Tuesday, August 17, 2010

The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds



One of the paragraphs from the conclusion of Douglas Axe's recent article:
Clearly, if this conclusion (A dawinian search is insufficient to find new protein folds) is correct it calls for a serious rethink of how we explain protein origins, and that means a rethink of biological origins as a whole. Drawing on some of the points developed here, I presented an earlier version of this case several years ago to two prominent experts in the field. Bothered by my conclusion, both felt that it must be in error. When the three of us met for a discussion, they had their own hunches about where my reasoning might have gone wrong. Interestingly, though, after perhaps two hours of heated discussion neither agreed with the other’s hunch, and we ended up at a polite but dissatisfying impasse. I left with the distinct impression that my conclusion was being rejected not because it was unfounded but because it was unwelcome.

25 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I left with the distinct impression that my conclusion was being rejected not because it was unfounded but because it was unwelcome."

....I wasn't there but think you conclude correctly. I've said earlier, I've yet to see objections not based on labelling, ad hominem or appeal to majority - the usual fallacies.

I'll give one of many reasons proteins can't be produced without intelligence. The process requires 2 systems, DNA & ribosome. They must be co-ordinated PRIOR to any attempted protein assembly. If not, the deal is off. Such co-ordination requires knowledge of the end-product (one could always appeal to chance but odds against are ludicrous). The end must be conceived before incarnation. This is not an assumption, I'll explain.

1st are Carbohydrate(i.e. non-DNA codes in the ribosome - so-called sweet message)codes. These do not evolve from DNA. 2nd, in principle a system requiring 2 terminals (DNA + CHO) 2 be simultaneouly functional is like the telephone. For a telephone to be of any use, you need at least 2 of them capable of reading each other. How do you get that - blindly or intelligently? I think we can all get the message.

12:31 am  
Blogger Psiloiordinary said...

Ok folks,

Have you read any of the actual research on this?

You know written by the people who are doing actual research (which doesn't include Wells BTW).

Would you like me to give you a pile of links?

Would you allow it to be published?

Thanks,

Psi

8:14 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Psi,

Are you saying that none of the references in this paper represent "actual research"? Have you read the review?

10:47 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Psiloiordinary
I have read what is required & I have the necessary background knowledge. It's all accurate.

I made a point earlier that protein synthesis requires 2 (or more) systems acting in tandem. For this to happen, there must be PRIOR understanding between the systems in place. What the evolutionist has to show is that matter is capable of producing such PRIOR understanding of operations.

Is something you could speak to?

11:25 pm  
Blogger Psiloiordinary said...

OK folks pick one or the other.

Happy to dig deeper.

Please be specific.

Thanks

Psi

4:06 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Psi,

"Pick one or the other"

Not sure what you mean.

9:20 pm  
Blogger Psiloiordinary said...

Origin of protein or how protein fold.

They aren't the same thing.

Thanks

Psi

3:21 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

This post is about folding so lets stick to that.

5:13 pm  
Blogger Psiloiordinary said...

OK - why do you think proteins fold up?

9:08 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Psi,

Have you read the review?

9:55 pm  
Blogger Psiloiordinary said...

Yes (for about the third time - comments problems?)

Why do you think proteins fold up?

1:36 pm  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Any standard Biochem textbook will explain the reasons why polypeptide chains form particular 3D configurations- I don't imagine any difference of opinion on that.

8:27 pm  
Blogger Psiloiordinary said...

OK so lowest energy state is the usual shorthand.

So in early life we have just proteins that only fold into this kind of state.

Then one bumps into another cell product that just happens to make it more effective and the cell more successful at reproducing. This bumping into makes it fold in a slightly different shape.

et voila.

Regards,

Psis

11:53 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“So in early life we have just proteins that only fold into this kind of state.”

.......This is an assertion. Where is the evidence?

“Then one bumps into another cell product that just happens to make it more effective and the cell more successful at reproducing.”

....Another assertion. Where is the evidence?

Protein synthesis & subsequent folding are integral steps BOTH of which are essential. No-one has said how these came to be co-ordinated. In all our experience such feats do not happen without intelligence. Evolutionism is propped up by assertions.

9:23 pm  
Blogger Pépé said...

I have added your blog to My Favorites!

:-)

11:39 pm  
Blogger Psiloiordinary said...

Well here we go again.

Claims that x is impossible.

When discussing ways x could have happened claims that we have no proof that is what actually did happen.

Sigh.

I'll wait for Andrew to respond.

6:07 pm  
Anonymous Cedric Katesby said...

24/September/2010

...that x is impossible.

If x is impossible then...

(..hushed silence...)

then magicmandunnit?

All science, all the time.
;)

1:16 am  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Psi,
You said:
"So in early life we have just proteins that only fold into this kind of state.

Then one bumps into another cell product that just happens to make it more effective and the cell more successful at reproducing. This bumping into makes it fold in a slightly different shape."


Bumping proteins into each other doesn't do anything for evolution.
We are looking at mutation of a gene and making a new protein fold that might produce a protein with a new function.

11:27 pm  
Blogger Psiloiordinary said...

Chemistry is "bumping into each other".

Or are you ruling out known processes as well?

Psi

8:36 am  
Blogger Andrew Rowell said...

Psi,

For two proteins to bump usefully together we need to have a record of the change that resulted in the useful bump so that it can be reproduced and selected. Perfectly happy with chemistry but life is more than chemistry... you need an information store and the ability to use it.

9:22 am  
Blogger Psiloiordinary said...

. . . which is done with chemistry. . .

yawn.

While you carry on claiming that something as yet not fully understood is not understandable ever the scientists carry on doing science;

http://www.physorg.com/news205519156.html

. . . and it's just a matter of time before the creationists move into their next "god gap".

yawn

7:36 am  
Blogger Spock said...

What Psi fails to demonstrate is scientific scepticism

9:52 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Protein folding is an irrelevance. All this is based upon
(i) an article that begins "if ..."
(ii)it being more probable that an invisible being for whom there is not the slightest proof, magicked life out of nothing at all and set it all going with animals and other creatures in a basic form.
(iii) there being over 5,000 gods known to man, and that the Judeo-Christian one should create life, as opposed to any of the others.
(iv)a personal conviction that "proteins cannot be created with out intelligence" (I assume you mean "without the help of God" as I have seen few intelligent proteins) does not mean that it did happen with that help. Just because you cannot understand this, does not mean that an explanation involving supernatural beings is likely to be correct: the actual process, perhaps, has not yet been found.

"Intelligent Design" is not science, it is AGNOTOLOGY: "The study of deliberately created ignorance - such as the falsehoods about evolution that are created by creationists".

It replies solely on the "God of the Gaps".

PS the Captcha audio is incomprehensible!

10:36 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

gg

9:05 am  
Blogger PAUL QUINTON said...

The process requires 2 systems, DNA & ribosome. They must be co-ordinated PRIOR to any attempted protein assembly. If not, the deal is off. Such co-ordination requires knowledge of the end-product

This is simply not so. I was surprised to find that my Bic biro was exactly the right size for poking mud out of a tube. The makers of the tube and the biro are not in touch with each other. So how did that happen?

1:25 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home