Proteins argue against evolution


#121

RNP most likely.

RNP and RNA are more error prone than DNA, so they would have automatically created new strains of proteins simply through attempting to replicate.

But your odds were assuming that there were no incremental structures that bias the outcome.

Your assumption was, “have to wait until 20 amino acids randomly reach specific 100 member chain.”

But you don’t need all 20 types, you don’t need 100 acids in a chain, you don’t even need proteins to reach a self-replicating molecule.

And once a self-replicating molecule is created, the next steps come easier, not harder. There’s nothing preventing a self-replicating peptide with ~33 amino acids becoming one with 40 or 45, or reaching all the way to the magic number of “50” and becoming one of the most basic proteins.

To twit, there not just one, but three methods we know of to create a precursor molecule. Peptides, Threose nucleic acid (TNA), and Glycol nucleic acid (GNA).

Of the nucleic acids, it seems TNA is the favorite for a pre-RNA molecule:


#122

So just to lay it out:

We’ve established that Biological progression does happen.

There isn’t a creature we’ve found that indicates it’s a standalone creation; every organism we have found progressed from a chain of ancestors, who exhibited slightly different traits overtime, guided by epigenetics; changes in gene expression, which eventually changes the genetic code.

The signatures of this are genes from an organism’s ancestors in their genetic code, vestigial structures, the fossil record, proto-forms in embryos.

And today, turning those genes on, allowing a creature to display traits from its ancestor for all to see.

Now, epigentics may itself be guided by God, it’s choices indicative of intelligent guidance, which may be Kenjackson’s point.

But even so, epigenetics is apparently his mechanism, and he isn’t involved in everything it does.

If he was, God would be responsible for creating antiboitic resistant germs that kill millions of people who are mostly helpless and poor.

Since we agree God wouldn’t do this, we apparently agree that epigentics does evolve new creatures on its own.


#123

AS I’m curious as to your background. Are you a biologist or a chemist? This isn’t a disingenuous “gotcha” question - I’m genuinely curious. You seem to know a whole lot about this topic.


#124

No! Well there’s no escaping that it’s God’s design, but it’s the physical reality that grips me.

There are WAY TOO MANY possible sequences of amino acids to allow that chance came up with the right one that was needed at the time. And natural selection CAN’T improve the odds because no sequence of amino acids has any value until it’s correct.

Which came first, blood or the heart? Why evolve blood cells if there’s no heart to pump them around the body? And why evolve a heart if there’s no blood to pump? You could think of hundreds of similar questions, if you would allow yourself.

Alternately, you can come up with oddities about common genes. Those are puzzling, but they’re nothing compared to the problems with evolution.

The unavoidable conclusion is that LIFE WAS DESIGNED!


#125

You can with incremental steps. You were assuming that nothing smaller than 100 amino acids could form a usable, self-replicating structure, and that all 20 types of amino acids had to be used.

None of these assumptions hold true. We have 135 amino acid prions that use only 4 types, and self-replicate. We can create a self-replicating peptide molecule that only uses 32 amino acids.

You can answer those questions if you’re serious about asking them, and aren’t simply being rhetorical.

The answer starts with Jellyfish:

What you cannot deny, is that creatures descended from others, that there’s no reason a Deinonychus, can’t gradually become a chicken, with the right environment and diet giving it the pressures to do so.

Your issue was that natural selection is partly random. With Epegenetics, we don’t have random, we have reactive.

Genes are malleable, both in their content, and in their expression. Nature molds them, not simply through random chance, but by sampling surroundings and experience.

You can claim God is directing that process somehow, that there are “intuitive leaps” that you don’t believe mechanical forces could have decided on their own. But even in claiming that, the fact remains that genes are being molded, and that organisms are gradually becoming other organisms.


#126

Gen 30:25-43


#127

I don’t follow, are you making a point about human selective breeding of animals?

The point is, we can only do that, because genes are malleable in the first place.

Nature can & does mold them on its own, we see that with sub-species of birds who evolved beaks better at getting at pine cones, then the pine cones evolving ways to resist the birds.

We also see it evident in human experience; why it is generations who lived in food prosperity, passed on a higher chance of diabetes and other ailments to the next generation that lived in a virtual famine.

The '“markers” on their genes were passed on.


#128

Well, Laban had removed all the recessive gene stock from the herds left to Jacob’s care, but Jacob used the speckled and striped staves to bring out the recessive genes (or activate certain markers, however that’s expressed right now). Mendel gets credit for the discovery, but all he did was codify things that had been known since 3700ish (?) BC.

I didn’t really have a point, I just thought it was interesting in this context, and I was wondering what y’all would make of it.

Readyyyyyy- FIGHT! :sunglasses:


#129

Metabolism occurring before life; parts of the early oceans (which had no oxygen in them) acting just like the insides of a cell.


#130

Do you REALLY believe that early oceans “had no oxygen in them?” Your chemistry education is sadly lacking.


#131

Life on Earth began during the Archean geological eon almost 4 billion years ago in iron-rich oceans that dominated the surface of the planet. This was an oxygen-free world, pre-dating photosynthesis

No plants consuming Carbon-Dioxide to make oxygen = no oxygen. Just like Mars.

Of oxygen, meanwhile, the early atmosphere held barely a trace. What did exist likely formed when solar radiation split airborne molecules of water (H2O) into hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). Hydrogen, a lightweight gas, would have risen above the atmosphere and slowly been lost to space. The heavier oxygen gas, left behind, would have quickly reacted with atmospheric gases such as methane or with minerals on Earth’­s surface and been drawn out of the atmosphere and back into the crust and mantle. Oxygen could only begin to accumulate in the atmosphere if it was being produced faster than it was being removed’—in other words, if something else was also producing it.

There’s your chemistry lesson Dave.


#132

From Alaska_Slim’s Cambridge article:

The team found the spontaneous occurrence of reaction sequences which in modern organisms enable the formation of molecules essential for the synthesis of metabolites. These organic molecules, such as amino acids, nucleic acids and lipids, …

They buried their lead. Their study showed that not only amino acids but also nucleic acids and lipids just popped into existence. Stanley Miller eat your heart out!

Though it didn’t sound like they managed to reproduced these early conditions well enough to actually pop any such molecules into existence as a demo. Shame.


#133

No… precurors to RNA, you misread:

One of the metabolites that was produced, ribose 5-phosphate, is particularly noteworthy, as it is an RNA precursor. Molecules like this could in theory give rise to the RNA molecules that encode information, catalyse chemical reactions and replicate.

the reaction sequences of central metabolism, glycolysis and the pentose phosphate pathway provide essential precursors for nucleic acids, amino acids and lipids.

The 29 observed reactions include the formation and/or interconversion of glucose, pyruvate, the nucleic acid precursor ribose‐5‐phosphate and the amino acid precursor erythrose‐4‐phosphate, antedating reactions sequences similar to that used by the metabolic pathways.

More like “old hat”, I brought up precursor formation before using simple chemicals and UV light.

This is the same thing, with largely the same chemicals, only with more elaboration on the role of iron and the oceans.


#134

So what’s the point of a precursor if it doesn’t pop it’s corresponding postcursor into existence?


#135

We use these same precursors to make nucleic acids in experiments. Why couldn’t the oceans?

Metabolism is the key here, and nature was providing that for free. You don’t need Enzymes, they developed later as a means for life to imitate what nature had already been doing, likely for close to a billion years.


#136

BS. So you think that there IS such a thing as an “oxygen-free ocean?” Better go back to school yourself.


#137

Dave we’re talking about Oxygen molecules, Oxygen unattached to Hydrogen.

Without plants to grow the supply, it’d simply seeps right down into the earth’s crust, not accumulating in the atmosphere.


#138

I’m not talking about ATMOSPHERIC oxygen. You implied that “life” began in the oceans and then said that oxygen wasn’t present in those oceans. That’s BS.


#139

I qualified this Dave:

Dave we’re talking about Oxygen molecules

O2 is the oxygen molecule, not the singular Oxygen atom attached to hydrogen in the H20 molecule.

That should have ended things, and given that what I quoted talks about trace amounts of Oxygen being split off from Hydrogen due to the sun’s rays, only to bury itself in the Earth’s crust, that should have also been your tip off.


#140

You simply CANNOT get away with, on the one hand, claiming that you’re talking about Oxygen MOLECULES as differentiated from Oxygen ATOMS while claiming that there was NO OXYGEN in oceans of it…whether molecules OR atoms.