Today I am adding a podcast link at the top of this blog. It connects to the "ID the Future" podcast that is a part of the Discovery Institute. I believe that they are on the cutting edge of the ID/evolution debate.
The podcasts are a very good way for anyone to keep abreast of developments in the debate.
As usual, it does not mean that I support every single view or cause that they support.
A couple of sites that I find helpful in research and keeping up with the debate are:
Access Research Network: http://www.arn.org/index.html
Truth In Science: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/
(for some reason the link posting function is not working at this time, hopefully I can get these as a link to click on very soon! sorry for the inconvenience!)
Be blessed as you do your research!
ID the Future
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
A Revealing Statement by Richard Dawkins
Here is a short video clip that reveals one of the main problems with evolution proponents. I'm not sure when this video was made but, Mr Dawkins finally admits the inadmissible, both positions operate on some unprovable assumptions. Or to use his own word, there is, in fact, an element of "faith" involved on both sides of this debate.
This is contrary to what die-hard evolution proponents, including Dawkins, tell us most of the time. Almost every paper and debate tells us that evolution is "scientific" and anything else is disqualified from consideration because of the need for "faith". Most telling is Mr Dawkins stumbling as he tries to think of what to call it other than "faith".
You can find more things like this at: http://www.arn.org/index.html
This is contrary to what die-hard evolution proponents, including Dawkins, tell us most of the time. Almost every paper and debate tells us that evolution is "scientific" and anything else is disqualified from consideration because of the need for "faith". Most telling is Mr Dawkins stumbling as he tries to think of what to call it other than "faith".
You can find more things like this at: http://www.arn.org/index.html
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The Levinthal Paradox 3
Finally, I would like to probe a little deeper into the Levinthal Paradox .
Here is a little bit more information about proteins.
"A typical protein contains 200–300 amino acids but some are much smaller (the smallest are often called peptides) and some much larger (the largest to date is titin a protein found in skeletal and cardiac muscle; it contains 26,926 amino acids in a single chain!)."
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Proteins.html
According to this author "typical" proteins are 2 to 3 times larger than the 100 amino acid protein mentioned in our first post. It seems this would make them "typically" at least 2 or 3 times harder to assemble.
But most amazingly, the largest protein known to man contains 26,926 amino acids in a single chain!! If a 100 amino acid chain is so difficult to form...what are the "chances" that 26,926 amino acids are going to spontaneously arrange themselves.
There aren't enough monkeys or typewriters in the universe to create anything that huge. (see previous posts)
As I said before many times, the more you dig into this subject the more you find you are not being told the truth...
Here is a little bit more information about proteins.
"A typical protein contains 200–300 amino acids but some are much smaller (the smallest are often called peptides) and some much larger (the largest to date is titin a protein found in skeletal and cardiac muscle; it contains 26,926 amino acids in a single chain!)."
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Proteins.html
According to this author "typical" proteins are 2 to 3 times larger than the 100 amino acid protein mentioned in our first post. It seems this would make them "typically" at least 2 or 3 times harder to assemble.
But most amazingly, the largest protein known to man contains 26,926 amino acids in a single chain!! If a 100 amino acid chain is so difficult to form...what are the "chances" that 26,926 amino acids are going to spontaneously arrange themselves.
There aren't enough monkeys or typewriters in the universe to create anything that huge. (see previous posts)
As I said before many times, the more you dig into this subject the more you find you are not being told the truth...
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The Levinthal Paradox 2
In the previous post where I introduced the Levinthal Paradox I mentioned the following http:
http://employees.csbsju.edu/hjakubowski/classes/ch331/protstructure/olprotfold.html
If any of you went there and checked out the information, you would find the following:
"Lubert Stryer (in his classic Biochemistry text), shows a way out of this dilemma by using an analogy of a monkey sitting at a typewriter, and typing this line out of Hamlet: "Me thinks it is like a weasel." Random typing would produce that line after 1040 keystrokes on average, but if the correct letters were maintained, the number of keystrokes would be in the realm of a few thousand. Proteins could fold more quickly if they retain native-like intermediates along the way."
This a quote from a university level biochemistry text. Did you notice anything completely lacking in the above analogy? How about 3 or 4 things? If you didn't don't worry. I didn't either, until I began thinking about and analyzing this "way out of this dilemma".
First, "the way out of this dilemma" requires a monkey.A monkey is a very complex living organism that contains 100's, if not 1000's of proteins. (As well as a few hundred other complex organic molecules. Not to mention organ systems.) Where did they get a monkey? How did all of its proteins form, when there is not enough time in the age of the whole universe for ONE, one hundred amino acid protein to form?
Secondly, it requires a typewriter.Some of you reading this may not even know what that is ;-) , but believe me, it is a relatively complex piece of office machinery. They require hundreds of exactly machined and correctly assembled parts. Even if it is only a pre-electric, manual one.
Where did a typewriter come from? What unguided, completely random forces caused it to suddenly appear out of no where? What is the mathematical probability of that happening? And what miraculous force keeps the keys from jamming?
Thirdly, the author tells us "if the correct letters were maintained, the number of keystrokes would be in the realm of a few thousand. " Although this sounds logical, this one, short statement is full of difficulties.
The fourth level could possibly be ignored for a solitary, one hundred amino acid protein. However, there is seldom if ever a solitary, one hundred amino acid protein floating in an isolated condition.
You are not just typing random letters and keeping the ones that fit a preselected sentence.Every level of amino acid sequence-protein structure is influenced by the previous level of structure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_structure#Protein_folding
When you rearrange "letters" you affect the protein on 3 different levels. And ripping amino acids out to replace them with new ones would totally change the configuration of the previous structure. And therefore, there would be no advantage of keeping the ones "that fit"...none of them would fit in the unintelligible sentence.
Use a poem for an example. It would be as if the letters in a sentence not only affected vocabulary, grammar and syntax, and the length and number of lines, but also the individual letters had an attraction on all the other letters that pulled the poem into a geometric shape, a cube, for example. Changing ONE LETTER would change the entire geometric shape...and in many cases make it entirely worthless.
As a note, the structure of proteins is much more complex than a cube.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Protein-structure.png
Wikipedia also tells us "A unique polypeptide may have more than one stable folded conformation, which could have a different biological activity, but usually, only one conformation is considered to be the active, or native conformation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_structure#Protein_folding (emphasis added)
The "correct" protein in the wrong place would be useless. An incorrectly assembled "protein" in the right place would be the same.
And LAST but not least, their sentence is no where near 100 characters. Even IF you could use a 2 dimensional sentence to represent a protein, their sentence counting the spaces and the period is only 30 characters. Their calculation of the necessary keystrokes should be multiplied by 3.3, just to get it approximately correct. (Not to mention the fact that the sentence requires a capital "m" to make it correct...but I won't even go into that...)
Me thinks their "way out of this dilemma" is a weasel...
http://employees.csbsju.edu/hjakubowski/classes/ch331/protstructure/olprotfold.html
If any of you went there and checked out the information, you would find the following:
"Lubert Stryer (in his classic Biochemistry text), shows a way out of this dilemma by using an analogy of a monkey sitting at a typewriter, and typing this line out of Hamlet: "Me thinks it is like a weasel." Random typing would produce that line after 1040 keystrokes on average, but if the correct letters were maintained, the number of keystrokes would be in the realm of a few thousand. Proteins could fold more quickly if they retain native-like intermediates along the way."
This a quote from a university level biochemistry text. Did you notice anything completely lacking in the above analogy? How about 3 or 4 things? If you didn't don't worry. I didn't either, until I began thinking about and analyzing this "way out of this dilemma".
First, "the way out of this dilemma" requires a monkey.A monkey is a very complex living organism that contains 100's, if not 1000's of proteins. (As well as a few hundred other complex organic molecules. Not to mention organ systems.) Where did they get a monkey? How did all of its proteins form, when there is not enough time in the age of the whole universe for ONE, one hundred amino acid protein to form?
Secondly, it requires a typewriter.Some of you reading this may not even know what that is ;-) , but believe me, it is a relatively complex piece of office machinery. They require hundreds of exactly machined and correctly assembled parts. Even if it is only a pre-electric, manual one.
Where did a typewriter come from? What unguided, completely random forces caused it to suddenly appear out of no where? What is the mathematical probability of that happening? And what miraculous force keeps the keys from jamming?
Thirdly, the author tells us "if the correct letters were maintained, the number of keystrokes would be in the realm of a few thousand. " Although this sounds logical, this one, short statement is full of difficulties.
1)The sentence "Me thinks it is like a weasel." requires the existence of a system of communication called "English". In this short sentence there is vocabulary, grammar and syntax that are peculiar to the English language.
Where did this complex communication system come from? That is to say, WHO decided what the correct letters are anyway?
2) The amino acid-protein structure is not a 2 dimensional words on paper construction. Proteins have 3 different levels of structure individually, and proteins interacting with each other form a fourth level of structure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteins#Structure_of_protein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_structure#Levels_of_protein_structure
Where did this complex communication system come from? That is to say, WHO decided what the correct letters are anyway?
2) The amino acid-protein structure is not a 2 dimensional words on paper construction. Proteins have 3 different levels of structure individually, and proteins interacting with each other form a fourth level of structure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteins#Structure_of_protein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_structure#Levels_of_protein_structure
The fourth level could possibly be ignored for a solitary, one hundred amino acid protein. However, there is seldom if ever a solitary, one hundred amino acid protein floating in an isolated condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_structure#Protein_folding
When you rearrange "letters" you affect the protein on 3 different levels. And ripping amino acids out to replace them with new ones would totally change the configuration of the previous structure. And therefore, there would be no advantage of keeping the ones "that fit"...none of them would fit in the unintelligible sentence.
Use a poem for an example. It would be as if the letters in a sentence not only affected vocabulary, grammar and syntax, and the length and number of lines, but also the individual letters had an attraction on all the other letters that pulled the poem into a geometric shape, a cube, for example. Changing ONE LETTER would change the entire geometric shape...and in many cases make it entirely worthless.
As a note, the structure of proteins is much more complex than a cube.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Protein-structure.png
Wikipedia also tells us "A unique polypeptide may have more than one stable folded conformation, which could have a different biological activity, but usually, only one conformation is considered to be the active, or native conformation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_structure#Protein_folding (emphasis added)
The "correct" protein in the wrong place would be useless. An incorrectly assembled "protein" in the right place would be the same.
And LAST but not least, their sentence is no where near 100 characters. Even IF you could use a 2 dimensional sentence to represent a protein, their sentence counting the spaces and the period is only 30 characters. Their calculation of the necessary keystrokes should be multiplied by 3.3, just to get it approximately correct. (Not to mention the fact that the sentence requires a capital "m" to make it correct...but I won't even go into that...)
Me thinks their "way out of this dilemma" is a weasel...
The Levinthal Paradox
The more I study about the creation vs. evolution debate, the more I find, we are not being told truth in many different cases.
I just "happened" to find a site called Biochemistry Online. As I researched about amino acids and proteins, I found the following statement:
"Given the number of possibly nonnative states, it is amazing that proteins fold to the native state at all, let alone in a reasonable time frame." (emphasis added)
Then the writer goes on to say:
"Consider this greatly simplified view of protein folding for a protein containing 100 amino acids. If each amino acid can adopt only 3 possible conformations, the total number of conformations could be 3100 = 5 x 1047. Assuming that it would take 10-13s to change each conformation, the time required to "test" all conformations would be 5 x 1034s or 1027 years, longer than the age of the universe (14 x 109 yr). Yet the protein can fold within seconds. This paradox is called the Levinthal paradox, after Cyrus Levinthal. " (emphasis added)
(http://employees.csbsju.edu/hjakubowski/classes/ch331/protstructure/olprotfold.html)
Even if you believe the universe is BILLIONS of years old, there is not enough time in the estimated age of the universe for ONE 100 amino acid protein to form!! NOT ONE!! How many of you heard that in any of your high school or university science classes?
Here is what is amazing...Even though there is not enough time in the whole age of the entire universe for ONE protein to form, evolution teaches that all the elements in the earth's atmosphere SOMEHOW, BY CHANCE came into being from nothing and then those elements SOMEHOW, BY CHANCE were able to form amino acids, then SOMEHOW, BY CHANCE they began to form into proteins, that SOMEHOW, BY CHANCE they evolved into all the unique lifeforms we see today!!
I am sorry. I just don't have enough FAITH to believe that... （cont．）
I just "happened" to find a site called Biochemistry Online. As I researched about amino acids and proteins, I found the following statement:
"Given the number of possibly nonnative states, it is amazing that proteins fold to the native state at all, let alone in a reasonable time frame." (emphasis added)
Then the writer goes on to say:
"Consider this greatly simplified view of protein folding for a protein containing 100 amino acids. If each amino acid can adopt only 3 possible conformations, the total number of conformations could be 3100 = 5 x 1047. Assuming that it would take 10-13s to change each conformation, the time required to "test" all conformations would be 5 x 1034s or 1027 years, longer than the age of the universe (14 x 109 yr). Yet the protein can fold within seconds. This paradox is called the Levinthal paradox, after Cyrus Levinthal. " (emphasis added)
(http://employees.csbsju.edu/hjakubowski/classes/ch331/protstructure/olprotfold.html)
Even if you believe the universe is BILLIONS of years old, there is not enough time in the estimated age of the universe for ONE 100 amino acid protein to form!! NOT ONE!! How many of you heard that in any of your high school or university science classes?
Here is what is amazing...Even though there is not enough time in the whole age of the entire universe for ONE protein to form, evolution teaches that all the elements in the earth's atmosphere SOMEHOW, BY CHANCE came into being from nothing and then those elements SOMEHOW, BY CHANCE were able to form amino acids, then SOMEHOW, BY CHANCE they began to form into proteins, that SOMEHOW, BY CHANCE they evolved into all the unique lifeforms we see today!!
I am sorry. I just don't have enough FAITH to believe that... （cont．）
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
SETI and the Search for Intelligent Life on Earth...
Many of you who stumble across this blog are aware of the "search for extraterrestrial intelligence" (abbreviated "SETI") . For those who have never heard of it, simply put, SETI is a loosely organized group of scientists, astronomers, etc. that are searching for intelligent life in the universe.
Basically the project consists of aiming radio telescopes into space and listening for "signals" that could be interpreted as containing evidence of intelligence. What would be considered evidence of intelligence? Any type of signal that would show a non-random, coded sequence of "information".
One part all of this that is pretty cool is the SETI @home project started by U.C. Berkeley in May 1999. Anyone can get involved in the search. Check it out at http://setiathome.berkeley.edu.
In 1977 there was signal detected by an Ohio State University scientist that came to be known as "The WOW! signal". ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow%21_signal ) It lasted 72 seconds and has never been detected again in 30 years of searching.
What does this have to do with the ID/Evolution debate? Plenty. One of the most highly organized coded systems of information known in the universe is DNA. As you know, it is found in every cell of "living organisms".
Richard Dawkins, no friend of ID or creation proponents, in "The Blind Watchmaker" says the DNA in ONE HUMAN cell contains "enough information capacity ...to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over".
According to the Encarta Encyclopedia on the internet, 10,000 average size human cells would fit on the head of a pin.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568585/Cell_(biology).html
Of course, just as the information in the Encyclopaedia Britannica is organized and coded for the purpose of communication, all the information in DNA is in an organized form that is "read" to produce every single aspect of the human body, including each persons unique features all the way down to their fingerprints.
The miraculous way that the DNA encoding and reading system works is still not completely understood, even by our most brilliant scientists.
The simple question I want you to think about is "IF discovering non-random coded information signals in radio waves would be evidence for intelligent life among the stars, what does the 90-120 encyclopedia volumes of elaborately coded information we find in each one of our bodies cells tell us?"
There are literally thousands of scientists, spending at least thousands of dollars (probably millions of dollars) involved in the search for coded information to prove the existence of intelligent life in outer space.
At the same time, evolutionists want us to believe that 90-120 encyclopedia volumes of elaborately coded information happened just by chance...in the area 1/10,000th the size of a pin head.
In all honesty, I wonder if we should start searching for intelligent life here on earth before we try to find it somewhere else...
For a little more information about DNA checkout some of these sites:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561874/Deoxyribonucleic_Acid.html#701767208
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/dna/
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss3/dna.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/dna.asp#f8
Basically the project consists of aiming radio telescopes into space and listening for "signals" that could be interpreted as containing evidence of intelligence. What would be considered evidence of intelligence? Any type of signal that would show a non-random, coded sequence of "information".
One part all of this that is pretty cool is the SETI @home project started by U.C. Berkeley in May 1999. Anyone can get involved in the search. Check it out at http://setiathome.berkeley.edu.
In 1977 there was signal detected by an Ohio State University scientist that came to be known as "The WOW! signal". ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow%21_signal ) It lasted 72 seconds and has never been detected again in 30 years of searching.
What does this have to do with the ID/Evolution debate? Plenty. One of the most highly organized coded systems of information known in the universe is DNA. As you know, it is found in every cell of "living organisms".
Richard Dawkins, no friend of ID or creation proponents, in "The Blind Watchmaker" says the DNA in ONE HUMAN cell contains "enough information capacity ...to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over".
According to the Encarta Encyclopedia on the internet, 10,000 average size human cells would fit on the head of a pin.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568585/Cell_(biology).html
Of course, just as the information in the Encyclopaedia Britannica is organized and coded for the purpose of communication, all the information in DNA is in an organized form that is "read" to produce every single aspect of the human body, including each persons unique features all the way down to their fingerprints.
The miraculous way that the DNA encoding and reading system works is still not completely understood, even by our most brilliant scientists.
The simple question I want you to think about is "IF discovering non-random coded information signals in radio waves would be evidence for intelligent life among the stars, what does the 90-120 encyclopedia volumes of elaborately coded information we find in each one of our bodies cells tell us?"
There are literally thousands of scientists, spending at least thousands of dollars (probably millions of dollars) involved in the search for coded information to prove the existence of intelligent life in outer space.
At the same time, evolutionists want us to believe that 90-120 encyclopedia volumes of elaborately coded information happened just by chance...in the area 1/10,000th the size of a pin head.
In all honesty, I wonder if we should start searching for intelligent life here on earth before we try to find it somewhere else...
For a little more information about DNA checkout some of these sites:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561874/Deoxyribonucleic_Acid.html#701767208
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/dna/
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss3/dna.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/dna.asp#f8
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Good News about Wikipedia
I found some really good news as I was working on the Japanese translation for the "Who Brainwashed Who? 2" post...Wikipedia has done some SERIOUS editing of the articles that I had linked to. Now the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaeous _generation link is redirected to a totally revamped link titled Abiogenesis, that gives a much better presentation of the facts. THANK YOU to all those who work to make Wikipedia an up-to-date and valuable resource.
I am,however, going to leave the original English post as is because there is a lot of relevant information that can be used even if the links to Wikipedia are not as they were. Honestly my main complaint was not against Wikipedia.
I am extremely grateful that Wikipedia reworked their articles to give a much more balanced reporting of the facts. However, there are many textbooks from elementary school through university level that still write on the subject in basically the way Wikipedia had reported before. Providing only the barest facts, and intentionally or unintentionally, leaving quite a bit of recent and/or relevant information unmentioned. This leaves the reader with a very one-sided interpretation of the subject at hand. When this is done intentionally it is, as I wrote it in the previous post, a form of "brainwashing".
Kudos to the volunteers at Wikipedia, I hope a lot of web sites and textbook companies will follow your example.
I am,however, going to leave the original English post as is because there is a lot of relevant information that can be used even if the links to Wikipedia are not as they were. Honestly my main complaint was not against Wikipedia.
I am extremely grateful that Wikipedia reworked their articles to give a much more balanced reporting of the facts. However, there are many textbooks from elementary school through university level that still write on the subject in basically the way Wikipedia had reported before. Providing only the barest facts, and intentionally or unintentionally, leaving quite a bit of recent and/or relevant information unmentioned. This leaves the reader with a very one-sided interpretation of the subject at hand. When this is done intentionally it is, as I wrote it in the previous post, a form of "brainwashing".
Kudos to the volunteers at Wikipedia, I hope a lot of web sites and textbook companies will follow your example.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)