Sal's Flower?

[scd]

@Michael_Okoko

Genes don’t have ATP binding sites.

who said anything about genes now? im talking about binding sites. please read again.

[Michael_Okoko]

Your amnesia has set in again. I have no interest in reminding you of your previous comments when you could easily scroll up to check.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Tim

I will note that you are still carefully avoiding answering my question, so still leave me with no choice but to conclude “that you have no idea whatsoever what pattern would fit common descent”.

Hi Tim
I have carefully answered your question.

The vague term “variation” is not a mathematical model that shows how reproduction can generate A B C G. What we are missing is a mechanism associated with reproduction that can account for A B C G. Random variation on its own will move most gene sequences to non function.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@scd

ATP binding. as far as im aware, any binding site which bind ATP needs at least one additional part to be functional. ATP binding site by itself is useless. so if we evolve a new binding site to ATP it should be usless without an extra site. do you agree so far?

Before this discussion gets led completely off topic, how does this relate to phylogeny and Sal’s flower? Do you have a ATP binding tree to discuss?

[scd]

@RonSewell

Before this discussion goes completely off topic, how does this relate to phylogeny and Sal’s flower?

this is very relevant since we need to estimate the time which required to evolve new genens. if we know what is the number then we can see if it match Sal’s flower or not.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@scd

ATP binding site by itself is useless. so if we evolve a new binding site to ATP it should be usless without an extra site.

Catalysis is primarily just binding. This is basic biochemistry.

@scd

ATP binding site by itself is useless.

Objectively false.

@scd

so if we evolve a new binding site to ATP it should be usless without an extra site.

Saying the same thing 3 times doesn’t make it true.

@scd

do you agree so far?

No.

Do you agree that your body can evolve incredibly specific and tight binding to any new foreign antigen in only two weeks?

By tight, I mean Kd values of 10^-9 and less. Do you know what a Kd is?

[scd]

@Mercer

Objectively false.

a reference please.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

A biochemistry textbook. Have you read one?

Do you ever provide citations to support any of your claims? If not, why would you request them from others?

[Faizal_Ali]

I will just remind everyone here that, as exasperating as Bill’s continued non-answers may be, he is only reflecting the behaviour of his ID heroes. The questions he is avoiding are no less pertinent to their claims, and have been no better answered by them.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@scd

this is very relevant since we need to estimate the time which required to evolve new genens.

Only two weeks are required to evolve new antibody genes.

[CrisprCAS9]

@colewd

I have carefully answered your question.

And yet none of your comments specify numbers for A, B, C, or G. How can you claim to have answered a request for these numbers if you have not yet provided them?

[scd]

@Mercer

A biochemistry textbook. Have you read one?

give me a specific reference to your claim. im not aware about any biochemistry textbook which says that ATP binding is functional by itself.

@Mercer

Only two weeks are required to evolve new antibody genes.

which have nothing to do with other functions im talking about.

[davecarlson]

I realize it is deeply crass and uncouth to say “I told you so”. And yet…

Can God be a useful "scientific" hypothesis? Yes

I’m sorry, but any time “Sal’s flower” rears its head, that should be a clear sign to most of you that the conversation is not worthwhile. It’s okay to decline to have the same inane discussion, over and over and over…

[CrisprCAS9]

@scd

that ATP binding is functional by itself.

Since ATP binding is a function, there is no logical way for ATP binding to not be functional.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@scd

@Mercer

Only two weeks are required to evolve new antibody genes.

which have nothing to do with other functions im talking about.

Some antibodies function as enzymes, which is the primary function you are talking about.

[scd]

@CrisprCAS9

Since ATP binding is a function, there is no logical way for ATP binding to not be functional.

no. ATP binding site has no biological meaning without other site/s.

@Mercer

Some antibodies function as enzymes,

im talking about ATP binding now. and i can give you other instances too.

[CrisprCAS9]

@scd

no. ATP binding site has no biological meaning without other site/s.

Reference please.

[Tim]

@colewd

I have carefully answered your question.

I am sorry to contradict you @colewd, but you haven’t.

@colewd

The vague term “variation” is not a mathematical model …

Then it’s probably just as well that I have never used this “vague term”. This renders your issues with this term both a complete non sequitor and in no way responsive to my question.

Not only do you appear to "have no idea whatsoever what pattern would fit common descent”, but you appear to have no idea whatsoever who you are attempting to answer.

[scd]

@CrisprCAS9

Reference please.

are you aware about any example of ATP binding site which is functional by itself?

[John_Harshman]

@Faizal_Ali

as exasperating as Bill’s continued non-answers may be, he is only reflecting the behaviour of his ID heroes.

Not quite true. One of Bill’s main heroes is Michael Behe, who freely admits both the evidence for and the fact of universal common descent. Behe would have no trouble agreeing that the evolutionary expectation for the title diagram is just fine. Bill, on the other hand, is a committed creationist who thinks that most species are separate creations, though he doesn’t know why or how to tell.