Do you really think this is a sharp shooter claim. I said any sequence will do the job.
What is your evidence that if you re ran the sequence of life unfolding we would get a very different outcome and humans would not be here?
Thatās not what you said. You said that any sequence will produce a human. No one is saying that. No one is saying that humans are a necessary outcome of evolution. No one is saying that any sequence will do. What we are saying is that the sequences we do see are a small subset of all possible functional sequences.
You are acting as if your probability calculations involve evolution creating humans. That would be a Sharpshooter fallacy.
OK guys, this is getting silly, and Iām starting to see flags (from outside this comvo). Settle it down or take a break. Donāt make me do work, it makes me grumpy!
Does ID, that you are aware, claim to be able to account for the origin of prp8? If so, does it have a detailed and/ or precise mechanism?
1 Like
Texas Sharpshooter. Mammals account for an almost insignificant proportion of the worldās biomass. Most of that in the form of human cultivated livestock:
2 Likes
I am almost speechless. Here I was thinking you had next to no understanding of what we are discussing, and then you come out with this, which indicates itās even worse than that and you do not even understand the argument you are trying to make.
First you are saying that humans are so incredibly improbable that things have to be set up by a ādesignerā in order for them to emerge. And now you are in effect saying there are so many ways humans could arise that it is impossible for them not to.
The proposed mechanism is a mind. Minds are capable of creating long sequences. The protein machine this protein is part of is perhaps the most complex machine in our cells.
So you have no mechanism. No surprise there.
As @T_aquaticus has demonstrated, so are random number generators!
Hmm, a mind doesnāt strike me as being a mechanism, maybe more like an agent or cause (in the metaphysical sense). Mechanisms, especially in chemical/biological contexts, imply a specific set of steps that move from an initial state to a final state. How would the āmindā create prp8?
I would agree that a mind can āthinkā of a sequence, but how would it actualize the sequence in this case?
2 Likes
By having expert understanding of how amino acids work together and create functioning proteins. By knowing how proteins can work together to make RNA splicing machinery. Then generating the DNA code to produce these proteins and the required transcription factors in an orchestrated way so this machine can be produced as it is a mandatory part of eukaryotic pre translation. The eukaryotic cell is a marvel of engineering.
How would you consider this machine arriving from cell division of prokaryotic cells short of some deterministic mechanism we have yet to identify.
If you go on wikipedia after googling genetic code you can see how DNA 3 chemical code maps to Specific amino acids.
Great relative biomasses color illustrations! We need to have these kinds of information summaries in a convenient place on the PS website.
1 Like
Still no mechanism.
If you asked somehow to bake a cake, and they answered āBy knowing how to bake a cakeā, would you be satisfied with that?
1 Like
Itās a mind blower, isnāt it? There are basically, to a first approximation, no mammals left on earth except for humans and the mammals we have bred for food.
I was remiss in not citing the source:
3 Likes
Minds donāt seem to be able to exist without a physical brainā¦
2 Likes
Hereās where @colewd demonstrates the typical creationist hypocrisy, and suddenly has no problem with accepting things that have never been directly observed or demonstrated as mechanisms for his theory. Right, Bill?
Most ID arguments violate the rule of total evidence. They leave out inconvenient facts that brings their desired conclusion into doubt
1 Like
So I would agree with @Faizal_Ali that Iām still not seeing a mechanism here. I think you would probably need to fill this out with more mechanistic information, maybe something like:
- how would the particular sequence for Prp8 come together?
- Would the amino acids/bases be generated as well or would those come from existing sources?
- Would the entire sequence be generated or would it just be the sections of the sequence that are unique to Prp8?
- Would the Prp8 gene be inserted randomly in the genome or would there be a particular position for it to be inserted? If the later, why is it in the specific position?
- How widely distributed would these generated Prp8 sequence be?
- Would it just be in one genome in one organism?
- Would it be inserted in all organisms alive at that time?
- Would it require whole new organisms?
Unlike @Faizal_Ali, I would presume, I have no problem with the idea of a āmindā (I would prefer to call it the God of the Bible, but āmindā or āintelligenceā seem to be the preferred terms for ID folks so Iāll roll with it) being involved in the generation of the universe, but I donāt think āmindā has nearly the explanatory strength of a step-by-step mechanism. It may be an ultimate cause or the reason, but I donāt see a mechanism yet.
Yes, as a physical chemist I am awestruck with the complexity and amazing beauty of biochemical systems. Of course, as with all analogies, there are limitations to how far as we can take it. I worked on artificial molecular motors in graduate school, the biological analogs were way more complex, and yet I also know that a simple algorithm applied many times can often produce more complexity than a complex algorithm applied only a few times. Both are beautiful in their own way.
I have no idea, thatās why Iām here. I want to learn what the current understanding is from the experts and to see what the limitations of our understanding are. Iām also interested how other people think about these things.
2 Likes
Hi Jordan
I find your questions interesting but let me have some time to ponder them. Overall what we are dealing with is system design as prp8 is one of many proteins that make up the spliceosome. Here an article by gpuccio that describes the machine to get us on the same page.
From Wiki
In the science of biology, a mechanism is a system of causally interacting parts and processes that produce one or more effects. Scientists explain phenomena by describing mechanisms that could produce the phenomena.
Are you ok working with this definition?
1 Like