3 Likes
What is it with this unhealthy obsession IDCreationists have with “folding”?
3 Likes
They read ID propaganda where folding is asserted to be the most important thing ever. Axe chose to make his entire case against protein evolution center around the evolution of catalytic protein folds.
Since ID-creationists get all their science information from apologists who got their science degrees for the explicit purpose of doing apologetics, rather than correctly teaching fundamental principles of chemistry, physics etc., ID-creationists are matchingly misinformed.
6 Likes
What would an unfolded protein look like? Just a straight chain or sheet? Does that even exist? Honest questions, I don’t know much about this subject.
1 Like
That’s NOT the point at all. You’ve misunderstood every aspect of every relevant bit of the underlying science.
4 Likes
Well yes, proteins can completely unfold, and that would basically be like a string or chain of amino acids. And they do exist, though rarely in vivo. Most completely unfolded proteins have a strong tendency to aggregate which is often strongly deleterious as it interferes with other proteins in the cell.
You get something like that from boiling proteins for a long time (unless, of course, they come from hyperthermophilic organisms, and you need temperatures considerably above boiling). The proteins basically clump together in some unfolded form(think spaghetti), but as a sticky insoluble goo.
5 Likes
As @Rumraket states, they become more linear and string like. Folded protein is usually called a globular protein.
A helpful analogy is how oil forms large globules in water. The non-polar oil molecules like each other more than they like polar water molecules which is why the oil molecules are called hydrophobic. Some of the amino acids in a protein are also hydrophobic, so they like to glom onto each other when they are in water. There are also cysteines which form covalent bonds between each other.
There are many ways in which the hydrophobic interactions between amino acids can be interrupted. In the lab there are two main ways to denature (i.e. linearize) proteins: heat and chaotropic agents. When you cook eggs you are linearizing the proteins in the egg, and when they linearize you will get interaction of amino acids between separate protein molecules which produces a large network of proteins. Chaotropic agents like urea can also interrupt hydrophobic interactions which is why high concentrations of urea are often used to get proteins into solution in a lab setting.
One of the cooler proteins I have worked with over the years was vimentin, a protein that makes up part of the cytoskeleton. In physiological conditions (~ 150 mM salt, pH 7.5) the protein is insoluble in water due to its hydrophobicity. You can denature it in 6 M urea like most proteins, and this brings it into solution. The cool part is that you can then remove the urea by dialysis against a very low salt buffer and the protein will stay in solution. You can then add salt to the solution and the protein will come out of solution. You can actually watch large strings of protein just appear, and it’s cool to remember that these proteins are responsible for the skeleton within cells. It’s basic protein chemistry that isn’t necessarily special in any way, but I’ve always been a sucker for seeing chemistry at a macro level.
5 Likes
[pedant]
Spaghetti is a sticky insoluble goo.
[/pedant]
3 Likes
Maybe someone misread “Origins” as “Origami”?
2 Likes
Thanks, @Rumraket and @T_aquaticus !
Really? Are you saying that you just referred to abiogenesis by supernatural origin?
Of course you didn’t.
Abiogenesis means life from non-life by naturalistic means.
Since science can’t detect the supernatural, all we will ever have is a continued failure to demonstrate how life could have arisen in a pre-biotically relevant manner.
Why couldn’t science detect the supernatural? If the supernatural affects the natural world then science can most definitely detect it.
1 Like
I guess “infer” isn’t the right word so let me restate the point.
Confirming a prediction about the function of something, like a ribozyme, is not confirmation of the hypothesized origin of the ribozyme.
Could you show an example (a quote) of such a lie?
The ribosome has to deal with both mRNA and tRNA as well amino acids when producing the specified protein. What would preclude a designed ribosome from containing RNA?
Just my 2 cents…
God doesn’t lift things the way people do. God would just give the command and the rock would float.
Here is your original comment criticizing the video (my bolding):
They then speak of the fact that RNA can’t simultaneously function as both information storage and a functional molecule because folding RNAs(the ones that perform catalytic roles) are difficult to unfold and replicate, disregarding work such as this(see the discussion):
This is from the paper:
Some copies might, by chance, contain most or all 2′–5′ linkages in positions with minimal effects on, e.g., ribozyme function. As well-folded structures, however, these copies would be poor templates for subsequent rounds of replication.
This is what you bolded in my post:
Other copies would have some 2′–5′ linkages at positions that interfered with the formation of well folded structures , and these copies would be poor ribozymes but much better replication templates.
You forgot to bold “these copies would be poor ribozymes”.
The video’s claim is backed up by the paper, while your objection doesn’t apply to the video’s claim.
I think the following response is sophistic, but someone could retort, “That is another thing God can’t do. He can’t lift things the way people do.”
The entire “God can’t make a rock that he can’t lift” is sophism.
Here is what Rumraket said originally about folding. (my bolding)
Then: folding = catalytic role
Now: ID propaganda.
No, I deliberately left that out because you seem unable to grasp that the bolded parts is what is solving the replication problem. That is the whole point here.
So here it is in little bits:
Just like in modern gene expression, the same sequence is transcribed many times so there’s more than just one copy being produced. There’s lots. They get random 2’-5’ linkages here and there.
Some of the copies produced have 2’-5’ linkages in positions that make them unable to fold, and hence can be replicated.
These serve as templates for further replication. The 2’-5’ linkages are not inherited. They are non-heritable. Which is an advantage, because:
Some of the copies have 2’-5’ linkages in positions that do not interfere with folding and catalytic function, hence can act as catalysts.
So. Because many copies are produced from the sequences that can’t fold, there is both templates and catalysts produced.
Get it now?
1 Like
Feel free to explain it to me.
It has been explained to you. Read your replies, the explanation is there, clear as day. That you still don’t get it is evidence that adding my own repetition won’t help.
3 Likes