RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2011,11:29   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 18 2011,10:52)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 18 2011,10:41)
and these papers show what they show and no one can deny that they are not science.

So the question is what do those papers actually show?

What exactly are the claims that are being made on the basis of those papers?

Starting from Behe's paper I stated that Behe did in no way indicate that there was not enough time for evolution to take place all he said in the paper was that in the short term with the limitations clearly described in his paper, that loss was more common than gain. And that if they wanted to say that there had not been enough time they would have to prove it with some peer reviewed work.

That's when Doug Axe was ushered in with the following two claims in answer to my request:

1) The first study uses a model structured on bacteria that demonstrate the impossibility of sufficient mutational changes can take place in the time limit imposed by the age of the earth.  

They quote from the article:

In the end, the conclusion that complex adaptations cannot be very complex without running into feasibility problems appears to be robust. Finally, this raises the question of whether these limits to complex adaptation present a challenge to the Darwinian explanation of protein origins. The problem of explaining completely new protein structures—new folds—is so acute that it can be framed
with a very simple mathematical analysis [1]. Greater mathematical precision is needed when we consider the small-scale problem of functional diversification among proteins sharing a common fold. All such proteins are thought to have diverged through speciation and/or gene duplication events. In many cases, however, attempts to demonstrate the corresponding functional transitions in the laboratory require more than six base changes to achieve
even weak conversions (see, for example, references 28–30). Although studies of this kind tend to be interpreted as supporting the Darwinian paradigm, the present study indicates otherwise, underscoring the importance of combining careful measurements with the appropriate population models.


2) The second study analyses the changes necessary to convert two homologous enzymes which were specifically chosen to facilitate this operation.

They quote:
We agree with their rejection of chance, but we argue here
that the Darwinian explanation also appears to be inadequate.
Its deficiencies become evident when the focus moves from
similarities to dissimilarities, and in particular to functionally
important dissimilarities—to innovations. The extent to which
Darwinian evolution can explain enzymatic innovation seems,
on careful inspection, to be very limited. Large-scale innovations
that result in new protein folds appear to be well outside
its range [5]. This paper argues that at least some small-scale
innovations may also be beyond its reach.


Their final comment was: "as you can see it's case closed for evolution".

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]