Metaphors (métaphores en français) aren’t facts, Gil.
3 Likes
@scd might want to try purifying a protein or six; that would promote learning the fact that proteins are inherently sticky, even when pure (and can only stick to themselves).
2 Likes
This is incredibly false. Do you even check the primary literature before you make these claims?
A little primer for you. All G-proteins are GTPases (they convert GTP to GDP), and are classified into the heterotrimeric (meaning 3 different G-proteins assembled into a complex) and monomeric G-proteins. Heterotrimeric G-proteins are the ones which associate with GPCRs, monomeric G-proteins don’t, but both still transmit and amplify signalling cascades within cells. The preceding bold indicates one reason why you made a false claim.
What about the heterotrimeric G-proteins, can they convert GTP to GDP in the absence of a GPCR? The answer is yes.
As a bonus, even GPCRs can function (transduce external signals) without heterotrimeric G-proteins.
In summary, GPCRs can function without G-proteins, G-proteins can function without GPCRs, so there is nothing that would have prevented both from evolving at different or similar times and eventually developing binding sites for each other. So you are flat-out wrong on three counts. See the following papers for in-depth information:
In the abstract of the second paper below, you see this:
This is ridiculous. Both proteins evolved independently of each other and possibly through small, mutational steps evolved binding sites for each other.
How do you know the probability to develop a single new binding site for any of the proteins mentioned is “one in a billion”? If you can’t come up with the relevant math, then you know this probability argument you are resorting to here is completely irrelevant.
2 Likes
i refer to the OR binding site and the G protein. does any G protein works alone, or it always work with another protein? if OR binding site always works with a G protein, and a G protein always work with other protein, then we cant claim there is a function for each of them separately.
if i assume that a new binding site might evolve once in say a million mutations, and say that one of about 1000 of them will also be beneficial. we also have some papers which show that a a specific binding site can appears once in about 10^10 sequences, so i see no problem to assume these numbers, which are very generous i think.
LOL. A pc fan can be located in many places both inside and outside the PC case, but it doesn’t matter, we can still pick it apart and use it to decorate the case.
Yes, you really can. Which supports my point. Parts of things can change and be used for other functions. And there’s LOTS of evidence for this, both for biological organisms that evolve, and for pieces of man-made technology that can be incrementally changed and serve other useful functions despite being “incomplete” with respect to particular functions.
There’s TONS of evidence for it. As just explained for both the PC fan and biological organisms.
Yes, they too are made of parts that demonstrably can have other functions. GPCRs and their constitent parts can do other things than serve as a sense of smell or taste.
Aaaaand the goalposts went flying again. There are many examples where we can show that proteins that today differ by hundreds of amino acids, originally took as few as 1-3 amino acids to change functions, and have been slowly diverging ever since.
You mean like the fantasy that the flagellum was wished into existence? Just POOF and there it was. What’s the probability of that? You demand calculations, but you offer none yourself. Why do you hold design to a different standard than evolution?
2 Likes
I directly cited articles that empirically refuted his claim and he just drones on like a robot, mindlessly repeating the claim that they have no other functions like a mantra. There’s no use continuing this argument with someone like that. If, after having been shown evidence that experimentally refutes his central claim, he just ignores it and repeats it, then he’s not worth talking to. He’s afraid of reality, or something else is wrong that we can’t do anything about.
2 Likes
I would also point out that the electric motor from a PC fan could also be used to power a PC water-cooling pump.
1 Like
This doesn’t change anything. A vast number of ORs are GPCRs and associate with heterotrimeric G-proteins. Your constant dancing around when your claim is defeated empirically makes discussions with you exhausting.
Olfactory GPCRs can work without G-proteins, G-proteins can work without olfactory GPCRs. Case closed.
If by “works alone”, you meant whether a G-protein can convert GTP to GDP in the absence of a GPCR, then the answer is yes. Read the papers I cited for crying out loud.
Alternatively, if by “works alone” you meant whether a G-protein does not need any protein to function in general, then the answer is no, because each protein works with some other proteins in some way. A sub-network of protein-protein interactions exists in living organisms.
This response confirms you are really clueless about the arguments you are making. I conclusively showed why this claim of yours was dead wrong using the empirical data contained in both papers I cited, but its either you did not read and/or understand them.
Next time I see you make arguments about small steps, I will just ignore you because it will be a total waste of my time.
Yawn. This hypothetical is totally irrelevant to the probabilities of the evolution of the binding sites of GPCRs and G-proteins for each other, until you demonstrate otherwise.
He is a hard nut evidence can’t crack.
No kidding. The dude is extremely dense.
You speak my mind.
1 Like
but the sub parts of it will be useless inside the PC. thats the point. again: we can test it by removing some parts of that fan. we will get a non-functional fan very fast.
see above. this is completely not true.
you mean what is the probability that a motor was designed? in addition: what is the probability that a peace of a feces (bacteria) can evolve into a super-model?
yep. that is what i mean. think about a battery: it always works with other part. so if a system (which use a battery) supposedly evolved, we know that it cant be functional by itself.
Stop lying. This is not what you meant originally. Read your words:
[quote=“Michael_Okoko, post:156, topic:13715, full:true”]
Then this:
You are fond at shifting goalposts. Not surprised at this sneaky move.
Early cars and clocks evolved without batteries and were functional. Adding batteries to those devices only improved their functional capacities. So in the future, if for some reason all batteries go extinct, we would certainly still be able to use cars and clocks without batteries.
I really don’t have the zeal to pursue these endless analogies with you. I am out.
1 Like
maybe its because of my english, But from the beginning i meant a site that binds to an odor molecule and another site that works with that site.
how you can improve a clock that works fine without a battery by adding a battery?
Again with the “odor molecule.” 
You admit that a site can bind what you call an “odor molecule” without the need for any other site binding anything. Right?
What is your point with this question? Are you denying that battery operated clocks exist? Are you trying to argue that they were designed and did not evolve? If the latter, why are you trying to argue this? Do you think anyone disagrees with that?
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.