Author Topic: Overwhelming evidence of Design in Molecular Biology  (Read 806 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Overwhelming evidence of Design in Molecular Biology
« on: February 08, 2014, 09:46:02 AM »
Thanks to Philip Cunningham


Overwhelming evidence of Design in Molecular Biology?
Biochemical Pathway Maps
http://web.expasy.org/cgi-bin/pathways/show_thumbnails.pl

I showed that particular biochemical pathway chart to a Darwinist once when he asked me for ANY evidence of intelligent design in biology. His response upon seeing it was something along the lines of, ‘Just because it is horrendously complex does not prove it was designed.’. ,,, Well maybe so, but such ‘horrendous complexity’ certainly does not give comfort to the notion that such ‘horrendous complexity’ can be the accumulation of random genetic accidents either!
Here is a ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathway chart:

Map Of Major Metabolic Pathways In A Cell – Diagram
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/img/assets/4202/MetabolicPathways_6_17_04_.pdf

Part of the ‘horrendous complexity’ inherent in metabolic pathways is gone over here:

The 10 Step Glycolysis Pathway In ATP Production: An Overview – video


At the 6:00 minute mark of the following video, Chris Ashcraft, PhD – molecular biology, gives us an overview of the Citric Acid Cycle, which is, after the 10 step Glycolysis Pathway, also involved in ATP production:

Evolution vs ATP Synthase – Molecular Machine – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012706

Glycolysis and the Citric Acid Cycle: The Control of Proteins and Pathways – Cornelius Hunter – July 2011
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/glycolysis-and-citric-acid-cycle.html

[...]
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/12/1106787108.short?rss=1

As well, metabolic pathways in general are found to be ‘optimal’:

[...]
http://www.reasons.org/metabolism-cascade-design

Making the Case for Intelligent Design More Robust
Excerpt: ,,, In other words, metabolic pathways are optimized to withstand inevitable concentration changes of metabolites.
http://www.reasons.org/making-case-intelligent-design-more-robust

[...]
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-evolutionary-important-success.html

This headline sums up the preceding finding very nicely:

Fittest Can’t Survive If They Never Arrive – February 7, 2014
http://crev.info/2014/02/fittest-cant-survive-if-they-never-arrive/

[...]
Kleiber’s law
Excerpt: Kleiber’s law,[1] named after Max Kleiber’s biological work in the early 1930s, is the observation that, for the vast majority of animals, an animal’s metabolic rate scales to the 3/4 power of the animal’s mass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleiber%27s_law

4-Dimensional Quarter Power Scaling In Biology – video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/5964041/

Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini put the problem that Quarter Power Scaling presents to Darwinism this way:

“Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.”
Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79

The reason why ’4-Dimensional’ metabolic pathways are impossible for Darwinism to explain is that Natural Selection operates on the 3-Dimensional phenotypes. ’4-Dimensional’ metabolic pathways are simply ‘invisible’ to natural selection. The fact that 4-Dimensional things are completely invisible to 3-Dimensional things is best illustrate by ‘flatland’:

Flatland – 3D to 4D shift – Carl Sagan – video


Quote, Verse and Music:

“Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.”
– Johannes Kepler

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Unto The King Eternal – music


You know why I have removed much of your post.

Another problem is that carpet bombing the forum is pointless as members will respond to one point each or may respond to all points. This will leave you in a position where you simply do not have the time to reply. This will create animosity and other mods and I will have to deal with the mess.

I am aware that you are eager to show how ID is explained, but you MUST restrain your compulsion to cut and paste numerous instances or walls of text.

GB Mod
« Last Edit: February 08, 2014, 12:57:11 PM by Graybeard »

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12679
  • Darwins +333/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Overwhelming evidence of Design in Molecular Biology
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2014, 10:27:22 AM »
You just go from one website to the next peddling your copy/paste propaganda:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=9824216

What's the point in talking to you, especially since you plagiarize most of everything in comment or reply? and why staff doesn't think what you do isn't a big deal, is beyond me.

-Nam
« Last Edit: February 08, 2014, 10:30:31 AM by Nam »
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5063
  • Darwins +584/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Overwhelming evidence of Design in Molecular Biology
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2014, 11:52:36 AM »
Not only that, but he doesn't really understand what he's posting.  He sees something biology-related and acts like it's proof positive of his belief (usually because it's complex), then he goes around and shows it to everyone without taking the time to learn about what he's posting.  He's like the 9/11 truthers, or the Barack Obama birthers - absolutely convinced that what he already believes is the truth, and unwilling to even consider that it might not be.  Nope, to him, every piece of evidence points to his 'truth' even when it doesn't to anyone else, and like Don Quixote, he's sure that he'll win the next one even though he's lost every single one up till now.

All of his arguments boil down to incredulity.  He can't believe that he could be wrong, so he blithely proceeds as if he hasn't been shown to be wrong dozens of times, and keeps making a bigger and bigger fool of himself.

Just to pick out one example from this drive-by copy-pasta he just posted, his argument that ATP is somehow 100% efficient.  Actually, it isn't.  It's like in those Star Trek episodes where they talk about going above 100% efficiency - what they mean is compared to what the device (whatever it is) is rated to output.  In this case, F1-ATPase produces work that's close to the amount of energy provided by hydrolysis of an ATP molecule (it consumes more energy than it produces, but not by much).  So yes, it is efficient, but that proves nothing except that it is efficient.  Efficiency by itself does not prove that something was designed.  Yet he would have everyone believe that it was designed even though he has no proof of actual design - which is the 800 pound gorilla that he refuses to see.

Even worse is this "fourth-dimensional" nonsense he also posted.  What he's actually talking about is quarter-power scaling - the fact, long-known in biology, that the metabolism of an animal scales upward to the 3/4 power of its mass (so an animal with 100 times the mass will have a metabolism that is 31 times as great).  This is referred to as fourth-dimensional by biologists because it acts much like they had an actual fourth dimension.  But that doesn't actually mean they extend into a "fourth dimension".  What it's referring to is the fractal networking that supplies organisms, as demonstrated on page 2 of this paper on the subject.

Notably, if you look at the 2D diagrams shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, the routes (lines) from the central source are depicted as if they are 'above' the service regions (circles), as if they were three-dimensional.  This does not actually make them three-dimensional, however.  It simply refers to the way the routes work.  Thus, the same applies for this so-called "fourth dimension".  More simply, scientists expected that metabolism and other similar things would scale to the 2/3 power, not the 3/4 power, and describing them as if they had an effective fourth dimension is a simple way to explain why they scale to the larger power.  Basically, it's an observation that's easy to see but hard to explain.

As this paper relates, before Kleiber, biologists thought that metabolism would scale to the 2/3 power of mass since they metabolize through two dimensions but have to supply a three-dimensional body.  Since Kleiber showed that it actually scaled to the 3/4 power, it's easier for scientists to describe it as if it had an extra metaphysical spatial dimension.  But that does not mean that there's any kind of transcendental higher dimension actually involved.  Scientists are trying to figure this problem out; yet if Godexists and others of his ilk had their way, this would stand as absolute proof of design, without any further work done (or likely allowed) to find a different model.

For example, the paper I just linked has an interesting hypothesis known as space-lifetime, that organisms exchange energy with the environment in three dimensions (two spatial, one time) and supply their own structures in four dimensions (three spatial, one time).  Specifically, generational time, the amount of time it takes a mother organism to produce a daughter organism.  This works because it is a dimension of time that is highly meaningful to organisms.  More to the point, if you have a group of organisms that all have the same generational time, they would effectively increase metabolism by the 2/3 power of size, which we can easily observe in actual organisms of the same species.  As the paper states, "This prediction is in complete agreement with the well-known observation that intraspecific scaling exponents for metabolism are often different than interspecific exponents and tend to be closer to 2/3 than to 3/4".

In short, chalk this latest post by Godexists up to his lack of knowledge about biology and his unwillingness to consider anything except what he already believes to be true, rather than him finding any "smoking guns".

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2685
  • Darwins +114/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Overwhelming evidence of Design in Molecular Biology
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2014, 12:11:17 PM »
Godexists, if you have posted this stuff from work by Philip Cunningham then you ought to provide a link to your source. There are far to many Philip Cunninghams to find the right one via Google.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6774
  • Darwins +543/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Overwhelming evidence of Design in Molecular Biology
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2014, 01:29:22 PM »
There is no complexity because all parts of a living body are complex. Godexists, you are choosing examples that are purposely complex in themselves. You could equally choose a human hair - we cannot make them either and I do not know how or they grow.

You must realise that the complex organism or body part or process is essentially no more than a collection of elements and molecules that are formed in a particular way because of their inherent properties.

This is not the place to go into a description of chemical properties of materials but you may take my word for it that given any simple reaction, the molecules will reform in a particular way. And all that has happened, even in the most complex of instances is that molecules have combined in a particular way.

It is quite wrong to look at the finished article and say, "Wow! that is really complex, only a god could have done that." You must say, first we have zinc then we have hydrogen, oxygen and sulphur together in certain proportions and therefore, every time we have this, we have

Zn(s) + H2SO4(aq) ---> ZnSO4(aq) + H2(g)

and this is repeatable without gods.

You must also understand that anything advocating "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" is not science: it is an appeal to ignorance[1]. It is no more than an admission that someone has given up thinking and said, "Goddidit!"

Finally, if you could explain who you think this "designer might be, I would be grateful.
 1. You will find endless examples of real scientists bemoaning the prospect of a future in which American children grow up believing that there is no need to learn anything because "Goddit!" and I agree with them.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6869
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Overwhelming evidence of Design in Molecular Biology
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2014, 05:36:25 PM »
I wonder if Godexists studied biology at the apparently non-existent University of Kazakhstan.... &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12679
  • Darwins +333/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Overwhelming evidence of Design in Molecular Biology
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2014, 06:12:27 PM »
I wonder if Godexists studied biology at the apparently non-existent University of Kazakhstan.... &)

I doubt it; since they're more intelligent than he is.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1867
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Overwhelming evidence of Design in Molecular Biology
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2014, 12:21:16 PM »
Whew, I agree with the OP - this certainly is overwhelming.

I'd like to make a formal request of the original poster: please come back and explain these things to me, one by one, and in plain English. Hard science data is sometimes beyond my understanding  - I'm old and have been out of a formal science education environment for a very long time and am just getting started catching up on all the things I don't fully understand.

So for the sake of conversation about a topic you obviously feel quite strongly about, I'd really appreciate it if you could help me make sense of the huge number of claims in your opening post. You pick one of them, I'll read what you said about that one thing, and then you just explain to me what it's actually saying, in language that an ordinary person like me can understand. We can go through it all, one by one.

Looking forward to it! I really enjoy learning, and this will probably be helpful stuff to understand.  ;D
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6869
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Overwhelming evidence of Design in Molecular Biology
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2014, 05:10:36 PM »
I'm getting real adept at holding my breath on this site. I may reach Hindu mystic status any day now. I might even make it all the way to the Criss Angel level. Hell, David Blaine could be within my grasp someday, if these theists keep making claims they can't back up.  ;D
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1867
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Overwhelming evidence of Design in Molecular Biology
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2014, 04:15:24 PM »
<snip>
please come back and explain these things to me, one by one, and in plain English.

Dammit... he's not going to do this, is he?  :P

Just once you'd think one of them would do it - just explain yourself in simply flippin' English and tell me what that wall o'text you posted actually says. Just once!
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Overwhelming evidence of Design in Molecular Biology
« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2014, 06:41:16 PM »
<snip>
please come back and explain these things to me, one by one, and in plain English.

Dammit... he's not going to do this, is he?  :P

Just once you'd think one of them would do it - just explain yourself in simply flippin' English and tell me what that wall o'text you posted actually says. Just once!

Thinking for oneself is hard work.  If thinking for oneself was easy, everyone would do it.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Overwhelming evidence of Design in Molecular Biology
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2014, 04:13:09 AM »
“Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.”
Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79

The reason why ’4-Dimensional’ metabolic pathways are impossible for Darwinism to explain is that Natural Selection operates on the 3-Dimensional phenotypes. ’4-Dimensional’ metabolic pathways are simply ‘invisible’ to natural selection.

Except that statements like that show an enormous lack of understanding as to how evolution actually works, because nothing is "invisible" to natural selection.  It doesn't matter - in the abstract - what the mutation is, what the creature looks like, acts like, thinks like, grows like......any characteristic or trait of an organism is effectively "survival-neutral", until that creature begins to interact with the environment for sustenance, shelter, mating opportunities.  All that matters is whether the creature survives long enough to breed healthy offspring in numbers sufficient for the environment and predator-chain in which they live.

That's it. 

There is nothing "invisible", because anything claimed as such will either have NO effect on the creature's ability to survive and procreate (in which case it is irrelevant to evolution and can be discounted), or it will have some finite but distinct effect on that ability - in which case it is NOT "invisible".

Sorry, but your point seems to be entirely incoherent and irrelevant.  But by all means feel free to post a targetted rebuttal, in your own words, that addresses the specific points I have made.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?