Home » Biomimicry, Engineering, News » Mechanical gear found in living organism — Behe’s IC still a challenge for Darwinism

Mechanical gear found in living organism — Behe’s IC still a challenge for Darwinism

First gear discovered

insect gear

With two diminutive legs locked into a leap-ready position, the tiny jumper bends its body taut like an archer drawing a bow. At the top of its legs, a minuscule pair of gears engage—their strange, shark-fin teeth interlocking cleanly like a zipper. And then, faster than you can blink, think, or see with the naked eye, the entire thing is gone. In 2 milliseconds it has bulleted skyward, accelerating at nearly 400 g’s—a rate more than 20 times what a human body can withstand. At top speed the jumper breaks 8 mph—quite a feat considering its body is less than one-tenth of an inch long.

This miniature marvel is an adolescent issus, a kind of planthopper insect and one of the fastest accelerators in the animal kingdom. As a duo of researchers in the U.K. report today in the journal Science, the issus also the first living creature ever discovered to sport a functioning gear.

Read more: The First Gear Discovered in Nature – Popular Mechanics
Follow us: @PopMech on Twitter | popularmechanics on Facebook
Visit us at PopularMechanics.com

How does selection arrive at such coordination? What good is one gear without the corresponding gear? The challenge of IC for Darwinism remains.

HT: friend from e-mail

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

75 Responses to Mechanical gear found in living organism — Behe’s IC still a challenge for Darwinism

  1. Once again, the more we discover about biology, the more the evidence points to a designer. ;-)

  2. You see , it all starts with the first primitive cog, which was probably a vestigial tooth…

    :-P

  3. …or maybe not.

    BTW: I think there is one other gear that has been found in life. So, the source for this article might actually be one off.

  4. “A nano-gear in a nano-motor inside you”

    http://phys.org/news/2013-01-n.....motor.html

  5. “Paley’s Watch Found in Bacteria”
    http://creationsafaris.com/cre.....#20081031a

    “Rotary Clock Discovered in Bacteria”
    http://creationsafaris.com/crev200505.htm#cell237

    “Peering Into Paley’s Black Box: The Gears of the Biological Clock”
    http://creationsafaris.com/crev200409.htm#cell209

  6. IC is not a challenge and it never was. Who are you guys kidding?

  7. IC is not a challenge and it never was. Who are you guys kidding?

    Darwinism is a metaphysical myth, not science. Who are you kidding?

  8. Sal.

    Off topic… look here… this will probably pop up in Darwin’s Doubt discussions soon. Forward to Meyer. Will be interesting to hear him respond:

    http://www.sciencerecorder.com.....evolution/

  9. Of related note:

    Evolution vs. The Honey Bee – an Architectural Marvel – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4181791

  10. AVS:

    IC is not a challenge and it never was.

    Right, because people like you just handwave it away. You sure as hell don’t have any evidence that unguided processes can construct a multi-protein complex.

  11. AVS:

    Typical ideological dismissal, sorry you don’t get to play the default game, as every tub must stand on its own bottom.

    A gear actually aptly illustrates the FIVE challenges an IC object poses for the darwinist gradualist claim, as there is a requirement of meshing and tooth-strength with axes that have to be carefully o-ordinated as well. Just ask anyone who has had to design and machine a set of gears.

    Let’s list these challenges C1 – 5, from Menuge:

    For a working [bacterial] flagellum to be built by exaptation, the five following conditions would all have to be met:

    C1: Availability. Among the parts available for recruitment to form the flagellum, there would need to be ones capable of performing the highly specialized tasks of paddle, rotor, and motor, even though all of these items serve some other function or no function.

    C2: Synchronization. The availability of these parts would have to be synchronized so that at some point, either individually or in combination, they are all available at the same time.

    C3: Localization. The selected parts must all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed.

    C4: Coordination. The parts must be coordinated in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a flagellum are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant.

    C5: Interface compatibility. The parts must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if a paddle, rotor, and motor are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly.

    ( Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science, pgs. 104-105 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). HT: ENV.)

    (Cf. more at 101 level here, not that I expect much from a side of discussion that has a tendency to argue in circles, assume default, spin just so stories not backed up by adequate empirical evidence but driven by the presuppositions of evolutionary materialist ideology and then pin any slightest thing that can be seen as confirmatory to the eye of Darwinist faith — as in massive confirmation bias, deny or dismiss actual self evident truths [e.g. first principles of right reason] — not realising that this alone exposes utter irrationality, and pretend that it does not need to actually show per observation that its claimed dynamics have the powers claimed.

    By sharp contrast, IC systems are a subset of FSCO/I and we have billions of cases worth of evidence that FSCO/I has only been observed to come from design. Where also the implications of needing multiple well matched parts locks us down to isolated clusters of configs in a space of possibilities that overwhelms the blind search capacity of the solar system or observed cosmos. So, we have every good reason to see that irreducibly complex systems, among other cases of FSCO/I, strongly point to design as empirically warranted best causal explanation.

    KF

  12. 13

    Thanks, Sal, for the picture and link. Maybe this picture should be included at the top of the UD page, along side the flagellum picture.

  13. I don’t see anything irreducibly complex about this, although it is certainly wonderful.

  14. Lizzie:
    I don’t see anything irreducibly complex about this, …

    Of course you don’t.

    Do you think that gears could work without teeth and groves?

  15. Thanks, Sal, for the picture and link. Maybe this picture should be included at the top of the UD page, along side the flagellum picture.

    You’re welcome. Nice to hear from you!

  16. Joe: sure they could, and can. Actual teeth help, but all you need is friction.

    And as here, the gear ratio is 1:1, and we have hox genes for bilateral symmetry, there’s a fairly clear incremental path to gears.

    It’s a heck of a lot less of a challenge than the bacterial flagellum.

  17. Lizzie:

    sure they could, and can. Actual teeth help, but all you need is friction.

    And if you don’t have the friction you lose. Also unguided evolution cannot account for HOX genes. Once again you count on something your position cannot explain.

  18. Boys, why this amazement for these biological gears? What’s the problem for evolution. The Dawkins’ “blind watchmaker”, able to get ameba from mud and 500 million extremely different species (man included) from ameba, do you think has problems to create gears?

  19. I do not know if this is IC or not, but I would point out that if you remove one gear, the other gear has no purpose and would be selected against. Were both gears put in place at the same time? If so, that implies aforethought.

  20. Collin, the animal is a bilaterian, so it is very unlikely that one gear would appear before the other. The teeth are on modified “thighs”, and of course they aren’t actually gears – there is no wheel.

    But if friction between enlarged, touching “thighs” in an ancestor helped it escape from predators by jumping more precipitously, then there’d be strong selective pressure for increased friction.

    I’m not saying it isn’t really neat, but I think you have better candidates for IC.

  21. EL: Gears do not have to be full 360 degree arcs. KF

  22. OK, but I don’t think there’s an axle, which is what I meant. An axle would be difficult to evolve, macroscopically anyway. Although ball-and-socket joints come close.

    I think the most interesting thing about it, from an mechanical point of view, is the fact that it couples the two legs so that they are non-independent, yet mobile.

  23. I’ll pull a play out of your book, BA.

    Here’s your IC argument:

    The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity: Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.

    Intelligent Design position statement
    By Michael J. Behe

    Scientists use the term “black box” for a system whose inner workings are unknown. To Charles Darwin and his contemporaries, the living cell was a black box because its fundamental mechanisms were completely obscure. We now know that, far from being formed from a kind of simple, uniform protoplasm (as many nineteenth-century scientists believed), every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.
    How can we decide whether Darwinian natural selection can account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level? Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
    Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications—I call them irreducibly complex. An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can’t catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.
    Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning. The flagella of bacteria are a good example. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. They have a long, whiplike propeller that is rotated by a molecular motor. The propeller is attached to the motor by a universal joint. The motor is held in place by proteins that act as a stator. Other proteins act as bushing material to allow the driveshaft to penetrate the bacterial membrane. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell.
    Another example of irreducible complexity is the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments. In the eukaryotic cell there are a number of places where specialized tasks, such as digestion of nutrients and excretion of wastes, take place. Proteins are synthesized outside these compartments and can reach their proper destinations only with the help of “signal” chemicals that turn other reactions on and off at the appropriate times. This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down. Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot.
    Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed.
    I am hopeful that the scientific community will eventually admit the possibility of intelligent design, even if that acceptance is discreet and muted. My reason for optimism is the advance of science itself, which almost every day uncovers new intricacies in nature, fresh reasons for recognizing the design inherent in life and the universe.

    And here’s why it’s wrong:

    The Flaw in the Mousetrap: Intelligent design fails the biochemistry test.
    Evolution response to Michael J. Behe
    By Kenneth R. Miller
    To understand why the scientific community has been unimpressed by attempts to resurrect the so-called argument from design, one need look no further than Michael J. Behe’s own essay. He argues that complex biochemical systems could not possibly have been produced by evolution because they possess a quality he calls irreducible complexity. Just like mousetraps, these systems cannot function unless each of their parts is in place. Since “natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working,” there is no way that Darwinian mechanisms could have fashioned the complex systems found in living cells. And if such systems could not have evolved, they must have been designed. That is the totality of the biochemical “evidence” for intelligent design.
    Ironically, Behe’s own example, the mousetrap, shows what’s wrong with this idea. Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar), and you may not have a mousetrap but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring, and you have a two-part key chain. The catch of some mousetraps could be used as a fishhook, and the wooden base as a paperweight; useful applications of other parts include everything from toothpicks to nutcrackers and clipboard holders. The point, which science has long understood, is that bits and pieces of supposedly irreducibly complex machines may have different — but still useful — functions.
    Behe’s contention that each and every piece of a machine, mechanical or biochemical, must be assembled in its final form before anything useful can emerge is just plain wrong. Evolution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins previously used for other functions. Looking for examples? The systems in Behe’s essay will do just fine.
    He writes that in the absence of “almost any” of its parts, the bacterial flagellum “does not work.” But guess what? A small group of proteins from the flagellum does work without the rest of the machine — it’s used by many bacteria as a device for injecting poisons into other cells. Although the function performed by this small part when working alone is different, it nonetheless can be favored by natural selection.
    The key proteins that clot blood fit this pattern, too. They’re actually modified versions of proteins used in the digestive system. The elegant work of Russell Doolittle has shown how evolution duplicated, retargeted, and modified these proteins to produce the vertebrate blood-clotting system.
    And Behe may throw up his hands and say that he cannot imagine how the components that move proteins between subcellular compartments could have evolved, but scientists actually working on such systems completely disagree. In a 1998 article in the journal Cell, a group led by James Rothman, of the Sloan-Kettering Institute, described the remarkable simplicity and uniformity of these mechanisms. They also noted that these mechanisms “suggest in a natural way how the many and diverse compartments in eukaryotic cells could have evolved in the first place.” Working researchers, it seems, see something very different from what Behe sees in these systems — they see evolution.
    If Behe wishes to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with a divine intelligence, his point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share. However, to support that view, one should not find it necessary to pretend that we know less than we really do about the evolution of living systems. In the final analysis, the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons — because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence.

  24. OOOH Goody Mr. Ken ‘the tie-clip’ Miller’s refutation of IC:

    Ken Miller’s Embarrassingly Bad Argument Against ID – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeGobRxLrN4

    as to the IC of Blood Clotting, that fiasco was perhaps just as, if not more, embarrassing as the Miller ‘tie-clip’ was for Darwinists:

    Dr. Behe, at the 2:22:25 hour and minute mark of the following video, gets into some of the interesting technical details of his defense of Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting cascade from some high level criticisms against his claim in which his critics end up providing the very evidence needed to refute them:

    Intelligent Design – Michael Behe – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4dpVpS38Cc

    ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’
    Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
    *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

    Michael Behe – No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/

  25. The insect molts about six times forming larger legs and gears with each molt. The final molt produces a gear-less form which works fine serving this insect well throughout its adult life.

    Evolution would have first produced friction driven types which molt about six times and with each molt making larger leg parts.

    Why would selection favor gear forming mutations in the adolescent forms when the final adult friction driven form functions well enough that gear forming mutations were not selected for ???

  26. OHHHHH yes youtube…the ID movement’s favorite media source. So is Miller’s refutation incorrect in any way? No, it’s not. You guys just love to brush it off because there’s a youtube video titled “Ken Miller’s Embarrassingly Bad Argument Against ID.”
    Should I point you to, Ray “the banana man” Comfort’s video where he disproves evolution with a banana?
    You guys are a joke.

  27. Farmer, selection would favor gears as they are better at producing the necessary force. If you had read the whole article you would then understand that having gears is dangerous, as a broken gear after the last molt would stick with the organism for the rest of its life. Therefore, selection would favor organisms who up-regulated the formation of these structures in adolescence, and then down-regulated their formation in adulthood.

  28. What is truly a sad joke Mr. AVS is that you actually think that just because you can imagine a pathway to the formation of IC system, no matter how remote or fuzzy the pathway may be in your imagination, that you have scientifically proven to us that such a IC system can be had in whatever manner you may have imagined. That IS NOT science! That is unsubstantiated conjecture parading as hard science! To actually ‘scientifically’ prove that the Bacterial Flagellum can arise from the T3SS, instead of putting a tie-clip on and holding a press conference and announcing to the world that you have proven that it can happen is such fashion, you would have to, so as to actually be ‘scientific’, actually go into the lab and actually evolve a Flagellum from a T3SS. Good luck with that whole endeavor Mr. AVS:

    “One fact in favour of the flagellum-first view is that bacteria would have needed propulsion before they needed T3SSs, which are used to attack cells that evolved later than bacteria. Also, flagella are found in a more diverse range of bacterial species than T3SSs. ‘The most parsimonious explanation is that the T3SS arose later,”
    Howard Ochman – Biochemist – New Scientist (Feb 16, 2008)

    The Non-Flagellar Type III Secretion System Evolved from the Bacterial Flagellum and Diversified into Host-Cell Adapted Systems – September 2012 – Institut Pasteur, Paris, France
    http://www.plosgenetics.org/ar.....en.1002983

    Genetic Entropy Refutation of Nick Matzke’s TTSS (type III secretion system) to Flagellum Evolutionary Narrative:
    Excerpt: Comparative genomic analysis show that flagellar genes have been differentially lost in endosymbiotic bacteria of insects. Only proteins involved in protein export within the flagella assembly pathway (type III secretion system and the basal-body) have been kept…
    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/.....t/msn153v1

    The Bacterial Flagellum: A Paradigm for Design – Jonathan M. – Sept. 2012
    Excerpt: Indeed, so striking is the appearance of intelligent design that researchers have modelled the assembly process (of the bacterial flagellum) in view of finding inspiration for enhancing industrial operations (McAuley et al.). Not only does the flagellum manifestly exhibit engineering principles, but the engineering involved is far superior to humanity’s best achievements. The flagellum exhibits irreducible complexity in spades. In all of our experience of cause-and-effect, we know that phenomena of this kind are uniformly associated with only one type of cause – one category of explanation – and that is intelligent mind. Intelligent design succeeds at precisely the point at which evolutionary explanations break down.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/1067.....-Flagellum

    Bacterial Flagellum – A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994630

    Electron Microscope Photograph of Flagellum Hook-Basal Body
    http://www.skeptic.com/eskepti.....gure03.jpg

    Bacterial Flagellum: Visualizing the Complete Machine In Situ
    Excerpt: Electron tomography of frozen-hydrated bacteria, combined with single particle averaging, has produced stunning images of the intact bacterial flagellum, revealing features of the rotor, stator and export apparatus.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s.....220602286X

    Souped-Up Hyper-Drive Flagellum Discovered – December 3, 2012
    Excerpt: Get a load of this — a bacterium that packs a gear-driven, seven-engine, magnetic-guided flagellar bundle that gets 0 to 300 micrometers in one second, ten times faster than E. coli.
    If you thought the standard bacterial flagellum made the case for intelligent design, wait till you hear the specs on MO-1,,,
    Harvard’s mastermind of flagellum reverse engineering, this paper describes the Ferrari of flagella.
    “Instead of being a simple helically wound propeller driven by a rotary motor, it is a complex organelle consisting of 7 flagella and 24 fibrils that form a tight bundle enveloped by a glycoprotein sheath…. the flagella of MO-1 must rotate individually, and yet the entire bundle functions as a unit to comprise a motility organelle.”
    To feel the Wow! factor, jump ahead to Figure 6 in the paper. It shows seven engines in one, arranged in a hexagonal array, stylized by the authors in a cross-sectional model that shows them all as gears interacting with 24 smaller gears between them. The flagella rotate one way, and the smaller gears rotate the opposite way to maximize torque while minimizing friction. Download the movie from the Supplemental Information page to see the gears in action.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66921.html

    Of note: I certainly don’t mind a bit of imagination in science, especially in hypothesis formation, but completely unrestrained imagination has no place in science!

  29. I’m not trying to imagine the pathway of anything right now, just trying to point out the basic concepts that your IC idea overlooks.

  30. “Intelligent design succeeds at precisely the point at which evolutionary explanations break down.”

    Doesnt get any more “god of the gaps” than that.

  31. Randomness of the Gaps
    “In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
    This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” A faith that fills the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the organism with a potent meaninglessness capable of transforming everything else into an illusion is a faith that could benefit from some minimal grounding. Otherwise, we can hardly avoid suspecting that the importance of randomness in the minds of the faithful is due to its being the only presumed scrap of a weapon in a compulsive struggle to deny all the obvious meaning of our lives.”
    Stephen L. Talbott

    Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show – John Lennox – 2012
    Excerpt: Krauss does not seem to realize that his concept of God is one that no intelligent monotheist would accept. His “God” is the soft-target “God of the gaps” of the “I can’t understand it, therefore God did it” variety. As a result, Krauss, like Dawkins and Hawking, regards God as an explanation in competition with scientific explanation. That is as wrong-headed as thinking that an explanation of a Ford car in terms of Henry Ford as inventor and designer competes with an explanation in terms of mechanism and law. God is not a “God of the gaps”, he is God of the whole show.
    http://www.christianpost.com/n.....how-80307/

    Phillip Johnson addresses the ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....Xo#t=2329s

    Atheism of the GAP – Moshe Averick – August 21, 2013
    http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/atheism-of-the-gap/

    Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA – video
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....40361.html

  32. That’s lovely BA, but does that quote not make the phrase “god of the gaps” come to mind?

    Anyways as far as “Here something random occurs,” at least this random event is a well documented and understood event, in comparison to “here is where an intelligent designer had a breakthrough in his design plans.”

  33. Of note: the 38:50 minute mark of his lecture is where Phillip Johnson addresses the ‘God of the gaps’ fallacy

  34. Actually AVS, contrary to your confident claim that randomness is a well understood process that is ‘well documented’, that is precisely the point under disagreement, no one has a clue how ‘random’ processes can build unfathomably complex systems, They merely assert it happened randomly with never a demonstration that it can happen randomly. In fact, in so far as I can trace out what will happen with the random entropic processes of the universe, I find that these ‘random’ entropic processes will always destroy functional information rather than ever building it up. Perhaps you would like to prove me wrong and to be the first Darwinist on UD to ever demonstrate that the purely ‘random’ material processes can generate enough functional information for a single protein? Myself, and quite a few others on UD, would love to see you do this. We could all then wrap up shop, declare the whole matter settled, and all go on to other things.

  35. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I said the random event itself is well-documented, and we have a good amount of literature on the subject, just read up on mutations. Also, I never mentioned entropy, why are you inserting it onto the end of random?
    You want an example of randomness producing a functional protein? Well protein lattices with catalytic activity have been produced simply by dripping amino acids onto hot sand.
    The more you know.

  36. AVS @ 28

    Could you answer one question for me….

    What kind of environment (or external conditions) would require that the adolescent form jumps better than the adult form in order for an individual insect to survive ?

    …. It seems like this insect needs to jump faster and farther to survive as an adolescent …. but does not need to jump faster and farther to survive as an adult. Why ?

  37. I’m happy to accept that definition, Mung, which this feature satisfies. It’s very cool.

  38. EL: Axles do not gave to be obvious, once transmission of torque [twisting or turning effect] using teeth to reduce slip is acting, we have gears. Pitch has to match, shapes have to be consistent [there are complexities, e.g. helical gears as are common in spinning reels] as do axes and directions of rotation. Materials have to be adequate also — or gears strip under load. Many other subtle facets are at work. It is quite blatant that this is indeed a case of gears, similar to how there are known to be rotating motors in cells, and more. KF

  39. Mung, in systems of gears, there can also be linear ones — and various shapes, e,g. the famous humped ramp rear sight on the old SMLE 0.303 rifle used to adjust aim out to a nominal 1800 yd, IIRC. [And there were volley sights to a much longer range up to c 1916.] But in a system of gears, invariably in my observation, there will be rotating elements, at least in an arc. KF

  40. Mung @ 37

    As Elizabeth stated @ 17 …. the gears are a 1:1 ratio which means the the same individual teeth or cogs on one gear will always mesh with the same individual teeth or cogs on the other gear.

    A 1:1 ratio is a special condition which can permit some variation in tooth width and distance between teeth (pitch). The important issue in 1:1 gearing is that both gears are symmetrical. Gear ratios other than 1:1 require constant pitch and all teeth matching in size and symmetry.

    In the future it will be interesting to discover how the organism forms these symmetrical gears !!! …. and then molts to form larger ones.

  41. AVS: What is required to be shown is that by blind chance and mechanical necessity in a warm little pond or the like, physics and chemistry led to cell based life, on observationally grounded evidence. Secondly, that on chance driven variations and differential reproductive success, we — per observed capacity — get novel body plans requiring 10 – 100+ mn bits of novel genetic info to account for cell types, tissues, organs and organisation. All consistent with some well warranted version of the tree of life iconic model. KF

  42. Well, both are true here. It is a part, and serves a purpose.

    It’s just not IC. It would work with smaller, or no, teeth.

    You have better examples of IC structures.

  43. AVS claims:

    I said the random event itself is well-documented, and we have a good amount of literature on the subject, just read up on mutations.

    Okie Dokie:

    “But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information… All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.”
    Lee Spetner – Ph.D. Physics – MIT – Not By Chance

    Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013
    Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11].
    1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696.
    2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19.
    3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358.
    4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144.
    5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47.
    6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117.
    8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526.
    9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685.
    10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079.
    11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006

    Mutations: Enemies of Evolution with Geneticist Dr John Sanford – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfCETJ_PI1s

    Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57
    By John C. Avise
    Excerpt: “Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.”
    http://books.google.com/books?.....38;f=false

    Evolution vs. Genetic Entropy – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086

    Mutations and Darwinism – Dr Jerry Bergman – June 2013 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfgiAWBluxE

    etc.. etc.. etc..

    Moreover, it turns out that the vast majority of mutations to the genome are not truly random, but are directed,,,

    Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century – James A. Shapiro – 2009
    Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
    http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed.....0Dogma.pdf

    Also of interest from the preceding paper, on page 22, is a simplified list of the ‘epigentic’ information flow in the cell that directly contradicts what was expected from the central dogma (Genetic Reductionism/modern synthesis model) of neo-Darwinism.

    New Research Elucidates Directed Mutation Mechanisms – Cornelius Hunter – January 7, 2013
    Excerpt: mutations don’t occur randomly in the genome, but rather in the genes where they can help to address the challenge. But there is more. The gene’s single stranded DNA has certain coils and loops which expose only some of the gene’s nucleotides to mutation. So not only are certain genes targeted for mutation, but certain nucleotides within those genes are targeted in what is referred to as directed mutations.,,,
    These findings contradict evolution’s prediction that mutations are random with respect to need and sometimes just happen to occur in the right place at the right time.,,,
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ected.html

    How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome – James A. Shapiro – 2013
    Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs).
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s.....4513000869

    Shapiro on Random Mutation:
    “What I ask others interested in evolution to give up is the notion of random accidental mutation.”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....11144.html

  44. AVS asked:

    Also, I never mentioned entropy, why are you inserting it onto the end of random?

    Because Mr. AVS entropy is, in large measure, synonymous with the word random.

    Entropy
    Excerpt: It is often said that entropy is an expression of the disorder, or randomness of a system, or of our lack of information about it (which on some views of probability, amounts to the same thing as randomness).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

    In fact, if one wants to build a better random number generator for a computer program then a better source of entropy is required to be found to drive the increased randomness for the computer program:

    Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator
    Excerpt: From an information theoretic point of view, the amount of randomness, the entropy that can be generated is equal to the entropy provided by the system. But sometimes, in practical situations, more random numbers are needed than there is entropy available.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C....._generator

    Also of note, it is interesting to note that Ludwig Boltzmann, an atheist, when he linked entropy and probability, did not, as Max Planck a Christian Theist points out in the following link, think to look for a constant to entropy:

    The Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann first linked entropy and probability in 1877. However, the equation as shown, involving a specific constant, was first written down by Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics in 1900. In his 1918 Nobel Prize lecture, Planck said: “This constant is often referred to as Boltzmann’s constant, although, to my knowledge, Boltzmann himself never introduced it – a peculiar state of affairs, which can be explained by the fact that Boltzmann, as appears from his occasional utterances, never gave thought to the possibility of carrying out an exact measurement of the constant.”
    http://www.daviddarling.info/e.....ation.html

    I hold that the primary reason why Boltzmann, an atheist, never thought to carry out, or even propose, a precise measurement for the constant on entropy is that he, as an atheist, had thought he had arrived at the ultimate explanation for how everything in the universe operates when he had link probability with entropy. i.e. In linking entropy with probability, Boltzmann, again an atheist, thought he had explained everything that happens in the universe to a ‘random’ chance basis. To him, as an atheist, it would have simply been unfathomable that the ‘random chance’ (probabilistic) events of entropy in the universe should ever be constrained by a constant that would limit the what entropy could do in the universe. Whereas to the Christian Theist such as Max Planck, it is expected that even the seemingly random chance events of entropy in the universe will be bounded by a constant, i.e. that even ‘randomness’ would be under God’s dominion!:

    Romans 8:20-21
    For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

    Also of note to the pervasive explanatory power of entropy:

    Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012
    Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,,
    Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,,
    The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,,
    http://crev.info/2012/10/shini.....rk-energy/

    Moreover,,

    “Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? …. The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental…”
    Tom Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90 – Quotes attributed to Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin in the article

    Well is there ‘a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information?’ Yes! After years of trying to empirically establish a direct connection between the information inherent within the cell and the irreversible thermodynamic processes of the universe, a direct connection has finally been made,,

    Maxwell’s demon demonstration turns information into energy – November 2010
    Excerpt: Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....nergy.html

    Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010
    Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski.
    http://www.scientificamerican......rts-inform

    Now, finally having a empirically demonstrated direct connection between entropy and the information inherent within a cell is extremely problematic for Darwinists because it brings the point home, scientifically, that the purely entropic, irreversible, processes of the universe are found to much more likely to deteriorate the functional information inherent within the cell rather than ever create it,,,

    “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.”
    Gilbert Newton Lewis – preeminent Chemist of the first half of last century

    “Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.”
    Charles J. Smith – Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.

    Thus, Darwinists are found to be postulating that ‘random’ entropic events, which consistently destroy information, are what are creating information within the cell. ,,, It is the equivalent in science of someone (in this case a ‘consensus of scientists’) claiming that Gravity makes things fall up instead of down, and that is not overstating the bizarre situation we find ourselves in in the least.

    Verses and Music

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

    Hillsong – Mighty to Save – With Subtitles/Lyrics
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-08YZF87OBQ

    Also see Penrose’s initial entropy for the universe and Quantum Zeno Effect.

    How special was the big bang? – Roger Penrose
    Excerpt: This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123, i.e. initial entropy of the universe.
    (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989)

    The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose
    Excerpt: “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).”
    http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20I.....enrose.pdf

    Quantum Zeno effect
    Excerpt: The quantum Zeno effect is,,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-445840

    But why should the random entropic events of the universe care if and when I decide to observe a particle if, as Darwinists hold, I’m suppose to be the result of the random entropic events of the universe in the first place?

  45. AVS claims:

    You want an example of randomness producing a functional protein? Well protein lattices with catalytic activity have been produced simply by dripping amino acids onto hot sand.

    Yet:

    Heat is another way to join monomers into polymers. Scientists have shown that when organic monomers (like amino acids) are heated and splashed onto hot sand or rocks, the heat vaporizes the water and links the monomers into polymers – which scientists call ‘proteinoids’.
    http://www.biology.iupui.edu/b.....8life.html

    pro·tein·oid
    A proteinlike polypeptide formed abiotically from amino acid mixtures in the presence of heat, thought to resemble early evolutionary forms of protein.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proteinoid

    I guess when you are a Darwinist disingenuously claiming that ‘proteinoids’ are not really proteinoids at all but are fully functional proteins is just par for the course?

    Perhaps you should read Signature in the Cell so as to get a small glimpse as to how difficult the origin of life problem is for atheistic materialists?

    Signature In The Cell – Stephen Meyer – e-book
    http://intelligentdesignscienc.....e-cell.pdf

    Of supplemental note:

    Nick Lane Takes on the Origin of Life and DNA – Jonathan McLatchie – July 2010
    Excerpt: numerous problems abound for the hydrothermal vent hypothesis for the origin of life,,,, For example, as Stanley Miller has pointed out, the polymers are “too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment.” Miller has also noted that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water when the water boils. Intense heating also has the tendency to degrade amino acids such as serine and threonine. A more damning problem lies in the fact that the homochirality of the amino acids is destroyed by heating.
    Of course, accounting for the required building blocks is an interesting problem, but from the vantage of ID proponents, it is only one of many problems facing materialistic accounts of the origin of life. After all, it is the sequential arrangement of the chemical constituents — whether that happens to be amino acids in proteins, or nucleotides in DNA or RNA — to form complex specified information (a process which requires the production of specified irregularity), which compellingly points toward the activity of rational deliberation (Intelligence).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....36101.html

    Origin-of-Life Theorists Fail to Explain Chemical Signatures in the Cell – Casey Luskin – February 15, 2012
    Excerpt: (Nick) Lane also notes that the study has a significant conceptual flaw. “To suggest that the ionic composition of primordial cells should reflect the composition of the oceans is to suggest that cells are in equilibrium with their medium, which is close to saying that they are not alive,” Lane says. “Cells require dynamic disequilibrium — that is what being alive is all about.”,,, Our uniform experience affirms that specified information-whether inscribed hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment-always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.
    (Stephen Meyer – Signature in the Cell, p. 347)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....56391.html

    “Shut up,” Coyne Explained – January 2012
    Excerpt: Coyne writes that Kuhn’s criticisms of current origin-of-life research are “absurdly funny” — even though such research (into the origin of life) has not led to the abiotic formation of a single functional protein, much less a living cell.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....55421.html

    A Substantial Conundrum Confronting The Chemical Origin Of Life – August 2011
    Excerpt: 1. Peptide bond formation is an endothermic reaction. This means that the reaction requires the absorption of energy: It does not take place spontaneously.
    2. Peptide bond formation is a condensation reaction. It hence involves the net removal of a water molecule. So not only can this reaction not happen spontaneously in an aqueous medium, but, in fact, the presence of water inhibits the reaction.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....n-of-life/

    To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU)

    of note from yesterday:

    New findings challenge assumptions about origins of life – September 13, 2013
    Excerpt: This finding led to the “RNA World” hypothesis, which posits that RNA alone triggered the rise of (the first biological) life from a (primordial) sea of molecules.
    But for the hypothesis to be correct, ancient RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes. That’s a hard sell; scientists calculate that it would take much longer than the age of the universe for randomly generated RNA molecules to evolve sufficiently to achieve the modern level of sophistication. Given Earth’s age of 4.5 billion years, living systems run entirely by RNA could not have reproduced and evolved either fast or accurately enough to give rise to the vast biological complexity on Earth today.
    “The RNA world hypothesis is extremely unlikely,” said Carter. “It would take forever.”
    Moreover, there’s no proof that such ribozymes even existed billions of years ago. To buttress the RNA World hypothesis, scientists use 21st century technology to create ribozymes that serve as catalysts. “But most of those synthetic ribozymes,” Carter said, “bear little resemblance to anything anyone has ever isolated from a living system.”,,,
    The (current) study leaves open the question of exactly how those primitive systems managed to replicate themselves—something neither the RNA World hypothesis nor the Peptide-RNA World theory can yet explain.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-09-assumptions-life.html

  46. Proteinoids have demonstrated catalytic activity, therefore they are fully functioning proteins. You do know that of the many proteins in any given cell, the majority of them function by catalyzing a single specific reaction right?

  47. AVS @ 49: Protenoids are not fully functioning proteins, as you claim. Here are some differences:

    1. Proteinoids do not have anything coding their sequences, and the amino acids bond together randomly.
    2. Proteinoids do not fold into a predictable three-dimensional conformation (since their sequences are not deterministic, for example).
    3. Proteinoids contain both left- and right-handed amino acids in equal amounts, and even if the experiment begins will all left-handed amino acids, some are converted to the other form.
    4. The amino acids in proteinoids are not all bonded together by alpha bonds: the amino acid chain in proteinoids is branched and “kinked” instead of being linear (due to incorrect bonding, for example, involving side groups).
    5. Proteinoids have bonds other than peptide bonds joining their amino acids. Some of the starting amino acids are converted into pigments, which are incorporated into the proteinoid.

    These scientists also noted a distinct difference between proteinoids and proteins:

    “To this product Fox gave the name proteinoid, a cautious choice since proteinoids are far from having the regular chainlike structure of peptides.” (Christian de Duve, Vital Dust:Life as a Cosmic Imperative, Basic Books, 1995, p29)

    “The products obtained were not natural proteins, however, even though they were made from amino acids. The special amino acids mentioned above contained either an extra amino or an extra acid group. In normal proteins, these extra groups do not take part in chain formation, but this had occurred in the heating process. Unnatural chains, even branched chains, had been produced. Further, some of the amino acids had been converted into their mirror-image forms, so both types were present. Others had been converted to colored substances, pigments, which were also built into the chains. The term proteinoid rather than protein was applied to the product, because of these features which distinguished it from anything present in earthly biology.” (Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Robert Shapiro, Bantam Books, 1987, p193-194)

    “Studies using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) have shown that thermal proteinoids “have scarce resemblance to natural peptidic material because [beta], [gamma], and [epsilon] bonds largely predominate over [alpha]-peptide bonds.” (Charles B. Thaxton [Ph.D. in Chemistry], Walter L. Bradley [Ph.D. in Materials Science], Roger L. Olsen [BS in Chemistry, Ph.D. in Geochemistry], The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley, 1984, p155-156)

    “A third kind of question [concerning proteinoids] was that of crosslinks such as have not been reported for protein. Reactions might be postulated, for example, between side chains of such amino acids as lysine and aspartic acid. Moreover, linkage through the amino groups of some lysine residues has been shown in a number of studies (Harada, 1959; Harada and Fox, 1965a; Suzuki, 1966; Heinrich et al., 1969). (Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose, W. H. Freeman and Co., 1972, p148-149)

    “Fox has produced some quite long peptides, which he terms proteinoids, using this method. Unfortunately, the resemblance between Fox’s proteinoids and real proteins is rather superficial. For example, real proteins are made exclusively of left-handed amino acids (see page 71), whereas proteinoids are an equal mixture of left and right.” (The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life, Paul Davies, Simon & Schuster, NY, 1999, p 90-91)

    “…there is no evidence that proteinoids differ significantly from a random sequence of amino acids, with little or no catalytic activity.” (Charles B. Thaxton [Ph.D. in Chemistry], Walter L. Bradley [Ph.D. in Materials Science], Roger L. Olsen [BS in Chemistry, Ph.D. in Geochemistry], The Mystery of Life¡’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley, 1984, p155-156).

  48. AVS, not to cast doubt on your honesty in your claim that proteinoids “are fully functioning proteins”, but how come the paper at the base of your claim is titled:

    Thermal Copolymerization of Amino Acids to a Product Resembling Protein – S. Fox – November 1958
    http://www.jstor.org/discover/.....id=3739736

    If it is truly a functional protein why didn’t Fox say it was a functional protein instead of saying it was merely ‘a product resembling a protein’.

    And again Fox himself states:

    Proteinoids,,,“Although these polymers have other properties of contemporary protein as well, identity with the latter is not a necessary inference”.[3]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinoid

    Perhaps you also want to now tell Dr. Fox how to identify a functional protein when he sees it?

    Sidney Fox in 1970s coaxed amino acids to condense into “proteinoids”, but this approach has not yielded much beyond that.
    Fazale Rana – Origins Of Life – page 25
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g.....igins.html

    AVS, the formation of functional proteins is far more difficult than you seem to realize:

    Homochirality and Darwin: part 2 – Robert Sheldon – May 2010
    Excerpt: With regard to the deniers who think homochirality is not much of a problem, I only ask whether a solution requiring multiple massive magnetized black-hole supernovae doesn’t imply there is at least a small difficulty to overcome? A difficulty, perhaps, that points to the non-random nature of life in the cosmos?
    http://procrustes.blogtownhall.....rt_2.thtml

    Left-Handed Amino Acids Explained Naturally? Not by a long shot! – January 2010
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20110110a

    In fact, the construction of truly functional proteins, not ‘proteinoids’, by the Ribosome is a wonder to behold.

    Journey Inside The Cell – Stephen Meyer
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg

    The ‘protein factory’ of the ribosome, which is the only known machine in the universe capable of making functional proteins of any significant length, is far more complicated than first thought:

    Honors to Researchers Who Probed Atomic Structure of Ribosomes – Robert F. Service
    Excerpt: “The ribosome’s dance, however, is more like a grand ballet, with dozens of ribosomal proteins and subunits pirouetting with every step while other key biomolecules leap in, carrying other dancers needed to complete the act.”
    http://creationsafaris.com/cre.....#20091010a

    As well, The Ribosome of the cell is found to be very similar to a CPU in a electronic computer:

    Dichotomy in the definition of prescriptive information suggests both prescribed data and prescribed algorithms: biosemiotics applications in genomic systems – 2012
    David J D’Onofrio1*, David L Abel2* and Donald E Johnson3
    Excerpt: The DNA polynucleotide molecule consists of a linear sequence of nucleotides, each representing a biological placeholder of adenine (A), cytosine (C), thymine (T) and guanine (G). This quaternary system is analogous to the base two binary scheme native to computational systems. As such, the polynucleotide sequence represents the lowest level of coded information expressed as a form of machine code. Since machine code (and/or micro code) is the lowest form of compiled computer programs, it represents the most primitive level of programming language.,,,
    An operational analysis of the ribosome has revealed that this molecular machine with all of its parts follows an order of operations to produce a protein product. This order of operations has been detailed in a step-by-step process that has been observed to be self-executable. The ribosome operation has been proposed to be algorithmic (Ralgorithm) because it has been shown to contain a step-by-step process flow allowing for decision control, iterative branching and halting capability. The R-algorithm contains logical structures of linear sequencing, branch and conditional control. All of these features at a minimum meet the definition of an algorithm and when combined with the data from the mRNA, satisfy the rule that Algorithm = data + control. Remembering that mere constraints cannot serve as bona fide formal controls, we therefore conclude that the ribosome is a physical instantiation of an algorithm.,,,
    The correlation between linguistic properties examined and implemented using Automata theory give us a formalistic tool to study the language and grammar of biological systems in a similar manner to how we study computational cybernetic systems. These examples define a dichotomy in the definition of Prescriptive Information. We therefore suggest that the term Prescriptive Information (PI) be subdivided into two categories: 1) Prescriptive data and 2) Prescribed (executing) algorithm.
    It is interesting to note that the CPU of an electronic computer is an instance of a prescriptive algorithm instantiated into an electronic circuit, whereas the software under execution is read and processed by the CPU to prescribe the program’s desired output. Both hardware and software are prescriptive.
    http://www.tbiomed.com/content.....82-9-8.pdf

    LIFE: WHAT A CONCEPT!
    Excerpt: The ribosome,,,, it’s the most complicated thing that is present in all organisms.,,, you find that almost the only thing that’s in common across all organisms is the ribosome.,,, So the question is, how did that thing come to be? And if I were to be an intelligent design defender, that’s what I would focus on; how did the ribosome come to be?
    George Church – Senior Scientist – Wyss Institute
    http://www.edge.org/documents/.....index.html

    So AVS, thus you are found to be wanting for evidence that truly functional proteins, not ‘proteinoids’ can form naturally and you are left with the perplexing dilemma of explaining why if proteins are supposedly so easy to form naturally as you hold then why in the world does the ribosome have to be so fantastically complex in its construction?

  49. Why thank you Barb. That was just what I was looking for, and there you be. :)

  50. Guys, guys, guys, let me make this really easy so even you can understand:
    Protein enzymes are macromolecular structures built from amino acid monomers that can catalyze chemical reactions.
    Proteinoids fit this definition perfectly.
    Now I realize that proteins and proteinoids are not the same thing, and that is why their is a distinction when talking about them in the literature.
    A proteinoid is a protein, but a protein is not a proteinoid. One is more fine-tuned than the other.

  51. Avs claimed

    proteinoids “are fully functioning proteins”

    and yet;

    “…there is no evidence that proteinoids differ significantly from a random sequence of amino acids, with little or no catalytic activity.” (Charles B. Thaxton [Ph.D. in Chemistry], Walter L. Bradley [Ph.D. in Materials Science], Roger L. Olsen [BS in Chemistry, Ph.D. in Geochemistry], The Mystery of Life¡’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley, 1984, p155-156).

    now AVS says:

    A proteinoid is a protein, but a protein is not a proteinoid. One is more fine-tuned than the other.

    And a finely made sweater is more finely-tuned than a tangled ball of yarn! Your point being?

  52. So first, AVS, you put two sentences of ad hominem. Then you paste a rebuttal, that isn’t even yours, that has been refuted before. Then when called on it you commit the fallacy of attacking the source instead of the content of the argument.

    Then, in a nest of supercilious pseudo-intellectual points you land to an embarrassing claim you are now trying to qualify.

    Well done, mate. Now stop embarrassing yourself.

  53. Holy shit, my point is that proteinoids are made up of amino acids and have catalytic activity, therefore they are the simplest form of a functional protein.

    You also quoted a disputed opinion in a piece from 1984.

  54. Thanks for the play-by-play erik, do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation?

  55. AVS, language. KF

  56. AVS, I find you to be dishonest and misleading in your argument. First you claimed that functional proteins could be had simply by dripping amino acids on hot sand. When I looked the article up, which you did not reference by the way, I found that they are not fully functional proteins but are in fact proteinoids. When I pointed this out you stated ‘they (proteinoids) are fully functional proteins’, then when called on it Barbara that they have little in common with ‘fully functional proteins’, you retreat to the logically incoherent position of saying, ‘A proteinoid is a protein, but a protein is not a proteinoid’ all to protect the disingenuous statement that you first had made. Why all the dishonest Mr. AVS. Why not be forthright? What have you to gain by making a fool of yourself like this? Mr. AVS, there is a saying in AA that goes something to the effect ‘if you find yourself in a hole stop digging’. Stop digging Mr. AVS!

  57. I defined a protein catalyst. Proteinoids fit the description of a functioning protein catalyst. Proteinoids may not closely resemble the proteins our body uses today but they are capable of carrying out the same task.
    It’s like your trying to say that the Model T isn’t a car because it doesnt have an automatic transnmission, power-steering, and a moonroof.
    Get real.

  58. Okie Dokie Mr. AVS, let’s ‘get real’! What is your experimental proof that the ‘homochirality problem’ of proteinoids (the problem of having a mixture of left handed and right handed amino acids) can be effectively dealt within any naturalistic scenario so as to get from your tangled cross-linked proteinoid mess to a truly functional protein of only left handed amino acids?

    Homochirality and Darwin: part 2 – Robert Sheldon – May 2010
    Excerpt: With regard to the deniers who think homochirality is not much of a problem, I only ask whether a solution requiring multiple massive magnetized black-hole supernovae doesn’t imply there is at least a small difficulty to overcome? A difficulty, perhaps, that points to the non-random nature of life in the cosmos?
    http://procrustes.blogtownhall.....rt_2.thtml

    The problem of ‘left handed’ homochirality found in the Miller-Urey experiment is certainly of no small concern to any realistic Origin Of Life scenario put forth by evolutionists:

    Dr. Charles Garner on the problem of Chirality in nature and Origin of Life Research – audio
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....1_16-07_00

    Origin Of Life – Problems With Proteins – Homochirality – Charles Thaxton PhD. – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5222490

    Homochirality and Darwin – Robert Sheldon – April 2010
    Excerpt: there is no abiotic path from a racemic solution to a stereo-active solution of amino acid(s) that doesn’t involve a biotic chiral agent, be it chiral beads or Louis Pasteur himself. Like many critiques of ID, the problem with these “Darwinist” solutions is that they always smuggle in some information, in this case, chiral agents.
    http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/page3

    As well there is a ‘optimality’ found for the 20 amino acid set used in the ‘standard’ Genetic code when the set was compared to 1 million randomly generated alternative amino acid sets;

    Does Life Use a Non-Random Set of Amino Acids? – Jonathan M. – April 2011
    Excerpt: The authors compared the coverage of the standard alphabet of 20 amino acids for size, charge, and hydrophobicity with equivalent values calculated for a sample of 1 million alternative sets (each also comprising 20 members) drawn randomly from the pool of 50 plausible prebiotic candidates. The results? The authors noted that: “…the standard alphabet exhibits better coverage (i.e., greater breadth and greater evenness) than any random set for each of size, charge, and hydrophobicity, and for all combinations thereof.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....45661.html

    Extreme genetic code optimality from a molecular dynamics calculation of amino acid polar requirement – 2009
    Excerpt: A molecular dynamics calculation of the amino acid polar requirement is used to score the canonical genetic code. Monte Carlo simulation shows that this computational polar requirement has been optimized by the canonical genetic code, an order of magnitude more than any previously known measure, effectively ruling out a vertical evolution dynamics.
    http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v79/i6/e060901

    The Finely Tuned Genetic Code – Jonathan M. – November 2011
    Excerpt: Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: “why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?,” that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology. – Eugene Koonin and Artem Novozhilov
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....52611.html

    “The more we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes.”
    – Thomas Nagel – “Mind & Cosmos”

    Moreover the first DNA code of life on earth had to be at least as complex as the current optimal DNA code found in life is because of what is termed ‘Shannon Channel Capacity’:

    Shannon Information – Channel Capacity – Perry Marshall – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5457552/

    “Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible”
    Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life

  59. Ah there you go, asking questions you already know there answer to. There is no experimental proof for the generation of homochiral life, but I’m not really sure why it would be a problem for chemical evolution. It was a simple “choice” made by the earliest of organisms who would later give rise to all life today.
    In going along with the proteinoid topic,it could simply have been a proteinoid that catalyzed peptide bond formation only in L-amino acids for example.
    On a side note, I would love to ask your designer why he doesn’t use the D-amino acids. It’s like someone wanted to build a house using only 2x3s or something.
    What do you think?

  60. Mr. AVS you claim:

    “It was a simple “choice” made by the earliest of organisms who would later give rise to all life today.”

    REALLY???

    “Choice” implies a mind, moreover:

    Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? – Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: “There is no doubt that the progenitor of all life on Earth, the common ancestor, possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell.”
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....-rock.html

    In fact we now have evidence for photosynthetic life suddenly appearing on earth, as soon as water appeared on the earth, in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth.

    The Sudden Appearance Of Photosynthetic Life On Earth – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4262918

    U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of +3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis (2003)
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004E&PSL.217..237R

    Moreover, evidence for ‘sulfate reducing’ bacteria has been discovered alongside the evidence for photosynthetic bacteria:

    When Did Life First Appear on Earth? – Fazale Rana – December 2010
    Excerpt: The primary evidence for 3.8 billion-year-old life consists of carbonaceous deposits, such as graphite, found in rock formations in western Greenland. These deposits display an enrichment of the carbon-12 isotope. Other chemical signatures from these formations that have been interpreted as biological remnants include uranium/thorium fractionation and banded iron formations. Recently, a team from Australia argued that the dolomite in these formations also reflects biological activity, specifically that of sulfate-reducing bacteria.
    http://www.reasons.org/when-di.....pear-earth

    Moreover there are no prebiotic chemical signatures

    Dr. Hugh Ross – Origin Of Life Paradox (No prebiotic chemical signatures)- video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012696

    There is actually a molecular machine, that surpasses man made machines in engineering parameters, that is integral to the photosynthetic process:

    ATP Synthase, an Energy-Generating Rotary Motor Engine – Jonathan M. May 15, 2013
    Excerpt: ATP synthase has been described as “a splendid molecular machine,” and “one of the most beautiful” of “all enzymes” .,, “bona fide rotary dynamo machine”,,,
    If such a unique and brilliantly engineered nanomachine bears such a strong resemblance to the engineering of manmade hydroelectric generators, and yet so impressively outperforms the best human technology in terms of speed and efficiency, one is led unsurprisingly to the conclusion that such a machine itself is best explained by intelligent design.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....72101.html

    Moreover, photosynthesis is shown to require a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause in order to explain its effect:

    At the 21:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr Suarez explains why photosynthesis needs a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain its effect:

    Nonlocality of Photosynthesis – Antoine Suarez – video – 2012
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ge#t=1268s

    Uncovering Quantum Secret in Photosynthesis – June 20, 2013
    Excerpt: Photosynthetic organisms, such as plants and some bacteria, have mastered this process: In less than a couple of trillionths of a second, 95 percent of the sunlight they absorb is whisked away to drive the metabolic reactions that provide them with energy. The efficiency of photovoltaic cells currently on the market is around 20 percent.,,,
    Van Hulst and his group have evaluated the energy transport pathways of separate individual but chemically identical, antenna proteins, and have shown that each protein uses a distinct pathway. The most surprising discovery was that the transport paths within single proteins can vary over time due to changes in the environmental conditions, apparently adapting for optimal efficiency. “These results show that coherence, a genuine quantum effect of superposition of states, is responsible for maintaining high levels of transport efficiency in biological systems, even while they adapt their energy transport pathways due to environmental influences” says van Hulst.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142932.htm

    Music and Verse:

    Toby Mac (In The Light) – music video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_MpGRQRrP0

    1 John 1:5
    This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

  61. Whatho whatho one and all. I do hope you don’t mind my dropping in unannounced. It’s a devil of a thing to know how to introduce oneself in these sorts of situations. I mean to say, it’s tantamount to a sky-diver coming through the roof in the middle of tea, what?

    A spot about myself. I have been following the evolution/intelligent design to-ings and fro-ings for a goodly while now and I particularly like this site for its more tempered approach to discussion. Sufficient heat; cut,thrust,parry and riposte and all that, but without spiraling into vulgarities and nastiness. So I said to myself “Ho-de-Ho, this is just the ticket.” Which remark, incidentally, is the reason for my user name.

    Please forgive me if I am not the most frequent of commentators. It would not be for lack of desire, I assure you. However I hope to chip in the odd penn’th or two if I can.

    In particular, all you good fellows and fellowesses here at UD (if I may be permitted to be so colloquial so early on)I often find myself besieged with questions about this or that and simultaneously deprived of the necessary Mathematician, Biologist, Chemist, Physicist, Engineer, computer Scientist or equally science savvy person to fire my question at.

    If It’s ok with you all here, would you mind if I ask the occasional question? I shall be earnest in my endeavours to keep it on topic.

    Once again, I thank you for your polite tolerance of my unannounced intrusion onto your boards. I bid you all a hearty ‘how-do-you-do.’

  62. That’s why I put it in quotes.
    You see, this is the problem when trying to talk science with the scientifically illiterate. Science tries to put things into terms that a layman can understand and then people like you turn it around to mean something else.
    I’m truly sorry you bombed your science classes in high school, but that’s no reason to ruin it for the rest of society.
    How about this, it was an “arbitrary event,” not a “choice.” Is that better?
    And no comment as to why our “intelligent” designer decided not to use D-amino acids? Or how about L-sugars? Or why does he form babies with genetic diseases? Why not give each newborn an equal shot at living life like everyone else?

  63. AVS you state:

    How about this, it was an “arbitrary event,” not a “choice.” Is that better?

    Okie Dokie what is you experimental proof that this ‘arbitrary event’ happened?

    You go on to state:

    And no comment as to why our “intelligent” designer decided not to use D-amino acids?

    It was already pointed out to you that the set of amino acids are found to be ‘optimal’:

    You then state

    Or how about L-sugars? ,,

    Well I don’t know much about sugars but this looked interesting from a quick search on google,,,

    Sugars as the optimal biosynthetic carbon substrate of aqueous life throughout the universe. – Weber AL. – 2000
    Excerpt: In this report, we compare the redox and kinetic properties of carbon groups in order to evaluate the relative biosynthetic capability of organic substrates, and to identify the optimal biosubstrate. This analysis revealed that sugars (monocarbonyl alditols) are the optimal biosynthetic substrate because they contain the maximum number of biosynthetically useful high energy electrons/carbon atom while still containing a single carbonyl group needed to kinetically facilitate their conversion to useful biosynthetic intermediates. This conclusion applies to aqueous life throughout the Universe because it is based on invariant aqueous carbon chemistry–primarily, the universal reduction potentials of carbon groups.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10836263

    Of related note AVS, exactly how does atheism explain the fact that the universe is ‘optimally’ set up for life, in the very chemistry of life?:

    Michael Denton: Remarkable ‘Optimal’ Coincidences in Photosynthesis – podcast
    http://www.idthefuture.com/201....._coin.html

    And then, seeing as you have no empirical support for Darwinism, you finally get to the argument from evil:

    “Or why does he form babies with genetic diseases? Why not give each newborn an equal shot at living life like everyone else?”

    So Mr. AVS your argument for atheistic evolution is not that you have any real proof that any of the fantastic things you claim can happen naturalistically can actually happen naturalistically but that you think that God would not allow evil in the world? But that is not science Mr. AVS, that is a Theological argument called Theodicy! Moreover if you use evil to disprove the existence of Good you then undermine any mooring that evil has in the argument in the first place. i.e. it is a self-refuting argument!

    In other words, the problem of evil is only generated by the prior claims that evil exists. One cannot then conclude, with Dawkins, that there is ‘no evil and no good’ in the universe.,,,
    The fact that evolution’s acceptance hinges on a theological position would, for many, be enough to expel it from science. But evolution’s reliance on metaphysics is not its worst failing. Evolution’s real problem is not its metaphysics but its denial of its metaphysics.,,,
    Cornelius Hunter – Darwin’s God – pg. 154 & 159

    The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning – Paul A. Nelson – Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517
    Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution.
    http://www.springerlink.com/co.....34/?MUD=MP

  64. My oh my. You should try reading the things you copy-paste-post sometimes. The optimality comparisons you “already pointed out to me” looked at amino acid R groups and their subsequent properties in groups of 20; none of them looked at L vs D.
    Same goes for your sugars example. Sugars may be the optimal carbon substrate, but their is no real advantage to using D over L.
    You’ve got nothing.
    The universe is optimally set up for life? How about you launch yourself into space without a space suit and tell me how well you survive.
    Relax with your “argument from evil” bull. I’m simply asking you your thoughts on why so many newborns face debilitating diseases.

  65. even though they tested amino acids:

    drawn randomly from the pool of 50 plausible prebiotic candidates.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....HxzlC.dpuf

    and found optimality, you claim,,,

    “but their is no real advantage to using D over L.”

    How do you know, you can’t even demonstrate the origin of life in thee first place? And as far as can be demonstrated for plausible candidates they found optimality! Are you claiming omniscience for yourself? Humbleness is not a strong suit of yours eh?

    You then state:

    How about you launch yourself into space without a space suit and tell me how well you survive.

    Whereas the ‘privileged planet’ principle is actually an argument for Theism:

    The Privileged Planet – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnWyPIzTOTw

    The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery – book By Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Wesley Richards
    http://books.google.com/books?.....38;f=false

    Privileged Planet – Observability Correlation – Gonzalez and Richards – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5424431

    The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole.
    – Jay Richards

    The Privileged Planet – The Correlation Of Habitability and Observability
    “The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”
    “The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”
    “There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”
    – Guillermo Gonzalez – Astronomer
    http://books.google.com/books?.....38;f=false

    Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross’s book, ‘Why the Universe Is the Way It Is’;
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1333
    dependency factors estimate ? 10^324
    longevity requirements estimate ? 10^45
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1054
    Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe ? 10^22

    Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.
    http://www.reasons.org/files/c....._part3.pdf

    Hugh Ross – Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236

    Isaiah 40:28
    Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.

    You then state:

    Relax with your “argument from evil” bull. I’m simply asking you your thoughts on why so many newborns face debilitating diseases.

    MMMMMM, you were the one who used the argument from evil to try to support evolution not me, I merely pointed out that you were unscientific for doing so and that it is a self refuting argument. If you don’t want to be shown to be disingenuous don’t be disingenuous!

  66. Here’s your post:

    “The authors compared the coverage of the standard alphabet of 20 amino acids for size, charge, and hydrophobicity”

    An then again in your own post:

    “…the standard alphabet exhibits better coverage (i.e., greater breadth and greater evenness) than any random set for each of size, charge, and hydrophobicity, and for all combinations thereof.”

    NOTICE HOW D OR L IS NOT ANYWHERE IN THERE. THEY DID NOT LOOK AT D VS L. PLEASE READ WHAT YOU MINDLESSLY COPY AND PASTE BEFORE POSTING IT.
    Thank you.

    “How do you know, you can’t even demonstrate the origin of life in thee first place?”

    This quote of yours is my new favorite.

    How do I know there is no advantage to L or D? Because they are made up of the exact same atoms and have the exact same properties; they only differ in orientation.

    Also my questions about the arbitrary use of D or L and why newborns frequently face genetic diseases so frequently was purely about your opinion on them. Thats why I said “What do you think?”
    You were the one to talk about “argument” and “evil.”

  67. AVS, why did you disingenuoyusly leave this out of what you quoted:

    “drawn randomly from the pool of 50 plausible prebiotic candidates.”

    you are claiming knowledge that you don’t have when you claim that an optimal set can be found elsewhere. Perhaps you would like to actually do the experiments to actually show that an optimal set can be found elsewhere before you claim knowledge that you don’t presently have? Or is the fact that you can merely imagine that there may be an optimal set elsewhere enough for you to make the assertion? Your dishonesty towards what the evidence actually states bleeds through on every post you make! But no worry, just toss out a few more ad hominems and unsubstantiated claims and I’m sure you can make yourself feel much smarter than us IDiots!

    As to genetic diseases and evil in genral, I believe we live in a fallen world. The presence of evil in the world is certainly not a problem for Christianity, whereas for atheistic naturalism the presence of evil presents a insurmountable problem in that naturalism cannot account for the objective reality of evil or Good. i.e. Thus the self-refuting nature of the argument!

  68. Mr. AVS, I going to belatedly take Barb’s advice and drop out of this discussion with you since I’m finding you to be very insincere.

  69. I left that part out because it adds nothing to the argument.
    Do I really need to spell out what they did? Ok.

    1. Generate 30 non-standard, plausible, early-earth amino acids by changing R group chemistry
    (NOTE HOW I DID NOT SAY BY CHANGING L OR D CONFORMATION)
    2. Pool the 20 standard amino acids and 30 non-standard amino acids
    3. Randomly select 20 amino acids from the 50
    4. Score the new set of 20 on how well they cover the variations in size, polarity, and hydrophobicity

    Now, as I pointed out, D or L conformation was not looked at whatsoever.

    I am claiming that D amino acids would be just as optimal, as I have already stated that the only difference between the molecules is their orientation. The use of L aminos over D was a completely arbitrary event in the evolution of life.
    If you want to argue that your intelligent designer arbitrarily chose L over D then be my guest, but in that case I would argue his intelligence.

    Also, I do not “need to make myself feel smarter than you IDiots,” you guys do that for me.

  70. So you have finally come to terms with your scientific illiteracy and misunderstanding on the topics of proteins, amino acids, etc?
    Well its about time.
    Tell ray “the banana man” comfort I said hi.

  71. Thanks for the play-by-play erik, do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation?

    Do you? So far you’ve only shown you can only regurgitate that which you seem to only tenuously understand, and engage in ad hominem. But, by all means, please keep responding.

    What was that old saying?

    “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

  72. Once again, I thank you for your polite tolerance of my unannounced intrusion onto your boards. I bid you all a hearty ‘how-do-you-do.’

    Welcome to our humble blog!

  73. Thank you Scordova. Very generous of you.

Leave a Reply