Proof - of what?

by Doltologist 91 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  telemetry11

  Cofty,
  You falsely assert that I ignored your “well researched post”. I thought it very interesting and certainly deserving of investigation and rational reply. Actually, the question that I just put to you was a first step toward that conversation.
  But you--

  I am not going to answer whether I agree with a phrase plucked from somebody else's post unless I can discuss with them exactly what they meant.

  Then you do not yet get the point, the focus, of this discussion. Doltologist wrote, “That's the point, if we have enough attempts to create life, eventually, we will succeed.” That is why I joined this chat. I wrote-- "Did life emerge on its own or not? What is the tested reality?" Let me know when you too get the point an we’ll start again.
• 

  telemetry11

  My thanks to Cofty for this review of argument incorporating the cytochrome c family of proteins.

  Did life emerge on its own or not? What is the tested reality?

  Modern biochemistry has shown that any “cooperative self-replicating system” (including any hypothetical protobiont) is (or would have been) operated by teams of molecular machines—PROTEINS. Proteins are the machines within living things that build the structures and carry out the chemical reactions necessary for life.

  Cytochrome c, for example, is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. The mitochondria of cells contain cytochrome c, where it transports electrons in the fundamental metabolic process of oxidative phosphorylation. Oxygen is used to generate energy in this process.

  Only about a third of the 100 amino acids in cytochrome c are necessary to specify its function. Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences

  What is the probability that one functional cytochrome c protein sequence emerged on its own from the primordial soup?

  By the numbers:

  100 amino acids in the cytochrome c sequence.

  500 amino acids in the primordial soup.

  So we have 500^100 or 10^269 possible sequences.

  Now suppose there are 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences.

  There is 1 chance in 10^176 that a functional cytochrome c sequence emerged on its own from the primordial soup.

  Of course one functional protein is not alive. But, if cytochrome c could have beat the odds, there it was ready to transport some electrons in the fundamental metabolic process of oxidative phosphorylation. Too bad the rest of the team didn’t make it.

  ________

  Did life emerge on its own or not? What is the tested reality?

  What is the probability that the Big Bang eventually produced an environment suitable for life?

  Next week.

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  cofty

  500 amino acids in the primordial soup. So we have 500^100 or 10^269 possible sequences

  What if we begin with self replication consisting of 4 bases? The we only have 20 amino acids and lots of redundancy in the sequences.

  How much have you read about recent developments in abiogenesis?

  You totally missed my point.

  The amino acid sequence of Cytochrome C demonstrates the relationships between every living thing in the tree of life. The underlying DNA sequences does so in even more impressive detail.

  Stop throwing around big numbers you pulled out your arse and pretending you have the first clue. Please tell us what books on evolution you have read in recent years.
• 

  telemetry11

  cantleave,
  If both Doltologist and Cofty endorse your video's points, I will comment.
• 

  cantleave

  If both Doltologist and Cofty endorse your video's points, I will comment.

  Why wait for someone else to endorse the video? I don't need affirmation from others in order to post. I asked for your comments not theirs.
• 

  cofty

  I suspect tele is playing for time while he finds an appropriate creationist website to paraphrase.
• 

  telemetry11

  Cofty,

  You: “You totally missed my point.”

  Wrong again. Your point was neither “missed” nor “ignored.” Your point, “common ancestry“, is “totally” off-point; already noted.

  
  Did life emerge on its own or not? What is the tested reality?

  
  The, “500 amino acids in the primordial soup.” did not originate as you declare.

  
  In fact: “The majority of the 500 or so naturally occurring amino acids known today were discovered during the last 30 years,” --Wagner I, Musso H (November 1983). "New Naturally Occurring Amino Acids". Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 22 (22): 816–828. doi:10.1002/anie.198308161.

  
  Regardless, you claim: “What if we begin with self replication consisting of 4 bases? The [sic] we only have 20 amino acids and lots of redundancy in the sequences.”

  Show us the evidence that in Earth’s primordial oceans, after millions of years, there were no more than 20 different amino acids.

  ________

  BTW, Cool new avatar
  
• 

  cantleave

  Show us the evidence that in Earth’s primordial oceans, after millions of years, there were no more than 20 different amino acids.

  Tele - you are missing the point. It doesn't matter have how many amino acids were potentially available, what mattered was which ones were able to create stable peptides and proteins in the conditions that existed at the time. Remember the conditions at that period were completely different to conditions today. Particularly relevant to peptide chemistry are the levels of radiation and pH both of which are able affect the tertiary structure of longer amino acid chain peptides and proteins.

  Anyway what about responding to the video I posted?
• 

  The1975Blues

  Cofty and Dotologist, how were you able to bypass Richard Dawkins position on God, he's not as intelligent as you if he said he is an agnostic. What secrets can you offer Dr. Dawkins to stop accepting what he say's is factual "you can't disprove the existence of God" as recent as 2014 he's upheld this position. What could you offer him so he can finally cross off all the possibilities or make it below 1% God exist's because Dawkins has not hit your intellectual levels.

  With Cofty, there are many lost gospels still believed to be found some day(different teaching on various topics) as mentioned in some of the Early Father's Writings, how did you become familiar with gospels and teachings that have been lost and still waiting to be found? If you are aware of all of them, this must mean you have insight in to everything, just like you both passed Dawkin's by jumping ahead of him in line.
• 

  cantleave

  !975Blues - God has been disproved in as much that there is no evidence for such a being and the more we learn about the universe the more we understand that the requirement for such a being is unnecessary.

  I can not disprove god in the same way I can't disprove invisible flying unicorns, and more importantly the burden of proof is not on me, but the believer.

  Edit - BTW Dawkins is NOT agnostic.