[AQGeiger]

ping

[combat_boots]

"random order"

Physics also tend to move the universe toward order. I have read a couple papers on the liklihood of evolution as being anti-order.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Here's a recent discovery that suggests an intelligently designed process/function:

========================

Gymnastic Enzyme Acts Like Logic Gate

An enzyme named vinculin undergoes “drastic” conformational changes, reports William A. Weis in the July 29 issue of Nature.(1) Vinculin, with over a thousand amino acid links, is important at membrane junctions for transporting materials in and out of the cell. It helps cellular “glue” exit the membrane so that neighboring cells can adhere to one another, such as in epithelial tissues.

Weis reports on recent studies that show vinculin undergoes radical conformational changes during its action. It will only build the adhesive junction when the necessary components are in place. Nothing happens unless the participants are ready; “the binding energy of several partners is needed to overcome the thermodynamic and perhaps kinetic barriers to activation,” he says. “Viewed in this way, vinculin functions as a logical AND gate, in which binding of two partners is required to generate an output, in this case a stable multi-protein complex”(emphasis added). What’s more, this automatic regulation is essential for its function; it prevents inappropriate assembly if the amount of product is unstable.

(1)William A. Weis, “Cell biology: How to build a cell junction,” Nature 430, 513 - 515 (29 July 2004) doi:10.1038/430513a.

Logic, logic gates, regulation: this is the language of intelligent design. Each of the contacts formed during the “radical” conformational changes of this complicated enzyme is finely tuned to its substrates, and finely tuned to the concentration of ingredients in the cell. And these finely tuned contacts are determined by the specificity of the sequence of amino acids in this protein, each coded in another language—the language of DNA. At every step, this system only makes sense in the context of intelligent design.

There is no suggestion in this paper how vinculin’s specificity in adhesive junctions might have evolved. But in the latest ICR Impact article #374 (August 2004), organic chemist Dr. Charles McCombs provides very good reasons why unguided chemistry will never produce such functional complexity and specificity. Unguided chemicals will always follow the laws of (1) chemical stability; i.e., whether the components will react at all, (2) chemical reactivity, or how fast reactants will react, and (3) chemical selectivity, or where the components react. Working through these principles, he shows that amino acids will not join together without help, and even if they did, far more random, useless, nonfunctional polymers with damaging cross-reactions would result. The resulting chain would always form blindly according to the relative binding energies of the amino acids.

It takes an organic chemist careful guidance at each step to produce a functional enzyme. “Evolutionists say that nature is blind, has no goal, and no purpose, and yet precise selection at each step is necessary,” McCombs says. Chemicals cannot think, plan or organize themselves, he reminds us, yet Darwinians invoke a false logic that unguided processes yielded logical living systems, like this example with vinculin. The chemist remarks, “Evolutionists just hope you don’t know chemistry!”

Commentary and information compliments of Creation-Evolution Headlines

[Dan Evans]

bump

[headsonpikes]

AFAIAC, you creationist johnnies have not moved beyond the bogus 'The watch must have a watch-maker' argument.

Nothing new has been added in centuries - just bloviation and a squid-like ejection of ink 'designed' to obscure rather than inform.

Bloody waste of time.

[PatrickHenry]

Not going to deploy the ping list for a purely creationist thread. Archival ping only. (Crevolist added to keywords.)

[RobFromGa]

bump for later

[Southack]

To get "life" you have to first arrange acids and bases into one of millions of specific non-random sequences. This is akin to having a computer program comprised of 1's and 0's stored on disk.

Then you have to animate one of those above-mentioned non-random DNA sequences of acids and bases. This is like running your stored computer program through your CPU.

Math alone precludes the random sequencing of so much programming data/commands in the former, and no one knows to this day how to animate such DNA commands from scratch in the latter.

Thus, we have two intractable problems that are *not* explained by either random processes or evolutionary theory.

That doesn't necessarily mean that some as-yet-described version of Creationism is responsible for life, but what it does mean is that Evolution as it stands today is insufficient and that some new theory or variant on a theory will be required to advance our scientific progress to the next level.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[kingattax]

Dr McCombs isnt much of a scientist. Any moron knows that

bread crumbs don't turn into a mouse. They turn into

cockroaches. Just ask Mama T. She knows science.

[tm22721]

Sour grapes from the whiners.

From the time of Galileo religion has been reduced to explaining less and less.

BUMP

[SCChemist]

This article is so full of holes in both logic and science that it hardly merits comments. This guy should pick up a Biochemistry text that was written in the 20th century.

[DoctorMichael]

Caca, poopoo.

[RightWhale]

Life must create life.

That's it. It was so simple after all.

[edsheppa]

According to modern evolutionary theory, the recipe for life is a chance accumulation of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen; add a pinch of phosphorus and sulfur, simmer for millions of years, and repeat if necessary.

Yet another ignorant (or worse) "Doctor" heard from. It may even be a record - a blatant falsehood in the very first sentence.

For the lurkers: evolutionary theory is (so far) silent on the origin of life on earth. Said origin may or may not have been by an evolutionary process. There are many speculations and some of them are evolutionary in nature, but there's not much in the way of evidence for any particular speculation and certainly no generally accepted scientific explanation.

[Oztrich Boy]

Actually Evolution is not self-aware. It has no hopes or desires or concern about your survival.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[Doctor Stochastic]

According to modern evolutionary theory, the recipe for life is a chance accumulation of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen; add a pinch of phosphorus and sulfur, simmer for millions of years, and repeat if necessary.

No. Evolutionary theory does not address this. The author is being dishonest (he claims a PhD, therefore he hadn't the luxury of being considered ignorant.)

Chemicals reacting with chemicals is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions do not produce life.

The fallacy of asserting the consequent. The author offers no argument in support of his point.

Life must create life.

The author offers no argument for this.

For a claimed PhD, the author makes two logic errors and one historical error in the first paragraph.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Hopefully no one lights a match around this article. It's so full of strawmen it would go up in flames in seconds.

Wonder what this author would call prions?

[VOA]

bump