Human Proteome 'More Complex than Previously Thought'

Once again the oft-repeated phrase "More complex than previously thought" has been used to describe new research cataloguing thousands of proteins produced from the human genome.1 This groundbreaking biotech news is undergirded by two recent papers published in the journal Nature that describe what has been called the first rough draft of the human proteome.2,3

Unlike DNA sequencing, the extraction, isolation, and identification of proteins is no easy task. To be able to characterize the large diversity of proteins in different tissues, the technologies and chemistries need to be diverse and complex. Nevertheless, technological progress and new instrumentation has advanced to where this can be realized on a much larger scale.

Looks like a rule change needs to be considered—or perhaps even better, how about a paradigm shift that considers intelligent design and biocomplexity the norm. This makes far better sense given that “More complex than previously thought” has now become the standard response of scientists probing the mysteries of the cell.

<><><><

And the best part of the new paradigm is that no yucky science need be done. We can just accept it with the same phrase we’ve uttered all these years: God did it.

The article does not make clear, fishtank, who discovered all of these hundreds of new proteins the article points out? Was it creation scientists? Or the scientists who self correct the previous thoughts with new research?

It’s the darwinian paradigm that is totally screwed up. It just “assumes” that everything we see is due to random chance and that there would be discarded junk from past failed experiments, so the evolutionists assumed that the genome would be like a desk drawer: full of junk with maybe one working flashlight.

Not so.

Note this quote from the article:

“Perhaps the most interesting aspect of these new reports is the discovery of hundreds of new proteins from regions of the human genome previously thought to be non-coding junk. One paper found 193 such proteins with 140 of those being produced by pseudogenes—a category of DNA formerly classified as broken genes or genomic fossils, but now proven to be important functional features of the gneome.2,5 As noted by one of the researchers in an interview, “This was the most exciting part of this study, finding further complexities in the genome” and “The fact that 193 of the proteins came from DNA sequences predicted to be non-coding means that we don’t fully understand how cells read DNA, because clearly those sequences do code for proteins.”1”

<><><><><><

And then these ‘evolutionists’ did more research and determinied that they were incorrect. And this surprises you. That as we learn more, we continue to learn more? That a discovery might lead to a new discovery?

I note that you chose not to address who made these discoveries in the first place. Is that because it is the same group of scientists you attempt to disparage on a regular and ongoing basis?

The problem with materialists/evolutionists is that they reject a priori the supernatural, when the supernatural is the only answer to problems like the First Law of Thermodynamics, for instance. If matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then how did all the matter/energy in the universe get here? I mean, that’s a fundamental law of nature that has NEVER been proven false.

The same applies to that magic “simple” single-celled organism that allegedly created itself. Dozens of proteins, a selectively permeable cell membrane, cytoplasm, organelles, and the most complex code in the universe: DNA. All done completely by accident via random processes! /sarc

In reality, the odds of even a single protein forming by random processes has been likened to a solar system full of blind men all simultaneously solving the Rubik’s Cube. Such faith!

Miller-Urey couldn’t even produce all left-handed polymers, which are required for living things. They never got within light years of producing life from lifeless chemicals.

In short, evolutionists need to produce matter/energy ex nihilo, and produce life from lifeless chemicals, via random processes. They’ll never be able to do either.

Not at all. That’s just me being snarky.

Which derives primarily from what seems to be (more fishtank than you, db) a significant lack in how scientific knowledge builds on the successes and failures of the scientists who came before them.

Unlike religion, where Truth (with a capital T) is revealed in its entirety by the deity (if said deity chooses), scienctific knowledge is built on the shoulders of the giants who came before.

Fishtank seems to think that science is weakened by this reality, not strengthened. Yes, he’s got it backwards, from where I sit.

I appreciate that you make no distinction between ID and the creation by God. You’re honest (I mean that).

"Unlike religion, where Truth (with a capital T) is revealed in its entirety by the deity (if said deity chooses), scienctific (sic) knowledge is built on the shoulders of the giants who came before."

With all due respect, you have a religion of "scientism". That is, as Stephen Meyer points out, without ID, you hold without proof that the universe is self-creating, self-sustaining. If you are like most "unbelieving scientists", you faithfully attend to the gatherings promoting this unproven precept and you are certain that it will be confirmed...someday. This is held on the weakest of "faith" and sounds more "religious" than those who have relied upon historical information.

But, your "church" can not reproduce your tenets, nor can it replicate any of the events that it tenaciously clings to. Yet, the choir continues to sing. And, the plate is passed. The irony of the matter is that you hope you are right, but if you are, your entire life is utterly meaningless. That is, notice, when your self-recognizing protoplasm body stops working, if there is no point to the undirected universe, then the High Priest, Right Reverend Stephen Hawking and you will fall into a meaningless non-existence.

As Francis Schaeffer said, if you really are accidentally descended from a randomly mutating amoeba, then you have absolutely no basis upon which you should trust your perceptions: "truth" should not be in your vocabulary. How believable are the claims of a neandertal? Are you certain yours are "up" from there? As the Chinese have said, "If I, as a man, can while asleep dream I am a butterfly, how do I know that awake I am not a butterfly, asleep, dreaming I am a man?" Answer, you cannot...if you are right. You should be honest enough to notice you are here due entirely to natural survival selection, not truth recognition. It is an unsupported dream of your "church" which hopes that your perceptions are true...but they likely are not. And you will never know. "giants"? Try self-deceived pontificators.

But, of course, ID eventually leads to a thinking, creating, sustaining God of Israel, if one has eyes to see. No one of any reasonable thought thinks it is some goofy alien life form made out of jello like the flying Spaghetti Monster. Those poor, lost idiots who believe the God of Israel has no more evidence than this have simply been crowded out from seeing Him. They cannot recognize the true God Who provides not only a physical universe which can be explored and understood, one which has coherence, meaning, morality, dependable knowledge and value, but Who is also self-revealing to the extent He controls.

And, this goes for His universe. No one I know who recognizes Him believes the mysteries of the physical universe have been revealed in their "entirety". This is just a propaganda claim your "church" puts out to keep butts in the pew, a talking point that sounds like Susan Rice. Witness the unfolding of the coding found in DNA, a recent (60 year old?) discovery. Read Signature in the Cell. By Bill Gates own admission, DNA has code a thousand times more complex than anything MSoft has dreamed of writing. And, did that take "intelligence"?

Yes, you were snarky, but that is because you are also being left out right now. That is not my perception, but that is the disclosure of the One who made you. Should you be interested in finding out more about the way things are, let one of us know. There is much to rely upon...if He allows.

No one I know who recognizes Him believes the mysteries of the physical universe have been revealed in their “entirety”.

<><><

So you are open to the idea that future scientific discoveries could invalidate the truth (as you know it) of Christianity?

Remember, what I said was that Truth with a capital T is revealed in its entirety by the deity, not that all the mysteries of the universe are revealed. Very different.

And therein is the rub, and yes, I think it makes a difference. Any science that leads to any contradiction with Scripture must be discarded by creation scientists, or at minimum, reinterpreted to remove the contradiction with Scripture, as Scripture is the highest authority.

I guess it’s a good thing that this thread was not in the religion forum, as you would have been reprimanded by the mods for your (failed attempts at) mindreading, which, as the religion mods like to remind us, is a way of making it personal.

I am/was a student of philosophy, not a student of science, although my Honor’s thesis (written while Reagan was in the first months of his first term) touched on the philosophy of science.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.