I don’t see why it should be, so I would like for you to give the reference that “acknowledges” that it is and, I expect, discusses why that is. I’ll be waiting.
Same with the “known problem”. Still mystified about what exactly the problem is.
No. Some proteins are universally conserved, some are restricted to more narrower clades. Many of these clades overlap in their distributions. Like this:
That doesn’t form an orchard.
Ok, here are two proteins, I’ve shown again and again, what does the common Grandma look like:
vs
But since you asked about papers, this one highlights that they can’t resolve all proteins to single family:
Ohh, so there’s a difficulty with coming up with a universal system of classification of proteins based on their functions. Both because different families of proteins can have the same function, and different members the same family can have multiple functions, and there’s all sorts of annoying overlap that defies rigorous and exclusive functional categorization.
Which has next to nothing to do with your odd claim that the fact that all proteins don’t share a universal common ancestral protein is an “acknowledged difficulty”, or anything about orchards.
I think we can conclude you were just talking out of your rear end as usual, coming up with all sorts of Gish-galloping distractions. It’s not even clear why, nothing you’ve said is relevant to the topic at hand. It looks suspiciously like deliberate distraction.
Well, do you believe all proteins descended from a common ancestral sequence? You’re colleagues here don’t seem to think so. You can ask them one by one what they think, but I suppose it’s moot if you don’t think so yourself.
I don’t. I don’t know of anyone who does. At least not a common ancestral protein sequence.
It is of course theoretically possible that all genetic sequences(DNA or RNA) in the biosphere ultimately derive from the same self-replicating molecule. But even if they did, there’s no reason to think it was a protein sequence.
Hey, you hear that! Rumraket doesn’t think all proteins share a universal common ancestor sequence. So much for the idea of universal common descent of all proteins/genes.
See now you have conflated the idea of a common ancestral sequence, with the idea of a common ancestral gene, and a common ancestral protein. Those are three distinct concepts, and you’ve sooo mysteriously decided to switch from one to the two others in the span of two posts.
Sal you are so transparent.
Ok, so do you think all genes descended from a universal common ancestral gene?
You really have to be more clear and specific.
Ok. I’ll try. That’s a fair criticism.
I don’t know. I would have to know how the first genes originated, and I don’t. So I don’t believe any particular model. I can envision multiple different and distinct scenarios but I don’t have any good reasons currently to come down hard on any one.
This train of thought is pretty surreal. We know for a fact that new genes arise all the time in the biosphere. Given this, why would anyone posit a single ancestral gene for all proteins?
(I guess the irony here - that @stcordova’s point here, cryptic as it may seem, aligns universal common ancestry with a core ID tenet regarding protein evolution - probably should be spelled out. So there, I’ve done so.)
2 posts were split to a new topic: Gpuccio Comments on Peaceful Science
I just bought the 2nd edition for 27 dollars through Kindle. The printed version cost about 150. I made the decision to buy because I was able to get a free sample and realized it’s a good book. Thank you for the recommendation!
My only complaint is that it characterizes Entropy as “order and disorder”. This in an antiquated view that has roots in a passing remark by Boltzmann! The late professor of chemistry, Frank Lambert, did the world a great service by advocating a better qualitative approximation for entropy in terms of energy dispersal, albeit the formally adopted definitions of Entropy are the Planck-Boltzmann definition:
S = k_BW
where S is entropy, k_B is Boltzmann’s constant, W is number of microstates. Or the more traditional Clausius definition:
\Delta S = \int \frac{dQ}{T}
or
dS=\frac{dQ}{T}
Yes, there was a discussion not long ago on a chemistry prof mailing list of Lambert’s legacy. Since my General Chemistry days (almost 20 years now) the major textbooks have slowly converted over, due in large part it seems, to Frank’s efforts.
I do think the “disorder or randomness” conception of entropy has its uses, especially in its conceptual simplicity compared to “energy dispersal”, but it doesn’t really have quantitative value so I move fairly quickly to the mathematical definitions.
So much for the modifier “peaceful” in the name peaceful science. I have a question. What is being asked for in the OP? Is it a challenge against the intellectual capacity of mind to think up a useful protein from scratch or is it a challenge against the notion that a mind can influence matter?
Neither. What is being requested is an account of the process by which ID proponents believe a “mind” led to the existence of a physical protein, with the amount of detail that ID’ers expect of evolutionary accounts.
The detail of evolution are observations of how things are now, and then extrapolating them back to explain how things evolved. Genetic drift is observed, and then postulated to be the way that the genome can bridge the gap of the current functioning gene to a new functioning gene. Is that the kind of detail? Is the thread asking for a narative of a sythetic biologist as the explanatory process?
What do you mean? Nobody is fighting here.
I have a question. What is being asked for in the OP? Is it a challenge against the intellectual capacity of mind to think up a useful protein from scratch
It’s exactly what is being asked. Can Bill (or you) type out the amino acid sequence of a protein that will be able to perform the function I request? Can you just think such a protein sequence up without having to do any kinds of biochemical experiments, without any sort of computer modeling work, without any trial and error?
or is it a challenge against the notion that a mind can influence matter?
That came later in this thread, but yeah I put that challenge out there too. Can you show me a disembodied mind that exists completely independently of a physical substrate(no brain, no body, no physical hardware of any kind), which can wish or will proteins, DNA, or living organisms into existence?
As any historical science, including geology, astronomy and so on. How did this mountain range, or river form? What are all those “holes” on the moon’s surface? Could they be craters? When did they happen?
Scientists draw from observations, and build models to explain data that is the result of past events.
Genetic drift is observed, and then postulated to be the way that the genome can bridge the gap of the current functioning gene to a new functioning gene.
Genetic drift is one part of some models that explain how some genes changed over time.
Is that the kind of detail?
Since you’re speaking in vague generalities instead of specifics, no. Evolutionary biologists can actually give remarkably precise models for how certain genes evolved, and how they changed and diversified over time, and back it up with experiments that corroborate those models.
I’d be very impressed if IDcreationists could do something even remotely similar. Explain when some gene was created, how it was created, what mechanisms were involved. Especially if they could show the invisible disembodied spook that can use it’s occult powers to wish functional proteins, if not entire living cells, or large multicellular organisms, entire populations of them, into existence. That’d be truly amazing.
Is the thread asking for a narative of a sythetic biologist as the explanatory process?
No I wouldn’t put the bar that high, I think IDcreationists should first learn to crawl before we ask them to even dream about matching the explanatory power of evolution.
