Evolution and Religion

[Anonymouse]

Please read my edit. Maybe that will clarify things for you.

It still begs the question of why each organism is geared to that specific number of hemoglobins, not their function. Furthermore the statement you quoted about change was actually referring to amino acids and change regarding them, not hemoglobin, so get your criticisms straight.

[loseyourname]

Just so all can see that again, the Mouse is lying, or being lied to. Whatever the case may be, I must say it is rather sad.

[loseyourname]

By the way, this is from http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton...ogy/bio020.htm

Chlorophyll and hemoglobin are very different molecules. Hemoglobin is a protein, chlorophyll is not. Hb is a hemoglobin composed of four protein subunits (2 pairs called alpha and beta: so Hb = 2 alphas + 2 betas, plus the heme group that binds iron. The point of the subunits is that they each bind one oxygen molecule, and they interact so that when one binds oxygen, the others can then bind to their oxygens more easily. The result of this is that hemoglobin is a very efficient oxygen carrier that holds onto oxygen tightly at high atmospheric oxygen levels (in the arteries and lungs) but gives up oxygen easily at lower levels of environmental oxygen (in the body tissues that need oxygen). Without hemoglobin in the blood, the blood could carry only about 2% of the oxygen that it can with hemoglobin present. Chlorophyll is not a protein, but a hydrocarbon molecule that has one part that binds magnesium and absorbs light. the absorption of light changes the energy state of the molecule, and that energy is passed onto other molecules in the chloroplast to drive photosynthesis.

I've attached a picture of a chlorophyll molecule. Notice that there are no amino acids.

[loseyourname]

Nonsense drivel, Mousy? I just showed that the man who carried out that calculation lied. Does that really not show you anything?

[loseyourname]

Please read my edit. Maybe that will clarify things for you.

[Anonymouse]

You can change the sequence and the protein still functions. In fact, you can change hundreds of amino acids in the sequence and the protein will still function. Flatly put, the writer of that article lied.

Flatly put each sequence is geared for that specific organism. That is the way it goes. Change that it can't function, just like the nucleotides. There is no reason for it to, either.

That was from the article. This makes me wonder if you even read the article. The numbers aren't posted simply for the sake of argument. This is the basis of his calculation. He says that if you make a protein from five amino acids, given that their are 20 different amino acids, you will have a 1 in 3,200,000 chance of coming up with any one sequence. Well, duh. Somehow he seems to think that this means this one sequence is the only functional sequence. Presumable even you can see the flaw in this.

If you had read the original article I posted, and not clicked on the further link, you would have seen the author state so for the sake of argument. I read the article I posted, which makes me wonder why you didn't read it, and all the time asking me if I read the article you posted.

I don't think anything is beyond the comprehension of these men. They are simply lying, and probably making a good deal of profit doing so, at the expense of gullible people like you that want so badly to believe.

The calculation doesn't hold up. I've shown why. Now can you please address the argument that I linked to?

This is more nonsense drivel.

[loseyourname]

This is irrelevant to the statement. It claimed that if the sequence is changed it cannot function, nothing about similarities in hemoglobin, and the faulty analogy wihch you made afterwards. Where are you getting statement from? The hemoglobin between humans and fish vary, and can anyone for once think that if that were change for either species they would function normally? Chlorophyll in plants and human hemoglobin differ in chemical makeup by one molecule. The difference being one magnesium molecule exchanged for one iron molecule. This does not imply that our ancestors were trees. This is once again, cherry picking and drilling at a non-issue.

You can change the sequence and the protein still functions. In fact, you can change hundreds of amino acids in the sequence and the protein will still function. Flatly put, the writer of that article lied. In fact, amino acids are grouped by their properties, that is, their polarity and whether or not they are charged. You can substitute, say Glycine, with any one of nine other amino acids (Alanine, Valine, Leucine, Isoleucine, Methionine, Tryptophan, Phenylalanine, and Proline) without significantly changing the conformation of the protein (and hence its function) because these amino acids are all non-polar and will behave similarly. Methionine, Tryptophan, and Phenylalanine are slightly larger than the others, and so you might get a very slight change, but even this should not effect any enzymatic function. This is why we are able to see such great variation in hemoglobin molecules from species to species, despite the fact fact that each type of hemoglobin carries out exactly the same function.

This wasn't even posted in the article I posted, where did you get this and the above statement. One wonders where you get these figures. I am assuming it is from the link within the article, which I have not even looked at, but based on the one I posted, it is entirely for the sake of argument that the numbers are taken, and the figure derived from the 20 amino acids, which you know why is 20 I hope. This is still irrelevant.

That was from the article. This makes me wonder if you even read the article. The numbers aren't posted simply for the sake of argument. This is the basis of his calculation. He says that if you make a protein from five amino acids, given that their are 20 different amino acids, you will have a 1 in 3,200,000 chance of coming up with any one sequence. Well, duh. Somehow he seems to think that this means this one sequence is the only functional sequence. Presumable even you can see the flaw in this.

By a few smitten remarks you conclude the calculation is hopelessly flawed. Well, that is enlightening to say the least. Such statements about the "facts" that surround evolutionary "theory" are obviously beyond the comprehension of the "lying creationists", mind you that it was evolutionists that have lied in order to advance their claims such as Piltdown man or Nebraska man, or even far back to Darwin and the gemules, bathybius and eozoon.

I don't think anything is beyond the comprehension of these men. They are simply lying, and probably making a good deal of profit doing so, at the expense of gullible people like you that want so badly to believe.

The calculation doesn't hold up. I've shown why. Now can you please address the argument that I linked to?

[Anonymouse]

That isn't true. Alpha hemoglobin in the average fish varies by 73 amino acids from the alpha hemoglobin in the average human. They both perform the same function. Functionality is not lost by substituting a single amino acid.

This is irrelevant to the statement. It claimed that if the sequence is changed it cannot function, nothing about similarities in hemoglobin, and the faulty analogy wihch you made afterwards. Where are you getting statement from? The hemoglobin between humans and fish vary, and can anyone for once think that if that were change for either species they would function normally? Chlorophyll in plants and human hemoglobin differ in chemical makeup by one molecule. The difference being one magnesium molecule exchanged for one iron molecule. This does not imply that our ancestors were trees. This is once again, cherry picking and drilling at a non-issue.

That is another fallacy, based on the assumption that only one protein out of the 3,200,000 possible would be functional. That is obviously not the case.

This wasn't even posted in the article I posted, where did you get this and the above statement. One wonders where you get these figures. I am assuming it is from the link within the article, which I have not even looked at, but based on the one I posted, it is entirely for the sake of argument that the numbers are taken, and the figure derived from the 20 amino acids, which you know why is 20 I hope. This is still irrelevant.

At this point, the calculation is hopelessly flawed. Any half-intelligent person reading this article that actually knows anything about the biological sciences would be able to see rather quickly that this is just another creationist lie. Why the creationists feel so much of a need to lie about the facts surrounding evolutionary theory I have no idea. Is your faith really that fragile that you need to delude yourself to maintain it?

By a few smitten remarks you conclude the calculation is hopelessly flawed. Well, that is enlightening to say the least. Such statements about the "facts" that surround evolutionary "theory" are obviously beyond the comprehension of the "lying creationists", mind you that it was evolutionists that have lied in order to advance their claims such as Piltdown man or Nebraska man, or even far back to Darwin and the gemules, bathybius and eozoon.

[loseyourname]

Now do you have any answer to the probability article I posted? Have you even read it?

[loseyourname]

In living cells, proteins are the "machines of life," which build the structures and facilitate (catalyze) the chemical reactions used by all life. Proteins are called "informational" molecules, because they each perform a "function" in living things (such as oxygen-transport by hemoglobin), and they are non-repetitively complex, and the sequential order of the building blocks (amino acids) of protein are highly specified ---so that if the proper sequence is changed much at all, function is lost.

That isn't true. Alpha hemoglobin in the average fish varies by 73 amino acids from the alpha hemoglobin in the average human. They both perform the same function. Functionality is not lost by substituting a single amino acid.

Thus, in our proof, we move on to the possibility of the random assembly of proteins: To look most simply at the probability of the random assembly of a protein, note that proteins are made of 20 amino acids, which are linked together into strings or "chains" (polymers). Therefore, if we grant that the supposed "primordial soup" on the early earth had all 20 amino acids available for protein-building, then the chance that the first five amino acids required to build a specific functional protein might randomly bond together in the correct order, would be one chance out of 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20, which equals one chance out of 3,200,000.

That is another fallacy, based on the assumption that only one protein out of the 3,200,000 possible would be functional. That is obviously not the case.

Biochemist Harold Morowitz estimated that the "minimum" self-replicating cell would include:

Five proteins required for making of cell-membrane fats and structures; Eight proteins for a very simplified and basic form of energy metabolism; Ten proteins required for the production of the nucleotides (building-blocks for making DNA) and for the actual production of DNA; and then, finally, About eighty proteins as part of an apparatus for the production of all the cell's proteins.

So, the minimal cell would require at least 100 proteins (of moderate length). Morowitz writes: "This is the smallest hypothetical cell that we can envisage within the context of current biochemical thinking. It is almost certainly a lower limit." Morowitz is basically saying, that this simplest proto-cell could not stand to lose even two or three of the 100 proteins described, and still continue to function and stay alive ...otherwise, by definition, it would not consist of the "minimum" of proteins required.

This isn't relevant to the calculation. No scientist has ever postulated that a living cell rose into existence spontaneously. Every theory of abiogenesis that is out there right now involves the construction of non-living protobionts before the arising of living cells.

At this point, the calculation is hopelessly flawed. Any half-intelligent person reading this article that actually knows anything about the biological sciences would be able to see rather quickly that this is just another creationist lie. Why the creationists feel so much of a need to lie about the facts surrounding evolutionary theory I have no idea. Is your faith really that fragile that you need to delude yourself to maintain it?