don't we see any evidence of it?


But you do. It's on the DNA. Problem is you've been indoctrinated to believe that there is only nature and no purpose and so now you're blind and, I'm afraid, foolish as well.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:52 AM on September 8, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:52 AM on September 8, 2009 :
Where is this programming?  Why don't we see any evidence of it?


But you do. It's on the DNA. Problem is you've been indoctrinated to believe that there is only nature and no purpose and so now you're blind and, I'm afraid, foolish as well.



You're begging the question. If DNA clearly is the result of conscious coding then there should be a way to test for it. Arguing indoctrination and blindness to the facts only works once you have facts.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/8/2009 at 3:23 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:22 PM on September 8, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you want to  skim over this in order to rebut and not think about what I'm asking objectively, you will be sure to give a sarcastic answer. Because I do not believe designed things to be magical.  Please do not insult my intelligence.

In translation the mRNA is joined to the ribosome.  It is being pulled through the ribosome.  The mRNA is a chain structure.  As it goes through the ribosome it is being pulled MECHANICALLY.  This is a process that we can understand.

There is no reason for disorder in the sequence because the mRNA code has been copied from the DNA and is being pulled mechanically because it is a chain.

Now, the tRNA is another story.  tRNA are individual separate molecules that free float.  They bring the proper amino acid to the corresponding mRNA nucleotide (three letter code) that codes for that amino acid.  

A polypeptide chain is being formed beside the mRNA in the ribosome.  The amino acid that has been brought by the tRNA is now bonded by dehydration synthesis, which was catalyzed by an enzyme, to the protein to be.

The tRNA brings the amino acid quickly and 100% correct.  It is not trial and error.  How does an unintelligent molecule know just when to come and to place itself in the proper place at the proper time?  This is not a slow process.  It has to be in timing with the chain.

Before any chemistry can take place there has to be mechanical transport of the amino acids to the ribosome.  How does this work mechanically?  Does anyone see a mechanism?  
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:35 PM on September 9, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 9:35 PM on September 9, 2009 :
In translation the mRNA is joined to the ribosome.  It is being pulled through the ribosome.  The mRNA is a chain structure.  As it goes through the ribosome it is being pulled MECHANICALLY.  This is a process that we can understand.


Please tell us exactly what you mean by "mechanically".




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:00 PM on September 9, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:00 PM on September 9, 2009 :
Quote from AFJ at 9:35 PM on September 9, 2009 :
In translation the mRNA is joined to the ribosome.  It is being pulled through the ribosome.  The mRNA is a chain structure.  As it goes through the ribosome it is being pulled MECHANICALLY.  This is a process that we can understand.


Please tell us exactly what you mean by "mechanically".




By mechanically I mean the mRNA (a polymer) chain is being moved  by the principles of mechanics--that is by the priciples of how force affects matter.  

The chain is interconnected--linked.  It is being pulled one link at a time through the ribosome.  The last "link" (nucleic acid) is moving toward the ribosome because it is being pulled by the one preceding it.  No mystery.

BUT...the amino acids that will eventually build a protein are being brought, not by a chain or interconnected mechanism, but  by the independent  tRNA molecules.

One could understand if the messenger RNA chain chemically repelled or accepted the amino acids as tRNA brought them randomly by some kind of chemical process, but to see the m RNA chain (bottom) moving and the polypeptide chain (top) being built without error is something science can not account for, though it is observable.

By what means are the tRNA/amino acids propelled in the corresponding order of the chain?

The transfer RNA are not a chain, but rather independent.  A machine would have say a sprocket and a chain.  But this is different, though it shows the principles of mechanics as well as chemistry.

How do they get the right amino acid to match the code on the chain without a trial and error process?  


 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:46 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 9:46 PM on September 13, 2009 :

How do they get the right amino acid to match the code on the chain without a trial and error process?


Why do you think is not trial and error?  If a large number of tRNAs are floating around and only one type matches, why wouldn't it be attracted?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:59 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no dispute as to whether it is trial and error.  It is not.  It happens too fast.  What you see on the animation is rather accurate.  You don't see five tries and then the right one and then 15 tries and then the right one.

It happens mechanistically.  That is the point of my question.  There is no "magnet" on the mRNA chain to pull anything in.  There is a three amino acid sequence on each link of the chain--the corresponding tRNA with the proper amino acid matches 100%.

The only thing we know of that might be remotely a possibility is London Forces pulling them in. But I don't know if  that can happen that fast.  And what is to keep the next link from attracting another tRNA and you get a log jam.

The whole thing happens orderly and without chaos.  Though there seems to be no apparent mechanism for the tRNA behavior.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 04:24 AM on September 14, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

AF3 - I think you have an incorrect impression of what is happening.  The process is a chemical one.  There would be many tRNA molecules moving about at random.  Only specific tRNA anti-codon segment would bond with the codon on the mRNA.  I agree with Apoapsis that 'trial and error' would be the process involved here.  You need to look at the process from a chemistry point of view.  

Suppose you have a codon on the mRNA (a).  This requires a tRNA anti-codon (A) to bind to it.  You have many different tRNA moving around at a very rapid rate - (A, B, C, D... etc).  The B's, C's, D's bounce off the 'a' site and don't bind.  But the A's do.  

That may be a bit simplitic, but that's how I envision it happening.  Yes, it does happen very fast.  So what?  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:17 AM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:44 AM on September 7, 2009 :
Funny - this from the fellow that wrote to me in a nother thread to explain something to him in my "own words"...


Derwood, the points you make are so petty, it seems barely worth responding to but let me explain this to you in any case.


You know, in all seriousness, when I respond to creationists like you and Timmy, I truly feel as though I am responding to 3rd graders.  My son is in 3rd grade.  The other day, I watched him and his sister get into an argument.  He then explained to me his side fo the story, which did not match what I had just observed.  I told him I watched the entire thing and what he had just told me did nto match what I had seen.  His response?  "NOOO!", then he proceeded to re-state his version of the event, as mythological as it was.  I'm sure it seemed to be very real to him, just as I am sure that YEC types truly believe that the uninformed propaganda they spew is 100% true and accurate.

But simply believing it does not make it so.

I don't mind quotes from other people, I have nothing against them in principle but sometimes evos have this tendency to avoid giving a clear and unambiguous answer by throwing in a long article that does not address the point at issue.

Your projection is shining through.

What I see YEC types to is present their synopsis of something they've read in a YEC book or on the web.  They don't really understand it, but the author of what they read is one of them, AND has a degree (real or imagined), so internet YEC just KNOWS that what they read is 100% true.  When we ask them to explain, they name drop and demand that we refute their hero - refutations of which are ignored or dismissed.  Afterall, they KNOW that their YEC hero is right.

I assume they hope we'll forget the initial question or the point in dispute and make us go away with a whole hash of technical details that they want us to sift through and preferably get lost in.

A more reasonable interpretation is that evolutionists, even those on the internet, possess sufficient background knowledge of the material at hand and at some level, believe that their YEC opponants do, too.  So, rather than be accused of b[utting a pro-evo spin on an issue, they just copy and paste or link to the entire article or present large sections of an article, because it makes their point and they assume that their opponant will see that for themselves.

At least that is my experience.

Articles written by other people are very often useful as are quotes; but sometimes it is good to see whether the person (eg. you) has any real clue himself as to what the direct answer to the question is and is not just throwing out a distractor.


The irony and projection - not to mention the Dunning-Kruger effect - are incredible here.


That's when I ask you to answer directly in your own words. I hope this clarifies the problem.


The ironic thing is, I ALWAYS discuss issues in my own words and only present quotes and articles to either support a point or when the YEC thinks I'm bluffing.

Such arrogance coupled with such clear ignorance - a common characteristic of the religious reich.


Derwood, I would honestly classify you as the most arrogant bombastic full of it person on this forum -you are about as close to the "reich" mentality as anyone I have ever dealt with.

Yes, I know you would.  You and Timmy and pretty much every YEC I have ever encountered see those of us with actual relevant educations and experience and knowledge this way.  It is a defense mechanism.



You obviously have no idea how you come across or perhaps you don't care. You are full of ad hominems and very little scientific substance and I have mentioned that
before so when you accuse me of arrogance coupled with ignorance, I have to reserve your favoured word for you and that word is 'hypocrite.'

I also find that YECs make the patently false 'so scientific substance' charge only after they have systematically IGNORED my substantive posts.
Shall I link to a few of the substantive posts that you folks totally ignored - posts made either in direct response to requests for information that, doubtless, the YEC didn't think existed/hoped did not exist?



I would like to answer your posts more often but it is just so offputting to deal with your blatent rudeness that I tend to ignore you instead.


Awww...

Poor baby.

Perhaps instead of calling me out on my supposed rudeness, you people could muster up sufficient humility to realizer that, darn it, you really are not the uber-experts on everythign you present yourselves as being.

That might reduce the 'rudeness' quotient quite a bit.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:14 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:52 AM on September 8, 2009 :
Where is this programming?  Why don't we see any evidence of it?


But you do. It's on the DNA. Problem is you've been indoctrinated to believe that there is only nature and no purpose and so now you're blind and, I'm afraid, foolish as well.



Funny - I guess rude, arrogant people just can't their own arrognace and rudeness.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:15 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 9:46 PM on September 13, 2009 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 10:00 PM on September 9, 2009 :
Quote from AFJ at 9:35 PM on September 9, 2009 :
In translation the mRNA is joined to the ribosome.  It is being pulled through the ribosome.  The mRNA is a chain structure.  As it goes through the ribosome it is being pulled MECHANICALLY.  This is a process that we can understand.


Please tell us exactly what you mean by "mechanically".




By mechanically I mean the mRNA (a polymer) chain is being moved  by the principles of mechanics--that is by the priciples of how force affects matter.  

The chain is interconnected--linked.  It is being pulled one link at a time through the ribosome.  The last "link" (nucleic acid) is moving toward the ribosome because it is being pulled by the one preceding it.  No mystery.

BUT...the amino acids that will eventually build a protein are being brought, not by a chain or interconnected mechanism, but  by the independent  tRNA molecules.

One could understand if the messenger RNA chain chemically repelled or accepted the amino acids as tRNA brought them randomly by some kind of chemical process, but to see the m RNA chain (bottom) moving and the polypeptide chain (top) being built without error is something science can not account for, though it is observable.

By what means are the tRNA/amino acids propelled in the corresponding order of the chain?

The transfer RNA are not a chain, but rather independent.  A machine would have say a sprocket and a chain.  But this is different, though it shows the principles of mechanics as well as chemistry.

How do they get the right amino acid to match the code on the chain without a trial and error process?  






Metaphorical and descriptive language ('mechanical', 'pulling') should be seen for what it is.

The catalysis of reactions, which occurs on ribosomes, changes the shape of the molecules involved, and the shape change
produces 'movement.'  It is not as though the ribosome is actively engaging in a conscious effort.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:18 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 11:35 PM on September 6, 2009 :
No mystery here.  Each tRNA carries a specific amino acid via an anticodons.  During Translation there would be numerous of these tRNA with attached amino acid present.  Each amino acid/tRNA would be attracted to a specific codon on the DNA.


By what mechanism are they attracted orion?  As I said there are no wires.  They do not form a chain by trial and error--they bring the right A. A.  How?  The tRNA is completely independent of the mRNA.  The mRNA has the code.  The tRNA bring the proper amino acid to match each codon--without being connected--it is bringing the acid very quickly from another part of the cell with 100% EFFICIENCY.


Well, for starters, if it were 100% efficient then we would not observe the wobble effect.
Second, the hydrogen bonding (electrostatic attractions between polar molecules or between polar portions of molecules) doe snto require attachment.  The two strands of a DNA molecule are not 'attached', but they are held together by complementary hydrogen bonding.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:22 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I need to answer several things here.  First, perhaps you misunderstand my point.  My point is not about the ribosome.  It is about the tRNA molecules.

Science does not account for a mechanism which causes the tRNA to bring amino acids, match the code on the mRNA with 100% accuracy.   I am not saying there is magic here or the hand of God guides them.  

What I'm saying is that we don't know what directs them or causes them to be 100% accurate (barring a protein deformation).  Please do not take this for granted.  Because we observe something does not mean we know the cause.

Therefore we are looking at a process here that is a mystery, so we should not be so apt to simplify it, just because we see it happen.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:37 PM on September 15, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 8:37 PM on September 15, 2009 :
I need to answer several things here.  First, perhaps you misunderstand my point.  My point is not about the ribosome.  It is about the tRNA molecules.

Science does not account for a mechanism which causes the tRNA to bring amino acids, match the code on the mRNA with 100% accuracy.  


Like I said, first there is not 100% accuracy.

But to get to your point - science provides us with the following:

The realization that specific tRNAs, by virtue of their nucleotide seqeunces, do 2 things - they bind to a particular amino acid; they possess an area of 'exposed' nucleotides.  These 'exposed' nucleotides can bind complementarily with the sequence mRNA 'exposed' in the A-site of the ribosome.


I am not saying there is magic here or the hand of God guides them.  

What I'm saying is that we don't know what directs them or causes them to be 100% accurate (barring a protein deformation).  Please do not take this for granted.  Because we observe something does not mean we know the cause.

What do you mean by "cause"?  The cause of complementary binding is an elctrostatic 'fit' between molecules.  If your tRNA arrangment of 'exposed' nucleotides does not 'fit' with the 'exposed' nucleotides of the mRNA, binding will not normally take place, just as your car key will not unlock the door of another car.


Therefore we are looking at a process here that is a mystery, so we should not be so apt to simplify it, just because we see it happen.

I don't see where the 'mystery' comes in.



(Edited by derwood 9/16/2009 at 11:18 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:10 AM on September 16, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 11:10 AM on September 16, 2009 :

What do you mean by "cause"?  The cause of complementary binding is an elctrostatic 'fit' between molecules.  If your tRNA arrangment of 'exposed' nucleotides does not 'fit' with the 'exposed' nucleotides of the mRNA, binding will not normally take place, just as your car key will not unlock the door of another car.
(Edited by derwood 9/16/2009 at 11:18 AM).


First, It is "bonding," not "binding."  Molecules bond.

Second, perhaps instead of "electrostactic fit" you mean the peptide bond between the amino acids, or perhaps vander waals force or London forces. van der waals  Electrostatic is not usually associated with molecular bonding.  

TO get to my point, unless I bring a key in close proximity to the lock and make a successful insertion, the door will remain locked.  Molecules are the same way, they have to be in close proximity in order for van der waals forces to pull them together and make a bond.

Bottom line, unless you can give me a chemical process that causes the tRNA to deliver the amino acids in in an order corresponding to the mRNA sequence, chemical evolution fails to account for this process.

Note that they are coming from other parts of the cell to the ribosome.  Van der waals forces or polar attraction can not account for this behavior.



(Edited by AFJ 9/16/2009 at 10:12 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:09 PM on September 16, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

AF3


Derwood

What do you mean by "cause"?  The cause of complementary binding is an elctrostatic 'fit' between molecules.  If your tRNA arrangment of 'exposed' nucleotides does not 'fit' with the 'exposed' nucleotides of the mRNA, binding will not normally take place, just as your car key will not unlock the door of another car.


First, It is "bonding," not "binding."  Molecules bond.


First, this is going to cause some consternation among you Creos - Derwood is right when he uses the term 'binding' rather than 'bonding' when referring to tRNA/mRNA interaction.

You can look it up.  See Wiki -
Binding - Molecular

Molecular binding is an attractive interaction between two molecules which results in a stable association in which the molecules are in close proximity to each other. The result of molecular binding is formation of a molecular complex.


Types
Molecular binding can be classified into the following types:[1]

non-covalent – no chemical bonds are formed between the two interacting molecules hence the association is fully reversible
reversible covalent – a chemical bond is formed, however the free energy difference separating the non-bonded reactants from bonded product is near equilibrium and the activation barrier is relatively low such that the reverse reaction which cleaves the chemical bond easily occurs
irreversible covalent – a chemical bond is formed in which the product is thermodynamically much more stable than the reactants such that the reverse reaction does not take place

Examples
Molecules that can participate in molecular binding include proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, and small organic molecules such as drugs. Hence the types of complexes that form as a result of molecular binding include:

protein – protein[2]
protein – DNA[3]
protein – hormone
protein – drug[4]
Proteins that form stable complexes with other molecules are often referred to as receptors while their binding partners are called ligands.[5]



Thus binding is a weaker attraction between molecules than actual chemical bonding.  This makes perfect sense.  Van der Waals forces would accomplish this binding, I believe.


Second, perhaps instead of "electrostactic fit" you mean the peptide bond between the amino acids


The fit we're talking about here would be the anti-codon base triplet of the tRNA and the codon base triplet of the mRNA.  Binding forces would be of the electrostatic type - such as Van der Waals forces.  


Bottom line, unless you can give me a chemical process that causes the tRNA to deliver the amino acids in in an order corresponding to the mRNA sequence, chemical evolution fails to account for this process.


Why do you see a problem there?  I'm not a biochemist, but I've had some chemistry.  My guess is that you have a great many tRNA units moving about at a very rapid pace.  A matching tRNA comes along that fits the corresponding mRNA base triplet site.  Bingo.  Next tRNA comes along... and so on.



No brains involved.  No ID.  No God.

(Edited by orion 9/17/2009 at 12:25 AM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:15 AM on September 17, 2009 | IP
aboutandy

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I understand what your saying AFJ about how the different tRNA's get to the ribosomal sites and bind to the mRNA.  But the same question could be asked about any enzyme-substrate interaction.  Its hard to imagine a substrate molecule find the active site of an enzyme so fast, but it does.  Its the same for the tRNA finding its binding region within the ribsome-mRNA complex.  Try to see it on a molecular level.  These molecules are so tiny and there are a bunch of them flying around the cell.  I would imagine that they are constantly running into everything at fast speeds.   You gave the lock and key analogy.  But look at it this way.  Instead of one key for one lock there is 10,000 of the same keys and they are all flying around the room.  Its more likely they will find the lock.  Stuff at the molecular level is hard to imagine sometimes, I have trouble with it also
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 01:42 AM on September 17, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is going to be fun...

Quote from AFJ at 10:09 PM on September 16, 2009 :
Quote from derwood at 11:10 AM on September 16, 2009 :

What do you mean by "cause"?  The cause of complementary binding is an elctrostatic 'fit' between molecules.  If your tRNA arrangment of 'exposed' nucleotides does not 'fit' with the 'exposed' nucleotides of the mRNA, binding will not normally take place, just as your car key will not unlock the door of another car.



First, It is "bonding," not "binding."  Molecules bond.

You say tomahto...

Second, perhaps instead of "electrostactic fit" you mean the peptide bond between the amino acids, or perhaps vander waals force or London forces.

Um, no, I meant what I said.

You asked about tRNA and mRNA interaction.  tRNA and mRNA interact via complementary bonding.  What is complementary?  Their ability to form hydrogen bonds .


 Electrostatic is not usually associated with molecular bonding.  

Molecules that form hydrogen bonds between each other do not actually chemically bond.  I used the term electrostatic to refer to the basic premise behind hydrogen bonding.

TO get to my point, unless I bring a key in close proximity to the lock and make a successful insertion, the door will remain locked.  Molecules are the same way, they have to be in close proximity in order for van der waals forces to pull them together and make a bond.

Cells are pretty small.

Bottom line, unless you can give me a chemical process that causes the tRNA to deliver the amino acids in in an order corresponding to the mRNA sequence, chemical evolution fails to account for this process.

Well, I'm not a physical chemist or a biochemist (are you?) and I am not going to do a bunch of research on this to satisfy your idiosyncratic demand.  
So, I guess since the exact specific answer your demand is not forthcomiong, Creation must be true.  I do have to ask, however - if I make a similar demand that you cannot answer to my satisfaction, do I get to declare that creationism cannot explain it?


Note that they are coming from other parts of the cell to the ribosome.  Van der waals forces or polar attraction can not account for this behavior.

Never heard of
Brownian motion , I suppose.


(Edited by derwood 9/17/2009 at 12:55 PM).

(Edited by derwood 9/19/2009 at 3:40 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:50 PM on September 17, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 10:09 PM on September 16, 2009 :
Bottom line, unless you can give me a chemical process that causes the tRNA to deliver the amino acids in in an order corresponding to the mRNA sequence, chemical evolution fails to account for this process.


Here ya go:

During ribosomal protein synthesis, aminoacyl-tRNA (aa-tRNA) is delivered to the ribosome in a ternary complex with elongation factor Tu (EF-Tu) and GTP. Subsequent GTPase activation constitutes a critical step that determines the fidelity of aa-tRNA selection1. When the anticodon matches the mRNA codon displayed in the A-site (cognate anticodon), rapid GTP hydrolysis is triggered, at which point EF-Tu changes its conformation from the GTP- to the GDP-bound form and releases aa-tRNA. The aa-tRNA is accommodated in the peptidyl transferase center and takes part in peptide bond formation. An incorrect codon−anticodon interaction leads to rejection of the ternary complex (noncognate anticodon) or slow GTP hydrolysis (near-cognate anticodon)2, 3, 4, indicating that the strength of the interactions at the decoding site on the 30S subunit controls the reaction that takes place on the 50S subunit. Kinetic and structural work has shown that GTPase activation is coupled to codon recognition by induced fit involving a conformational change in the decoding center of 16S rRNA that is induced by codon recognition1, 2, 5. How the conformational state of the decoding site on the 30S subunit modulates the GTPase activity of EF-Tu bound to the 50S subunit is not known in detail, although codon recognition has been shown to induce coupled conformational changes of both aa-tRNA (ref. 6) and EF-Tu (ref. 7). The conformational signal may be transmitted from the 30S to the 50S subunit by changing the structure and/or contacts of intersubunit bridges connecting the two subunits8 and/or through the aa-tRNA, because intact tRNA is required for GTPase activation9. Ribosomal residues involved in GTPase activation of EF-Tu include protein L7/12, as well as other structural elements of the 50S subunit10.

Nature Structural Biology  9, 849 - 854 (2002)
Published online: 15 October 2002; | doi:10.1038/nsb859
Ribosome interactions of aminoacyl-tRNA and elongation factor Tu in the codon-recognition complex
Holger Stark1, Marina V. Rodnina2, Hans-Joachim Wieden2, Friedrich Zemlin3, Wolfgang Wintermeyer4 & Marin van Heel5


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:55 PM on September 17, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks Apoapsis!  That explanation is as clear as mud!  :0)

This brings up a really good point.  Some of the questions brought up require advance knowledge to answer that most of us don't have.  And exploring the immense body of evidence that supports evolution encompasses many fields of science - from biology to geology to chemistry to physics.  Not to mention the more specialized subfields like anatomy and paleontology, etc.

This leads to a very lopsided and uneven knowledge base that evolutionist have to cover compared with creationists.  Creationists are mainly restricted to a 'God did it' answer, and they're done.  (yeah, I can just hear the howls of protests).  

It seems to me that if Creationists want to play the game in a serious manner, they will need to be willing to do some of the footwork that evolutionists put in.  That means putting in some serious effort in understanding the science behind ToE - not just sprouting assertations that have no factual basis - like Lester is in the habit of doing.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:32 PM on September 17, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 1:32 PM on September 17, 2009 :
This brings up a really good point.  Some of the questions brought up require advance knowledge to answer that most of us don't have.  And exploring the immense body of evidence that supports evolution encompasses many fields of science - from biology to geology to chemistry to physics.  Not to mention the more specialized subfields like anatomy and paleontology, etc.

This leads to a very lopsided and uneven knowledge base that evolutionist have to cover compared with creationists.  Creationists are mainly restricted to a 'God did it' answer, and they're done.  (yeah, I can just hear the howls of protests).  

It seems to me that if Creationists want to play the game in a serious manner, they will need to be willing to do some of the footwork that evolutionists put in.  That means putting in some serious effort in understanding the science behind ToE - not just sprouting assertations that have no factual basis - like Lester is in the habit of doing.



I would say that that is exactly what the majority of creationists do.  They 'demand' that we answer [insert off the wall specific question here] and if we don't, they proclaim evolution false.  On the other hand, if you DO answer [insert off the wall specific question here], you get one or more of the following:
1. accusatins of arrogance*
2. accusations of arguing from authority*
3. accusations of obfuscation**
4. dismissal of the answer followed by additional questions that must also be answered
5. and so on

Of course, it is pretty clear that even if you do answer the questions asked, the person asking more often than not lacks the ability to understand the question they asked, much less your answer.  Many creationists simply glean 'tough questions evos can't answer' from various books or websites and regurgitate them, expecting to 'stump' the evo, or they will present a question or claim from a YEC book or website written by a creation/ID 'scientist' that sounded impressive to them, expecting nobody to be able to rebut it, and when they do, they simply defer to their creationist source as the expert.***

Lok at who you mentioned - Lester.  I've (and others as well) addressed his claims directly and repeatedly, yet he simply insists that he is right.  He just doesn't know that he is wrong because he lacks to relevant knowledge base.  And when this is pointed out, accusations of rudeness, arrogance, elitism, etc. are the rule of the day...

*This actually happened to me on the ARN board about 8 years ago - a creationist presented a 'challenge', I answered.  he accused me of not knowing what I was talking about.  I presented my credentials, he then protested that I was just trying to 'argue from authority.'


**This usually happens when you use field-appropriate terminolgy.

***This is happening on the TalkRational board right now - Dave Hawkins, YEC, recently read a book by a creationist geneticist, and even though he has admitted that he does nto understand the science, when people explain his geneticist hero's claims are in error, he dismisses them with retorts along the lines of 'I'll go with the geneticist' or 'I've got a geneticist on my side'.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:18 PM on September 17, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 1:32 PM on September 17, 2009 :
Thanks Apoapsis!  That explanation is as clear as mud!  :0)


What I get out of is is basically that when the anticodon on the tRNA matches the receptor, it's like snapping a mousetrap to make the peptide bond to add the amino acid to the chain.  The large molecules warp as the reaction takes place.  If the anticodon doesn't match, it's rejected and bounces away.

(Memories of freshman Zoology jokes: "Put your codon, it's cold outside.)


(Edited by Apoapsis 9/18/2009 at 11:12 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:54 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.