Monday, August 31, 2015

A little learning of biochemistry ...

A little learning is a     dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the     Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts     intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely     sobers us again.
                  Alexander Pope
I've been following Angelo Grasso on Facebook because he posts a lot of biochemistry stuff. His schtick is to post some complicated pathway or structure then marvel at how complex it is and how it had to be designed. For a while I was commenting on his posts in order to show him why his interpretation was wrong or misleading but he just kept posting more examples gleaned from biochemistry textbooks.

This is a classic examples of someone who knows just enough to be dangerous. His latest post is about glycolysis and membrane-associated electron transport in animals. You can see it on the reasonandscience.heavenforum website: Glycolysis. Here's the bottom line ...
The critical role oxygen plays in providing cellular energy can be seen in the following equation. If one were to add oxygen to a glucose molecule (a simple sugar), the result would be carbon dioxide and water—with an overall yield of 36 aden­o­sine triphosphate (ATP) molecules! Cells utilize ATP as the energy currency for most reactions in the cell that require energy.

C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6CO2 + 6H20
(with a typical energy yield of 36 ATP)

This cellular process is known as gly­col­y­sis. Most proponents of evolution believe this process started by fermentation. From this, allegedly more complex forms of respiration evolved that require catalyzation by a large number of complex enzymes. But that is where a major problem arises. In order to break down the six-carbon sugar of glucose enzymes are required. Each step within the chemical reaction of gly­colysis is further catalyzed by specific enzymes, whose origin is still unexplainable by evolutionary assumptions. Enzymes are proteins that are made within the cell—but their production requires energy. Thus, cells require ATP to manufacture enzymes before glycolysis can even occur. (The old adage of “it takes money to make money” is applicable here—it takes energy to produce energy!) As such, evolutionists have an enormous chicken-egg problem. Which came first, glycolysis to make energy or energy from glycolysis needed to make enzymes? Without the enzymes, glycolysis could not occur to produce ATP. But without the ATP those enzymes could not be manufactured. This is strong evidence that the process of cellular respiration is not the product of evolution. As John Maina and John West observed: “Molecular oxygen is vital for generation of energy that in turn is fundamental to life” (2005, 85:838).

The other point that should not be missed is that glucose and other sugars are only present within living things in nature. This would require plant material or other life forms in existence as a food source. So how does this requirement affect the evolutionary timeline? Why would organisms evolve cellular respiration if glucose or other sugars were not available? This necessity puts restrictions on evolution and the alleged evolutionary appearance of plants.

Finally, we must ask the question of how the first living cells survived if they were still evolving a mechanism to produce and store energy in the form of ATP? If a cell is unable to make proteins, get rid of waste, or successfully divide, then how long would it survive? The obvious answer is that cells have always possessed the ability to manufacture and store energy. Our bodies were designed in such a way that complex cascades of chemical reactions occur continuously in cells throughout the body without any conscious effort on our part. We know today that the absence of one of the steps involved in these complex cascades can have dire effects on cellular growth. The only logical explanation is that a Master Architect laid out these complex steps, and we are slowly uncovering the handiwork of that Designer.
I'd like to think that everyone who has ever taken a biochemistry course at university could explain where Angelo Grasso is going wrong and why the chicken-and-egg problem isn't a problem. However, of the 1500 students in our introductory biochemistry courses, which cover glycolysis, I'm willing to bet that only a handful know the answer.

I'm not going to tell you the answer. Instead, I'd like you to answer the poll question in the left-hand margin. You can answer after you've read the comments but try and be truthful. Nobody (including me) will ever know whether you knew the right answer or not because the internet is very secure.


168 comments :

  1. A bit off topic, but how much biochemistry should a scientifically literate adult know? Any good books?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Laurence, the quote above is a copy from apolgetics press

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/ApPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=574&article=594

    and, the truth is, you abandoned every debate when you arrived at a dead end with your naturalistic explanations and were unable to refute my claims.

    But anyway, thanks for the " for free " propaganda.. LOL....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your main claim is that you don't understand how anything evolves therefore god must have done it. It tried my very best to correct your misunderstandings and explain why your logic was flawed but I was unsuccessful because your mind was already made up.

      You should probably include references to work that you copy so people don't think you wrote it yourself.

      Delete
    2. You are followed by 59 people. LMAO, how many of them are amused evolutionists?

      How pathetic

      Delete
    3. Laurence, after the title there is a number: Most proponents of evolution believe that glycolysis process started by fermentation. 3 . When you click on it, you will be directed to the source . And if you scoll down, you see a link as well. And your " argument of ignorance " rebuttal has been addressed more than once.

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1720-is-intelligent-design-merely-an-argument-from-ignorance?highlight=ignorance

      But since we are at it: please explain how the ten enzymes required for glycolysis emerged, and why in your view a naturalistic explanation tops the design inference. thanks.

      Delete
    4. Please explain how they were designed. Notice the key word there, "explain".

      That means you don't just say "they were designed", that would be at least as empty an non-explanatory as saying "they evolved". You actually have to explain it.

      You're here blathering about "fairytales" and what you write in a post further down is "suggesting " guiding hands of selection " is putting almost supernatural powers to the capabilities of natural selection, its becoming almost the universal answer for anything that has no more serious explanation, i'd say such explanations belong to marvel comics, but not to serious origin of life scenarios and scientific papers.".

      But what is your alternative here? Design. No detail at all, nothing is explained. Your mindless posturing about your supposedly superior alternative amounts to a single word: Design.Magical design. In an instant, by a god. *POOF* and there it was, fully formed. You are whining about "almost supernatural powers" being assigned to Natural Selection, and to supplant it you suggest ACTUAL supernatural powers created life. If that isn't the most pure and sublime example of irony and hypocricy, I don't know what is.

      What is even worse is that the very religion on behalf of which you are here propagandizing declares that hypocricy is a sin. In fact several places in your holy book, the human form of the god you worship is telling stories about people complaining about specks in other people's eyes while ignoring the beams in their own.

      Delete
    5. How exactly is a mystery, but does not mean it is not understood by God. In genesis it says God spoke and things came into existence. God is a potent cause with power ( energy ) and his spoken word indicates information. Because we do not understand and in a detailled manner how he created the physical universe, and life, does not mean God does not understand or can't. Mystery to us is not mystery to God, but we do know that God is not limited to His spiritual realm, as he shown with his becoming of flesh in Jesus Christ.

      Delete
    6. Because we do not understand and in a detailled manner how he created the physical universe, and life, does not mean God does not understand or can't.

      And, by the same token, just because we do not understand and in a detailed manner how natural processes created something, does not mean they did not

      Big advantage to natural processes over God(s), however: We know they exist.

      Delete
    7. God speaking things into existence has just as much explanatory power as the primaeval cow Auðhumla licking things into existence.

      Delete
    8. Replace God with Nothing, and see how much sense THAT makes....LOL.

      Delete
    9. Why would we do that? I don't believe life was created by nothing.

      Delete
    10. @leila consuelo: "How exactly is a mystery, but does not mean it is not understood by God."

      Thank you for your post full of beautiful but ultimately empty faith-staments, that's really nice. I'm sure ElShamah is very impressed by that kind of post-modernist gobbledygook.

      But how about doing something to resolve the problem of hypocricy that underpins the complaint about a supposed lack of detail in naturalistic explanations when the alternative being offered has literally no detail at all?

      You have people like Grasso complain that the naturalistic explanations contain unknowns and lack details in certain areas, yet at the same time you and him believe in a complete non-explanation. In fact you state this much yourself, directly. That the "how" is a mystery on the god-hypothesis. Then stop being a hypocrite, stop complaining about lack of detail on naturalistic explanations.

      Delete
    11. Darwins doubt, pg.268

      What natural selection lacks, intelligent design—purposive, goal-directed selection—provides. Rational agents can arrange both matter and symbols with distant goals in mind. In using language, the human mind routinely "finds" or generates highly improbable linguistic sequences to convey an intended or preconceived idea. In the process of thought, functional objectives precede and constrain the selection of words, sounds, and symbols to generate functional (and meaningful) sequences from a vast ensemble of meaningless alternative possible combinations of sound or symbol. Similarly, the construction of complex technological objects and products, such as bridges, circuit boards, engines, and software, results from the application of goal-directed constraints. Indeed, in all functionally integrated complex systems where the cause is known by experience or observation, designing engineers or other intelligent agents applied constraints on the possible arrangements of matter to limit possibilities in order to produce improbable forms, sequences, or structures. Rational agents have repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to constrain possible outcomes to actualize improbable but initially unrealized future functions. Repeated experience affirms that intelligent agents (minds) uniquely possess such causal powers. Analysis of the problem of the origin of biological information, therefore, exposes a deficiency in the causal powers of natural selection and other undirected evolutionary mechanisms that corresponds precisely to powers that agents are uniquely known to possess. Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can determine or select functional goals before they are physically instantiated. They can devise or select material means to accomplish those ends from among an array of possibilities. They can then actualize those goals in accord with a preconceived design plan or set of functional requirements. Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant information-rich outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks—by definition—are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality—with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking intelligent design to overcome a vast combinatorial search problem and to explain the origin of new specified information, contemporary advocates of intelligent design are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence.

      Delete
    12. Irreducible complexity is not based on a negative, namely that there is no evidence for a naturalistic pathway. Rather than that, it makes a positive claim, which can be falsified, upon : (a) gene knockout, (b) reverse engineering, (c) examining homologous systems, and (d) sequencing the genome of the biochemical structure. ( Dennis Jones ) Gene knockout has been done several times, providing evidence that the organism was unable to replace given gene or protein by natural means. 1 The absence of evidence that evolution is not capable to replace given part is empirical evidence, that falsifies the claim of the ToE. Its therefore not justified to claim the inference is a argument of ignorance. Quit the contrary is the case. As for example, if i ask you : can you change a us$100 bill ? and you answer: sorry, i have no smaller bills. You open your wallet, and and its confirmed, no change in your wallet, then you have proven that you have indeed no smaller bills. You have proven a negative, which is not a argument of ignorance, since you checked and got a empirical proof.

      If proponents of intelligent design were arguing in the preceding manner, they would be guilty of arguing from ignorance. But the argument takes the following form:

      Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.
      Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.
      Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example.

      Delete
    13. Hey, copy & paste bots, discussion doesn't consist in citing your favourite doctrinal manual without a word of your own comment.

      Delete
    14. @ ElShamah777,

      Gene knockout has been done several times, providing evidence that the organism was unable to replace given gene or protein by natural means

      If we provide evidence that a gene can be deleted that makes bacteria flagellum lose the flagellum, and a few mutations make different genes that bring back the flagellum, would that invalidate IC and would you admit you and Behe were wrong?

      Delete
    15. No, Dazz, because you can't prove Jesus did not intervene to resurrect the poor Pseudomonas strain when He saw evil atheist biologists torture it and damage its God-designed flagellum.

      Delete
    16. @ Piotr,

      Haha, yeah. I mean, there is even "molecular" evidence, we know every mutation that brought back the flagellum, but the goalpost never stops moving right?

      By the way, apparently Behe was not impressed with the experiment and it's results. He posted an article at ENV in response to it... of course, not a single mention to IC in it. Creatard dishonesty at it's best

      Delete
    17. please google: Evolving the Bacterial Flagellum Through Mutation and Cooption , of M Gene.

      Delete
  3. Without knowing the particular answer here, the same fundamental problem is underlying all the claims on that silly website. The problem is that it is assumed that because something works in some particular way today, there is no other way it could have worked before.

    What would cells do without protein enzymes as catalysts? Well, perhaps there were other, simpler catalysts, such as metals and minerals.

    What would cells do without lipid membranes? Well, perhaps they were physically enclosed in some other semipermable physical barrier, like inorganic minerals of some sort?

    What would cells do without ATP? Well, perhaps they would just use pyrophosphate or another simpler analogue of ATP or Acetyl-CoA.

    How would cells make their proteins if they did not get their energy from glucose? Well, maybe they got it from progressively simpler molecules and all the pathways and "machinery" today dependent on glucose, were different too and much of it gradually coevolved into what we see today?

    Maybe, just maybe, there are living organism today not dependent on molecular oxygen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rumraket, we have millions of different species on thie planet. All supposedly evolved from a common ancestor, and through the same mechanism. Mutation and natural selection. There are however only 3 domains of life. If your supposition would be true, there would have to be many different kind of cells , using different codes, or eventually even different kind of information, different storage mechanisms, different dna helixes, like B-Form, A-Form, Z-Form of DNA etc. There would be inumerous different organelles performing the same functions. If your idea is true, there would be various kind of cell membranes, and also different kind of pre life stages should be observable. We should observe protocells in various stages of evolution, some more primitive, some more advanced and close to permit life to arise....... Why isnit it so ??!! Your biased mind will of course dismiss this outhand, but it should make any serious proponent of naturalism make think....

      Delete
    2. Oh, no! The dreaded.... ellipses and multiple question & exclamation marks!!??...

      Delete
    3. "If your supposition would be true"

      What supposition?

      "there would have to be many different kind of cells"

      What is a "different kind of cell"?

      "using different codes"

      Isn't that rather the other way around? If there was a last universal ancestor from which the 3 domains evolved, they would all inherit the samge genetic code?

      "or eventually even different kind of information"

      Why would that have to evolve if we share a common ancestor? It doesn't seem to follow at all.

      "different storage mechanisms"

      Why would that have to evolve if we share a common ancestor? It doesn't seem to follow at all.

      "different dna helixes, like B-Form, A-Form, Z-Form of DNA etc."

      Why would that have to evolve if we share a common ancestor? It doesn't seem to follow at all.

      You are just spewing random claims and they don't follow from anything. Can you explain why you think all these different things would have to evolve due to common descent?

      "We should observe protocells in various stages of evolution, some more primitive, some more advanced and close to permit life to arise"

      Why should we observe that when the origin of life happened over 3.5 billion years ago? It seems to me the only thing we should observe are their descendants trillions of generations down the line.

      "Why isnit it so ??!!"

      I just told you. The origin of life happened over 3.5 billion years ago, there is absolutely no expectation that we should observe any stages from the origin of life today.

      "Your biased mind will of course dismiss this outhand"

      It would seem your prediction has failed, I have now asked several probing questions and explained why several of your pronouncements appear nonsensical.

      "but it should make any serious proponent of naturalism make think...."

      The primary thought that ran through my head when I read your post was how you derived these supposed "predictions" from anything I said, or from any principle in evolutionary biology.

      Delete
    4. you are good at ignoring my point . There would be no common ancestor ( there isnt any anyway ) , but there would be thousands or millions of different onces, each with a different cell design.

      Delete
    5. I have ignored nothing, rather I have asked questions because what you write make no sense.

      You say "there would be thousand or millions of differen onces, each with a different cell design" Why and given what assumption? Explain why this claim follows.

      Delete
    6. Well, i take you by your own words : perhaps there were other, simpler catalysts, such as metals and minerals.

      Why do we not observe them today ?

      But what is your alternative here? Design. No detail at all, nothing is explained.

      We do not need a explanation of the explanation, otherwise that would become a infinite regress, where every explanation would require another explanation of the explanation.

      Delete
    7. GE wrote: "Why do we not observe them today ? "

      Perhaps because they do exist, briefly, before natural selection kicks in and a more evolved species eats them for lunch?

      Ah yes, "infinite regress" is actually what you do want explained from Prof. Moran and people visiting this blog regarding evolution of metabolic pathways.
      Furthermore, you hide behind IC, while every attempt at IC (eye, flagellum, blood clotting, mosquitoes etc.) has failed miserably time and time again. It's the same flawed line of reasoning over and over again. Repeat ad nauseaum.

      Delete
    8. Grasso, you and other creationists expect and demand (from scientists) solid, complete evidence and explanations of every detail of the natural origin of everything that has ever existed and every natural, evolutionary process, event, and result that has ever occurred and will ever occur, and you obviously believe that if your expectations and demands aren't met, right now, then evolution has never occurred and will never occur and that your religious beliefs are therefor automatically true.

      Apply the same level of expectations and demands for solid, complete evidence and explanations to your chosen, so-called 'God' and all associated fairy tales. Be sure to include your solid, complete evidence and explanations of every detail of the origin, power, knowledge, entire existence, personality, plans, and actions of your chosen designer-creator sky daddy.

      leila consuelo preached:

      "How exactly is a mystery, but does not mean it is not understood by God. In genesis it says God spoke and things came into existence. God is a potent cause with power ( energy ) and his spoken word indicates information. Because we do not understand and in a detailed manner how he created the physical universe, and life, does not mean God does not understand or can't. Mystery to us is not mystery to God, but we do know that God is not limited to His spiritual realm, as he shown with his becoming of flesh in Jesus Christ."

      Delusional nonsense.

      "In Genesis it says..."

      So what? In The Three Little Pigs it says that the big bad wolf huffed and puffed and blew down a couple of pig houses, and in Hey Diddle Diddle it says that the cow jumped over the moon, so those three little pigs, that big bad wolf, and that cow must have actually existed and what they're said to have done they must have actually done, right?

      Delete
    9. "Well, i take you by your own words : perhaps there were other, simpler catalysts, such as metals and minerals.

      Why do we not observe them today ?"


      We do observe them today, as cofactors in enzymes. And they exist in nature as part of hydrothermal precipitates.

      "But what is your alternative here? Design. No detail at all, nothing is explained.

      We do not need a explanation of the explanation, otherwise that would become a infinite regress, where every explanation would require another explanation of the explanation."


      I'm not asking for an explanation for the explanation, I'm asking for detail. Simply saying "design" is not an explanation. There is no how or why or when, no mechanism, ny rhyme or reason. There is no there there.

      Stop being a hypocrite by giving something more than a single word please.

      Delete
    10. you hide behind IC, while every attempt at IC (eye, flagellum, blood clotting, mosquitoes etc.) has failed miserably time and time again. /// well, your assertion is based on BLIND faith, and on the fact, that you probably have not looked close enough and do not understand how biological systems function. I have a small list of 17 irreducible complex systems, look them up. I have yet to see ONE of them being debunked : http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2166-a-list-of-irreducible-complex-systems

      Delete
    11. We do observe them today, as cofactors in enzymes. And they exist in nature as part of hydrothermal precipitates. // thats true. But you do not observe them exercising the causal power you atribute to them, except in advanced modern biological systems, where complex genetically encoded information directs these molecules and substrates to coupled in proteins to do essential work in the cell.

      Delete
    12. I'm asking for detail. Simply saying "design" is not an explanation. // can you give details about your mental process ? how exactly do you get from thought a to thought b ? any detail on hand ?

      Delete
    13. I have a small list of 17 irreducible complex systems, look them up. I have yet to see ONE of them being debunked

      Maybe because you're irrelevant, IC is stupid and nobody cares. Spite of all the "propaganda" you have zero activity in your retarded boards.

      And do you even know what explanatory power means? Google it. ID has NONE, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH. It's not even wrong

      Delete
    14. I have a small list of 17 irreducible complex systems, look them up. I have yet to see ONE of them being debunked : http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2166-a-list-of-irreducible-complex-systems

      This is really scary. You run a discussion board where you post message after message and answer them yourself, then answer your own answers to your own answers, and so on. There are 2054 messages from "Admin" (98.18% of the total), and 44 from other members (0 from most). This speaks volumes about the impact of "creationist science".

      Ah, look at all the lonely people...

      Delete
    15. Piotr, i use the message board as my personal virtual library. Thats all.

      Delete
    16. El:
      " well, your assertion is based on BLIND faith,"

      No, facts actually. Even in nature today, there's a multitude of different types of eyes. And why design a fish which lives in caves, in utter darkness, with eyes? Rudimentry, but they're still there...

      And that list, like Dazz says, "What a waste of interwebz"

      Delete
    17. An explanation must explain a complex phenomenon in terms of less complexity, not more of it. A designer (see Kolmogorov-Chaitin) is always at least as complex as the results of his activity, thus postulating him is not an explanation. OTOH, the various mechanism of evolution can increase complexity, thus can serve as explanations.

      Delete
    18. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion

      God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity
      http://www.gavinjensen.com/blog/rebutting-an-atheist-argument-against-theism

      Suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover some machine-like objects that look and work just like a 1941 Allis Chalmers tractor; our leader says “there must be intelligent beings on this planet—look at those tractors.” A sophomore philosophy student on the expedition objects: “Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are!” No doubt we’d tell him a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two.

      The point is that the leader was not trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity. He was only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it—the tractors. In this context it is perfectly reasonable to explain one manifestation of organized complexity with another. Similarly theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for all organized complexity (including God) when they invoke God as an explanation for organized complexity.

      Delete
    19. So if God is super simple, you simpletons are definitely made on his image. True story.
      It also must mean that god is irreducibly complex right? So if IC implies design, who designed god?

      Delete
    20. http://carm.org/if-everything-needs-creator-then-who-or-what-created-god

      Some may ask, "But who created God?" The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him.

      Delete
    21. does not apply to Him

      How convenient. All your definitions, the ones which you imagine prove the necessity of god (IC, causality, etc...) don't apply to God... by definition. More special pleading please: it means god, by definition, is only in your mind:

      Illustration

      Delete
  4. "Which came first, glycolysis to make energy or energy from glycolysis needed to make enzymes?"

    Neither. The energy to make enzymes didn't come from glycolysis to begin with, it probably came from a natural proton gradient.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Say hello to Nick Lane from fairytaleandia. How did LUCA make a living? Chemiosmosis in the origin of life 1

      One of the biggest stumbling blocks to the idea of ‘chemiosmosis early’ is the daunting complexity of the ATP synthase – a nanomachine comprising a rotary motor powered by a flow of protons through the membrane stalk, coupled to the rotating head that forms ATP from ADP and phosphate. The two main domains, the stalk and the rotating head, have no obvious homologues among other proteins. ATP synthase is certainly the product of Darwinian evolution at the level of genes and proteins.

      The fact that both archaea and bacteria possess similar ATP synthase enzymes (A- and F-type ATPases, respectively) implies that an ATPase ancestral to both types did indeed evolve in the vents.

      The amino acid substitutions common to the membrane rotor subunits predict that Naþ-dependent ATPases arose in parallel in independent lineages.

      the first ATPases harnessed a natural proton gradient in alkaline vents, the magnitude (roughly 1000-fold concentration difference) and polarity of that gradient (alkaline inside) being virtually identical to that in modern cells.

      It seems to me Nick Lane is making himself a fool by making such baseless assertions not providing a shred of evidence, but basing his inference on wishful thinking. If the evolution of one ATP synthase motor is extremely unlikely, imagine two, independently, in convergent manner...... Furthermore, Lane ignores that atp synthase is not the only machine required , there are several others.

      Sodium ATPases are then derived in several lineages independently, involving a few parallel amino acid substitutions to proton ATPases under the guiding hand of selection.

      More funny is imho that in order to make ATP synhtase, alll the advanced machinery depending on DNA to RNA Polymerase, Ribosome etc. is required..... LOL. How is it possible that no peers are questioning this obvious fact ?

      It is worth noting here that we do not envisage the ancestral ATPase as embedded in the inorganic walls, but rather in organic lipids lining the walls.

      More science fiction......

      At present, there is nothing to suggest that any simpler intermediates did actually precede the ATPase, and no need for them to do so.

      Well, how in fact atp synthase arose is what has to be explained first hand.... suggesting " guiding hands of selection " is putting almost supernatural powers to the capabilities of natural selection, its becoming almost the universal answer for anything that has no more serious explanation, i'd say such explanations belong to marvel comics, but not to serious origin of life scenarios and scientific papers.

      There is no reason why a rotor-stator type ATPase could not be ‘invented’de novo; in terms of complexity it requires no more evolutionary innovation than the origin of a primordial ribosome, which everyone would agree didevolve.

      So because supposedly the Ribosome did evolve, ATP synthase likely evolved as well. Amazing. What our author forgets, is, that both, ATP synthase, and the ribosome, both would have NO USE unless fully functioning and embedded in the respective production lines..... so why should they evolve in the first place ??

      1) http://www.researchgate.net/publication/41167227_How_did_LUCA_make_a_living_Chemiosmosis_in_the_origin_of_life

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1439-atp-synthase

      Delete
    2. GE, if you read Nick Lane carefully instead of trying to mock him so ineptly, you would find some useful suggestions concerning the poll question.

      Delete
    3. "At present, there is nothing to suggest that any simpler intermediates did actually precede the ATPase, and no need for them to do so. "

      That is just wrong I'm afraid. In fact there is good phylogenetic evidence that the ATP synthase is an evolved entity, and ancestral stages of the structure and it's subsequent evolution has even been reproduced in the laboratory using Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction:
      Evolution of increased complexity in a molecular machine..

      "Abstract
      Many cellular processes are carried out by molecular 'machines'-assemblies of multiple differentiated proteins that physically interact to execute biological functions. Despite much speculation, strong evidence of the mechanisms by which these assemblies evolved is lacking. Here we use ancestral gene resurrection and manipulative genetic experiments to determine how the complexity of an essential molecular machine--the hexameric transmembrane ring of the eukaryotic V-ATPase proton pump--increased hundreds of millions of years ago. We show that the ring of Fungi, which is composed of three paralogous proteins, evolved from a more ancient two-paralogue complex because of a gene duplication that was followed by loss in each daughter copy of specific interfaces by which it interacts with other ring proteins. These losses were complementary, so both copies became obligate components with restricted spatial roles in the complex. Reintroducing a single historical mutation from each paralogue lineage into the resurrected ancestral proteins is sufficient to recapitulate their asymmetric degeneration and trigger the requirement for the more elaborate three-component ring. Our experiments show that increased complexity in an essential molecular machine evolved because of simple, high-probability evolutionary processes, without the apparent evolution of novel functions. They point to a plausible mechanism for the evolution of complexity in other multi-paralogue protein complexes."


      It some times help when you are to spew religiously motivated lies, to read the literature first.

      Delete
    4. "So because supposedly the Ribosome did evolve, ATP synthase likely evolved as well."

      Nobody actually reasons like this.

      Delete
    5. Irreducible complexity does NOT exclude micro evolution, actually both are complementary. The ATP synthase motor IS ic. I thought we were over this ...

      1.The nucleotide binding stator subunits (“cylinders”) : The electrostatic interaction of these rotor and stator charges is essential for torque generation
      2.The central stalk (“crankshaft”) : The torsional elasticity of the central stalk and the bending and stretching elasticity of the peripheral stalk create an elastic coupling between Fo and F1. Is is essential.
      3, The A/V rotor subunit (“adapter”) ; It is not used in all ATP synthase motors, and can therefore be reduced.
      4. The Rotor ring (“turbine”) ; A ring of 8–15 identical c-subunits is essential for ion-translocation by the rotary electromotor of the ubiquitous FOF1-
      ATPase.
      5.The Jon channel forming subunit ; Subunit a harbors the ion channel that provides access to the binding site on the c11 ring in the middle of the membrane from the periplasmic surface . The channel is essential for the operation of the enzyme, because mutants in which the channel is blocked are completely inactive in both the ATP synthesis and/or coupled ATP hydrolysis mode
      6. The peripheral stalk (“pushrod”) ; The peripheral stalk of F-ATPases is an essential component of these enzymes. It extends from the membrane distal point of the F1 catalytic domain along the surface of the F1 domain with subunit a in the membrane domain.
      7 - 11 do not exist in all atp synthase motors, and can therefore be reduced.

      There are at least 5 subunit parts essential to mantain the basice function of the ATP synthase motor.

      ATP synthase is an irreducibly complex motor—a proton-driven motor divided into rotor and stator portions as described and illustrated earlier in this paper. Protons can flow freely through the CF0 complex without the CF1 complex, so that if it evolved first, a pH gradient could not have been established within the thylakoids. The δ and critical χ protein subunits of the CF1 complex are synthesized in the cytosol and imported into the chloroplast in everything from Chlorella to Eugenia in the plant kingdom.49 All of the parts must be shipped to the right location, and all must be the right size and shape, down to the very tiniest detail. Using a factory assembly line as an analogy, after all the otherwise useless and meaningless parts have been manufactured in different locations and shipped in to a central location, they are then assembled, and, if all goes as intended, they fit together perfectly to produce something useful. But the whole process has been carefully designed to function in that way. The whole complex must be manufactured and assembled in just one certain way, or nothing works at all. Since nothing works until everything works, there is no series of intermediates that natural selection could have followed gently up the back slope of mount impossible. The little proton-driven motor known as ATP synthase consists of eight different subunits, totalling more than 20 polypeptide* chains, and is an order of magnitude smaller than the bacterial flagellar motor,50 which is equally impossible for evolutionists to explain. 10

      Delete
    6. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/05/evolution_found071671.html

      Delete
    7. "Irreducible complexity does NOT exclude micro evolution"

      Where do you find the word micro evolution in this paper? How do you infer we are talking about a case of microevolution here?

      Even if the evolution of ATP synthase is actually microevolution(it isn't, the ancestral state of the structure and the mutational events it went through was inferred from over 100 species different versions of the motor, this implies over 800 million years of macroevolutionary change), what the fuck does that even matter? The supposed impossibility of the origin and evolution of irreducibly complex structures is one of the hallmark claims of Intelligent Design creationism, and when you are shown what you have argued is impossible, nevertheless still happened, your response is to call it microevolution and pretend nothing happened?

      I have no words for that, I must quote Schiller:

      "Folly, thou conquerest, and I must yield! Against stupidity the very gods Themselves contend in vain." -Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller

      Delete
    8. I cite from your paper:

      We first inferred the phylogeny and best-fit evolutionary model of the protein family of which Vma3, Vma11 and Vma16 are members using the sequences of all 139 extant family members available in GenBank (Supplementary Table 1). The maximum likelihood phylogeny (Fig. 1b andSupplementary Information, section 2) indicates that Vma3 and Vma11 are sister proteins that were produced by duplication of an ancestral gene (Anc.3–11) before the last common ancestor of all Fungi (~800 million years ago20).

      So they start their inquiry from a common ancestor. That does NOT explain however how the first ATP synthase emerged. The paper just asserts that from then on, gene duplication provided the diversity. Thats another baseless assertion as well, just infered from phylogeny anaylsis.



      2. The make phylogeny comparisons does NOT explain the supposed mechanism of macro evolution : Behe brings it to the point, when he writes: There is no publication in the scientific literature – in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur, or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none is supported by pertinent experiments or calculations… despite comparing sequences and mathematical modelling, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be. This is also true for your presented paper. Phylogeny

      http://www.detectingdesign.com/geneticphylogeny.html

      mollusks (scallops) are more closely related to deuterostomes (sea urchins) than arthropods (brine shrimp). Of course, this is not too surprising. Intuitively, a scallop seems more like a sea urchin than a shrimp. So, the 82% correlation between the scallop and sea urchin is not surprising. However, in this light it is surprising is that a tarantula (also an arthropod) has a 92% correlation with the scallop. Here we have two different arthropods, a shrimp and an tarantula. How can a scallop be much more related to one type of arthropod and much less related to the other type of arthropod? This troubling thought led the authors of the Science article to remark:

      Different representative species, in this case brine shrimp or tarantula for the arthropods, yield wildly different inferred relationships among phyla. Both trees have strong bootstrap support (percentage at node). . . The critical question is whether current models of 18S rRNA evolution are sufficiently accurate to successfully compensate for long branch attraction between the animal phyla. Without knowing the correct tree ahead of time, this question will be hard to answer. However, current models of DNA substitution usually fit the data poorly .

      So your paper missed the point entirely.....

      Delete
    9. @Grasso Empreendimentos

      In one of your comments above you copied and pasted from "The Thinking Atheist."

      This is fairly typical behavior for you on Facebook and elsewhere but I won't tolerate it here. It's plagiarism. If you don't include proper attributions and references I will assume that you are trying to make us believe that those are your own words.

      I will delete all comments like that.





      Delete
    10. " How did LUCA make a living? "

      Ummm. LUCA was a living thing....

      Delete
    11. "So they start their inquiry from a common ancestor. That does NOT explain however how the first ATP synthase emerged."

      I don't care, I did not claim to know how the ATP synthase ultimately originated. I claim to provide evidence that it is an evolved entity. That means we have evidence it evolved, it doesn't mean we know how it started or that we know what happened every step of the way.

      Your claim was that it is impossible to evolve because it is irreducibly complex. That claim has been directly refuted with an experiment, so my work here is done.

      "The paper just asserts that from then on, gene duplication provided the diversity. Thats another baseless assertion as well, just infered from phylogeny anaylsis."

      If it's inferred from phylogenetic analysis then it is not a baseless assertion. The fact that a strong phylogeny can be constructed in the first place is powerful evidence that the machine has evolved. They also test their ancestral reconstructed version of the machine for function and find out that, hey, it actually works. If you are right and the machine is impossible to reduce without breaking it, then that experiment should simply not have been possible to do.

      Delete
    12. I don't care, I did not claim to know how the ATP synthase ultimately originated. // well, that is however the point i make. As a IC system, ATP synthase could never emerge by natural means. And much less in a prebiotic stage that Nick Lane envisions in his fairy tale fantasy scenarios.

      Delete
    13. I claim to provide evidence that it is an evolved entity./// one thing is to claim that the mechanism upon which the fist atp synthase emerged was evolution. Another is to claim that its diversity and variation is due to mutation and natural selection. The latter is true, and i agreed on that already. The variation are easily explainable through micro evolution. How it started is however the crux of the question. the BIG question mark. And you should care, if you want to make a credible case for naturalism.....

      Delete
    14. Your claim was that it is impossible to evolve because it is irreducibly complex. That claim has been directly refuted with an experiment, so my work here is done.///// nice straw man..... LOL.....

      Delete
    15. If it's inferred from phylogenetic analysis then it is not a baseless assertion./// well, its based on a flawed pressumption. Namely that phylogeny analysis are prove that it evolved. Its not the first time i explain to you that similarity can easily be explained by the fact, that a common designer can design similar biological things, in the same manner as Rolls Royce makes similar cars, using similar sub parts......

      Delete
    16. Except Rolls Royce exists and we have evidence of that existence.

      Delete
    17. "well, that is however the point i make. As a IC system, ATP synthase could never emerge by natural means."

      Prove it.

      "And much less in a prebiotic stage that Nick Lane envisions in his fairy tale fantasy scenarios."

      Why not? Prove it.

      Delete
    18. "one thing is to claim that the mechanism upon which the fist atp synthase emerged was evolution. Another is to claim that its diversity and variation is due to mutation and natural selection."

      Well no, not really. You see you're the one who claims the structure is irreducibly complex and that, in so far as there is a part that, when removed breaks the function, then that part is necessary and could not have evolved.

      The paper I cited shows that the proteins in the ring of Fungi are necessary for function, but their loss is compensated for by point mutations in the surrounding proteins.

      This is the same fundamental mistake you make in ALL your mindless appeals to IC: You think that because something functions a specific way now, there is no way that a reduced version of it in the past could ever work. But you keep neglecting to consider if compensatory changes in the surrounding structures and systems could recapture function for the system as a whole. This is why IC fails as an argument for any and all of your pet biological structures, whether DNA repair, packaging or synthesis. All your arguments suffer this same foundational flaw.

      Delete
    19. You think that because something functions a specific way now, there is no way that a reduced version of it in the past could ever work./// Do you really lack the basic understanding of the definition of a ic system ? 2. William Dembski's Enhanced Definition — "A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system." (No Free Lunch, page 285, 2001) i have already provided you a list ot at least 5 indispensable parts in atp synthase.

      Delete
    20. You lack the basic understanding of why "irreducible complexity", as defined by Dembski, is evolvable. That's what Mikkel is trying to explain to you, but of course it's falling on deaf ears.

      Delete
    21. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    22. Piotr, yes, i have no understanding AT ALL of how for example ATP synthase could evolve starting from zero. And i have yet to see ONE scientific paper which has shown how it could happen, and explained in detail the mechanism involved.

      John Lennox : There is no publication in the scientific literature – in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur, or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none is supported by pertinent experiments or calculations… despite comparing sequences and mathematical modelling, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be.

      James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, also admits that there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system; only a variety of wishful speculations. Even the highly critical review of Behe by Cavalier-Smith concedes Behe’s point that no detailed biochemical models exist.

      Delete
    23. Starting from zero? You won't accept a scenario unless you are shown all the details since the beginning of life on Earth? That can't be done, but it isn't necessary to do it. The evolvability of irreducibly complex can be demonstrated for some of the steps in their development, and that's enough. If you can trace them back to a simpler structure in the past, that falsifies the claim that they are irreducible in historical terms. Mikkel has already shown you one example, and there are any more. How do IDiots know that the "basic, and therefore original, function" as defined by them is indeed the ancestral one? How can they talk of "the original function" if they don't believe new functions are evolvable at all? To them the present function (or at least its "core") is the original one as well. If they accepted the evolvability of functions by natural means, they would add their signatures to the death warrant of Intelligent Design.

      John Lennox is a philosopher of science and mathematician (and of course a religious propagandist). His smug opinion above only shows his ignorance and monumental hubris. I won't comment on James Shapiro or Cavalier-Smith because Lennox doesn't provide any references.

      Delete
    24. The evolvability of irreducibly complex can be demonstrated for some of the steps in their development, and that's enough.////

      It might be enough for you. Its however not convincing to me.

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2179-all-cellular-functions-are-irreducibly-complex

      Prokaryotes are thought to differ from eukaryotes in that they lack membrane-bounded organelles. However, it has been demonstrated that there are bacterias which have membrane bound organelles named acidocalcisomes, and that V-H+PPase proton pumps are present in their surrounding membranes. Acidocalcisomes have been found in organisms as diverse as bacteria and humans. Volutin granules which are equivalent of acidocalcisomes also occur in Archaea and are, therefore, present in the three superkingdoms of life (Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya). These volutin granule organelles occur in organisms spanning an enormous range of phylogenetic complexity from Bacteria and Archaea to unicellular eukaryotes to algae to plants to insects to humans. According to neo-darwinian thinking, the universal distribution of the V-H+PPase domain suggests the domain and the enzyme were already present in the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA).

      If the proton pumps of Volutin granules were present in LUCA, they had to emerge prior to self replication, which induces serious constraints to propose evolution as driving factor. But if evolution was not the mechanism, what else was ? There is not much left, namely chance, random chemical reactions, or physical necessity.

      But lets for a instance accept the "fact of evolution", and suppose it was the driving force to make V-H+PPase proton pumps. In some period prior to the verge of non-life to life, natural selection or an other evolutionary mechanism would have had to start polymerisation of the right amino acid sequence to produce V-H+PPase proton pumps by addition of one amino acid monomer to the other.

      The genetic code to make the right ~600 amino acid sequence would have to be achieved not by mutation , since that would require a pre-existing amino acid sequence, but adding randomly a new amino acid, and select the advantageous sequence. Instead as by evolution, which evolves pre-existing proteins, in a origin of life scenario proteins would have all to be produced denovo. The problem in this stage is, when there is no selective advantage until you get the final function, the final function doesn't evolve. In other words, a chain of around 600 amino acids is required to make a funcional V-H+PPase proton pump, but there is no function, until polymerisation of all 600 monomers is completed and the right sequence achieved.

      The problem for those who accept the truth of evolution is, they cannot accept the idea that any biological structure with a beneficial function, however complex, is very far removed from the next closest functional system or subsystem within the potential of "sequence space" that might be beneficial if it were ever found by random mutations of any kind. In our case the situation is even more drastic, since DENOVO genetic sequence and subsequently amino acid chain for a new formation of a new amino acids strand is required. A further constraint is the fact that 100% of amino acids used and needed for life are left handed, while DNA and RNA requires D-sugars. Until today, science has not sorted out how nature is able to select the right chiral handedness. The problem is its believed there to be a warm soup consisting of racemic mixtures of amino acid enantiomers (and sugars). How did this homogenous phase separate into chirally pure components? How did an asymmetry (assumed to be small to start with) arise in the population of both enantiomers? How did the preference of one chiral form over the other, propagate so that all living systems are made of 100 percent optically pure components?

      Delete
    25. How would a bacterium evolve a function like a single protein enzyme? - like a V-H+PPase proton pump? The requirement is about 600 specified residues at minimum. A useful V-H+PPase cannot be made with significantly lower minimum size and specificity requirements. These minimum requirements create a kind of threshold beyond which the V-H+PPase function simply cannot be built up gradually where very small one or two residues changes at a time result in a useful change in the degree of the proton pump function. Therefore, such functions cannot have evolved in a gradual, step by step manner. There simply is no template or gradual pathway from just any starting point to the minimum threshold requirement. Only after this threshold has been reached can evolution take over and make further refinements - but not until then.

      All Functions are "Irreducibly Complex" 4

      The fact is that all cellular functions are irreducibly complex in that all of them require a minimum number of parts in a particular order or orientation. I go beyond what Behe proposes and make the suggestion that even single-protein enzymes are irreducibly complex. A minimum number of parts in the form of amino acid residues are required for them to have their particular functions. The proton pump function cannot be realized in even the smallest degree with a string of only 5 or 10 or even 500 residues of any arrangement. Also, not only is a minimum number of parts required for the proton pump function to be realized, but the parts themselves, once they are available in the proper number, must be assembled in the proper order and three-dimensional orientation. Brought together randomly, the residues, if left to themselves, do not know how to self-assemble themselves to form a much of anything as far as a functional system that even comes close to the level of complexity of a even a relatively simple function like a proton pump. And yet, their specified assembly and ultimate order is vital to function.
      Of course, such relatively simply systems, though truly irreducibly complex, have evolved. This is because the sequence space at such relatively low levels of functional complexity is fairly dense. It is fairly easy to come across new beneficial sequences if the density of potentially beneficial sequences in sequence space is relatively high. This density does in fact get higher and higher at lower and lower levels of functional complexity - in an exponential manner. Darwinian evolution can work fine when one small step (e.g., a single point mutation) along an evolutionary pathway gives an advantage. The theory of intelligent design has no problem with this.

      It is much like moving between 3-letter words in the English language system. Since the ratio of meaningful vs. meaningless 3-letter words in the English language is somewhere around 1:18, one can randomly find a new meaningful and even beneficial 3-letter word via single random letter changes/mutations in relatively short order. This is not true for those ideas/functions/meanings that require more and more letters. For example, the ratio of meaningful vs. meaningless 7-letter words and combinations of smaller words equaling 7-letters is far far lower at about 1 in 250,000. It is therefore just a bit harder to evolve between 7-letter words, one mutation at a time, than it was to evolve between 3-letter words owing to the exponential decline in the ratio of meaningful vs. meaningless sequences.

      The same thing is true for the evolution of codes, information systems, and systems of function in living things as it is for non-living things (i.e., computer systems etc). The parts of these codes and systems of function, if brought together randomly, simply do not have enough meaningful information to do much of anything. So, how are they brought together in living things to form such high level functional order?

      Delete
    26. It might be enough for you. Its however not convincing to me.

      Who cares? You don't think and argue for yourself. You only copy and paste stuff you don't really understand (not that it's worth understanding -- it's a misrepresentation of actual research).

      Delete
    27. "I go beyond what Behe proposes and make the suggestion that even single-protein enzymes are irreducibly complex. A minimum number of parts in the form of amino acid residues are required for them to have their particular functions."

      And yet they can still easily evolve. It has been observed happening over and over again in countless experiments.

      Delete
    28. A minimum number of parts in the form of amino acid residues...

      Amino acid residues are not functional units, anyway. Sean D. Pitman (the actual author of that text) is the man who accepts an old Earth but still believes life is just a few thousand years old. Little wonder he can't think of any other natural way functional proteins could arise than this strawman carricature: spontaneous self-assembly from a random collection of individual amino acids. This can't happen, therefore Jesus.

      Delete
    29. But if evolution was not the mechanism, what else was ? There is not much left, namely chance, random chemical reactions, or physical necessity.

      There is so much wrong with everything you think, it is barely worth responding. Nevertheless... let me say that evolution depends upon chance and random events (no doubt you will misinterpret this, but oh well). But physical necessity...where does that come from? What does that even mean? There has been nothing "physically necessary" in all the history of the universe. But if you think the universe had to unfold just as it has, then you won't understand this fact either.

      Delete
  5. C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6CO2 + 6H20

    My biochemistry is a bit rusty, but this doesn't seem quite right

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And a water molecule is two Hs and one O, not a complex of twenty hydrogen atoms. Additionally, in that "Glycolysis" post a whole long paragraph is duplicated.

      Delete
    2. Bingo!
      And correct me if I'm wrong, but then it still doesn't describe the "cellular process known as gly­col­y­sis" as the next sentence claims, right?

      I note it is described correctly later on in the text. Looks like a sloppy cut-n-paste job.

      Delete
    3. @ Piotr
      The loss of formatting in the formula is of my doing. I'll try to preserve it next time.

      Delete
    4. No, you must be mistaken, sir. Why should the author copy and paste stuff mindlessly, with all the typos? Why should he plagiarise fellow creationists? The similarity between his learned essay and this text must be accidental:

      http://www.apologeticspress.org/ApPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=574&article=594

      Delete
    5. @Corneel: Actually, "C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6CO2 + 6H20" is how Grasso has it.

      Delete
    6. @Piotr
      Haha, you are right. Seems like Larry actually fixed that in the quote.

      Delete
    7. But the mutation O → 0 (zero). which originated in Brad Harrub's post, has survived all the stages of copying.

      Delete
  6. "Which came first, glycolysis to make energy or energy from glycolysis needed to make enzymes?" The "energy from glycolysis" is a clever restriction on possible answers. Of course the answer involves energy from other sources, not glycolysis. You'd think even this person's superficial reading of biochemistry would have led him to that realization.

    Oh! But this isn't about understanding the issues. This is about statements that sound like they support creationism even if they're stupid. So congratulations to Grasso and those he plagiarizes!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed it is not about understanding issues. The entire point of ID creationism is to make comforting sciency sounds. For the overwhelming mass of believers, who have neither the ability nor the inclination to actually study the issues, the illusion of science is sufficient to calm their occasional bouts of dissonance.

      It's rather like listening to fundamentalists reference "sophisticated" theologians who, in fact, share almost none of their beliefs. But the believers don't understand or care about this. What matters to them, and to the sort of "science buffs" who read Grasso, is that there is an authority figure that is at least nominally identified with their side, and is saying important sounding things.

      Delete
    2. The entire point of "ID creationism" is to give evoTARDs a strawman to attack

      Cool, at least you admit it.
      Problem is it doesn't work, we still know it's the same old creationism and religious crap.

      If you had half a functional brain cell you wouldn't include creationism in "ID creationism" since the entire point of ID is to fool people into believing ID is not religiously motivated. But you're too dumb to even understand the movement you cheerlead for

      Delete
    3. There, there, Joe, there, there. It's gonna be OK

      Delete
    4. You lose, loser.

      Looking for a bet again, Joey? Just remember: "A bet’s a bet. You bet on a bet and if you lose, you lose the bet."

      Delete
  7. It's hilarious that the analogy "it takes money to make money" is used. By the very "logic" of the "argument", money shouldn't exist because it's impossible for it to come about.
    How the hell does anybody write this BS and not realize they refuted themselves with their own analogy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, sir. YOUR logic is hilarious.

      Plausibility does NOT equal inevitability.

      Your only rebuttal is to declare emergence and then walk away.

      Uncivilized Elk starts mumbling something about.....somehow, someway, Man was able to grasp the idea of trade and its advantages. Don't know how...but since well, Man DOES trade...well then there you go...you have the proof right there....that the concept of trade did in fact emerge....

      Voila, evolution in action, baby!!

      Delete
    2. "Your only rebuttal is to declare emergence and then walk away."

      Hey Steve, how, when, where, and why did your chosen, so-called 'God' originate? Did it emerge? If so, from whom or what? You won't declare that your chosen, so-called 'God' just is, always has been, and always will be, and then walk away, will you?

      "Plausibility does NOT equal inevitability."

      Your imaginary sky daddy isn't even plausible, let alone inevitable.

      Delete
  8. Not all organisms have the typical glycolytic (Embden-Meyerhof-Parnas) pathway. In some species of bacteria the only way to degrade glucose is the pentose phospahate pathway or the Enter-Duodoroff pathway.

    This is good evidence that the most primitive pathway is not glycolysis but gluconeogenesis, a pathway that's very similar except it makes glucose instead of degrading it. All species can make glucose, including us. The major part of the glycolysis pathway actually runs in the opposite direction most of the time.

    This makes a lot of sense. Early evolution favored the development of pathways that make more and more complex carbohydrates culminating in a pathway for synthesis of glucose. Once glucose molecules became plentiful, they were used to store energy in the form of glycogen.

    Primitive prokaryotes then evolved special enzymes that could break down glycogen to release the energy. Some of these by-passed certain steps in gluconeogenesis thus giving rise to the modern glycolysis pathway.

    The important point is that there is no chicken-and-egg problem. Glycolysis didn't exist until after gluconeogenesis made glucose. Life did not originate in an ocean full of glucose.

    It's very unlikely that the earliest cells use ATP. There are many other, more simple, molecules that work just as well. Some of them are still used today (phosphoenolpyruvate, phosphocreatine, pyrophosphate). The latest ideas on the origin of life postulate that proton gradients were created in hydrothermal vents. These gradients could have been used in oxidation-reduction reactions involving iron-sulphur clusters to create reducing equivalents that can be used to make pyrophosphate.

    Modern cells have lots of iron-suphur clusters, in fact they're common in the respiration enzymes.

    It wasn't necessary to have glucose before you had ATP and it wasn't even necessary to have ATP to make peptides.

    Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " This makes a lot of sense. Early evolution favored the development of pathways that make more and more complex carbohydrates culminating in a pathway for synthesis of glucose." Glycolysis had to be present in the first living organism. How do you want to explain its emergence with evolution, if evolution was not a driving force prior to replication ? how did the ten enzymes and co-factors in the glycolysis pathway and its precursors emerge ? luck ? chance ? please explain.

      Delete
    2. The latest ideas on the origin of life postulate that proton gradients were created in hydrothermal vents. These gradients could have been used in oxidation-reduction reactions involving iron-sulphur clusters to create reducing equivalents that can be used to make pyrophosphate. //// there is a BIG gap from this speculative scenario, until the electron transport chain........ and if you propose like Nick Lane some proton pumps in the thermal vents, feel free to explain how these proton pumps came to be in a prebiotic scenario..... good luck with that.

      Delete
    3. "Glycolysis had to be present in the first living organism."

      Prove it.

      "How do you want to explain its emergence with evolution, if evolution was not a driving force prior to replication ?"

      Why are you asking questions Larry has already answered? Glycolysis, in so far as it evolved, obviously emerged later, after replication had emerged, because it evolved.

      It helps when you understand what the words mean and if you use a little logic. Just the tinies bit will do.

      Delete
    4. "Glycolysis had to be present in the first living organism."

      Prove it. /////

      i was expecting that question, haha.

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1796-glycolysis#3989

      Delete
    5. Why are you asking questions Larry has already answered? Glycolysis, in so far as it evolved, obviously emerged later, after replication had emerged, because it evolved. /// yep. application of pseudo science at its best. I asked Laurence to explain how the ten enzymes used in Glycolysis emerged. I did expect him to dodge the question. Guess what ? His track record makes him very predictable. Obviously, he did not answer... LOL....

      Delete
    6. Granting for the sake of the argument that LUCA had a glycolytic pathway similar to that found in modern organisms (I'm not sure how safe this inference is), LUCA most certainly wasn't the first organism; it had billions upon billions of generations of evolutionary predecessors.

      Delete
    7. LUCA most certainly wasn't the first organism; it had billions upon billions of generations of evolutionary predecessors.// LOL. How do you know ? answer: you don't know. How about you stop making assertion of which you have no understanding?

      Delete
    8. How do you know ?

      I know for sure that living organisms don't pop into existence in a puff of magic smoke (which is the only alternative).

      Delete
    9. Yes, yes Joe. Unlike your god, Piotr is limited by existence.
      BTW, Intellectually, you don't even hold a candle to Piotr's toe nail

      Delete
    10. ElShamah777: "LUCA most certainly wasn't the first organism; it had billions upon billions of generations of evolutionary predecessors."// LOL. How do you know ? answer: you don't know. How about you stop making assertion of which you have no understanding?

      I imagine he knows (or at least is virtually certain) because has given some serious thought to the question and isn't just spouting half understood statements from the creationist industry.

      Let me give you an example. I am the last common ancestor of my three daughters, four granddaughters and two grandsons. Does that make me the first human being?

      Delete
    11. To be fair, though, a lot of people who should know better seem to talk about LUCA as if it were the first organism, and some of them even think it. Even people who publish serious papers about LUCA sometimes fall into that error, and if I point out the error they says things like "yes, you're right" and then go back to talking in sloppy terms.

      Delete
    12. Piotr cannot explain our existence

      LOL, You're most definitely a challenge to "intelligent" design.

      Delete
    13. Let me give you an example. I am the last common ancestor of my three daughters, four granddaughters and two grandsons. Does that make me the first human being?

      That means your daughters had different mothers, right? Or can there be more than one last common ancestor?

      Delete
    14. That means your daughters had different mothers, right? Or can there be more than one last common ancestor?

      Yes to the first question, but I wasn't planning to go into that. So far as the second is concerned I think that the answer is yes there as well, but it makes it more complicated if you have two parents. I expect LUCA was haploid, however.

      Delete
    15. "i was expecting that question, haha.

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1796-glycolysis#3989"

      This discussion does not prove that glycolysis had to be present in the first living organism. It considered the scenario where they assume ten enzymes involved in the process had to poof into existence simultaneously, and concludes that would be impossible.

      Delete
    16. What Chris B said, your mindless copy-paste does not establish the fact of your claim. Back to the drawing board kiddo.

      Delete
  9. Heck of a thing, it seems to me, that the essential energetic components of living cells are also capable of polymeric stacking in RNA, and two antiparallel stacks of such bases allow precise hydrogen bonding between pairs of the things. What a remarkable coincidence it is that glycolysis produces such a molecule, all ready to stack ... surely there is a better energy currency than ATP? Constraint on stacking must lead to suboptimal energetic characteriscs? Surely if you were designing the system you wouldn't couple replication, protein synthesis and energetics in this way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I probably wouldn't have designed life in that way. That's because I'm not as intelligent as god.

      What a remarkable coincidence it is that glycolysis produces such a molecule, ..

      Glycolysis doesn't produce ATP. Proton gradients produce ATP and in bacteria those proton gradients are generated by all kinds of oxidized molecules that have never come anywhere near a glycolytic enzyme.

      Delete
    2. Glycolysis doesn't produce ATP.

      Shome mishtake shurely? I'm well aware that proton gradients produce it, and they would be my favoured bet for primitive ATP generation, but I believe there's a net yield of ATP from glycolysis. I refer you to the eStudy guide for Principles of Biochemistry by Moran et al, which states “The free energy released in [glycolysis] is used to form the high-energy compounds ATP, FADH2 and NADH.”.

      However produced, it is remarkable that all 3 molecules either are, or are modified forms of, the RNA base.

      Delete
    3. My 'remarkable coincidence' was directed at people who think glycolysis came first, not saying that I do.

      Delete
    4. Good catch. I meant to say that glycolysis is not the only way to produce ATP. There's no chicken-and-egg problem concerning glycolysis and ATP.

      BTW, the eStudy guide for my book is incorrect. I specifically point out in my book that FADH2 is NOT one of the products of the citric acid cycle.

      Delete
    5. er ... not one of the products of the citric acid cycle, or not produced in glycolysis?

      I forgot acetyl CoA too, btw. There's far too much embedding of adenosine, plus the initiating consumption of ATP in the first steps of glycolysis (a 'chicken-egg' trick Grasso missed) for glycolysis to precede replication IMO.

      Delete
  10. so, one thing I'm not clear on in regards to the proton gradient at vents idea - what exactly is converting proton-motive force to chemical energy in these scenarios? Is it early forms of ATP synthase? I see two issues with that -
    1) if you have functional proteins, most would say that complex, adaptive life has already gotten started, so chemiosmotic coupling would be more an issue for the early evolution of life, rather than its origin.
    2) my understanding is that these pH gradients are supposed to form across thin inorganic films, which are substantially different from the lipid membranes of biology. It seems unlikely a trans-membrane protein like ATP synthase would work in these films.

    So, if not ATP synthases, what's converting proton gradients to chemical energy? Has something been proposed specifically? Are there known examples of simpler structures that are able to achieve this kind of coupling? Or even handwaving attempts to predict what kind of structures might do this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Drive to Life on Wet and Icy Worlds.

      "While the ambient pH gradient across the walls of the hydrothermal mound releases us from a search for precursors to Complexes I, III, and IV, we do need to find precursors to what is the extraordinarily sophisticated rotary mechanism of ATP synthetase. Baltscheffsky (1971) suggested that something like a pyrophosphatase might have played a part in energizing proto-biosynthesis, an idea given experimental support by Moyle et al. (1972) (and see Baltscheffsky et al., 1999). A proton pyrophosphatase has now been characterized by Lin et al. (2012) and a sodium pyrophosphatase by Kellosalo et al. (2012). They are rather similar in structure, each consisting of 16 transmembrane helices, six of these comprising an inner flexible passageway surrounded by the remaining 10 that constitute the outer wall. It is likely that at least some pyrophosphatases can use either H+ or Na+ indiscriminately (Luoto et al., 2013). In most organisms, these pyrophosphatases are located in the membrane or in intracellular vacuoles. The entrance or exit funnels to these enzymes are around 1.5 Å (0.15 nm) across. While described as a proton and sodium transporter, respectively, these enzymes are probably reversible (Façanha and de Meis, 1998; Maeshima, 2000). In other words, with ion flow running down-gradient, they could act as pyrophosphate synthetases.

      [...]

      The challenge before us then is to imagine a primitive functional equivalent of H+-pyrophosphatase. Thus, we consider next whether the kind of mineral structures implicated in coupling primitive carbon fixation to the ambient redox potentials could also serve as the engine for coupling the mound's proton gradient to the maintenance of an internal pyrophosphate disequilibrium.

      [...]

      As we noted above, the second great “disequilibrium conversion” challenge is to find a primitive functional equivalent of H+ pyrophosphatase. There, we made a case for metal hydroxides having contributed to the earliest inorganic membranes developed at submarine alkaline springs. The main contributors to such membranes would have been layered double hydroxides such as the hydrotalcite pyroaurite [∼Mg6Fe2(CO3)(OH)16·4(H2O)] and the mixed-valence green rust or fougèrite ∼[(FeII,Mg)2FeIII(OH-)5·CO32-] (Cairns-Smith, 1982; Trolard et al., 1997; Feder et al., 2005; Trolard and Bourrié, 2012).

      [...]

      Greenwell and Coveney added substantially to the knowledge base with their simulations of processes involving the intercalation of organic anions in the layered double hydroxides (Greenwell and Coveney, 2006; Greenwell, 2010; Coveney et al., 2012; Ma et al., 2012). In particular, they showed how the double layers are likely to flex and even engage in peristaltic behavior to drive diffusion of organic intercalates (Thyveetil et al., 2008; Coveney et al., 2012). Following these leads, we have suggested that fougèrite could have operated as a pyrophosphatase engine (Russell et al., 2013).
      "

      Highly speculative stuff, but yeah there are attempts to solve that problem.


      Delete
    2. Nice example of when a designer is rejected, how he is replaced with every kind of speculative mambo jambo nonsense.

      https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/primordial-soup/water-world-theory-lifes-origins-rises-lost-city/

      Make It Go but Going Nowhere

      “These mineral engines may be compared to what's in modern cars,” says Russell. “They make life ‘go’ like the car engines by consuming fuel and expelling exhaust. DNA and RNA, on the other hand, are more like the car’s computers because they guide processes rather than make them happen.”

      And that, actually, describes much of the problem with Russell’s water world theory of life’s origins. Life requires information. Information is necessary to “guide processes.” No amount of chemical energy captured by the natural battery power of chemical gradients in seawater near hydrothermal vents, no “self-organizing” molecular structures, no self-replicating reactions, no meteoric rain of organic gunk, no self-assembling sudsy bubbles, nor the supposed synchronous emergence of all these processes at once—none of these things can supply the information to build living cells or substitute for its absence.

      Delete
    3. More copy-paste, sigh... now from answersinfuckinggenesis? I'm gonna pass, thank you

      Delete
    4. If he's making a claim using answersingenesis that something didn't happen, just ask him "Were you there?" and move on with a smug sense of victory.

      Delete
    5. @Mikkel
      Thanks. I was not aware the Russel/Lane/Martin folks had gotten that specific. It's an interesting idea, but insofar as its a specific chemical process they're proposing, it should be demonstrated experimentally. I hope someone is actually trying to do that...

      Delete
    6. ElShama777 said:

      "Nice example of when a designer is rejected, how he is replaced with every kind of speculative mambo jambo nonsense."

      "he"? Without spewing any "speculative mambo jambo nonsense", please describe how you determined that "a designer" is a "he".

      And even though you said "a designer" you actually mean a particular "designer", and that particular "designer" is the so-called 'God' you believe in, the so-called 'God of the bible', right?

      Delete
    7. none of these things can supply the information to build living cells or substitute for its absence

      No special "information" is needed beyond everyday chemistry. This was demonstrated in 1828, and is considered the beginning of modern organic chemistry. So your line of thought that some special "information" is required is only out of date by a little less than 200 years.

      Delete
  11. Kudos to Agelo Grasso for putting paid to speculations parading as science.

    Larry and friends are particularly miffed by those in the know, as they are more effective at blunting Moran's arrogant bluster. That's why folks like Behe are often on Larry's hitlist. Their in-the-know unflappable manner makes it hard for Larry to deal with.

    Larry does NOT like it when people wash his dirty laundry in public.

    Angelo, would you PLEASE (not) stop taking Larry to task for hiding his dirty laundry??!! He'v livid now.

    He has GOT to make a livin' now, bro!!!! Give the man some space. Let him promote speculation as settled science. Who are we to care??

    NOT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well then Steve, since your religious beliefs are the real, settled science, you can and will support your beliefs with real, scientific evidence and logical explanations, right? After all, you do want to fully demonstrate that your religious beliefs and unflappable manner are not just arrogant bluster and dirty laundry, don't you?

      Delete
    2. "Kudos to Agelo Grasso for putting paid to speculations parading as science."

      There was a point in history when nuclear fission, the human carrying flying machine, and electricity was all speculative stuff that had not yet been demonstrated. Nevertheless, they were all part of the scientific process.

      Speculations are part of science, that's how models and hypotheses are formed. When somebody offers you speculation here, they're not simultaneously demanding that you should believe these speculations as if they were established facts. Often times they merely serve to show that the blanket claims of impossibility offered by the religionuts don't actually establish what they are trying to prove.

      Delete
    3. All Mr Grasso can do is copy and paste rubbish from "apologetic" websites. He does so without checking any facts or even correcting obvious errors in the original (see the "equation" above).

      Delete
    4. without checking any facts or even correcting obvious errors

      No way! that's nothing you would ever, ever, EVER expect from a cdesign proponentsist... oh, wait

      Delete
  12. Kudos to Agelo Grasso for putting paid to speculations parading as science.

    How the fuck would you judge that? You don't know science from your arsehole.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hidden within the simple word "God" is a hypothesis so complex and improbable it makes chemical evolution through natural processes look rudimentary and pedestrian. But with a bible in our hands and a prayer on our lips, all we really care about is that father has a plan that, as it happens, always includes the promise that death is not the end. So, all you science-deluded fools just take your pretty little protons and shove them up a channel where God's good light doesn't shine, while we make proper use of our time pleading for forgiveness for something.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I didn't read all of the comments, and I have never taken biochemistry, but I am curious as to how the equations work that would derive 36 ATP from each glucose molecule. I think I would need at least 18 glucose molecules, but, as I said, I have never taken biochemistry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The calculation for eukaryotes goes like this ...

      Glucose is converted to two molecules of pyruvate in the glycolytic pathway. The net yield is 2 molecules of ATP and four molecules of NADH. NADH can enter the membrane-associated electron transport system in mitochondria where the yield is 2.5 molecules of ATP for every NADH oxidized to NAD+ + H+. So the yield is 12 ATP equivalents.

      The two pyruvate molecules are converted to 2 molecules of acetl-CoA by the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex yielding another 2 molecules of NADH or 5 ATP equivalents.

      The two molecules of acetyl CoA then enter the ciric acid cycle where they are oxidized to 4 CO2 molecules. The yield here is 2 molecules of ATP(GTP), 4 molecules of NADH, and two molecules of QH2 ( ~ 1.5 ATP equivalents). That's 15 ATP equivalents.

      The total comes to 32 ATP equivalents. Some textbooks have higher numbers because they incorrectly assume that each NADH molecule can produce three (not.2.5) ATPs.

      The maximum (32) is achievable in bacteria but not in eukaryotes because some of the reducing equivalents (e.g. NADH) have to be transported into the mitochondria and this costs about one ATP per NADH. There's also a small cost associated with importing pyruvate from the cytoplasm.

      Delete
    2. There was a little more than one glucose molecule and a few oxygen molecules there. 32 ATP molecules have 160 nitrogen atoms and 96 phosphorus atoms that are nowhere to be found in the equation that starts the block of text that was quoted. There are also 320 carbon atoms. Are we counting something else to get this out of one glucose molecule?

      A glucose molecule has only the 6 carbons after all.

      I don't think I would have an easy time studying biochemistry.

      Delete
    3. This isn't about ATP synthesis. It's about turning ADP into ATP. And the phosphate doesn't come from the glucose; only the energy to form the bond comes from the glucose.

      Delete
    4. I don't think I would have an easy time studying biochemistry.

      Maybe not, but you would need to do so before you could understand the chemical complexity that lies beneath that relatively simple net equation.

      For example, you might be surprised to learn that the bulk of the ATP is synthesized through the dissipation of an electrochemical gradient of hydrogen ions formed across the inner membrane of the mitochondrion (or bacterial cell). How on earth do you deduce that from the net equation above? You don't and you can't.

      Delete
    5. I remember discussion of the gradient by Nick Lane in his talks about the Mitochondria and the origin of life and also of the Eukaryotes.

      http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/why-are-cells-powered-by-proton-gradients-14373960

      Delete
    6. He does do an excellent job of distilling difficult concepts to a level that is easily accessible, but does not actually "dumbing it down". Many other science writers take shortcuts and write things that are kind-of-wrong in order to make the bigger point. What I have read by Nick Lanes does not normally fall into that trap.

      Delete
  15. Angelo might be over here (thinking atheist forum) posting as Godexists, taking this mention as a claim to fame.(link refuses to post). These guys - giving them a mention is celebrated as a "threat to evolution!" :D

    ReplyDelete
  16. Larry :
    Please no more evilutionary blabla ......with labs, computers and brains just prove any path that leads to converting suger to energy .....any evilutionary path Larry ..ANY.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your request shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Go to school before phrasing your questions. Your illiteracy would make any attempt at explaining anything to you a futile but titanic task.

      Delete
  17. Prove it in test tube larry not just : it must have been perhaps maybe could be evolved !!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is your alternative hypothesis?

      Delete
    2. Chris,

      Please before this notice that the idiot is not making any sense. If you start this way you make them think that they're asking some real questions, when they're just putting together words whose meaning they ignore.

      Delete
    3. photosynthesis,

      modyredan presents the only argument creationists have ever had: god of the gaps and argument from personal indredulity. If science cannot explain everything it is all wrong, and godidit. They do not present alternative hypotheses because they don't care about science. They only want gaps in human knowledge to hide their god, and know that they have zero empirical evidence for their chosen religious fantasies. I was just pointing that out. It is obvious modyredan cannot be reasoned with.

      Delete
    4. One extra babbling again , if you are so sure of your stand answer the challenge but you cannot .... This is not lavk of knowledge , this is a matter of principle , in principle biochemistry is unable to generate forms ... Stop babbbbling.

      Delete
  18. A Challenge to Larry M. :
    Instead of unlimited waste in time and effort babbbbling how such and such must have been a result of evilution , I present an ultimate test to all evilutionists :
    Your evilution is based on a simple myth : DNA >> mutation >> selection >> new species
    Well and fine , just prove to us in details step by step how DNA , proteomes , interactomes , gene regulatory networks , you name it generates the Atlas / Axis configuration for example ........Larry : babbbbling will lead to nothing , so prove to us how biochemistry configurates patterns and forms which is impossible in principle , then all of your evilution structure collapses , if DNA does NOT configurate then no mutation or modification in it can configurate then DNA has nothing to do with new forms and morphology , then you are standing on quick sand ......pitttttty .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems you have miscontrued things here. The thesis of this post is that a little learning is a dangerous thing. This does not apply to you.

      Delete
    2. Do not babbbble , prove me wrong , provide a respectful scientific emperical proof that biochemistry is able to generate forms , morphology and configurations , no blabla allowed that is why i clarified : input biochemistry , output the configuration of the atlas / axis bones , sea urchin test , inner ear bones , knee joint , ........any form of your choice ......do not change the subject , OK ?????

      Delete
    3. I for a reason mutated empirical to emperical ..........guesssss why ?

      Delete
    4. "I for a reason mutated empirical to emperical ..........guesssss why ?"

      Because you're an idiot.

      Delete
  19. To Chris :
    Your question proves that you need to reflect on the subject , now you talking like the multiverse folks ..... What is the alternative ?
    Non- existance of alternative is NOT a proof that the myth is correct .......period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never said non existence of an alternative is proof of anything.

      You don't care about science as a way of learning about the natural world. You are only interested insofar as there are gaps in knowledge where you can hide your god.

      But let;s talk about your alternative and your evidence for it. What do you think?

      Delete
    2. Read Dr. David Abel book the first gene and there you will find my alternative chris ......if you cannot find it then no body can help you .

      Delete
  20. A question to Larry M. :
    Please clarify : who are the IDiots , those who have a sharp clear vision of undisputable facts or those who are blinded by scientism no matter how clear are the facts .
    Larry : you are a biochemist so you reduce the cell super system to its individual components so you cannot see the truth of the system , try Larry to train your self to see the global not the partial then and only then you may see a glimpse of the truth of LIFE .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. modyredan said:

      "Non- existance of alternative is NOT a proof that the myth is correct .......period."

      Are you admitting that you have no alternative?

      By the way, your statement applies to your beliefs. Your non-acceptance of evolutionary theory as an (or the) alternative to your religious beliefs is NOT a proof that the myth you believe in is correct .......period.

      "...train your self to see the global not the partial then and only then you may see a glimpse of the truth of LIFE "

      What, exactly, is the "truth of LIFE"? Don't just say 'it's designed'. List and describe all of the details of how, when, where, why, and by whom it was/is allegedly designed-created-assembled-distributed-guided, and provide plenty of evidence to support each of your claims.

      Delete
    2. I do have alternative , did you ever hear about : pattern creating active information template ? Learn my friend , learn .......
      As for the truth of life : it is a super system of interconnected sub-systems , did you hear about systems biology ? Learn my friend , learn .
      As for alternatives , our comparisons here is between a pure materialistic naturalistic alternative vs. an extra - materialistic one , as the former is a myth this does not mean that the later is not correct since the proof of the later is a final ultimate one while the former is mere speculation ....... The proof of the later is pattern creating active information templates while the former have no mechanism whatsoever .., you may ask then : what is the proof of that active information ? Here you must read Dr. David Abel book " the first gene " then you will understand ..........maybe .

      Delete
  21. As every one can see , no matter how long the arguments are with respect to the pro or contra of evilution , never a final conclusion is reached since once the evilutionists declare "" i made up my mind do not bother me with facts "" then to conclusion can be reached , so once and for all : Larry : show us where we can find in biochemistry the templates for the millions of forms and morphologies in life landscape ... It is very simple logic : if DNA is unable in principle to genetate forms and patterns then all of the myth :DNA >> mutations >> evilution collapses ...... Please Larry M. : no blabla , show us in a piece of respected science IN THE LAB that biochemistry genetates forms , it is a true or false stand tale it or confess that the physicodynamics is utterly unable to generate the formal .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction :
      Third line : NO conclusion can be reached .....
      Second line from bottom : take or confess......

      Delete
    2. Why do you make corrections? You don't make sense regardless.

      Delete
    3. See what i mean ? The true ignoramus always change the subject or insult or attack a mirage or babbbble !!!!!!
      To be honest to your self answer the challenge : prove with empirical procedure that biochemistry can generate configurations ....let me tell you boy , you cannot and will never ..... Let Larry M. answer if he can .

      Delete
    4. Don't be such an obvious idiot. Biochemistry generates configurations every day in from of your own eyes. Now go back to school you imbecile. You're not making sense. You don't understand the words you use, otherwise you would not have asked proof for something so obvious.

      Think idiot. Think. But really, think. Using words you don't understand won't take you anywhere.

      Delete
  22. Larry M. :
    You can get a million bucks ...... Just answer the question of THE PRIZE of Dr. David Abel , read about it , read his great book " the first gene " and you will learn a lot of facts that you now deny , take my advice .
    Sincerely yours
    Redan

    ReplyDelete
  23. As usual , the KG1 boys never handle the challenge , instead they show their utter lack of an answer , they just babbbble ....poor boys .
    For the last time : face reality , prove that all the networks in the cell can generate forms , refer us to any paper , research , test , procedure , model , even speculation of how in a step by step manner molecules can generate without self assembly the form of the pinna
    .......... Then you will be sure of who are the idiots ........ID. is not for you boys , it is much much more sophisticated than you can ever grasp .
    Why do you interfere ? The challenge is beyond your capacity , it is directed to Larry not you , let him answer if he can .

    ReplyDelete
  24. My last comment to every one :
    It is not god of the gaps , it is really evilution of the gaps , .....
    If you cannot prove the pillar of evilution NOW , how can you be sure that evilution is true NOW ????
    Think
    N. B. : Desisting of answering the challenge is a proof that you have no answer Larry .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct about one thing. This was your last comment ... unless, by chance, you come up with something worth reading.

      Delete
  25. Haha, Angelo Grasso. I can't believe he made the Sandwalk blog.

    Larry is correct. Every single post Angelo makes has the same formula. It goes like this:

    1) Gosh, look a biological thing X.
    2) X is amazing!!!!!!!
    3) I have no idea how X came about.
    4) Therefore..... God.

    ReplyDelete
  26. We just had "Angelo/Otengelo Grasso/Admin of reason and science heaven forum" grace us with his presence in the facebook group Receptive Skepticism. Never before have I seen someone who could make such proper use of logical fallacies often aggressively presenting his biased and opinion blog as a "factual" and "reliable" source for proper scientific evidence.

    ReplyDelete