Scientific Challenge To Darwinists

[tetrahedron]

Chaperonins, AKA heat-shock proteins, are 'aftermarket' (post-synthesi) protein refolding centers. Something like 30 to 50 percent of ALL proteins inside eukaryotic cells get so refolded, which generally leads to metastable configurations in 3D. Nobody knows exactly how they do this. There are only a handful of chaperonin types in any eukaryotic organism (and even prokaryotes have analogues), and their own 3D conformations are highly conserved phylogenetically. Analysis has shown that they exhibit a kind of hollow barrel-like structure with a great deal of molecular play inside the barrel channel.  Proteins being refolded have to travel through this channel.   I've hypothesized that there is a secondary type of protein-folding code implemented by the barrel mechanism, because the same types act on very many different protein chains being refolded to new configurations. Since each one is different from every other, this means that one single barrel must be reading the amino acid sequence of the target chain and altering its configuration from there.

 

Jess Tauber

[TooMuchFun]

Ya, did you say that was 574 amino acids, that is simple that is only like 1,722 base pairs of code, they have synthesized viruses with codes much longer than that synthetically. Probably no one has seen a reason to generate that gene synthetically yet, but yes it could easily be done but these sort of things cost money around .11 dollars per base pair, people usually do not waste time on making genes that can be commonly harvested via synthetic biology for $200 you can get it made, if you want to waste your money on getting a gene that can be easily harvested from natural genetic material made synthetically.

 

 

 

 

"That is simple"? You mean like winning the Lottery five times in succession is "simple"?

I'm very sorry that you understand nothing about statistics.  You compare humans, in a modern laboratory, with some naturalistic manner of PICKING ONE PRECISE AMINO ACID AFTER ANOTHER, HUNDREDS OF TIMES.  AND THEN FOLDING IT, PRECISELY.  What is the mechanism you envision for all this Darwinian magic?

 

1.  EVEN WHEN we have the blueprint for human hemoglobin, we STILL cannot synthesize it.  It is that difficult WITH the formula.

2.  Abiogenesis is not the subject, as one of your Darwinian friends pretended.  Synthesis of complex polypeptides is the subject.

The first link in the long, complex chain of hemoglobin had to be selected from among 20 different possibilities.  That is 1 chance in 20. 

Repeat that process hundreds of times, each time being 1 chance in 20.  I already did the math for you.  It makes you cry and make up stories.

 

it's IMPOSSIBLE!  The probability is equivalent to zero.

 

Here's  a simple fact.  10 to the 18 pennies would cover the United States so several inches in depth.  Now you pick out the ONLY 1943 copper penny with an X stamped on the back side on your first and only try.  No,you don't get an infinite number of tries, only 1, as in 1 chance in 10 to the 18th power.

 

Which state will you go to for your only choice? Then which city?  That's how absurd Darwinism is, to put off insuperable statistics much much less impossible than I showed.

 

I recommend The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day to you all.  It's a brilliant book, as brilliant as Richard Dawkins is ignorant and hateful.

Edited November 27, 2018 by TooMuchFun

[Maine farmer]

 

it's IMPOSSIBLE!  The probability is equivalent to zero.

 

 

It all depends upon how large the universe is and how much time you have.  If the universe is infinite, than anything that can possibly happen must happen somewhere at some time.  

[TooMuchFun]

It all depends upon how large the universe is and how much time you have.  If the universe is infinite, than anything that can possibly happen must happen somewhere at some time.  

 

 

"If."  

The response of the Spartans to a threat.

 

1. The universe is NOT infinite.

2.  It had a beginning, so time  in the sense of this universe, is not infinite either.  Not remotely.

 

You have been listening to nonsense, with zero evidence and zero common sense and even less science to say what you said.

[sanctus]

Please cite sources for your statement:

1. The universe is NOT infinite.

We know the observable universe is finite, we have no way (yet?) to say anything about outside our bubble.
So universe might be finite or not. If it is infinite your second statement does not make sense. If it is finite, the shear size still makes it possible to realize a chance 1 to 10^18 many times over.

[TooMuchFun]

 

Please cite sources for your statement:

 

We know the observable universe is finite, we have no way (yet?) to say anything about outside our bubble.

So universe might be finite or not. If it is infinite your second statement does not make sense. If it is finite, the shear size still makes it possible to realize a chance 1 to 10^18 many times over.

 

 

"We know the universe is finite... (BUT) If it is infinite...." 

You make no sense.  You contradict yourself. You can't even spell "sheer" correctly.

Nor do you understand statistics.  Many times over.

[GAHD]

"We know the universe is finite... (BUT) If it is infinite...." 

You make no sense.  You contradict yourself. You can't even spell "sheer" correctly.

Nor do you understand statistics.  Many times over.

I love how you leave "observable" out, and then go on to make an *** of yourself. Do you need someone to hold your hand and flip through a dictionary with it and then help you read out the definition of "Observe"? I'm not volunteering, I'm just asking if you really are that inept.

Edited November 28, 2018 by GAHD

[exchemist]

DFTT? 

[TooMuchFun]

I love how you leave "observable" out, and then go on to make an *** of yourself. Do you need someone to hold your hand and flip through a dictionary with it and then help you read out the definition of "Observe"? I'm not volunteering, I'm just asking if you really are that inept.

 

Don't play semantic games with me, boy.  You're clearly a Leftist who thinks clever wordplay is equivalent to being intelligent and rational.

It isn't.  You waste not only my time,but also the time of everyone.

[exchemist]

Definitely DNFTT.  

[Maine farmer]

 

 

You have been listening to nonsense, with zero evidence and zero common sense and even less science to say what you said.

So where is your evidence?  Did God really sit down and write, or dictate to a stenographer or typist the Bible, or did men write and translate and edit many times, each with the possibility of political motivations?

 

A very small probability of an event is not equal to zero.  Yes,I did study some college level statistics.  Infinitesimal is not the same as non existent. 

[GAHD]

Don't play semantic games with me, boy.  You're clearly a Leftist who thinks clever wordplay is equivalent to being intelligent and rational.

It isn't.  You waste not only my time,but also the time of everyone.

Actually, I'm Quite Right. Deconstructionist Right: Critical Dismantling of established political bloat is high on my value list.

 

Nice of you to not only fail to understand the original thing sanctus said, but then to go full blown autistic screeching when it's pointed out to you. Taking a page from that leftist playbook yourself? Do you need a safe space? Poor baby.

 

It's not wordplay: The observable universe, that which we can see, Vs the Unobserved "unknown" That which is past the CMB. Even Rumsfeld would have caught that.

Be less ignorant and less petulant, please. Admit you misread something like a grownup, instead of doubling down like a 5 year old. Or don't. It'll only show yourself as a little baby.

[sanctus]

"We know the universe is finite... (BUT) If it is infinite...." 

You make no sense.  You contradict yourself. You can't even spell "sheer" correctly.

Nor do you understand statistics.  Many times over.

Just like Gahd said, I made NO contradiction read again. Observable universe != universe ;-).

 

And just wtf has spelling to do with anything I said? Argue about what is said, not about some bullshit...

 

And where do you deduce anything about my knowledge of statistics?

 

So again, cite a source  for your statement of the universe not being infinite. You won't find any ;-). Just remember often in literature (both scientific and not) the "observable" part is left out, people speak of universe meaning the "observable universe". And of course you are right that the OBSERVABLE universe is finite - there is only so much light which can have travelled to us.

 

 

Admin note:

keep up your way of arguing will get you banned

[TooMuchFun]

Chaperonins, AKA heat-shock proteins, are 'aftermarket' (post-synthesi) protein refolding centers. Something like 30 to 50 percent of ALL proteins inside eukaryotic cells get so refolded, which generally leads to metastable configurations in 3D. Nobody knows exactly how they do this. There are only a handful of chaperonin types in any eukaryotic organism (and even prokaryotes have analogues), and their own 3D conformations are highly conserved phylogenetically. Analysis has shown that they exhibit a kind of hollow barrel-like structure with a great deal of molecular play inside the barrel channel.  Proteins being refolded have to travel through this channel.   I've hypothesized that there is a secondary type of protein-folding code implemented by the barrel mechanism, because the same types act on very many different protein chains being refolded to new configurations. Since each one is different from every other, this means that one single barrel must be reading the amino acid sequence of the target chain and altering its configuration from there.

 

Jess Tauber

 

In the letters of Richard Dawkins, "A>B>C>D".

See how "simple" life is?  Just alphabeticization.

[TooMuchFun]

Just like Gahd said, I made NO contradiction read again. Observable universe != universe ;-).

 

And just wtf has spelling to do with anything I said? Argue about what is said, not about some bullshit...

 

And where do you deduce anything about my knowledge of statistics?

 

So again, cite a source  for your statement of the universe not being infinite. You won't find any ;-). Just remember often in literature (both scientific and not) the "observable" part is left out, people speak of universe meaning the "observable universe". And of course you are right that the OBSERVABLE universe is finite - there is only so much light which can have travelled to us.

 

 

Admin note:

keep up your way of arguing will get you banned

 

I don't believe in god, but I do believe in what others call "utopies." (sic)

 

In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.Wikipedia

 

The universe is not  infinite.  Time is not infinite.  I have not heard anyone mention the "unobservable universe" but many have squealed in delight about the "multiverse", not bothering with anything beyond absurd speculation based on atheist dogma.

 

Your knowledge of statistics is manifest in your claim that anything with any infinitesimal probability is "possible."

Mathematical lines do not exist.  They are infinitely small.  Ten to the 50th grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto.

Picking one specially marked grain of sand on your first and only hypothetical try is beyond the pale of impossible, no matter how pretentiously you wish to argue.

[Maine farmer]

 beyond the pale of impossible, no matter how pretentiously you wish to argue.

I often argue for arguments sake, but I would not argue with "negligible"  Things often are thought to be impossible until they happen.

[sanctus]

LambdaCDM says nothing about size of universe, it says about size and age of the observable universe. On time not being infinite we agree, on the universe itself we just don't know.

And since you like to cite wiki, here a link for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#The_universe_versus_the_observable_universe