Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Shedding Light on the Protein Big Bang Theory
CEH ^ | March 13, 2009

Posted on 03/15/2009 3:14:14 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Shedding Light on the Protein Big Bang Theory

March 13, 2009 — The precise three-dimensional structure of a typical protein molecule is so complex, its origin would seem hopeless by chance. What if evolutionary biologists were to discover a whole host of proteins literally exploded into existence at the beginning of complex life? We can find out what they would think by looking at an article on the “protein big bang” found on Astrobiology Magazine...

(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: active; animals; archaea; architectures; astrobiology; astrobiologymagazine; bacteria; bang; big; bigbang; catholic; christian; corruption; creation; darinism; darwin; darwinsblackbox; domains; eucarya; evolution; explosion; finetuning; fungi; gears; highly; highlyintegrated; illinois; integrated; intelligentdesign; irreduciblycomplex; junkscience; justsostories; machinery; machines; magazine; michaelbehe; microbes; molecular; money; moralabsolutes; motors; nasa; neodarwinism; plants; protein; proteinbigbang; regions; science; superkingdoms; tailoring; tax; taxes; teleology; university; universityofillinois; yourtaxmoney

1 posted on 03/15/2009 3:14:14 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Finny; vladimir998; Coyoteman; allmendream; LeGrande; GunRunner; cacoethes_resipisco; ...

2 posted on 03/15/2009 3:15:12 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"Evolution seems to have quickly generated a host of “architectures” with diverse functions..."

And a bulldozer with deep rippers cutting through a meadow resulted in hunreds of buildings errecting themselves over night...

3 posted on 03/15/2009 3:21:27 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“...its origin would seem hopeless by chance...”

So the automatic default is the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible is responsible. End of story. No need for further investigation. Halleluja.


4 posted on 03/15/2009 3:26:27 PM PDT by PC99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Do you suppose the Evos are starting to wake up to the fact that the Temple of Darwin has become a materialist religion that regularly depends on miracles to explain multitudinous “big bangs” of biological complexity?


5 posted on 03/15/2009 3:26:45 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PC99

I am glad you have joined the chorus of what every tongue will one day confess :o)


6 posted on 03/15/2009 3:32:20 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

This does nothing to solve the greatest failure of evolutionism—the inability to describe the origin of life in biochemical terms.


7 posted on 03/15/2009 3:44:21 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Liberals have neither the creativity nor the confidence to understand the truth of conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The theory of evolution is no more an "ism" than the Bible is a scientific theory.

Personally, I think the whole problem is an aesthetic one. Apes are ugly and they smell and have bad habits, such as masturbating in public and eating people's faces and so on, so people don't like to hear that they're in any way related to them.

It's my belief that if the theory of evolution said that we where descended from cats instead, clean, beautiful cats, then people wouldn't get so bent out of shape about it.

Besides, any theory of origins contradicts the Bible, not just the theory of evolution, but evolution bugs people the most because of the above-stated reason.

8 posted on 03/15/2009 4:01:09 PM PDT by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Evolution is simply their refuge from God; they don’t care what it looks like, as long as they can rationalize a way to lean on it.


9 posted on 03/15/2009 4:03:54 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Do you suppose the Evos are starting to wake up to the fact that the Temple of Darwin has become a materialist religion that regularly depends on miracles to explain multitudinous “big bangs” of biological complexity?

They are too busy working late into the night collecting hard evidence and putting the puzzle together. The creationists, on the other hand, are in a zombic state rationalizing their faith.

10 posted on 03/15/2009 4:10:40 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

...and I bet you understand less about protein chemistry than you do biology.


11 posted on 03/15/2009 4:10:41 PM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics,
and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
by Ian Musgrave
Copyright © 1998
[Last Update: December 21, 1998]

Problems with the creationists’ “it’s so improbable” calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a “modern” protein, or even a complete bacterium with all “modern” proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a “probability of abiogenesis” calculation in any meaningful way.

.......

More inflammatory unsupported clap trap from the master poster thereof.

God is king, Jesus is lord, and Darwin is the street sweeper who dared to peek behind the curtain.


12 posted on 03/15/2009 4:12:20 PM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep

==Darwin is the street sweeper who dared to peek behind the curtain.

You mean the medschool dropout, turned theology student, turned amateur naturalist, who wrote a whole book reinterpreting the entire history of biology with no data other than a few minor variation between finches...you mean hat Darwin?


13 posted on 03/15/2009 4:19:42 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

No data? I’d say his data was was far more complete than you give him credit for. But then, I’m certain that you can supply extensive data points to support faith? Convenient that you hold science to a higher standard than religion. Even when science meets the approved standard you choose to be the arbiter of God - note - he doesn’t need your help interpreting his Word. If science offends God I’m certain he’d let us know.


14 posted on 03/15/2009 4:25:59 PM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

If ever there was a completely baseless faith, it is the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism, whose converts are busy trying to convince the rest of the world of the asinine idea that super-sophisticated bio-nano-machines merely give the appearance of design, and yet they can’t describe said “appearance of design” without invoking the language of design. Talk about beating your head against a cold stone wall!


15 posted on 03/15/2009 4:28:15 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep
Ok, here is Darwin's "Tree of Life" from Orgins. Please point to the data behind the data points:


16 posted on 03/15/2009 4:31:07 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Ok, here's the ‘god did it’ proof: an ancient text says god did it. we believe this text to be reliable because it says it is.
I'm a new poster here, been lurking for years. Not trying to mess the shine on your shoes GGG. Obviously you do a lot of research into the subject, but the matrix of knowledge that you're throwing stones at is an intellectually honest attempt to explain a massive inquiry.
To have an intellectually honest discussion, we have to start at-we don't know. Then proceed to build systems of ideas that are subject to the same objective rules of inquiry and proof. The dogma must be the process not the conclusion. Arguing from a conclusion usually winds up painting one in an intellectually dishonest corner.
I think it would help to first distill the difference between what we know and what we believe and to subject all ideas to the same rigor of proof.
One of the greatest aspects of a Constitutional Republic is that the marketplace of ideas is unencumbered.
17 posted on 03/15/2009 6:02:57 PM PDT by TooFarGone (Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The data came later, and confirmed Darwin's theoretic construct. Here we see the same pattern of a hierarchy of relatedness and divergence within human populations. For those of you in Rio Linda, the little numbers correspond to the counted number of differences between each group.
18 posted on 03/15/2009 6:16:29 PM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


19 posted on 03/15/2009 9:00:58 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

Do you understand ANY biology??

Again, I ask for the 100th time, what is your scientific background?
High school classes? College? Graduate school?

Why don’t you want to tell people?

Today ,especially, creationists can’t come up with anything to back up their point, so the start calling names.


20 posted on 03/15/2009 9:04:34 PM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

Sorry, post 20 should be directed to GGG instead of Electric Strawberry


21 posted on 03/15/2009 9:09:02 PM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

I’m obviously not a creationist and you’ve not asked me anything 100 times.

BS Biology with Immunology focus. UMASS
PhD Immunology of Infectious Diseases. HSPH


22 posted on 03/15/2009 10:59:09 PM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Your understanding of Darwins complete works is severely lacking.


23 posted on 03/15/2009 11:01:39 PM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

GGG doesn’t have any scientific background or he wouldn’t link to so many articles that say nothing...thinking they say something.


24 posted on 03/15/2009 11:06:39 PM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Yes GGG- Donthcaknow that it takes a phd in order to invent fantastic just so stories about evulotion out of htin air? And dodntchaknow that it apparently takes a phd to spot such nonsense about Macroevolution when evos post them? And dontchaknow that it takes a phd to ignore the silly fantastic just so stories and to call it science and to call everyone who quesitons these just so stories about macroevolution uneducated fools? Get with the program GGG- Exposing the nonsense in macroevolutionary sceanrios abotu the past is a no no dontchaknow- If you do so, you’ll be attacked left and right, up and down, and every which way but loose. Exposing Darwin and those who followed him with even greater fantastical made up just so stories about past events is a cardinal sin


25 posted on 03/15/2009 11:21:55 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PC99

Is there a large movement of Christians who are trying to force you believe in the Christian God? Are they trying to prevent you from discovering your own truth somehow?

Or do you just resent them and their good works, so you lash out at them at any opportunity?

You seem as much of a science ideologue as the most fevered Christian in the middle of speaking in tongues.

I’m not Christian/religious, so don’t bother calling me a religious nut.


26 posted on 03/16/2009 6:13:46 AM PDT by Troy McGreggor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

How did DNA fit into ‘Darwin’s complete works?’

Oops, he was right about everything except our most basic components. I’m sure the rest is equally valid.


27 posted on 03/16/2009 6:14:52 AM PDT by Troy McGreggor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Troy McGreggor
Darwin hardly had to identify the molecule of inheritance to know that traits were inherited, and that those traits that conferred an advantage would be inherited by a larger subset of the population than traits that conferred a disadvantage.

Darwin was not a prophet who had to be in touch with some absolute source of information, was infallible, and lived a life above reproach.

Darwin was a scientist. All he had to do was construct a theoretical framework that helped to explain and predict observances. He did. His theory was of so much use that it is still being used, mostly as he formulated it, some hundred and fifty years later.

28 posted on 03/16/2009 6:32:37 AM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Troy McGreggor
Such a scientist you must be to mandate that someone know everything that will be discovered in the FUTURE....when offering up theories in the 1859 present. Must've missed that part of the Method.

Anyone that limits Darwin's actual works to "a few finches and their beak differences" doesn't know what they're talking about.

29 posted on 03/16/2009 8:33:09 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Troy McGreggor

[[Or do you just resent them and their good works, so you lash out at them at any opportunity?]]

That’s abotu hte whole crux of hte issue- These folks NEVER EVER discuss the issues in the articles, but rather imediately engage in name calling, charachter assassination, and hand waving dismissals- They follow GGG around and pop into every thread he posts with nothign more substantial than name calling, and hten have the nerve to suggest that because we’re not ‘scientists’, then we shouldn’t be looking into the outrageous claims of Macroeovlution and ocmmenting on the obvious blatant lies and misdirections and half-truths that we discover-

Apparently Macroevolution hypothesis is in such sad shape than name calling and character assassination is the last defense efforts of the die hards.


30 posted on 03/16/2009 9:52:21 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep
If science offends God I’m certain he’d let us know.

It is not Science that offends God, it is denial. His reaction to that is well known, to even casual readers of the Bible, Both Old and New Testament. For the really fun parts read Revelation starting at chapter four, to the end should find some really fun stuff there. I am assuming the first three chapters would not really apply to you, they may however, if you understand the other reading assignment.

31 posted on 03/16/2009 10:02:20 AM PDT by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Obama it is then.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson