Joined: Jan. 2012
|Quote (REC @ May 02 2012,09:18)|
|Their 'scientists' are channelling JoeG:|
gauger May 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm
All the evolutionary hypotheses concerning the evolution of CPS that I have seen are based on sequence and structural analysis only. No testing.
In fact it would quite interesting to see if the hypothetical fusions and duplications that supposedly formed the first CPS in the first cells can be accomplished by purely undirected processes. A worthy experiment indeed. But until it has been shown that such a process can in fact generate an enzyme capable of channeling unstable intermediates from one active site to the next, these remain hypotheses only.
The problem is that similarity of sequence *alone* does not establish the existence of a plausible evolutionary path.
"purely undirected processes"
So take your genome sequences and x-ray crystallography and shove it. Forget reconstructions of ancestral enzymes, that's design. What you have to do is design a living organism without CPS, toss it is some media, and wait until it evolves CPS. And no frontloading the Kinase domains and other domains CPS is built up of. That isn't a viable organism? Tough shit-better get you some prebiotic soup and wait till multicellular life comes out.
LOL! If it did, you can bet your life Design was at the back of it, 'cos you can't have complexity without it.
And even if you have a plausible evolutionary path doesn't mean it was the actual evolutionary path.
IOW all you have to do is step up and provide some EVIDENCE taht blind, undirected processes can be a designer-mimic.
Edited by Soapy Sam on May 03 2012,04:16
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G
BTW, when you make little jabs like â€śI thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,â€ť you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington