tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post6997300231907912629..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Ann Gauger keeps diggingLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61382132360336818622014-12-20T12:24:38.907-05:002014-12-20T12:24:38.907-05:00Steve demonstrated that while anti-evolutionists c...Steve demonstrated that while anti-evolutionists can emit sentences in human languages, they cannot understand sentences in human language.<br /><br />I say: There is nothing like human language is any gene or protein sequence. No verbs, no grammar, nothing. <br /><br />Not only can anti-evolutionists not refute that argument, they can't even understand it!<br /><br />So Steve comically says I said: <i><br />His [Diogenes'] response is like saying human vocal chords dont utter words, they only makes sounds, which come from impulses from nerves originating in the brain, which said brains just happen to generate electrical impulses for some mysterious reason.<br /><br />So vocal chords dont utter language, nerves dont transmit language, the brain doesnt generate language.</i><br /><br />I say: X is not a subset of Z.<br /><br />Steve says I said: Z is not a subset of Z.<br /><br />Forget about refuting scientific arguments; creationists can't even understand arguments. Steve can emit sentences in English but is not able to understand sentences in English. Like a mynah bird.<br /><br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71778452016645021712014-12-19T08:13:56.050-05:002014-12-19T08:13:56.050-05:00How does an organism discover that a nutrient can ...<i>How does an organism discover that a nutrient can be turned into fuel?</i><br /><br />Same way oxygen molecules "discover" they can bind with hydrogen.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57084365018625824362014-12-19T03:37:51.695-05:002014-12-19T03:37:51.695-05:00Piotr unwittingly just made a case for the intelli...Piotr unwittingly just made a case for the intelligent multi-functionality of our organs.<br /><br />But nothing in what Piotr says supports the notion that nature didn't design anything.<br /><br />Piotr cant wrap his brain around the fact that intelligence must precede any use of a system, whether its a digestive, sensory, defensive, or motility.<br /><br />How does an organism discover a nub can turn into a transportation mechanism? How does an organism discover that a nutrient can be turned into fuel? How does an organism discover that another organism has discoved it is food and better run?<br /><br />Piotr would have us believe that the transformation of any system lacks any intelligent work.<br /><br />Nature was intelligent way before Man walked this earth.<br /><br />enough of the facile commentary already Piotr.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41024106350764486482014-12-19T02:10:38.076-05:002014-12-19T02:10:38.076-05:00A former colleague of mine once explained to me ho...A former colleague of mine once explained to me how she had (partially) reconstructed from scratch, a dead language from a small area in South Amercia. A language which hadn't been spoken nor written in over 150 years. <br />Really fascinating stuff, lots of statistics involved, because she also had to reinvent the grammar and discover the usage of f.e. vowels combinations which weren't common compared to the modern 'western languages'. She did have a slightly better documented but also dead reference language from a nearby area with which she could reconstruct common ancestors of words. And work from there in reconstructing the dead language.<br />Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7080400583882875142014-12-18T20:48:02.401-05:002014-12-18T20:48:02.401-05:00But you know, Steve, that the tongue, the epiglott...But you know, Steve, that the tongue, the epiglottis, the larynx and the vocal folds occur in all mammals, and in many of them "they only makes sounds", as you would put it. You know it, don't you, Steve? You are aware of the fact that other mammals also have brains and nerves, right? Our so-called "organs of speech" are in fact slightly modified organs of -- well -- lots of other things. They had existed in our pre-human ancestors tens of millions of years before we evolved articulated speech. serving other functions. As a matter of fact, they still serve many of those phylogenetically older functions in humans. The larynx, together with the vocal folds, still protects your trachea as you swallow food. The tongue still houses your taste buds, manipulates the food in your mouth, and cleans the teeth. Phonetic articulation is their secondary application, not a purpose they were originally "designed" for. Similarly, the brain did not originally evolve for abstract thinking, and even language has always had other uses beside being a tool for meaningful communication. Something that superficially looks like a message may turn out to be just a lot of noise emitted to <i>disturb</i> other people's communication. See <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/12/ann-gauger-keeps-digging.html?showComment=1418950114028#c1172241716351668966" rel="nofollow">above</a> for a typical example of a tale told by an IDiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11722417163516689662014-12-18T19:48:34.028-05:002014-12-18T19:48:34.028-05:00....and with that, we have the most extraordinary .......and with that, we have the most extraordinary dishonest reply from the fastidiously pendantic diogenes.<br /><br />His response is like saying human vocal chords dont utter words, they only makes sounds, which come from impulses from nerves originating in the brain, which said brains just happen to generate electrical impulses for some mysterious reason.<br /><br />So vocal chords dont utter language, nerves dont transmit language, the brain doesnt generate language.<br /><br />Its all just physics and chemistry doing weird stuff. <br /><br />People, dont think you are intelligent!! Its an illusion. We are just molecules doing weird stuff.<br /><br />Get over yourselves people. YOU ARE NOTHING, not no thing.<br /><br />Get it????!!!!!!<br /><br />Brave, this new world??!! Naw, just pretty lame.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67048665718782844722014-12-18T17:45:16.127-05:002014-12-18T17:45:16.127-05:00Diogenes I bow my head in awe of your brilliance! ...Diogenes I bow my head in awe of your brilliance! <br /><br />Quest- pluck yew Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84871319346721208312014-12-18T17:40:48.713-05:002014-12-18T17:40:48.713-05:00But since Piotr brought up the subject of philolog...But since Piotr brought up the subject of philology...<br /><br />Here is my favorite spoof on the subject<br /><br />Again my apologies<br /><br />Subject: Plucking the Yew! Before the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, the French, anticipating victory over the English, proposed to cut off the middle finger of all captured soldiers. Without the middle finger it would be impossible for the English soldiers to draw the renowned English longbow and therefore incapable of fighting in the future. The famous bow was made of the English Yew tree and the act of drawing the longbow was known as "plucking the yew" or "pluck you". Much to the bewilderment of the French, the English won the battle and began mocking the French by waving their middle fingers at the defeated French and saying "We can still pluck yew. Pluck you". Since "pluck yew" is rather difficult to say, the difficult consonant cluster at the beginning has gradually changed to a labiodental fricative 'F' and thus the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger salute. It is also because of the pheasant feathers on the arrows used with the longbow that the symbolic gesture is known as "giving the bird". And yew thought that yew knew everything.Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63665701840489252872014-12-18T17:37:42.466-05:002014-12-18T17:37:42.466-05:00Piotr has delivered an excellent rendition of Grim...Piotr has delivered an excellent rendition of Grimm's Law, the same German brothers who made a famous collection of fairey tales.<br /><br />Exactly this kind of analysis can be employed to deconstruct the Bible, determine the intent of the original texts before bowdlerizations not to mention the historical Jesus who bears little resemblance to the fantasy of the Current Gospels.<br /><br />But again we digress my apologiesTom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80580489609515685582014-12-13T05:13:49.681-05:002014-12-13T05:13:49.681-05:00Andrew,
My background is biochemistry, but my job...Andrew,<br /><br />My background is biochemistry, but my job is computing, and I don't think that a viewpoint informed by engineering, either of the 'soft' or 'hard' varieties, really works. Information is clearly involved, with copying and translation, but what is produced is a 3-dimensional chemical structure - a functional RNA or protein. You have to take account of the degrees of freedom available to such structures, and the patterning of 'functional space', before you can dismiss their stepwise conversion as impossible because you can't stepwise change a <i>program</i> - or rustle up a jumbo in a breeze. They're just ... different! But it's up to you what you find persuasive, so I will simply wish you, too, a merry Christmas!AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6975718275179561142014-12-12T21:57:47.441-05:002014-12-12T21:57:47.441-05:00sez andrew campbell: "…I remain skeptical as ...sez andrew campbell: "…I remain skeptical as to whether the diversity of life can be accounted for just by multiple unguided mutations and filtering, that is an extrapolation too far!"<br />Why?<br />Last time I checked, the Earth's total population of bacteria is something like 10^30, and has been for quite some time, and the typical bacteria's genome is made of something like 2*10^6 base pairs. So there’s about 10^24 times as many individual bacteria as there are individual base pairs in any bacteria’s genome. Given that ratio, it seems to me that, to a first approximation, <i>every physically possible mutation</i> actually does —must—occur in bacteria. So, again to a first approximation, the simple <i>occurrance</i> of any given mutation X isn’t a problem; rather, the problem is whether or not any given mutation X occurs in an environment within which mutation X will be beneficial.<br /><br />"And then there is Irreducible Complexity (I am sure you have views on that too!)."<br />Sure: My view, and that of mainstream biology since a guy named Muller wrote a very interesting paper back in 1918 (available at [ www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/3/5/422 ]), is that Irreducible Complexity isn’t a problem for unguided evolution. Since you disagree, perhaps you might want to read the paper I provided a link to, and get back to us on where (you believe) Muller went wrong?<br /><br />“Lastly my expertise is in Linear-Feedback-Shift-Registers, Pseudo-Random sequences, Correlation etc. and hence Information.”<br />That’s nice. As best I can tell, <i>all</i> “information”-based arguments ID-pushers have made against evolution are crap, and the reason they’re crap is that they <i>can’t friggin’ <b>measure</b> the information content of arbitrary nucleotide sequences.</i> Well, that’s one reason. Another reason is that they can’t explain how the hell the Designer installs “information” into nucleotide sequences. Nor can they explain how the exact same change-in-sequence can have vastly different consequences, based solely and entirely on whether that change-in-sequence is installed by a Designer (in which case, sure it can produce novelty and yada yada yada) or by an unguided mutation (in which case, <i>no it can’t</i> produce novelty and yada yada yada). Nor… well… let’s just say that ID-pushers have one <i>king hell monster <b>lot</b> of work</i> to do if they want to actually, like, <i>support</i> their anti-evolutionary assertions.<br />You say <i>don’t be silly, ID-pushers don’t <b>need</b> to measure the information content of arbitrary nucleotide sequences</i> ? Well, perhaps not—but if that’s the case, how the hell do ID-pushers <i>know</i> whether or not unguided mutations can or cannot insert this ‘information’ stuff into arbitrary nucleotide sequences? Answer: ID-pushers do not and cannot know that—not unless they actually have some way to, you know, <i>measure</i> the information content of arbitrary nucleotide sequences.<br />You say <i>no, wait, ID-pushers <b>can, too,</b> measure the information content of nucleotide sequences, honest they can</i> ? Great! Here are two arbitrary nucleotide sequences:<br /><br />Arbitrary nucleotide sequence 1: “gag tac aac gcc cta taa gtc atc gac ctt cat aag acc cga tag ttg agt ttc gtt tta”<br />Arbitrary nucleotide sequence 2: “aaa tag gaa ctt gcg ctg atg tat atc taa tat gct aac caa acg aga att tgg cac atc”<br /><br />My question to you is, which of these two nucleotide sequences contains more information? If you choose to answer this question, please show your work—explain how you arrived at whatever your answer happens to be.<br /><br />“…why do some people discern design in nature while others only see the ´appearance of´ design?”<br />This one’s easy: The ones who “discern design in nature” <i>started out</i> with the pre-installed presupposition that yes, Nature <i>definitely was</i> Designed. The ones who “only see the ´appearance of´ design”, contrariwise, <i>didn’t</i> start out with that presupposition.Cubisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18112097625072217558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54876506058485778682014-12-12T21:15:40.062-05:002014-12-12T21:15:40.062-05:00Any error in any assumption ripples through to all...<i>Any error in any assumption ripples through to all derived parameters.</i><br /><br />That's why you test assumptions - to see whether the answers you get as they "ripple through" to the end of the calculation/scenario turn out to correctly reflect reality. And again, that's what Larry was talking about - the fact that these assumptions (a/k/a hypotheses) have been tested against reality and thereby proved. judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30269001094233156642014-12-12T18:11:33.179-05:002014-12-12T18:11:33.179-05:00@Diogenes, Allan & Piotr - thank you for your ...@Diogenes, Allan & Piotr - thank you for your comments, they HAVE helped me as a layman to understand the biology somewhat. However I remain skeptical as to whether the diversity of life can be accounted for just by multiple unguided mutations and filtering, that is an extrapolation too far! And then there is Irreducible Complexity (I am sure you have views on that too!). Lastly my expertise is in Linear-Feedback-Shift-Registers, Pseudo-Random sequences, Correlation etc. and hence Information. I find it fascinating that although we have never met, the information you have generated in your consciences has entered my conscience and vice versa (a connection of information has been made.) You have correctly discerned that you have been conversing with a fellow human by recognizing patterns of ascii characters in these posts, yet why do some people discern design in nature while others only see the ´appearance of´ design? For me Information trumps Matter, and whether I am ridiculed or not I think Intelligent Design is the best fit so far. May you each have a happy Christmas.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13059876874385093553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46389755653728253142014-12-12T07:52:58.318-05:002014-12-12T07:52:58.318-05:00Diogenes: However, where evolutionary theory appli...Diogenes: <i>However, where evolutionary theory applied to phylogenies would lead us to infer that an ancestral enzyme changed from an old function to a new one, most of the time it would go through an intermediate state that was promiscuous.</i><br /><br />Perhaps you can use a linguistic analogue for that. A word can become "promiscuous" in the functional sense by extending its meaning (e.g. a <i>mouse</i> is now, among other things, a computer appliance -- something it wasn't forty years ago. It can also become more specialised (e.g. the Old English precursor of the word <i>meat</i> meant '(any kind of) food'). It isn't uncommon for a word to become promiscuous and then specialised, so that its meaning crawls like an amoeba in semantic space. For example, the word <i>knight</i> (spelt <i>cniht</i> in old English) meant 'boy' 1200 years ago. Then it acquired numerous secondary meanings ('page', 'male attendant', 'servant of the shire', 'armed retainer', 'mounted warrior', etc.). About a century after the Norman Conquest, one of those extra meanings, a rather narrow one, but very important in the new social context of England as a feudal kingdom ('a member of the land-holding ruling class, owing military service to his lord and fighting on horseback') became dominant, and the original meaning ('boy') became rare by the thirteenth century. The word underwent quick specialisation, losing most of the intermediate meanings as well'.<br /><br />There are also many cases when a word with a rather general meaning becomes duplicated and each "copy" gets specialised. For example, <i>moon</i> and <i>month</i> were once declensional variants of one and the same "promiscuous" Proto-Germanic word meaning <b>both</b> 'moon' and 'month' (= lunar cycle). Another such case (plenty of them are known) is dicussed here [<a href="http://langevo.blogspot.com/2013/01/duplication-and-divergence.html" rel="nofollow">Shades and Shadows</a>]. I suppose the mechanism will strike you as familiar.<br /><br /><br />Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87752310180580110912014-12-12T05:15:52.810-05:002014-12-12T05:15:52.810-05:00Dino-gene,
What debate...? Did I miss something i...Dino-gene,<br /><br />What debate...? Did I miss something interesting...? Who and what issues did you want to debate...?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3017191878159770832014-12-12T05:13:01.983-05:002014-12-12T05:13:01.983-05:00Andrew,
My own point was that 'making an assu...Andrew,<br /><br />My own point was that 'making an assumption' is simply part of the scientific method. You take the position that something is a fact, and look for the consequences you would expect if that fact were true. Ideally, you also try to look for other explanations of the same data, and try to be your own severest critic. I think ID science sometimes omits that last check. <br /><br />Of course, evolution went beyond the 'hypothesis' stage years ago - even before the nature of the genetic material and code were established. I think this is why Larry bristles at my suggestion that the promiscuous enzyme mechanism involves an 'assumption'. It does only in the sense that all hypothesis testing does, but there are many independent verifications of evolution - it is not the hypothesis being tested.<br /><br />One sees the same 'circular' argument given against the statistical methods used to generate 'best fit' trees to molecular datasets based on their degree of sequence or structure similarity. The methods 'assume' that there is a real tree of common descent, and try to find the closest arrangement of the data that fits that assumption, and often incorporate other evolutionary 'assumptions' such as transition-transversion bias, property conservation etc. The fact that well-supported trees can be recovered from such datasets is actually a confirmation of the 'assumption' that they exist. One can test this by generating artificial data, one set involving copying and error, and another a bit more random, and setting your method loose on them. It will have a go at generating trees for both sets, but its 'assumption' in the second set is invalid, and the data sets can be clearly distinguished. <br /><br />If you have two different proteins with a high degree of sequence similarity, it is a very reasonable assumption that they are commonly descended. If (as Thornton does) you attempt to use the differences to 'reverse out' the changes, back to a common ancestor, and you find that the result is promiscuous, you have supported your simple assumption (common ancestry) and provided supporting evidence for the 'promiscuous enzyme' path. There are other potential mechanisms, though - not instead of, but as well as. But ultimately, all proposed evolutionary mechanisms must naturally 'assume' evolution, just as hydrology 'assumes' water. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53225276222094804042014-12-12T00:32:29.284-05:002014-12-12T00:32:29.284-05:00Hey "Unknown", what happened to your dem...Hey "Unknown", what happened to your demand we write an "open letter" to the clown of Dover? You were all into that. Then I said I'd go you one better than your "open letter", I'd debate Behe face-to-face in his home state of Pennsylvania. He can bring along Dembski, Axe, Gauger, Ray Comfort, Megan Fox, Kent Hovind after he gets out, any creationist he can find who's not in jail. On this condition: ENV must have an open comment policy forevermore.<br /> <br />I said I'd debate the clown of Dover and you clammed up pretty quick and ran off for a few weeks. Whyzat?<br /><br />Bock bock bock.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14025986554705668872014-12-12T00:22:34.496-05:002014-12-12T00:22:34.496-05:00This is one sentence in this that stands out for i...This is one sentence in this that stands out for its extraordinary dishonesty:<br /> <i><br />The xylanase enzyme contains about 200 amino acids. Its protein code is a sentence that means: ‘degrade xylan’. </i><br /><br />What garbage. There is nothing like human language in any gene or protein sequence. No verbs, no grammar, nothing. "Degrade xylan" is a sentence in human language created by HUMANS to describe its molecular interactions-- interactions that only occur in a specific context. It's as stupid ss saying baking soda is a "sentence" that reads, "mix with vinegar, then explode." Those are our HUMAN descriptions of functions, but nothing in the sequence translates to that, or to anything.<br /><br />Teleology + lying.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75930058831741978962014-12-12T00:12:35.302-05:002014-12-12T00:12:35.302-05:00"But these achievements have a well-designed ..."<i>But these achievements have a well-designed enzyme to start with,"</i><br /><br />Note circular logic: we know they're designed because they're designed.<br /><br /><i>"are intelligently controlled, and there is always a limit to the extent of the change."</i><br /><br />Another failure of intelligent design. <br /><br />So, in our uniform past experience, we've never observed new protein functions being created by an intelligent being. Therefore, all protein functions were created by an Inttelligent Being.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75646770562767399432014-12-11T18:18:53.659-05:002014-12-11T18:18:53.659-05:00"Living cells resist random changes"? Wh..."Living cells resist random changes"? What's this supposed to mean? The most charitable reading of this paragraph is that there are limits to what intelligent engineering "under careful control" in his lab has achieved. OK, this may suggest that intelligent design is rubbish, but we've known it all along.<br /><br />I wouldn't believe everything what a notorious young-earth creationist has to say. I don't doubt he's a skilled technician, but if he's managed to convince himself that the world is a few millennia old and Noah's Flood really happened, he must be very, very good at ignoring any amount of scientific evidence.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46185052935286817162014-12-11T17:52:37.907-05:002014-12-11T17:52:37.907-05:00Bacteria-to-biologist evolution has no bearing on ...Bacteria-to-biologist evolution has no bearing on real scientific work, but many claim that mimicking evolution, i.e. random changes and artificial selection, has enabled new enzymes to be produced. However, Dr Leisola is actually an expert in this area, and points out:<br /><br />“These methods—even when under careful control—do not create anything but minor adaptations or variations on a theme. My research group has, for instance, engineered enzymes to function better in extreme conditions, and microorganisms to produce novel molecules. But these achievements have a well-designed enzyme to start with, are intelligently controlled, and there is always a limit to the extent of the change. It’s no wonder that living cells resist random changes because these are almost always downhill.”<br /><br />Is that true? A well-designed enzyme? .... hmmmmmTopgooszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05460155425551195039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87494749336540211882014-12-11T17:45:21.529-05:002014-12-11T17:45:21.529-05:00I beg your pardon -- what error does Dr Leisola ex...I beg your pardon -- what error does Dr Leisola expose?Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71485451137538753052014-12-11T17:29:59.533-05:002014-12-11T17:29:59.533-05:00Unknown,
You are going to get slaughtered here by...Unknown,<br /><br />You are going to get slaughtered here by Larry, Dino-genes, Johnny Harsh and our beloved Joe Franks... These people eat Behe and his work for breakfast... Don't be fooled by their resistance to answer the big questions... Larry promised me and his bloggers that he was going to answer ALL MY QUESTIONS when he was absent from the blog for over a month... when Larry says he will do it, he surly will... the only tiny problem might be the timeframe...I have no idea when or where those answers are coming but hopefully before Larry retires...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44926349456807106842014-12-11T17:20:47.047-05:002014-12-11T17:20:47.047-05:00Enzyme expert exposes evolution’s error
Former Da...Enzyme expert exposes evolution’s error<br /><br />Former Darwinist Dr Matti Leisola obtained his D.Sc. (Tech) in biotechnology from the Helsinki (Finland’s capital) University of Technology in 1979. His extensive career includes winning the Latsis Prize for a significant young researcher in 1987 in Switzerland, being Director of Research (1988–1997) in an international Biotech company, and most recently Dean of the Faculty of Chemical and Materials Sciences at the new Finnish Aalto University. He has published over 120 papers, mainly on enzyme research, authored 20 articles in books or conference proceedings, and obtained six patents. Dr Leisola’s scientific articles are cited about 1300 times in the scientific literature.<br /><br />etter known to the scientific community as an expert in his area of enzymes. Dr Leisola explains:<br /><br />“I like to call enzymes ‘the tools of life’. They are a type of protein—a macromolecule (large molecule) made out of specifically arranged amino acids. They are life’s catalysts—that is, they greatly speed up specific chemical reactions of living cells. Enzymes recognize, convert, transfer, transport, oxidize, reduce, join molecules together and break them apart.”<br /><br />The instructions to build them are encoded on our DNA. Dr Leisola explains that just as the Finnish language has 29 letters,1 so the enzyme language has 20 biochemical ‘letters’ (amino acids), each of which is coded by three-letter ‘words’ in the DNA language (which has four different letters). For example, ‘Matti Leisola’ is a specific combination of 12 letters and one space. “This combination is so specific that it helps anybody to find me out of all the people in the world since no one else I know of has this same combination. An average enzyme contains about 300 biochemical letters. This makes each enzyme very specialized for a given task.”<br /><br />stockphoto.com<br />A model of the enzyme xylanase—a complex machine made up of precise sequence of amino acids<br />A model of the enzyme xylanase—a complex machine made up of precise sequence of amino acids<br />For example, Matti’s group studied an enzyme called xylanase (see diagram right). It breaks down one of the most abundant carbohydrate polymers on earth called xylan, found in plant cell walls. This fibre makes up about 30% of the birch tree. The xylanase enzyme contains about 200 amino acids. Its protein code is a sentence that means: ‘degrade xylan’. Mammals lack this enzyme, so they can’t digest xylan.<br /><br />Using a different letter for each different amino acid, the protein ‘sentence’ can be written as:<br /><br />ASINYDQNYQTGGQVSYSPSNTGFSVNWNTQDDFVVGVGWTGSS<br />APINFGGSFSVNSGTGLLSVYGWSTNPLVEYYIMEDNHNYPAQGTVK<br />GTVTSDGATYTIWENTRVNEPSIQGTATFNQYISVRNSPRTSGTVTVQ<br />NHFNAWASLGLHLGQMNYQVVAVEGWGGSGSASQSVSN<br /><br />As with all enzymes, it is this sequence which enables this molecular machine to carry out its task. There is nothing about the chemistry or the physics of the amino acids that make up xylanase that will cause them to be ordered in the correct way. The order—the information—is imposed upon the matter via the sequence in which the amino acids are assembled, under programmed instructions within the cell.<br /><br />Rejecting evolution<br /><br />We interviewed Dr Leisola because he is known as a skeptic of molecules-to-man evolution, which he calls “story-telling”. But he was not always skeptical, as he explains:<br /><br />“I believed the standard story till I was about 22 years old. I used it (as I then thought) as a powerful weapon to argue against the Christian God. Without realizing it, I was a typical product of the western naturalistic educational system and I certainly wanted to remain autonomous, and actually hated the idea of God interfering with my life.”<br /><br />ouch..<br /><br />Ful article:<br /><br />http://creation.com/matti-leisola-interview<br /><br />Topgooszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05460155425551195039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22711192086098527902014-12-11T17:16:08.485-05:002014-12-11T17:16:08.485-05:00Mikrael the ventologist,
I think Witon got out.....Mikrael the ventologist, <br /><br />I think Witon got out... He used to love quoting Behe, Ventor and what's his name...? the guys with the bird...<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com